Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[edwest2]

The current theory of evolution is 100% acceptable to the atheists. The Church teaches that the living creation is not the result of chance and error.

I am not buying what you are trying to sell – namely, a mechanism that you claim is somehow compatible with Church teaching. It’s not. Not in that form.

Bringing the knowledge of the Gospel to the world is job one. Mechanical explanations for life fall far short of what people need to know.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Arandur]

The current theory of evolution is 100% acceptable to the atheists.

Red herring. So what?

The Church teaches that the living creation is not the result of chance and error.

In context, neither does the biological theory of evolution. So what?

I am not buying what you are trying to sell – namely, a mechanism that you claim is somehow compatible with Church teaching. It’s not. Not in that form.

Oh? In what form, then? Because a few popes have said there IS a form that is acceptable. Catholic Answers also does, in articles with Imprimatur. So does Peter Kreeft.

So what’s wrong with it?

Bringing the knowledge of the Gospel to the world is job one. Mechanical explanations for life fall far short of what people need to know.

So we shouldn’t both to study anything at all and just focus on the Gospel? There’s no point to science?

Do you agree or disagree with the validity 11 aspects of evolution I mentioned above?

 

[edwest2]

Here is what I agree with 100%.

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

Your ‘so what’ comments seem to show you are not aware of the critical need to combine faith and science. For this particular area of study, making the connection is critical. However, it cannot be made in a way that subordinates truths held in the deposit of faith, or tries to eliminate these truths or turn them into symbols or messages or poetry. Science has value as one of many tools people use but the potential for misuse in this area is very great. Not making the proper connection between science and revealed truth could mean the difference between an intellectually satisfied atheist or a child of God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[M0nkey]

Arandur, I believe you are trying to have it both ways: the consistent teaching that we are not products of random mutations, and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Time and time again, we have shown you how these two can never be compatible. But, you seem to have your own interpretation, your own justification for how you can believe in these things and still claim to be a Catholic Christian. I must ask, do you accept the Church’s teaching in contraception, same sex, and abortion? It has nothing to do with the topic, I know.

As far as the scriptures, the Church has not any doctrine that tells you explicitly how you are to read Genesis. In short, you have to believe in Adam (that he was a man), the Fall, and Original Sin. A literal six day creation is not outside of the permissible exegesis of scripture. But you seem to claim that it is (again, your own interpretation). However, the evolutionary theory Darwin has presented is outside of the Church, we cannot for any reason leave any room for common ground when it comes to atheistic dogma. Again, you seem to believe that you can bridge these two, but you can’t really. Just whose side are you on anyway? Faith and reason are not two completely different things, they stem from the one truth, to put a wedge in between is to cease to be Catholic.

 

[Arandur]

Video: Signature in the Cell

Dr. Stephen Meyer discusses his new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.

Thanks, Buffalo. This 1 hour video should be instructive to people. It has helped me realize that perhaps what you guys are all upset about is not evolution but the origin of life.
Origin of life and evolution are two separate issues.

Evolution is NOT about the origin of life, and says nothing of it. As Meyer points out, evolution describes what happens AFTER life is first existent and requires life to even work. So are you really questioning anything about evolution, or are you really concerned with the origin of life?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Origin_of_life
“The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.”

I have no problem with what Dr. Meyer says. He’s talking about the origin of biological information, a precursor and prerequisite for evolution to happen. Some interesting things I noted from his talk:
29 minutes in:
“Scientists from a materialistic philosophical perspective, scientists from a theistic philosophical perspective, squaring off and giving their different interpretations of the scientific data.”
Meyer recognizes philosophy/science issue and difference as I have been describing it. My description of these differences is critical, and mainstream. Meyer also recognizes that there are many theistic scientists and they are in the mainstream of scientific discussion.

Charles Thaxton (31 minutes in):
Scientists agreed with his critique, agreed that biology can’t explain origin of biological information, or life.
Again showing that what I’ve been saying about distinctions and limitations is mainstream, and that indeed, specifically in relation to the origin of life, it is a mainstream understanding that biology can’t explain the origin of life or biological information.

31.30: You “might call ‘random’, or merely ‘complex.’”
Here he is recognizing the same thing I’ve been arguing about what “random” means in a scientific context.

He has a degree in “Philosophy of Science.” “Origins of Life” was a subject for Philosophy of Science, not empirical science.
Again, this reinforces that what I’ve been saying about the differences in philosophical disciplines and their limitations and subject matter is accurate and mainstream.

Note that Meyer does not quarrel with the description of evolutionary processes, and implicitly accepts the age of universe, genetics, ecology, etc.

41 minutes in:
“I don’t know any scientist exploring the origins of life that thinks that chance represents a reasonable explanation for the origin of biological information.” (paraphrased)
Here is evidence that it is the mainstream view of scientists that the origin of life can’t be explained by “chance.”

Points out that evolution, using natural selection, only applies to life after it has begun. It doesn’t explain (or even try to) how life began. He quotes a nobel prize-winner who acknowledges this. It is a mainstream understanding.

Meyer speaks of self-organizing systems, obeying other natural laws (such as chemical laws creating crystals); I have referenced this many times.

In the end, in a clever way, Dr. Meyer shows how Darwin’s own methods actually support rather than oppose the idea of intelligent design in the origin of life. Using Darwin’s own scientific method that he pioneered (Inferring from the Best Explanation), Meyer shows that intelligence played a role in the origin of the information necessary to produce life, that it is the best explanation we have of how such information can come to be.

This all supports quite nicely the idea that God designed it all, and that evolution works as God programmed it to through His design of biological information.

Will you all accept, now, my assertions of “mainstream views” as supported by Dr. Meyer above?

 

[reggieM]

You’re blurring the meaning of “philosophy” as relates to our argument. Philosophy is the love of knowledge or study of knowledge and so, in that sense, encompasses all things that we know and discuss.

You raised the distinction between philosophy and science. Philosophy is the foundation for science. Through philosophy we arrive at the definition of terms.

Design" is a concept involving intellect and intent that is supported by observations of complexity and order in nature.

Bingo. Design is a concept. The evidence for design is supported by observations or order and complexity in nature. Now we’re moving along very well and I’m in full agreement.

It is not proved by them, nor is the actual nature of the intellect much hinted at, nor is the meaning of the intent. Those things go beyond the scope of science.

Convincing evidence does not equal proof - correct. It is for that reason, evolutionary theory is not proven.

As I said earlier, Kreeft does not strictly equate “design” with “order.” He effectively says that “order” implies “design.” It is evidence supporting the concept that some intellect actually designed something.

That’s fine with me. In the very same way, a fossil implies something. It’s only evidence - not proof.

I do agree that science gives us “evidence” supporting design. Science alone cannot prove design. You need to go beyond science into other realms of reason to do that.

That is excellent to hear. I believe what you said corresponds perfectly with what Dr. Kreeft stated.

As I understand the term “Intelligent Design” to be commonly used today (I have listed several senses in which it is used) I have a problem with Intelligent Design as a political and “scientific” movement.

That is understandable. I don’t see it that way, but others do. When I use the term, I’m not talking about a political movement anyway, but a scientific effort to analyze evidence for design in nature.

I have shown you that what I say are the limitations of science and the relationship between science and other branches of philosophy ARE THE MAINSTREAM VIEWS of these things.

I’ll take a look at what I see from mainstream evolutionary theory in a later post.

When someone talks about a lack of a designer or creator, like Richard Dawkins or whomever, they are speaking of a materialistic philosophy, not of a science.

It’s more than that. They talk about a lack of design or purpose. You assert that you can observe design and science gives evidence of design. I fully agree with that. Now, the problem is – we need to find where mainstream science supports that view. If science can give evidence of design, we should see that evidence. Additionally, if evolution is a designed process, then it cannot be said to be “undesigned” or blind, random and without purpose.

Further, since we (the above parties) accept the natural processes involved, and that is really what “evolution” is all about, how is that not “mainstream?”

It’s not mainstream because only a very few scientists affirm that science can provide evidence of design in nature. I agree with those scientists but they are rare and few in number. Which scientists are working on evidence of design in nature? Which admit that there is such evidence? I would like to know as many of them as possible – because I agree with them.

The only real dispute is who or what designed/caused or sustains evolutionary processes, if anything. Not what those processes are.

The nature of the process is essential to understanding what it is. If a process acts randomly, then it is difficult to predict. If a process is designed to achieve a purpose, then it is different. If a process could not function in a random manner, then that is different also. If every process and material force was designed, then it is false to call anything “random” at all.

This is where your views conflict with mainstream science – since the term “random” is used widely, especially in evolutionary theory. But you have affirmed that nothing is random – it is all designed. Thus, mainstream science is in error.

Theists say all those evolutionary processes, which we accept operate the same way the materialists do, are tremendous evidence that those processes operating in that way were designed. Thus our position that evolution was designed.

This is important because we need to see the evidence. I find evidence of design in nature to be very compelling. But it does not support the views you have because design is defined in contrast with randomness in my view.

But again, it’s important for you to help point to some scientific evidence of the presence of design – since that is an important distinction with materialism.

You can say it’s “my own version” in total rejection of these FACTS (that other people see it exactly the same way), but you’d be lying to yourself.

That is a good point and I stand corrected. I have never seen views like yours regarding evolutionary theory published, but there may be many scientists who agree with them.

 

[Arandur]

Here is what I agree with 100%.

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

Are you capable of answering a direct question?

Nevertheless, I’ll accept your dodge (this article doesn’t directly address what I asked), and show you some important things in the article that it seems you were arguing against earlier.

“Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

Note the acceptance of the science in the first part, the rejection of the philosophy of neo-Darwinism in the second–which is closely followed by an explanation that neo-Darwinism is ideology, not science. This article makes the crucial distinction I’ve been urging you to make all along, that between materialistic philosophies/ideology and the basic science. I take it you concede my points, then, because you say you agree 100% with this article.

I’ll also note yet again that I’ve never said the process is “unguided, unplanned” or “random” in the sense meant by neo-Darwinism. (note also the qualification of “sense,” the important differences in the way the word “evolution” is used in different contexts)

JPII “All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”
John Paul is describing here** how he sees evolution as a beautiful evidence of design**. He thus is saying that as long as we see it as evidence of design, it is perfectly acceptable. He is not criticizing the evolutionary processes described by science.

Again, JPII: “It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”
Again, he makes the important distinction that what we are opposing here is a materialistic philosophy, not the science of evolution. Sound familiar? **I’ve been saying this for 40 pages, in almost exactly the same way.
**

“Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that “the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.””
Which means that some theories are acceptable. So why do you think that none are? Do you still want to deny what the Church has said?

“Furthermore, according to the commission, “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist.””
Again, this should sound familiar, as I have said it frequently. Evolution requires God to exist, requires His design to exist; saying that it can exist on its own is a philosophical error disproven by the Cosmological Argument, among other things.

Now, consider this:
“But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well…Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all”
Again, something I’ve been saying all along! These are the result of materialistic philosophies because they are not science, they violate the nature and definition and limitations of science.

So once again, as in Buffalo’s link, I find you guys are posting things very strongly in support of what I’ve been saying, in almost exactly the same ways that I’ve been saying them. How is it that you think you still disagree with me?

Your ‘so what’ comments seem to show you are not aware of the critical need to combine faith and science. For this particular area of study, making the connection is critical.

Combine how? “Make the connection” how? Remember, the Church sets limits on each. My “so what” was a request for you to make a point from your argument that is relevant to the discussion we’ve been having.

However, it cannot be made in a way that subordinates truths held in the deposit of faith, or tries to eliminate these truths or turn them into symbols or messages or poetry.

How have I tried to “eliminate” truths? Symbol and poetry are full of meaning, not devoid of it. The Catholic Church itself in the Catechism and in the words of the popes referred to the Creation stories as “symbol” and “poetry” in many respects. Your argument is against the bishops and the popes, not against me!

Science has value as one of many tools people use

and for understanding and loving God by exploring His creation.

but the potential for misuse in this area is very great.

As is the potential for misuse of theological ideas, as has caused the spread of Protestant and other sects.

 

[edwest2]

Again, I’m reading the typical evolution talking points.

Example:

Hey. Nice car. Who made it?

No one knows.

Really? Wow. It uh… just sort of sprang into existence?

And the same with the crystals and the relationship to living things. Man is just a slightly more complicated snowflake? I don’t think so.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Are you capable of answering a direct question?

Nevertheless, I’ll accept your dodge (this article doesn’t directly address what I asked), and show you some important things in the article that it seems you were arguing against earlier.

“Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

Note the acceptance of the science in the first part, the rejection of the philosophy of neo-Darwinism in the second–which is closely followed by an explanation that neo-Darwinism is ideology, not science. This article makes the crucial distinction I’ve been urging you to make all along, that between materialistic philosophies/ideology and the basic science. I take it you concede my points, then, because you say you agree 100% with this article.

I’ll also note yet again that I’ve never said the process is “unguided, unplanned” or “random” in the sense meant by neo-Darwinism. (note also the qualification of “sense,” the important differences in the way the word “evolution” is used in different contexts)

JPII “All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”
John Paul is describing here** how he sees evolution as a beautiful evidence of design**. He thus is saying that as long as we see it as evidence of design, it is perfectly acceptable. He is not criticizing the evolutionary processes described by science.

Again, JPII: “It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”
Again, he makes the important distinction that what we are opposing here is a materialistic philosophy, not the science of evolution. Sound familiar? **I’ve been saying this for 40 pages, in almost exactly the same way.
**

“Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that “the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.””
Which means that some theories are acceptable. So why do you think that none are? Do you still want to deny what the Church has said?

“Furthermore, according to the commission, “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist.””
Again, this should sound familiar, as I have said it frequently. Evolution requires God to exist, requires His design to exist; saying that it can exist on its own is a philosophical error disproven by the Cosmological Argument, among other things.

Now, consider this:
“But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well…Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all”
Again, something I’ve been saying all along! These are the result of materialistic philosophies because they are not science, they violate the nature and definition and limitations of science.

So once again, as in Buffalo’s link, I find you guys are posting things very strongly in support of what I’ve been saying, in almost exactly the same ways that I’ve been saying them. How is it that you think you still disagree with me?

Combine how? “Make the connection” how? Remember, the Church sets limits on each. My “so what” was a request for you to make a point from your argument that is relevant to the discussion we’ve been having.

How have I tried to “eliminate” truths? Symbol and poetry are full of meaning, not devoid of it. The Catholic Church itself in the Catechism and in the words of the popes referred to the Creation stories as “symbol” and “poetry” in many respects. Your argument is against the bishops and the popes, not against me!

and for understanding and loving God by exploring His creation.

As is the potential for misuse of theological ideas, as has caused the spread of Protestant and other sects.

Nope. I don’t need to concede anything. You only bolded certain parts and did not address the foundational statement.

Oh well.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Arandur]

Arandur, I believe you are trying to have it both ways: the consistent teaching that we are not products of random mutations, and Darwin’s theory of evolution.

You misunderstand evolution if you think it is saying that we are just products of random mutations, and you errantly assume that evolution makes a conclusion about the origin or purpose of life.

Time and time again, we have shown you how these two can never be compatible.

I have refuted each of your errant attempts. You have refused to provide a counterargument to many of my own. A discussion seeking truth does not end just because you assert the same thing over and over without addressing the arguments against it.

But, you seem to have your own interpretation, your own justification for how you can believe in these things and still claim to be a Catholic Christian.

No, I have shown you how all the things I’ve claimed about science are mainstream, and about the compatibility of evolution and Church teaching is also mainstream within the Church, being wholly consistent with the popes, the Catechism, and even advocated in much the same way as I’ve presented it by Peter Kreeft and Catholic Answers. It is not just my “own interpretation.” It is that of many.

I must ask, do you accept the Church’s teaching in contraception, same sex, and abortion? It has nothing to do with the topic, I know.

Yes, I do, and of the death penalty, transubstantiation, and other “difficult” or “controversial” issues. Have any more litmus tests for me?

As far as the scriptures, the Church has not any doctrine that tells you explicitly how you are to read Genesis In short, you have to believe in Adam (that he was a man), the Fall, and Original Sin. A literal six day creation is not outside of the permissible exegesis of scripture. But you seem to claim that it is (again, your own interpretation).

You’re right. But the guidance of the Catechism and the popes as I have quoted strongly indicates otherwise. The popes directly strongly caution against such a literalist interpretation. I didn’t claim that there was only one possible interpretation, but I spoke about what I believe is the primary mode of interpretation of the Creation stories clearly spoken of by the popes and the Catechism. Go back and reread what I’ve posted if you think this is not so and use the same quotes to show me how they are somehow more in favor of a literalist interpretation.

However, the evolutionary theory Darwin has presented is outside of the Church

See the link Buffalo posted, where Dr. Meyer actually shows how Darwin’s methods lead us to design for the origin of life. Not necessarily evolution, but the origin of life (two different things).

, we cannot for any reason leave any room for common ground when it comes to atheistic dogma.

I think you need to qualify this statement. Example: One of the most common arguments against the existence of at least an all-loving God is the existence of evil. We willingly share the common ground with such atheists that there IS evil in the world.

Again, you seem to believe that you can bridge these two, but you can’t really.

You’re not arguing against just me, keep in mind. You’re arguing against Peter Kreeft and Catholic Answers, at least, and must also make allowance for what the popes have said, saying that you CAN accept scientific evolution in some manner and also accept the faith. Do you disagree with the popes?

Just whose side are you on anyway?

I’m on the side of the Church which is the side of truth!
If reason can lead us to God and discover truth, and reason has shown us that evolutionary processes occur, then I am the one on the side of truth when I defend them, and you are persecuting truth and thus in rejecting truth, denying that aspect of God.

Faith and reason are not two completely different things, they stem from the one truth, to put a wedge in between is to cease to be Catholic.

“Put a wedge in between?” That’s what YOU are trying to do. I’m trying to defend the complementarity of the two!

Look at what JP2 was doing as quoted in the article Ed presented. He was trying to enforce among scientists that to make pronouncements denying design is NOT SCIENCE. He was trying to defend the reason of science and keep it within its limits.

I am trying to do the same with you, because you are on the other extreme! You seem to believe that materialistic philosophies ARE scientific, which is completely contrary to what JP2 has said. You seem to think there are or should be no limits on science, that it must consider faith questions–but that’s the heresy of Scientism and in defiance of what the popes and the Catechism say. I’m defending faith and reason against YOUR abuses!

 

[Arandur]

Again, I’m reading the typical evolution talking points.

Example:

Hey. Nice car. Who made it?

No one knows.

Really? Wow. It uh… just sort of sprang into existence?

And the same with the crystals and the relationship to living things. Man is just a slightly more complicated snowflake? I don’t think so.

You didn’t pay attention to a single thing I said about Buffalo’s link, nor did you listen to it. Your comments are totally irrelevant and completely misunderstand what I said.

Nope. I don’t need to concede anything. You only bolded certain parts and did not address the foundational statement.

Oh well.

Try to make an argument, Ed, or don’t bother posting.

What “foundational statement?”

 

[Michaelo]

Sorry for the late response, and I don’t feel like addressing all the points that Arandur has already covered.

1. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
2. Not chance.
3. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.[/INDENT]

You’ve argued incorrectly several times that this is “negative evidence”.
That is not correct. Something is either designed or it is not.

There is no other option.

That is the claim. There is no other option besides designed or not-designed (unplanned).

Ah, but you conveniently omit a significant detail that must be considered–there exist multiple (more than two ) degrees of design. The option that you support (involving IC and CSI) requires that God (or an intelligent agent in accordance with the DI ) formed various natural phenomena because they are too complex to have arisen via evolution. Arandur and I support a different option in which God designed the physical laws that can generate complex natural phenomena via evolution. Also, other options may exist that involve other degrees of design. From what I have gathered, the option that you favor is generally titled ID and that which myself and Arandur favor is theistic evolution.

ID supporters do create a false dichotomy by only offering two options (ID and evolution) and rely on negative reasoning in that they discredit the other option in an effort to bolster theirs.

 

[Arandur]

You raised the distinction between philosophy and science. Philosophy is the foundation for science. Through philosophy we arrive at the definition of terms…Bingo. Design is a concept. The evidence for design is supported by observations or order and complexity in nature. Now we’re moving along very well and I’m in full agreement…
Convincing evidence does not equal proof - correct. It is for that reason, evolutionary theory is not proven. …That’s fine with me. In the very same way, a fossil implies something. It’s only evidence - not proof.

Science is a subset of philosophy. As a discipline, it has limits. That’s the point I made. I’m still not sure if you agree with it.

As for evidence of design, I’ve been saying this all along. As for evolutionary theory not being proven, in the same way, there is not a single other known scientific theory that is proven. Most are incredibly reliable, however, and so is evolution.

When I use the term, I’m not talking about a political movement anyway, but a scientific effort to analyze evidence for design in nature.

Okay. I’ll try to take ID in that definition strictly in the future, to avoid confusion.

It’s more than that. They talk about a lack of design or purpose. You assert that you can observe design and science gives evidence of design. I fully agree with that. Now, the problem is – we need to find where mainstream science supports that view. If science can give evidence of design, we should see that evidence. Additionally, if evolution is a designed process, then it cannot be said to be “undesigned” or blind, random and without purpose.

See Buffalo’s link and Dr. Meyer’s talk; I’ve highlighted where he shows that mainstream science does not assert or require a lack of design, particularly as relates to origins of life. As for evolution, it is a designed process like gravity and atomic theory describe designed processes. The science doesn’t make a verdict on the origin of these, only describes what they do, how they behave.
And I have never said that evolution is random or without purpose. Dr. Meyer talks of a mainstream debate between scientists of the materialist philosophies and of theistic philosophies regarding these things. They are both in the mainstream discussion, and they are both philosophies.

It’s not mainstream because only a very few scientists affirm that science can provide evidence of design in nature. I agree with those scientists but they are rare and few in number. Which scientists are working on evidence of design in nature? Which admit that there is such evidence? I would like to know as many of them as possible – because I agree with them.

Again, do listen to Dr. Meyer’s talk. It’s long, but good. He seems to not have a problem with any of the science of evolution, the processes it describes, by the way. And he refers to non-Discovery Institute scientists and how mainstream many views are. He has even been recognized and praised by members of the National Academy of Sciences.

The nature of the process is essential to understanding what it is. If a process acts randomly, then it is difficult to predict. If a process is designed to achieve a purpose, then it is different. If a process could not function in a random manner, then that is different also. If every process and material force was designed, then it is false to call anything “random” at all.

This is where your views conflict with mainstream science – since the term “random” is used widely, especially in evolutionary theory. But you have affirmed that nothing is random – it is all designed. Thus, mainstream science is in error.

NO. As I have explained, MY definition of random is how it is used scientifically. Thus it is mainstream and not in error.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
dictionary.reference.com/browse/random
richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=73333

This is important because we need to see the evidence. I find evidence of design in nature to be very compelling. But it does not support the views you have because design is defined in contrast with randomness in my view.

Again, do you disagree that any of the 11 points of evolution I outlined earlier exist?
There is strong evidence for each of them.

That is a good point and I stand corrected. I have never seen views like yours regarding evolutionary theory published, but there may be many scientists who agree with them.

I gave you Catholic Answers and Peter Kreeft. Not scientists (though I don’t actually know if the authors of the Catholic Answers articles were scientists), but that shows that my view is pretty common, I think. That and what Dr. Meyers says about scientists, and my own anecdotal evidence from other scientists.
As far as the nature of science and so forth, can you also agree that what I’ve said is commonly accepted by both scientists and the Church, based on the sources I’ve given?

 

[Arandur]

I’ll post these again. Can I get an answer?

1. Genetic mutation
2. Sex and recombination
3. Population genetics
4. Gene flow
5. Natural selection (which is self-evident based on these things: a. Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms; b. Organisms produce more offspring than can survive; c. These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce)
6. Genetic drift
7. Adaptation
8. Co-evolution
9. Co-operation
10. Speciation
11. Extinction
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Origin_of_life

Do you (everyone arguing against me) believe that any of these do not exist?

I ask because I think what you’re really bothered by is Origin of Life issues, not Evolution, because evolution consists of these processes and says nothing of the origin of life.

 

[reggieM]

Argument from Design
From Fundamentals of the Faith
Dr. Peter Kreeft

But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection “explains” the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?

 

[Arandur]

Argument from Design
From Fundamentals of the Faith
Dr. Peter Kreeft

But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection “explains” the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?

Nice try. You’re late in coming to this; I already posted it. Just what do you think he’s talking about? I think you missed the second to last sentence, and the point about “without intelligent design.” He’s talking about how this particular interpretation of natural selection, the one claiming no design, can’t be proven, and how non-material things can’t come from it.

Look at his other writings, which go more in depth. I posted links and excerpts in post #842. He clearly accepts natural selection as a possible method God created and used.

You must consider peoples’ words in context, both immediate and in the context of what else they have to say.

This is what natural selection is, properly understood:
"Natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a “self-evident” mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts:

* Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
* Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
* These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Natural_selection

In this narrow and strict scientific sense, natural selection says nothing of design or undesign. It only describes what necessarily happens. It IS fact, in this narrow sense; it is self-evident.

Now, I’m going to keep posting this until I get an answer:

1. Genetic mutation
2. Sex and recombination
3. Population genetics
4. Gene flow
5. Natural selection (which is self-evident based on these things: a. Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms; b. Organisms produce more offspring than can survive; c. These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce)
6. Genetic drift
7. Adaptation
8. Co-evolution
9. Co-operation
10. Speciation
11. Extinction
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Do you (everyone arguing against me) believe that any of these do not exist or happen?

I ask because I think what you’re really bothered by is Origin of Life issues, not Evolution, because evolution consists of these processes and says nothing of the origin of life.

 

[reggieM]

Again, do listen to Dr. Meyer’s talk. It’s long, but good.

I will do that tonight and get back to you. I’m looking forward to his book also - I find him to be excellent on this topic.

He seems to not have a problem with any of the science of evolution, the processes it describes, by the way.

I’ve read many things by Dr. Meyer. He has a peer-reviewed paper supporting evidence for Intelligent Design in nature. For him the proof of design is the failure of evolution to produce the complex information found in nature (developed after the origin of life).

And he refers to non-Discovery Institute scientists and how mainstream many views are. He has even been recognized and praised by members of the National Academy of Sciences.

First of all, I have a new-found appreciation for your views. I still disagree with some important aspects, but the fact that you can (and did) listen to Dr. Meyer’s talk, the fact that you read and appreciate Dr. Kreeft, and the fact that you do assert that science can evaluate evidence for design in nature, speaks quite a lot.

I believe you are a Catholic who seeks to stay faithful, and not distort the Faith also - I see good evidence of that. For all of those reasons, I’m not sure that it is worth fighting about the areas where we still disagree. My biggest concern is with those who have completely lost the faith.

But I will say also, I believe mainstream evolutionary theory is a grave danger to souls and is evil, essentially.

NO. As I have explained, MY definition of random is how it is used scientifically. Thus it is mainstream and not in error.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
dictionary.reference.com/browse/random
richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=73333

You have stated that everything is designed. In Dr. Kreeft’s view, either there is chance or there is design. You removed that choice by stating that everything is designed – therefore, randomness does not exist.

Now you seem to be saying that you accept two, contradictory meanings of the term “random”. Either randomness (non-design) exists or it doesn’t. You’re saying that it doesn’t – but you accept the false view that it does exist also. That is a contradiction and I really can’t continue to discuss this topic until you resolve the problem.

Again, do you disagree that any of the 11 points of evolution I outlined earlier exist?
There is strong evidence for each of them.

I disagree that any of those things produce anything other than micro-evolutionary adaptations.

1. Genetic mutation - mostly destructive. Not capable of producing the complexity and new features claimed for it.
2. Sex and recombination – occurs but results are more than is claimed.
3. Population genetics - a classification system at best. Shows some adaptation, not macro-evolution.
4. Gene flow - as above
5. Natural selection (which is self-evident based on these things: a. Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms; b. Organisms produce more offspring than can survive; c. These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce)
   – not capable of producing what is claimed of it. Provides the tautology: "Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive.’ NS has major problems, even atheistic-evolutionists are abandoning it as an explanation.
6. Genetic drift – cannot produce the complexity claimed by evolution
7. Adaptation – micro-evolution. If that’s all evolution claimed, I’d have no problem with it.
8. Co-evolution – I don’t accept this.
9. Co-operation – not a function of randomness but of existing potential in the cell (evidence of design against evolution)
10. Speciation – I don’t find the evidence convincing.
11. Extinction – produces nothing.

I gave you Catholic Answers and Peter Kreeft. Not scientists (though I don’t actually know if the authors of the Catholic Answers articles were scientists), but that shows that my view is pretty common, I think. That and what Dr. Meyers says about scientists, and my own anecdotal evidence from other scientists.
As far as the nature of science and so forth, can you also agree that what I’ve said is commonly accepted by both scientists and the Church, based on the sources I’ve given?

I was going to post some material on this question you raise, but I decided against it. How about this – I wish there were more scientists who at least would recognize evidence for intelligent design in nature, as you do.

There may be far more of them than I think, so as I said before, I shouldn’t say.

From my review of widely-used biology textbooks, the National Center for Science Education, and some of the biggest names in evolutionary theory – it seems like your view is in the minority.

 

[M0nkey]

“Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

If your attempt was to reach across the isle (again, bridging) I don’t see a reason why this is false. I think some reading up on ID is due:

ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.

CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that.

ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.

uncommondescent.com/faq/

 

[reggieM]

If your attempt was to reach across the isle (again, bridging) I don’t see a reason why this is false. I think some reading up on ID is due:

ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information … ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.

uncommondescent.com/faq/

This is more than just origin of life studies since it refers to the necessary origin of “new information” that must occur in the cell. The information can be “implemented” in a variety of ways, but explanation of the causes of new information are lacking. The only proposed creator of new information in materialist-evolutionary theory is random mutations in the cell. Gene duplication does not add new code, but only a copy. Recombination either occurs through random mutation, or it is self-generated. If it is proven that mutations cannot provide enough information, then self-organization is proposed. But self-organization does not explain the cause. This is where the design thesis is strongest because it proposes that self-organizing systems are necessarily pre-coded (designed, planned-for-a-purpose) and cannot be the result of blind, physical laws.

 

[M0nkey]

I’ll post these again. Can I get an answer?

1. Genetic mutation
2. Sex and recombination
3. Population genetics
4. Gene flow
5. Natural selection (which is self-evident based on these things: a. Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms; b. Organisms produce more offspring than can survive; c. These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce)
6. Genetic drift
7. Adaptation
8. Co-evolution
9. Co-operation
10. Speciation
11. Extinction
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Origin_of_life

Do you (everyone arguing against me) believe that any of these do not exist?

I ask because I think what you’re really bothered by is Origin of Life issues, not Evolution, because evolution consists of these processes and says nothing of the origin of life.

I don’t have a problem with any of these save for natural selection; if my understanding is correct, natural selection is defined as the *only *guiding principle – I think you have to accept it on those terms – and therefore does not fully support bio diversity. Plus, survival of the fittest is hardly observable in nature: I drive in Texas and I see a lot of STUPID people on the road, according to Darwin, bad drivers should weed themselves out into extinction, but I see nothing of this sort. Anyway, on a more serious note, I completely and utterly disagree with any notion that resembles survival of the fittest as it is in contrast to Christianity. In fact, I really think it’s just another religion: anti-Christianity.

Take a look at the dinosaurs for example, do you think they were weak? What about the mammoth, the saber tooth tiguer, all these creatures had natural selection in their favor, yet they are no longer. Science has failed to explain why more than ~75% of the species found in fossil records are now extinct. Human beings are another example of how survival of the fittest doesn’t hold, we have no claws, no teeth, no fur, virtually no protection against the elements, and yet managed to remain extant. It really only takes just a bit of common sense to refute this obstinate idea.