The Creation/Evolution Debate in a Nutshell

[PhilVaz]

tomas << Lets just face it, evolution theory is making us all nervous right? >>

Yes, and I am absolutely terrified of Daniel Dennet’s new book.

I’m gonna have to re-read my Perspectives on an Evolving Creation once again to have my faith restored. Too much raw evolution data and thinking about that data leads to doubts…

pause…

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

NOT!

Phil P

 

[rossum]

Redbandito:

Before considering the guidelines, let’s be clear about the difference between evolution and evolutionism. Evolution is a scientific theory that says that more complex forms of life developed from less complex forms, over extremely long periods of time (perhaps a couple of billion years). As a scientific theory, it is to be accepted or rejected based on the evidence.

Pretty much right, life on earth probably orignated between 3.5 and 4 billion years ago.

Redbandito:

Evolutionism, on the other hand, is the belief that everything that exists can be explained in exclusively materialist terms, apart from a Creator. According to evolutionism, everything that exists developed from “blind chance,” with no knowing or planning of its purpose or end.

This is an unusual use of language. What you are describing is usually called “Philosophical Materialism” - the belief that only the material world exists. It would cause less confusion if you used that term instead.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

Mastropaolo:

This is a reply to Rossum, who suddenly wants lots of discussion on scientific definitions from a poor person from the Kolbe Center, which is a place for theology, not science.

Why won’t you agree to the terms to be debated prior to the debate? That is pretty common in debate.

Your approach reminds me of Dr. Dino’s offer of $250,000 to anyone who can provide scientific evidence for evolution. Fortunately for him, his definition of what constitutes scientific evidence is whatever he decides it is, so that level of proof will never be met. That is why you need to come up with an agreed upon set of definitions prior to debating.

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

mastro << This is a reply to PhilVaz. >>

That would be me.

mastro << Sorry, none of those trials admitted only objective, valid, reliable, calibrated scientific evidence. >>

Objective? … CHECK!
Valid? … CHECK!
Reliable? … CHECK!
Calibrated? um Calibrated??? … CHECK!

mastro << If you are so sure of yourself, when may I expect you to contend? >>

July 32, 2055.

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

PhilVaz:

mastro << If you are so sure of yourself, when may I expect you to contend? >>

July 32, 2055.

Phil P

Good catch, Phil! It would seem that my comparison of JoMo to Dr.Dino was pretty appropriate.

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

tomaskovarik:

Lets just face it, evolution theory is making us all nervous right?

I’m not nervous

tomaskovarik:

All we can say is something like “God used evolution to create”,

are you proposing some other mechanisim?

tomaskovarik:

which is a logical nonsense.

How so?
If you believe that God created the world and the evidence of how it was formed is so overwhelming then it seems that saying that is how God did it is an extremely logical position.

tomaskovarik:

Evolution Theory does not say anything about divine interference,

It can’t. It is not its place

tomaskovarik:

it operates on the assumption of randomness and a very long time.

As I stated above it is no more random than procreation
Probably even less so since it deals with aggregate numbers across populations rather than with individuals

tomaskovarik:

So to say that we accept Evolution Theory with God at the background is laughable, because this sentence contradicts the theory right away.

While a purist may say that the introduction of God violates parsimony, who cares? that’s their problem.

As a materialistic explanation the theory, naturally, works equally well with or without God.
If we choose to add it in to reconcile faith and reason what is the problem? It is not a contradiction of the theory.

tomaskovarik:

And please leave all this thermodynamic nonsense to the experts.

Thermo is (or should be) covered in basic high school physics
While the underlying mechanisms are complex, it basic concepts of work and open and closed systems are fairly straight forward which is why that “evolution violates the 2nd law” nonsense just drives me batty

it is just immoral to prey on people’s fears just because they didn’t pay attention in class

 

[rossum]

Mastropaolo:

This is a reply to Rossum, who suddenly wants lots of discussion on scientific definitions from a poor person from the Kolbe Center, which is a place for theology, not science.

You are right, the Kolbe Centre is most certainly not a place for science. In order to avoid further problems I would suggest that you recommend to your colleagues that they remove the scientific parts of the web page that buffalo linked to in the OP of this thread.

It was you who initially suggested the debate, not me. If your science is not up to it then I suggest that you stop offering to debate the subject.

Mastropaolo:

Evolution is nonexistent, always has been and always will be.

You are incorrect. Evolution is a fact: the genetic makeup of an interbreeding population changes over time. Are you denying that bacteria have developed immunity to drugs, insects have developed immunity to DDT or that rats have develped immunity to Warfarin? These are just three examples of evolution happening. You have already said that the Kolbe Centre is “a place for theology, not science”, why then do you persist in propagating the scientific errors of the Kolbe Centre in an area where you agree they have no expertise?

Mastropaolo:

Science proves it and the Life Science Prize doubly proves it.

There is currently no scientific evidence that disproves evolution. Do you know of a fossil of a Devonian rabbit? Such evidence would completely wreck the theory of evolution. If you have evidence then show it; evidence wins scientific discussions.

Your Life Science Prize proves nothing except that I am unwilling to enter a debate where I have no say in the conditions of the debate. If you are really interested in a fair debate then you should be willing to mutually agree the terms of the debate.

Mastropaolo:

If you ever come across a real contender, then let me know.

Am I allowed to say, <mode=Marlon Brando>“I could’a been a contender”?

As I said in the conclusion to my post #4, buffalo needs to find a better source. If the spokesman for the Kolbe Centre says that it is “a place for theology, not science” then it should be obvious that it is not to be relied on for scientific information.

rossum

 

[VociMike]

tomaskovarik:

Lets just face it, evolution theory is making us all nervous right?
All we can say is something like “God used evolution to create”, which is a logical nonsense. Evolution Theory does not say anything about divine interference, it operates on the assumption of randomness and a very long time. So to say that we accept Evolution Theory with God at the background is laughable, because this sentence contradicts the theory right away.
And please leave all this thermodynamic nonsense to the experts.

I’m a babe in the woods regarding this discussion, but I just don’t see the problem you see. Even if we accept randomness as a key component of evolution, there is no such thing as randomness to God. If He chose to do so, what would prevent God from setting the initial conditions of the universe to guarantee the evolution of each and every creature He desired to create, right down to that freckle on my daughter’s nose? As I said, there is no such thing as randomness to God. He has known the outcome of every single “random” event since before the universe existed.

 

[tomaskovarik]

PhilVaz:

tomas << Lets just face it, evolution theory is making us all nervous right? >>

Yes, and I am absolutely terrified of Daniel Dennet’s new book.

I’m gonna have to re-read my [**
NOT!

Phil P**](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802805124/)

OK Phil,
so, I guess I am not going to read that book either, I don’t want my faith to get any more into the trap. I am still trying to make my way out of this mess, it is fun THANKS God for this brain!!!
Maybe chewing vegetables would be better than…thinking?
Tomas

 

[steveandersen]

VociMike:

… Even if we accept randomness as a key component of evolution,…

I’m still not sure why people keep mentioning randomness.

Even ignoring that evolution has many deterministic features and is not in fact a truly random process, conception has very many random elements in it and no one seems to take exception to that.

Why do folks who appear to have a problem with evolution seem to mention randomness or chance as part of the reason that they take exception to it? A lot of life is about chance and probability. In the grand scheme evolution is probably the least random thing in your daily life.

 

[VociMike]

steveandersen:

I’m still not sure why people keep mentioning randomness.

Even ignoring that evolution has many deterministic features and is not in fact a truly random process, conception has very many random elements in it and no one seems to take exception to that.

Why do folks who appear to have a problem with evolution seem to mention randomness or chance as part of the reason that they take exception to it? A lot of life is about chance and probability. In the grand scheme evolution is probably the least random thing in your daily life.

Since you are responding to my post, I’ll say that I mentioned randomness because the post I was responding to mentioned it:

Evolution Theory does not say anything about divine interference, it operates on the assumption of randomness and a very long time. So to say that we accept Evolution Theory with God at the background is laughable, because this sentence contradicts the theory right away.

I’ll also say that I am an orthodox Catholic who has no problem accepting that God may have used evolution to produce exactly the world He intended to produce.

 

[steveandersen]

VociMike:

Since you are responding to my post, I’ll say that I mentioned randomness because the post I was responding to mentioned it:

I wasn’t questioning you in particular. In fact, now that I look at it, I responded to that same post you did and took exception to it also.

I’ve just seen the “random” card thrown out in many different places. Not only here but in everything from casual conversations to letters to the editor.

Call me obtuse but I just don’t understand the objection so I was throwing out a general question.

VociMike:

I’ll also say that I am an orthodox Catholic who has no problem accepting that God may have used evolution to produce exactly the world He intended to produce.

But of course

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

tomaskovarik:

All we can say is something like “God used evolution to create”, which is a logical nonsense.

Why is such a claim logical nonsense?

 

[VociMike]

steveandersen:

I wasn’t questioning you in particular. In fact, now that I look at it, I responded to that same post you did and took exception to it also.

I’ve just seen the “random” card thrown out in many different places. Not only here but in everything from casual conversations to letters to the editor.

Call me obtuse but I just don’t understand the objection so I was throwing out a general question.

I guess the objection is that, if randomness is involved, God could not have designed or even predicted the end result. To which my answer is, there is no randomness from the point of view of God, since He is omniscient. Whether God actually dictates the outcome of random events directly, or whether He allows the universe He created to dictate them according to its nature, either way God knows what will happen and would be able to take everything into account in assuring that His creation followed the course He desired.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

trth_skr:

A few points:

1. How do you know Australia was not evangalized by even the apostles, and the message rejected?
2. Were the fathers unanomous on the Antipodes? Have the Popes or councils made any declarations regarding them?
3. All but one father (Lactinius) held a spherical earth.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Cosmas Indicopleustes, “the India-voyager”, was an ark-earther: he considered the earth to be shaped like the Israelite Ark of the Covenant.​

The Fourth Book of the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes

The page includes some nice pictures.

Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography. Preface to the online edition.

As for Australia, there is a tradition that St.Philip evangelised Britain: but not a shred of evidence for it. Claims are easily made - which is why they cannot be accepted on the mere ground of their being made. For Australia, there is not even the claim that it was evangelised - so there is no reason to suppose it was.

Or do we accept the Mormon tradition that Jesus Christ preached in the Americas after His Ascension ? At least there is evidence for it - of a sort Why not go the whole hog, and accept the statement that the Garden of Eden was on the East Coast ?

It would be the easiest thing in the world to prove that the Bible, and the pagan poets, foretell the prosperity and universal dispersion of the Scottish people - there is a great deal of evidence to identify Israel with Scotland, if one looks carefully enough. There is even an old tradition that Gathelos, the Greek prince who is the Patriarch of the Scottish nation, married an Egyptian princess, with whom he left Egypt at the time of the Exodus. The reasons for identifying Gathelos with Moses, and of course with the Trojan prince Aeneas are compelling, to say the least.

Any one who reads the Old Testament intelligently cannot fail to see references to bagpipes, fiddles, ceilidhs, Scottish plants, mountains, Highland dress, the clan system, the geography of Scotland, and Scottish history. The coincidences are so numerous, that the Bible makes no sense if one persists in the strange delusion that Israel is anywhere near the Eastern Mediterranean. The evidence that the Israelites were Scottish Highlanders is overwhelming.

Unlike the evidence for an Apostolic voyage to Australia ##

 

[PhilVaz]

Part of the mastro "Life Science Prize" challenge is this:

<< 3. If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is religion, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000. >>

<< 4. If the creationist proves creation is science and evolution is religion, then the creationist is awarded the $20,000. >>

OK, you can do this here and now. Show how creation is science and evolution is religion. All I have to do is quote Judge Overton’s decision from 1982, here are quotes from prominent creationists on the topic:

“Creation. By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation…We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” (Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, page 40)

Conclusion: Special Creation is not science according to Gish.

“Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious).” (Gish, letter to editor of Discover magazine, July 1981)

Conclusion: Neither creation nor evolution is scientific, and each is equally religious according to Gish.

“…it is…quite impossible to determine anything about Creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wished to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there…Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation!” (Henry Morris, Studies in the Bible and Science, page 114)

Henry Morris, the founder of modern young-earth creationism, says creationism is divine revelation (specifically, Christian revelation as found in Genesis), it is not science. Can’t get much clearer than that.

I don’t think you will find prominent evolutionists (even Richard Dawkins, etc) saying that “evolution is not science but religion.” You can argue that Dawkins’ atheism is religion, but evolution itself is neutral with respect to religion. We’ve made that point many times in here. See my quotes from Christian evolutionists like Kansas geologist Keith Miller and others cited here.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

How about backing these statements up?

From mastro’s FAQ point #11

"Evolutionists are exposed as indoctrinating the public with inverted fantasies from vitalism superstitions 2,500 years old. Their default clearly demonstrates that evolution exists only in their imagination.

"Evolutionists must admit that they are peddlers of an ancient vitalism superstition called, ‘evolution,’ that has a monopoly in public education with no scientific evidence whatsoever and is thereby a state supported religion in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

“Evolutionists by default also admit that: (1) evolution has been exposed as pagan Cebelese religion as practiced in Greece 2,500 years ago, (2) evolution is completely absent in the universe today, always has been, always will be, (3) every item associated with humans, animals and plants are creations, always have been, always will be, (4) creation is science because it is observable by billions of people, trillions of times, over thousands of years, always has been, always will be, and (5) they would be ridiculed worldwide for defending in vain one of the oldest shams in history and losing $10,000.00.”

See the quotes from Duane Gish and Henry Morris in my previous post.

And here is a quote by evangelical geologist Keith Miller that I like:

“The doctrine of creation really says nothing about ‘How’ God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment…It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order.” (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)

Seems to say the opposite of what mastro is saying. I wonder who is right? Let’s discuss. Or not.

Do you see why I call the Kolbe Center style creationism kookiness? Do you get it yet?

Phil P

 

[thistle]

I’m laughing because I’m Scottish!!

 

[Roben]

False. The second law of thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution in an open system with a large energy source such as the Sun. As long as the entropy increase in the Sun outweighs the entropy decrease on Earth then the [second] law is fulfilled.

Google<<Evolution’s Thermodynamic Failure Granville Sewell>> to be enlightened, brother.

Technically the Big Bang was not an explosion. Even apart from that, is the Kolbe Centre denying the theory of gravitation? Matter condenses due to gravitational attraction.

Right - BB was an expansion of nothingness at superluminal speeds which spontaneously developed inhomogenities that condensed to form stars and galaxies. So obvious…
The energy center of the BB remained the center of gravitational attraction after the expansion - Center of mass theorem. For 13.87934 billion years all parts of the universe continue to expand from the center and from each other, we are told. Yet the parts come together while they are receding?
Have you not heard that gravitation is inversely attractive as the square of the separation distance? That the attractive force gets weaker, much weaker, as the gravitating parts mutually recede? Yet matter condenses due to gravitational attraction??
Have you not heard that studies of distant supernova show them accelerating (that means speeding up, not slowing down) away from each other? Yet matter condenses due to gravitational attraction???
Basic Physics 1 Aristotelian Logic 1 …Cosmic Evilution 0

While the mechanisms of abiogenesis are less certain than those of evolution we do know enough to make it clear that there are no insuperable obstacles.

By less certain you mean totally unknown. Quite a euphemism.
The answer to the mechanism of abiogenesis? Well, that’s in the future… Ah, isn’t everything?

This is a misunderstanding of “Biogenesis”, that concerns the origin of metazoans such as flies. … Perhaps it ought to stick to theology.

Perhaps we should stick to reality, starting with an explanation of how flies originate from inorganic, inanimate non-living material. Or how any living thing proceeds from such.

Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore, do not try to understand that you may believe, but rather believe so that you may understand.
Saint Augustine

 

[Roben]

If producing two proteins where there was one before is an increase in complexity then complexity can increase.

Complexity is the interaction of many parts for the BENEFIT of the whole organism. Proteins produced by genetic mutation are observed to cause effects that are either neutral, disabling or destructive to the entire organism. The mutation mechanism of neo-darwinism produces dissolution, not beneficial improvements in complexity.
Like the effect of conceptual evolution itself on our moral world , isn’t it?

There is no problem with evolving irreducible complexity.

No problems except logical validity and empirical proof. The sequence of lung development described here is fabulous - as in fables.

False. See [Radiometric Dating - a Christian Perspective](http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html)

Google << Radiometric Dating Game>> for accuracy analysis

Ah, dueling links! How does this work - we count the links and majority wins? Maybe we count the words or the letters? Do logic and facts and faith (yes, faith: this is a Catholic forum, at least in name) enter here at all? or do ideology and speculation trump these?

population kinetics: Assumptions of constant growth rates lead to absurd poplation figures in the early years. When Moses led more than 600,000 people out of Egypt there were only 726 people in the whole world

726 is > 600,000 ? Is this the new math?
Google <> for squelch

influx of radiocarbon: I need more details here, references please.

Google <> for squelch

False, there are meteorites in the geologic column, see here.

All meteorites referenced were found within 300 feet of the surface. No meteorites or impact craters were found from there down to the Cambrian strata. Exactly what the Flood model predicts.

decay of earth’s magnetic field: The earth’s magnetic field sometimes reverses as shown by paleomagnetism in old rocks.

Fallacy here is using discredited radiodating to infer magnetic reversals. The age of volcanic eruptions in the last century are dated as hundreds of millennia or even gigennia. Hey, within a million years is close enough!
Same RD fallacy is used to fabricate the geological column.

I will need the references here.

Google <>

<There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types. >
False. There are lots of intermediate types.

Google << intermediate fossil proof>>
Hilaire Belloc tried to validate this claim of natural selection of evolution philosophically, via common experience. He looked for one-quarter pigs, half pigs, somewhat pigs, nearly pigs, mostly pigs, formerly pigs, on-the-way-to-becoming pigs, flying pigs…. But all he ever found were pigs and non-pigs. Imagine that - using common sense and thinking for oneself ! Is this still legal ??

Sorry, no linkfest here. Go find the references yourself. Research for the truth won’t kill you - ignoring it will.
Final score: Genesis as written: Infinity Evolution: 666

Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore, do not try to understand that you may believe, but rather believe so that you may understand.
Saint Augustine