The Creation/Evolution Debate in a Nutshell

[Roben]

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?

This is sophistry - to masquerade variation within species (= micro-evolution) above as though it were macro-evolution across species, in a Catholic forum where the average reader is not a biologist and unaware of the distinction. Shame on your deception!
All your examples represent loss of function which has benefit only in a specific environment. Were ‘evolution’ by losses of natural function to continue in this way, the species would become not improved, but extinct. Beneficial changes in a species can only come from activating latent code already in the genome.
btw: how does the general definition of species apply to bacteria?

There is currently no scientific evidence that disproves evolution.

Nor any that proves it. Evolution is an untestable speculation outside the scope of the scientific method. Those who believe it do so without objective proof, that is, on faith. Evolution is thus a dogmatic religion.

…evidence wins scientific discussions.

Lack of evidence wins scientific speculations. This kind of contention evolution does win.

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.

A philosophy of illusion and despair, appropriate for the Nihilist Answers Forum. Catholics use scholastic philosophy; like <a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time, in the same sense>

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]

Show me the peer-reviewed papers which conclude that “the specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously.”

Show us the peer-reviewed papers which prove, not conclude, that “the specific complexity of genetic information in the genome DOES increase spontaneously.”
“peer-reviewed” means approved by atheist scientists. Why would a Catholic forum want information filtered through a profession of disbelievers?
As Kardinal Schoenborn said in First Things: Don’t argue evolution empirics when evolution makes no philosophical/logical/common sense.

Show me the peer-reviewed papers which conclude that radiometric dating doesn’t work

The peers of this forum are Christians, so Google << Mt. St. Helens radio dating>>

…other evidence that the Earth is less than 10k years old.

Google<<Young age of the Earth & Universe Q&A>>

 

[Orogeny]

Roben:

“peer-reviewed” means approved by atheist scientists.

Yes, some of the peer reviewers would be athiest. Do you have any reference for all peer reviewers being athiests?

Why would a Catholic forum want information filtered through a profession of disbelievers?

As Pope John Paul II so eloquently put it, Truth does not contradict Truth. Who cares what the religious beliefs of the reviewers are if the science is good. Do you exlude scientific papers in all sciences since, according to you, they are reviewed by athiest scientists?

The peers of this forum are Christians, so Google << Mt. St. Helens radio dating>>

Yes, most of us are Christians. I don’t think that, as Christians, we are required to use bogus science to discredit legitimate science.

Peace

Tim

 

[Roben]

Really how can that document be the creation/evolution debate in a nutshell, when it is primarily a document about Catholic theology?

Genesis is not Catholic theology but Catholic doctrine, a component of the deposit of faith. Belief in Genesis is what it all comes down to as a Catholic: do you believe only what you have seen? If so, you have no faith in you.

They [the Fathers] are not quite the universally inerrant oracles on all subjects they speak of that some might think.

Read carefully. The theological opinion of individual Fathers is just that - opinion.
The unanimous theological opinion of all the Fathers is dogma - Vatican I

They are also well aware that Pius XII in 1950 clearly said the study of human evolution is OK. Now how in the world could he say this if the “creation/evolution debate” was settled by Lateran IV, Florence, Vatican I, or for that matter anything the Fathers might have written on science issues 1,500 years ago?

Read what you wrote. …the study of [NOT BELIEF IN] human evolution is OK.
The issue was settled in the sense that the meaning of creation was known long before the idea of evolution evolved. Once evolution was defined, it was clear that creation ex nihilo excluded abiogenesis and the completion of creation on Day 7 excluded evolution since then.

Do I have to quote yet again John Paul II and Benedict XVI on evolution?

What have these two said on evolution that is defined and binding?

Here’s a statement on evolution’s godless science that is Magisterial, written by both Pope and Saint in Iucunda Sane.9. We, strengthened by this faith, firmly established on this rock, realizing to the full all the heavy duties that the Primacy imposes on Us - but also all the vigor that comes to Us from the Divine Will - calmly wait until all the voices be scattered to the winds that now shout around Us proclaiming that the Church has gone beyond her time, that her doctrines are passed away for ever, that the day is at hand when she will be condemned either to accept the tenets of a godless science and civilization or to disappear from human society. Yet at the same time We cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal salvation, to follow the right road of reason, to feed on the truth, to obtain peace and even happiness in this life.

After Darwin’s Origin of Species appeared in 1859, the first significant Magisterial response was that of the German Catholic bishops, who, in their Provincial Council of Cologne only one year later, condemned the idea of natural human evolution in no uncertain terms:Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.

Some of the Fathers (at least two, perhaps more) were flat earthers.

Sacred Tradition requires unanimous belief by the Fathers; how is 2 unanimous? Fallacy here: sweeping generalization

Maybe the Church went into “apostasy” on her science in the 5th century AD, never mind the 16th century of Copernicanism, or the 19th century of Darwinism.

The Church has no science beliefs per se; only what is incidently related to her teaching. Fallacy here: ignoratio elenchi
Belloc says heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein. Both Copernicanism and Darwinism are heresies under this incisive definition applies, as we can all agree.

*If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. *
Saint Augustine

 

[Roben]

Here is the real “creation/evolution debate” in a nutshell (especially, paragraphs 62-70 which discuss creation, evolution, design, purpose and divine providence)

The International Theological Commission, 30 Catholic theologians from around the world, ADVISES the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on pressing theological issues. In general, the ITC reflections only take the form of study and research documents to support the CDF.
Some worry that by adopting the standards of the secular academy in science and arts, Catholic theology risks losing its identity. Cardinal Ratzinger himself once wondered if Christian theology had made a mistake by relocating from the monastery to the university (We also wonder, Holy Father ).
Among the questions the ITC decided to ponder is this: “To whom is theology accountable?” Why is this question with so obvious an answer even asked? Could it be the best external clue to the internal lack of direction and confusion within the ITC? This misdirection is evident in its recent report below.
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

INTRODUCTION1. The explosion of scientific understanding and technological capability in modern times has brought many advantages to the human race, but it also poses serious challenges. Our knowledge of the immensity and age of the universe has made human beings seem smaller and less secure in their position and significance within it. Technological advances have greatly increased our ability to control and direct the forces of nature, but they have also turned out to have an unexpected and possibly uncontrollable impact on our environment and even on ourselves.

Strange how a theological treatise dealing with human communion and stewardship should begin with a paean to the benefits of the modern king, Science. The risk in going astray from the very start is evident in the second sentence.

What knowledge of the immensity and age of the universe is the ITC talking about? None such is known, neither to an objective nor Biblical scientist. No scientific reference is given.
A deeper view of the ITC’s abuse and misuse of its role will be presented soon at Catholic Apologetics International: catholicintl.com/

…evolution itself is neutral with respect to religion

This definition which applies to evolution, << Any belief system that cannot be proven by empirical science & whose believers must therefore rely on faith alone.>>, is impartial & neutral toward all belief systems. This includes atheist religions [already defined by the courts as religions for tax matters & other purposes] – as Scientology, Hinduism, the Ethical Societies, Secular Humanism, etc.
Since evolution is a faith-based religion, it cannot logically (legally surely isn’t logically) be taught as science in the public schools; in fact it cannot logically be taught in any public classroom, under the Constitution as written. But the Constitution is whatever the present Supreme Court so legislates.
Of course creation ex nihilo is also religious – also unprovable by empirical science. Conclusion: were the laws of the land applied logically, both evolution and creation could only be taught in a course in modern comparative religions.

Sorry, no linkfest here. Go find the references yourself - research for the truth won’t kill you - ignoring it will.

*If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. *
Saint Augustine

 

[Roben]

… I do not see any difference between the supposed blind chance in evolution and the very obvious blind chance in procreation.
Why the objection to the chance involved in evolving and not to the chance involved in you being you?

The result of chance in evolution is the appearance of a new type of being, a species - an ill-defined biological term
The result of chance in human procreation is the appearance of a new individual human.
The latter is universally observed; the former, never. This is the objection, Steve.

All we can say is something like “God used evolution to create”,
are you proposing some other mechanisim(sic)?

Yes - it’s called creatio ex nihilo

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

A logician would say that exclusion of God violates reason, as finite complexity cannot be explained by finite simplicity.

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.

Theistic evolutionists must live each day and night trying to baptize evolution, an inherent contradiction. In the theistic evolutionary view, God is integrated into materialistic philosophy, not as omnipotent Lord of all things, but as an enabler of evolution. Theistic evolution is rejected by both sides of its attempted dualistic embrace; it conflicts with Theology, Revelation and the Magisterium, with Science itself, by bringing in the supernatural, and with Philosophy. Thevolution is not a problem for the unlettered and unpreached, for others, it is.

…“evolution violates the 2nd law” nonsense just drives me batty

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

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

Because otherwise we have a purpose, a teleology behind it all, and an intelligence that is greater than man is or can ever be.
Some people can’t handle that, Steve.

As Dr. House said recently: *Catholics are right - pride can kill you. *

*Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe. *
Saint Augustine

 

[Roben]

What’s comforting is that for every one Creationist there are at least five people who understand that real science could never contradict real religion.

1 to 5 is the same as the global ratio of Catholics to non-Catholics - the children of light to the children of darkness.
Real science - objectively based on the scientific method - excludes the pseudo-sciences of cosmic and biotic evolution.

 

[Roben]

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?

But He didn’t so choose. Rather he chose to create it all in six 24 hour days. The premise is contrary to fact.

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.

Then you are comfortable accepting a contradiction. Theistic evolutionists must live each day and night trying to baptize evolution, an inherent contradiction. In the theistic evolutionary view, God is integrated into materialistic philosophy, not as omnipotent Lord of all things, but as an enabler of evolution. Theistic evolution is rejected by both sides of its attempted dualistic embrace; it conflicts with Theology, Revelation and the Magisterium, with Science and with Philosophy. This is not a problem for the unlettered and unpreached -for any others, it is.

 

[steveandersen]

Roben:

But He didn’t so choose. Rather he chose to create it all in six 24 hour days.

Which of course raises the question of why He made it look exactly like is was billions of years old.

He could of course have made the world 30 seconds ago and made it look like it was billions of years old but I don’t feel comfortable with God as deceiver.

Roben:

The premise is contrary to fact.

While you are of course free to believe what you wish, you may want to consider carefully the use of the word “fact”.
While revelation can lead us to truth, science is pretty good at finding facts

A literalist interpretation is in contradiction to many observed things. I’m not sure how you can live with that particular contradiction but that is your business

Fortunately, Rome gives us the freedom of conscience to reconcile faith and reason

Roben:

…This is not a problem for the unlettered and unpreached -for any others, it is.

How about the unwashed and the unemployed

Seriously though, try as I might, I cannot understand your objection and I’m not quite sure what you mean by the unpreached and the unlettered.

 

[PhilVaz]

Roben << What knowledge of the immensity and age of the universe is the ITC talking about? None such is known, neither to an objective nor Biblical scientist. No scientific reference is given. A deeper view of the ITC’s abuse and misuse of its role will be presented soon at Catholic Apologetics International: catholicintl.com/ >>

Yeah a geocentrist site, now that’s a reliable bastion of science. And what the heck is a “biblical scientist” ? Science knows no such creature. Perhaps you mean a biblical theologian, or biblical exegete. That is OK. Do you mean “creation scientist” ? Then say so.

The International Theological Commission statement is mainstream science and mainstream Catholic theology, the president of that commission was Cardinal Ratzinger, who agreed also in his Commentary on Genesis that the universe/earth is billions of years old, and geology tells us “when” and biological evolution tells us “how we got here” while Genesis and Catholic doctrine tells us “who we are” (made in God’s image). There is no conflict with science.

We’ve known the earth is old well before Darwin.

Age of the Earth FAQs demolish Kolbe Center style creationism.

Sungenis answered here Part 1 on theology, here Part 2 on age of earth, and here Part 3 on evolution. Not dueling links or dueling data, since there’s nothing to duel. Mainstream science and mainstream Catholic theology got it pretty well wrapped up. Sorry.

I did receive a reply from Hugh Miller on some of the science above but it is lame. I might put it up though, no reply is really necessary.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Roben << Google Radiometric Dating Game for accuracy analysis >>

Definitely not accurate. Plaistead (who is a computer scientist) does not represent the science accurately. Search TalkOrigins, its all on there. Here I’ll do it for you.

Comments on Plaisted’s Radiometric Dating Game

Woodmorappe’s bad science

More Henke on Woody

Tim Thompson includes all the relevant papers responding to the poor creationist claims

Yep dueling links and dueling data, but we’re not really in a duel since creationists have no weapon. The battle was finished over 150 years ago by Christian creationist geologists..

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Roben << 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 ?? >>

Using common sense is not what creationists do. I’m sorry. Although an entertaining defender of the faith, Belloc was not a scientist and he wrote a century ago.

Here is just a little bit of what we have today:

Cambrian fossils between invertebrates and vertebrates: Pikaia, Yunnanozoon, Haikouella, Conodonts, Cathaymyrus, Myllokunmingia, Haikouichthys

Fish-to-Amphibian (tetrapod) intermediate fossils: Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Kenichthys, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Tulerpeton, etc

Dinosaur (Reptile)-to-Bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps: represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among others

Reptile-to-Mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia: Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops

We can stop there. Did God create these clear intermediate and transitional species from scratch? No, this is evidence for evolutionary change. I would recommend this PDF "Evolution and the Fossil Record" co-authored by the American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society.

We’ve covered this ground many times before since the discussion forums first started here.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Roben << As Kardinal Schoenborn said in First Things: Don’t argue evolution empirics when evolution makes no philosophical/logical/common sense. >>

One more for good measure.

Cardinal Schonborn on the Kolbe Center style of creationism:

"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.”

Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Catechetical Lecture for 11/13/2005

I don’t need to add anything else. Schonborn said it all. Kolbe Center style creationism is nonsense and provokes the scorn of unbelievers. So you can now stop.

Phil P

 

[zian]

Roben:

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

Suggest you take your own advice, brother. Go a few links down and have a read here. Be enlightened!

 

[Ahimsa]

zian:

Suggest you take your own advice, brother. Go a few links down and have a read here. Be enlightened!

You can’t just ‘be enlightened’. You’ve got to meditate first!

 

[zian]

You are right. Wisdom is good.

 

[rossum]

Roben:

The energy center of the BB remained the center of gravitational attraction after the expansion - Center of mass theorem.

You appear to have misunderstood the nature of the Big Bang. Every point in the universe was at the centre of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the universe and we are still inside it, it may be larger and cooler but it is still going on.

Roben:

By less certain you mean totally unknown.

No, I mean less certain. For a reasonably recent discussion see here.

Roben:

Proteins produced by genetic mutation are observed to cause effects that are either neutral, disabling or destructive to the entire organism.

You are wrong, for an example see Apolioprotein AI-Milano. Even Answers in Genesis think you are wrong, see Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. To quote them: “‘There are no beneficial mutations.’ This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations.” If AiG don’t agree then why do you expect to convince anyone else with this argument?

Roben:

All meteorites referenced were found within 300 feet of the surface.

Both irrelevant and false. The Kolbe Centre’s piece said “absence of meteorites from the geologic column”. I have shown the presence of meteorites. Kolbe said nothing about the depth of the meteorites so your point is irrelevant; the Kolbe Centre are wrong. Your point is also false, the Chicxulub impact crater is at a depth of about a kilometre. Your source was wrong and you should withdraw this point.

Roben:

Google <>

Thankyou for the reference. Berthault is refuted here. That makes the updated score Evolution 11, Kolbe 0.

Roben:

Final score: Genesis as written: Infinity Evolution: 666

Looking at Genesis as written, I see that there were humans [Gen 1:27] and cattle [Gen 1:24] on the earth during Creation Week; sheep [Gen 4:2] appeared soon after. There were also human habitations such as cities [Gen 4:17] within 130 years [Gen 5:3]. I would like to see evidence of any of these things from early rocks. Such evidence would be a powerful argument for Young Earth Creationism and against the theory of evolution.

So in order to provide evidence for Young Earth Creationism you should provide references for any fossil of a human, cow or sheep from, say, the Cretaceous or lower in the geological column. Alternatively evidence of human habitation, such as a city, from the Cretaceous or lower would be acceptable. It would not be easy for evolution to explain a Cambrian cow.

I am awaiting your evidence, until then the score remains Evolution 11, Creation 0.

rossum

 

[tomaskovarik]

steveandersen:

Well that kinda mixes up the details like lumping cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution together and I’d explain it differently but yes, you’re right there is no conflict

Very good

 

[rjs1]

I wonder if people viewing this thread and other threads about evolution, are noticing that nothing gets evolutionists as hostile as suggesting that their theory might have holes in it. I attempted to argue a few points on previous threads, here and at other Catholic websites, and I had to stop because the evolutionists got quite personal and very angry. Any book I quoted from was dismissed, any scientist I mentioned was said to be unreliable – the facts I quoted were NOT disproved, rather the book or person they came from was discounted. This is an interesting way of “winning” a debate – don’t argue the facts rather dismiss the author of the facts. I just wish we could examine the theory as carefully as we should.

If I were to start a discussion about Newton’s Laws of physics or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity I would get calm, interested debate. But … dare to raise objections to evolution and the result is always derogatory remarks and “put downs” that hint that your schooling ended at the third grade or your IQ is lower than a sea slug’s.

I get the strong impression that evolutionists regard their theory as a religious faith that must not be questioned and until that attitude changes I can see little point in any continuing debate.

 

[zian]

rjs1:

I wonder if people viewing this thread and other threads about evolution, are noticing that nothing gets evolutionists as hostile as suggesting that their theory might have holes in it. I attempted to argue a few points on previous threads, here and at other Catholic websites, and I had to stop because the evolutionists got quite personal and very angry. Any book I quoted from was dismissed, any scientist I mentioned was said to be unreliable – the facts I quoted were NOT disproved, rather the book or person they came from was discounted. This is an interesting way of “winning” a debate – don’t argue the facts rather dismiss the author of the facts. I just wish we could examine the theory as carefully as we should.

If I were to start a discussion about Newton’s Laws of physics or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity I would get calm, interested debate. But … dare to raise objections to evolution and the result is always derogatory remarks and “put downs” that hint that your schooling ended at the third grade or your IQ is lower than a sea slug’s.

I get the strong impression that evolutionists regard their theory as a religious faith that must not be questioned and until that attitude changes I can see little point in any continuing debate.

Hostile?
I’m sure there are some. I hardly think the examples are legion. I think you’d find a higher percentage of responses that were “frustration” more than “hostility”. This occurs especially when criticisms of evolution are levelled that even creationist web sites like Answers in Genesis have disavowed. When this happens again and again (and again … ), I think it’s easy to see where frustration can set in. I think a higher percentage still are direct discussion of the presented evidence and where the problem or misconception is.

Always derogatory remarks?
This is a patently false statement, to which I can place my own humble postings as evidence. Please show me where I have always made derogatory remarks and I will retract. If the data you present is wrong, if the conclusions you present are unsupported by the evidence, if the books you suggest are unreliable as scientific resources, I wouldn’t be able to respect myself in the morning if I did not make an effort to suggest to you that this was in fact the case. If I then supply you with links or lists of resources to which you can refer for further confirmation of this, then how is this a disservice to you?

Not arguing with facts???
How can this be when I can point to post after post after post where fact is heaped upon evidence is heaped upon bonafide scientific journal article, sources which are made available for you by link or citation so that you can do your own evalution. Sounds like a pretty rational approach to me.