Theistic Evolution?

[edwest2]

The University is bowing to political pressure. He has tenure? So what? ID, the nonpolitical version, is a valid scientific approach. Just because the University is afraid of associating with him or his ideas does a disservice to the idea of free inquiry in a University setting. It amounts to censorship.

Peace,
Ed

 

[emotel]

Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig and Heinz-Albert Becker’s Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences article on carnivorous plants provides a number of insights on evolution and why I found it hard to imagine that someone could say that “evolutionary theory has no weaknesses”.

Anyone who says that is cleary quite wrong. All scientific theories have strengths and weaknesses. Darwin included a chapter on what he saw as the weak-points in his theory. He was most concerned about Lord Kelvin’s Thermodynamic model of the Sun. This predicted that the sun could not be as old as it needed to be for evolution to be viable. They didn’t know about Nuclear Fusion.

This is the Philosophy section so I suggest that we look at the philosophy of this kind of issue:

This is a remarkable admission. The answer might lie outside of the present scientific paradigms. Evolutionary theory has no answer for it and may never have one.

I love analogy so here’s one:

In Ardmore on the south coast of Ireland there is a beach on which can be found a large rock known as St Declan’s Stone that is geologically very different from the surrounding terrain. It contain a small and difficult to access depression that fills with rainwater until the tide returns to wash this away. Local tradition has it that this rock has mystical powers and will confer benefit to those who pray there and drink the rainwater on “Pattern Day” 24th July. The legend has it that the stone was carried there miraculously on the waves from Wales.

Two other theories offer alternative explanations:

1. Local tradespeople put it there as a “tourist attraction” and made up the story.
2. The stone was carried from Wales by Glacial action over millions of years.

Science doesn’t do miracles so the wave theory is not credible but the other two are entirely possible.

Would we, as philosophers, say that the theory of Glacial action can “explain the position of the rock”?

The answer to that question depends on what we mean by “explain”. The theory clearly provides a possible means by which the rock could have been transported by glacial action but the exact path that it followed is lost forever in the depths of geological time.

It is also obvious that it cannot be proved that the rock didn’t have various amount of help from humans along the way.

Clearly, the theory cannot provide a detailed account of the route from Wales but that doesn’t mean that its failure to do so results in a crisis in that theory or any need to invoke a mystical explanation.

So it is with evolution. The detailed “trajectory” followed by insectivorous plants as they evolved over millions of years is, like the trajectory of the rock, lost in the mists of time.

As the above, “it is hard to even imagine” an evolutionary path through gradual changes since each part of the carnivorous plant is necessary for the whole function and one part would not have a reason to exist without the purpose for which it was intended in the end (to capture insects).

I don’t find that difficulat at all and what you say there is the usual ID arguments about irriducible complexity (IC).

I had a conversation with Michael Behe about that and it was most revealing. He insisted on a phrase in his definition of IC. The Phrase is “which continues to work by the same mechanism”.

See Page 39 of “Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael Behe.

You can view it here. Just type 39 into the text box and select the Page 39 option.

amazon.com/gp/reader/0743290313/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

Without Behe’s constraint it is easy to imagine a scenario. Even I can do that:

A plant species lives in a low nutrient environment where the supply of Nitrogen is limited. This causes a sticky secretion to accumulate on its leaves . Very small insects get stuck to that and they die there. The Nitrogen in the fly seeps slowly into the plant and it derives survival benefit from that.

Evolution is by no means limited to variation caused by “single point mutations” to it’s DNA. Other mechanisms are now known to be highly significant. The variation caused by these mechanism lead to improvements in attracting , retaining and absorbing nutrients from insects. So larger insects get trapped and other nutrients begin to be absorbed.

The sticky secretion, and (many other components of the fully evolved arrangement) was adapted for a new function. It did not “continue to work by the same mechanism” as Behe insists. The new function was adapted from a pre-existing mechanism that intially served another purpose.

Here’s another example of the questionable ideas found in Darwinist theory. Here we have “evolutionary convergence”. The pitcher-type plant, which to develop once in the history of the universe is absurdly improbable, and which currently cannot be explained by evolution, is claimed here to have evolved separately seven separate times.

Once you understand that Natural Selection is ***NOT ***a “Random Process” but a ***DIRECTED ***one, the absurd probabilities don’t arise.

The fitness landscape for a wide range of bog-dwelling plants is much the same. They all need Nitrogen and they all have secretions and leaves. The insects and their behaviour are common to all plants so it is no surprise to an evolutionist that many different species have been directed by Natural Selection to that top of the same local peak in the fitness landscape.

All birds have wings, an aerodynamic shape and a high power/weight ratio. That’s convergent evolution caused by natural selection directing the evolution of birds towards the same local peak in the fitness landscape of large organisms that survive by being able to fly.

The error and misinformation about this that is promoted by the ID community is really quite disgraceful. They bear false witness against evolutionary theory and against their scientific neighbours.

Emotel.

 

[reggieM]

The fitness landscape for a wide range of bog-dwelling plants is much the same. They all need Nitrogen and they all have secretions and leaves. The insects and their behaviour are common to all plants so it is no surprise to an evolutionist that many different species have been directed by Natural Selection to that top of the same local peak in the fitness landscape.

And for those species which have not been “directed” by Natural Selection, then that is not accidental but “Natural Selection’s choice” of some plants versus others?

I find this a convenient way to dismiss the role of probability and chance in the evolutionary process. As I see it, it’s a necessary “development” in evolutionary theory because when one calculates the chances that these accidental developments could occur (mutations occur randomly) the term “absurdly improbable” is certainly appropriate.

Therefore, we have the claim that evolution does not rely on accidental or random elements (aside from the fact that the environment itself that supposedly causes the changes has random factors).

So, I don’t think it’s misinformation from the ID side, but rather deceptions from the Darwinist side of things. Beyond that, there are scientists who disagree about the level of randomness found in evolution – this is far from a settled proposition.

The phrase “it is no suprise to an evolutionist” is one that I find fitting to an enormous range of difficulties, contradictions and inexplicable discoveries. This matter of the carnivorous plants is a perfect example of the same.

Inexplicably, plants evolved to be able to eat insects. But it’s claimed that there is “no surprise” that this happened at least 7 separate times.

For me it’s enough to note that the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences hints that this one example could cause Darwin’s theory to “absolutely break down”.

This is one of many such weaknesses in the theory that I’ve found and there are many more beyond this. Again, some scientists have drawn conclusions on this basis. So, I’d say at the very least that the heavy-handed approach taken by evolutionists to kill off questions and doubts about Darwinian theory appear to be a cover-up of the real weaknesses that even a scientific layman like myself can discover.

For myself, I’d certainly be frightened to place my trust in this theory as a replacement for the Catholic Faith.

 

[emotel]

And for those species which have not been “directed” by Natural Selection, then that is not accidental but “Natural Selection’s choice” of some plants versus others?

The evolution of all organisms has been directed by Natural Selection. They are far to complex to have arisen by “chance”. I prefer to avoid the word “accident” because that has implications of deviation from an intended scheme of things. NS has no such scheme in mind because it doesn’t have a mind.

Selection operates mainly at the level of the “gene” and not at the level of the species.

I find this a convenient way to dismiss the role of probability and chance in the evolutionary process.

No, probability and chance are not eliminated from the theory. Mutations occur “at random” relative to the benefit they deliver to the evolution of the breeding population. However, they are selectively retained with a non-random bias - good one’s are kept and bad ones are discarded. It is therefore wrong to describe evolution as a completely random process.

As I see it, it’s a necessary “development” in evolutionary theory because when one calculates the chances that these accidental developments could occur (mutations occur randomly) the term “absurdly improbable” is certainly appropriate.

I wouldn’t call it a Development". Darwin identified it published it in 1859. Consequently Fred Hoyle’s monumental misconception that he immortalised with his graphic “Whirlwind in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747” analogy is a gross misrepresentation of what Darwin said over 100 years earlier.

Therefore, we have the claim that evolution does not rely on accidental or random elements (aside from the fact that the environment itself that supposedly causes the changes has random factors).

No, there is no such claim. The claim is that the randomly occuring mutations are selectively preserved by a natural process. That’s why it’s called Natural Selection.

So, I don’t think it’s misinformation from the ID side, but rather deceptions from the Darwinist side of things.

Deceptions? What deceptions? Professional science is a very high integrity process. Others may misrepresent it but the scientific method acts to remove deceptions and it does that very well.

Beyond that, there are scientists who disagree about the level of randomness found in evolution – this is far from a settled proposition.

I agree but none would describe the process as “Entirely random”. The calculations published by Fred Hoyle and the IDers are very simple and very wrong. They just raise 20 ( the number of amio acid residues ) to the power of n where n is length of the gene. That calculation models “Single selection of equally likely options” . Evolution proceeds via the cumulative and non-random selection of random mutations. Not the same thing at all.

The phrase “it is no suprise to an evolutionist” is one that I find fitting to an enormous range of difficulties, contradictions and inexplicable discoveries. This matter of the carnivorous plants is a perfect example of the same.

I’m impressed that you seem to know a lot more about evolution that I assumed when we first started talking about it. However, I can see evidence that the ID misconceptions and misinformation are affecting your considerations. Tell me about some of these “Difficulties” and let’s see if we can resolve some of them.

Inexplicably, plants evolved to be able to eat insects. But it’s claimed that there is “no surprise” that this happened at least 7 separate times.

The simple fact that it happend once demonstrates that there is an evolutionary pathway up to the local peak in the fitness landscape. Given that, it is no surprise that other species found other routes to the top.

For me it’s enough to note that the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences hints that this one example could cause Darwin’s theory to “absolutely break down”.

I must go and look at that.

This is one of many such weaknesses in the theory that I’ve found and there are many more beyond this. Again, some scientists have drawn conclusions on this basis. So, I’d say at the very least that the heavy-handed approach taken by evolutionists to kill off questions and doubts about Darwinian theory appear to be a cover-up of the real weaknesses that even a scientific layman like myself can discover.

Evolutionary theory has been taking a relentless hammering from the scientific community for 150 years but it continues to go from strength to strength. That’s how the scientific method works. Tell me about some of these show stopping difficulties you see?

For myself, I’d certainly be frightened to place my trust in this theory as a replacement for the Catholic Faith.

Science goes where the evidence leads. I’m rather concerned about Bird-Flu and the fact that disease organisms are evolving immunity to our antibiotics. Those who would have evolutionary theory discredited and suppressed are therefore playing a very dangerous game with the future health of the worlds population.

Emotel.

 

[edwest2]

Sadly, the narrow focus on evolution/science going from, as you put it, strength to strength, leads to a form of tunnel vision. Scientists have discovered bacteria in dirt in Canada that were resistant to modern synthetic antibiotics.

This existing resistance has been documented.

Evolution does not and cannot explain elaborate morphological changes that are not limited to a little modification here or there. In living things, adding an organ for sight means adding a nervous system connection to the brain which, in turn, means having a brain that can correctly interpret the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. Nature or evolution has no intelligence; it is incapable of preplanning or knowing that Part A needs to be connected to Part B to realize its function.

You are telling other human beings that we do not exist as individual beings but are simply a conglomerate grouping of chemicals that have no actual existence. The difference between a human being and a rock is that we are mobile and can reproduce. The rock, in turn, according to you, is just a few billion years from “naturally” becoming a life form. This is Nihilism. And this exchange, in that sense, is meaningless. Just something to pass the time.

God bless,
Ed

 

[emotel]

Sadly, the narrow focus on evolution/science going from, as you put it, strength to strength, leads to a form of tunnel vision. Scientists have discovered bacteria in dirt in Canada that were resistant to modern synthetic antibiotics.

This existing resistance has been documented.

You never responded to my explanation of how our immune system works. Do you still claim that, when we are born, our DNA contains information about all possible disease organisms?

Evolution does not and cannot explain elaborate morphological changes that are not limited to a little modification here or there.

Yes it does and yes it can. Even I can do that and identfy mountains of evidence for it.

In living things, adding an organ for sight means adding a nervous system connection to the brain which, in turn, means having a brain that can correctly interpret the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

No that isn’t so. Primative organisms exist that have simple light sensitive cells connected directly to muscles. No eyes, no brain but the begginings of an architecure from which those things can evolve.

Nature or evolution has no intelligence; it is incapable of preplanning or knowing that Part A needs to be connected to Part B to realize its function.

Evolutionary theory explains very well why intelligence, planning and conscious intent are not necessary for that.

You are telling other human beings that we do not exist as individual beings but are simply a conglomerate grouping of chemicals that have no actual existence.

I merely report what evolutionary says and, clearly, the chemical do actually exist.

The difference between a human being and a rock is that we are mobile and can reproduce. The rock, in turn, according to you, is just a few billion years from “naturally” becoming a life form.

You exhibit another misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. Molecular complexes like tRNA are mobile and can reproduce.

This is Nihilism. And this exchange, in that sense, is meaningless. Just something to pass the time.

I’m pleased that it is at least of some utility for you.

Emotel.

 

[edwest2]

You are ignoring the fact that life cannot come from nonlife. Oh it’s been tried, but regardless of all the information at their disposal, scientists cannot do it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[emotel]

You are ignoring the fact that life cannot come from nonlife.

I know you believe that to be true but it isn’t. Do you know of some physical mechanism that prevents life from coming from non-life in a manner similar to that which I described in post #190?

Oh it’s been tried, but regardless of all the information at their disposal, scientists cannot do it.

You surely can’t be arguing that only the things that scientists can do are possible? They can’t make something the size of the moon and put it into orbit around the Earth. The ISS is rather puny in comparison but that doesn’t mean that the moon is impossible.

Emotel

 

[Camron]

You are ignoring the fact that life cannot come from nonlife. Oh it’s been tried, but regardless of all the information at their disposal, scientists cannot do it.

Peace,
Ed

Actually, I could be wrong, but I think that primitive life (as in eventually leading to an animal’s soul) can apparently come from non-life, as God Himself did this, most likely initially via abiogenesis.

And even if one believes that all life was created from the dirt of the earth, this still implies life from non-life, even if it is guided by God.

Now whether the eternal soul (the soul of humanity) can be formed by non-life-- that’s a different story. This cannot happen by purely physical means and we have no scientific evidence of that it can happen either. Then again, the scientific community tends to reject the concept of a soul anyway, so most aren’t even bothered with looking for it.

 

[emotel]

Then again, the scientific community tends to reject the concept of a soul anyway, so most aren’t even bothered with looking for it.

The Catholic concep of what constitures the soul seems to have changed.

St Augustine thought that human memory was a “faculty of the soul” but these days we know about information storage in machines.

Emotel.

 

[Camron]

The Catholic concep of what constitures the soul seems to have changed.

St Augustine thought that human memory was a “faculty of the soul” but these days we know about information storage in machines.

Emotel.

*If *that’s true, I would rather go with Aquinas on this one.

 

[edwest2]

Actually, I could be wrong, but I think that primitive life (as in eventually leading to an animal’s soul) can apparently come from non-life, as God Himself did this, most likely initially via abiogenesis.

And even if one believes that all life was created from the dirt of the earth, this still implies life from non-life, even if it is guided by God.

Now whether the eternal soul (the soul of humanity) can be formed by non-life-- that’s a different story. This cannot happen by purely physical means and we have no scientific evidence of that it can happen either. Then again, the scientific community tends to reject the concept of a soul anyway, so most aren’t even bothered with looking for it.

What is your point? The scientific community generally consists of atheists and agnostics, which is their choice. The whole discussion here is about how science is a better way of knowing than religion. The primary poster, emotel, has been unable to accept divine revelation which Catholics accept as valid knowledge which is necessary and complementary to scientific knowledge. My contention is that scientific knowledge is incomplete and therefore, likely to lead people to the wrong conclusions regarding who they are and the basis for the dignity of the human person.

peace,
Ed

 

[Camron]

What is your point? The scientific community generally consists of atheists and agnostics, which is their choice. The whole discussion here is about how science is a better way of knowing than religion. The primary poster, emotel, has been unable to accept divine revelation which Catholics accept as valid knowledge which is necessary and complementary to scientific knowledge. My contention is that scientific knowledge is incomplete and therefore, likely to lead people to the wrong conclusions regarding who they are and the basis for the dignity of the human person.

peace,
Ed

My point is that we need to be careful before one claims that it’s impossible for life to come from non-life. Sure, the Miller experiment is indeed flawed. But further modification of the experiment somehow incorporating experiments like this with a solution that is more like the Earth’s early atmospheric composition may indeed produce life forms that are truly considered alive.

These physicists at Cuza University in Romania have created blobs of gaseous plasma that can grow, replicate and communicate - fulfilling most of the traditional requirements for biological cells. Without inherited material they cannot be described as alive, but the researchers believe these curious spheres may offer a radical new explanation for how life began.

If indeed something like this were to naturally occur within the proper solution, life could be formed within the framework of the plasma blobs, appearing as if designed, therefore creating life-forms that are truly capable of reproducing other life-forms which have inherited material from their ‘parent’ so to speak. Faraday may have even glimpsed this when he suggested that matter might be “thrown” into the electrotonic state.

Either way, if we claim that it is revelation that life absolutely cannot come from non-life, and if indeed life is inevitably produced from non-living material, this would undermine the claims of revelation.

Don’t get me wrong: It may indeed be impossible. But this has not been revealed to us as a certain fact within the deposit of the Catholic faith-- so we also need to be careful what we claim lest it lead others astray too.

 

[edwest2]

“lead others astray”? The only exactness I see here is toward science, not God. People seem to forget Jesus raised the dead, turned water into wine and healed the blind, among others.

If this is denied, then almost any story can be created. The global media is making it their business to deny the Bible on a regular basis. I suggest any Catholics reading this stop staring at science for a moment and remember that we worship the living God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Camron]

“lead others astray”? The only exactness I see here is toward science, not God.

Then you’re being too selective in the threads that you’re reading. I’ve read many other threads here at Catholic Answers devoted to the exact nature of many Catholic thoughts dealing with God, not just science. This thread which we’re currently involved in is specifically dedicated to theistic evolution and discussing the necessary philosophies (and sciences) involved.

People seem to forget Jesus raised the dead, turned water into wine and healed the blind, among others.

Well I haven’t. And many other Catholics here have not forgotten this either. I’m not sure what your point is with this.

If this is denied, then almost any story can be created. The global media is making it their business to deny the Bible on a regular basis. I suggest any Catholics reading this stop staring at science for a moment and remember that we worship the living God.

God bless,
Ed

What does this have to do with theistic evolution?

I appreciate your concerns with the media but I don’t see how what you just said applies to theistic evolution, something which at least two popes have said is justifiable (if those who seek to believe this are comfortable with it-- theistic evolution is not a required dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church).

 

[edwest2]

The Catholic concep of what constitures the soul seems to have changed.

St Augustine thought that human memory was a “faculty of the soul” but these days we know about information storage in machines.

Emotel.

No computer can program itself.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Then you’re being too selective in the threads that you’re reading. I’ve read many other threads here at Catholic Answers devoted to the exact nature of many Catholic thoughts dealing with God, not just science. This thread which we’re currently involved in is specifically dedicated to theistic evolution and discussing the necessary philosophies (and sciences) involved.

Well I haven’t. And many other Catholics here have not forgotten this either. I’m not sure what your point is with this.

What does this have to do with theistic evolution?

I appreciate your concerns with the media but I don’t see how what you just said applies to theistic evolution, something which at least two popes have said is justifiable (if those who seek to believe this are comfortable with it-- theistic evolution is not a required dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church).

Theistic evolution is the only acceptable teaching. See Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Camron]

Theistic evolution is the only acceptable teaching. See Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69.

God bless,
Ed

That’s what I’m talking about: Theistic Evolution.

When did I suggest atheistic evolution?

I honestly don’t know exactly what you’re getting at. Could you please be more clear in exactly what you object to?

Note: Are you talking about my reference to abiogenesis?

Even still, even if this was the method that life emerged, God is still in control-- and He would still breath a soul into the first humans (Adam and Eve) too.

So, again, I’m not sure what you are talkng about. I am already aware that human persons have been created in the Image of God and I’ve never denied this either.

 

[emotel]

No computer can program itself.

You have made that pronouncement before Ed.

My response remains the same.

Galileo taught us that we should not let Dogma blind us to the reality of objective and re-producible science.

1. Our immune system can and does “program itself”. If it didn’t vaccination would not work.
2. Not only can computers program themselves, I have one that can and I can watch it programming itself.

Emotel.

 

[reggieM]

People seem to forget Jesus raised the dead, turned water into wine and healed the blind, among others.

True. In raising the dead, Jesus proved that evolution is not responsible for all of life on earth. This refutes Darwinian theory. I don’t know how Catholics can give such unqualified support for evolution, myself.

If this is denied, then almost any story can be created.

That is certainly true. One example is the multiverse theory – the belief that there are as many universes as possible and from them, ours therefore had to exist. The same people who propose this notion also claim that a belief in God is a “fantasy”.

I suggest any Catholics reading this stop staring at science for a moment and remember that we worship the living God.

I would agree. It’s a serious problem to ignore God and to know very little about Him. Many Catholics absorb materialist philosophy simply because they spend so much time reading it and absorbing its errors.