What is the Church's teaching on evolution?

[wanerious]

Chris W:

Answered in previous post.

Thanks. Yes, everything you said there was true. No theory is without the possibility of error. In fact, it is wrong for people to use the word “fact” or “proof” when dealing with scientific theories, since science is not in the business of proving things. Theories only ascribe probabilities of likelihood to statements about the natural world. The statement, “the Earth is 6000 years old” is thought to be very unlikely in the light of multiple and independent lines of evidence showing the opposite. The statement “The Earth is 4.5 billion years old” is, in scientific circles, much more likely to be true, since it is supported by these cases of evidence and, importantly, not contradicted by any. Statements like, “organisms are genetically different from their parents” is very likely to be true, and is demonstrably so. This may be as close to a fact as we get in evolutionary circles, since the precision of the observing devices is high. When we combine statements together, such as the concept of genetically different offspring together with an ancient Earth (and also an understanding of climatic changes), we formulate a theory that attempts to explain the fossils of creatures that lived long ago and how organisms have changed over time.

I understand and appreciate the structure and logic of your argument. Here is what I gather of your position:

If Christianity has primacy, and your understanding of it is without error, then if there is a conflict between Christianity and science, the science must be in error.

This is logically true, but the implicit assumption is that your understanding of both Christianity and science is inerrant. From your above posts, there is some inaccuracy and error in your understanding of scientific theories. I would hazard a guess that your understanding of the Christian faith is also incomplete, but possibly to a lesser degree. Were your knowledge more complete, is it not possible that any conflicts are only the product of error?

The Papacy defines and clarifies what is and what is not God’s revealed Truth. Therefore anything that contradicts the Catholic Church’s official teachings cannot be true. Therefore, anything I say that condradicts Catholic teaching cannot be true (see how consistent I am ).

Yes. I still assert that this is what you are doing.

Please do not quote the Pope and try to convince me the Chruch approves of Evolution. This has been tried more times than I can count. The only way one could arrive at that conclusion is to twist or modify what the Church leaders have said. The Church has merely said that it does not condemn the study into the theory of evolution, and that evolution is more than just a hypothesis. Granted, some leaders within the Church may personally approve of the theory, but the Church (officially) does not. This is a long way from saying evolution is approved by the Church.

So if you intend to pose those tired old arguments, I will not be responding to them in this thread.

No, the Church, and JPII in particular, has said much more than that. Perhaps you can post what the Church leaders have said, so there would be no opportunity for twisting. My understanding is that his statement was somewhat stronger that what you have above, and important in the following respect: were there a clear contradiction of Christian philosophy, the Church would not advocate that one may trust evolutionary theory and be a good Catholic. That would not be possible for just the reasons you outlined earlier. I perceive that you and the Church disagree about the conflict between evolution and Christian philosophy.

 

[Chris_W]

Thank you for the polite reply, wanerious. I agree with much of your reply.

wanerious:

When we combine statements together… we formulate a theory that attempts to explain the fossils of creatures that lived long ago and how organisms have changed over time.

I agree. And when evolution is presented as you have presented it, I think it will find MUCH less resistence from peoply like myself. In fact, if it were generally presented as you just have, I probably would not be in this thread.

wanerious:

I understand and appreciate the structure and logic of your argument. Here is what I gather of your position:

If Christianity has primacy, and your understanding of it is without error, then if there is a conflict between Christianity and science, the science must be in error.

Precisely. Thank you for understanding what I said.

wanerious:

This is logically true, but the implicit assumption is that your understanding of both Christianity and science is inerrant.

We depart a bit here, I think. I freely admit that I am no scientist. I am also far from a Catholic theologian. I have learned from both scientists and other Catholics through these forums. However, with what I know of Catholicism and what I know of the science, I see a real conflict between Catholicism and Evolution that has yet to be explained by others perhaps more knowlegable than myself, including proponents of evolution in this very thread.

wanerious:

No, the Church, and JPII in particular, has said much more than that…I perceive that you and the Church disagree about the conflict between evolution and Christian philosophy.

I can respect your perception of what the Church has said regarding evolution. We disagree, and we have probably both seen the same texts posted over and over again, so I am reluctant to rehash it here. However, perhaps I could present another way of looking at what has or has not been said officially by the Church:

Do you think it is reasonable to conclude, given the amount of fierce debate that has continued regarding evolution for many years now, that the Church would discuss evolution, obviously (I don’t think anyone would deny) leaving the door open to the possibility of evolution, or at least parts of evolutionary theory, with the intention of proclaiming to the world that the Catholic Church sees no theological conflict between evolution and Catholicism, without even the slightest attempt to explain or resolve the apparent contradictions that have been so disturbing to so many Catholics? I don’t think so.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that the intent of the Church in saying what She has thus far, was to end the debate over whether or not Catholics can in good consience study and pursue scientific experiements, devise theories, etc on the topic of evolution. We have permission, in essense, to continue to look into the possibilities.

I just don’t think its reasonable to conclude that the Pope meant to end the dabate, thus approving the theory of evolution (as is inferred by evolutionists) meanwhile avoiding discussing the theological consequences of that decision which distress so many Catholics. It would be rather uncharacteristic, coming from a Church that has a history of explaining things in great detail as new doctrines or beliefs are accepted.

I think this is evolutionists wishing the Church made such a pronouncement, since they themselves cannot reconcile the contradictions. But that’s just my opinion.

 

[Matt16_18]

PhilVaz:

Then I take it you don’t buy Glenn Morton’s argument that God indeed created the “death codes” in the cell.

What I don’t buy is that death was active the universe before the Fall. God warned Adam that if he was disobedient, that he would surely die (Gen. 2:17). God is omniscient, and God knew ahead of time what would happen to Adam if he were to lose his holy innocence. When Adam did sin and lose his holy innocence, Adam came to know what the evil of death and decay really meant. Adam, who once knew only the good, acquired the knowledge of good and evil through sin. When we receive our glorified bodies, we will once again regain holy innocence, but it will be a holy innocence that is superior to the holy innocence of original justice.

Glen Morton gives us an example of how death is active in the fallen universe. I have no problem with that, for who can seriously deny that our universe is under the dominion of death? Where Glen Morton’s theology gets screwy, is when he sees death in the world as a good, as something that God intended for the world. God cannot have the intention that Adam should commit sin, because it can never be God’s perfect will that angels and men should be disobedient to his perfect will. God’s will cannot be in conflict with itself.

I think it’s inescapable that if the Garden of Eden or “Paradise” was somewhere on this earth, and the earth is indeed 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old as geology tells us, then there was death before the Fall since literally billions of creatures lived and died before mankind showed up (or were created).

I suppose that explains why you need to come up with a creative explanation that sees death as good. But I think that in pursuing that goal, you will ultimately be forced to abandon the Catholic concept of God.

However, there is that explicit verse in Wisdom 1 that says: “God did not make death…” So your point stands.

This is one of many scriptures that you must confront in the way that you are trying to reconcile a belief in evolution with Catholic doctrine. It is not that I am unfamiliar with the path that you are trying to take to take. About fifteen years ago I was on the same path, but I eventually came to understand that this path leads to a dead end.

God is not the author of death. God is light, in him there is NO darkness. Death is the enemy of God that was conquered by the Cross. This must be the starting point in all attempts to understand evolution.

 

[Matt16_18]

PhilVaz:

If however as you believe, Paradise was somewhere else like in another or “parallel” universe not tainted by death, and Adam/Eve were created there, and the Fall occured there, then okay that might work with the “no death before the Fall” concept. At least no death in that parallel universe before the Fall.

You are not quite grasping what I am saying about Paradise and its relationship to the Fallen world. But that is my fault, because I don’t really have the language to describe what I am trying to say. To further explain, let me try and make an analogy with Paradise and the Fallen world, and the mystic phenomena of bilocation.

Sister Marie de Jesus Agreda is probably the best-documented case of the mystical phenomena of bilocation. When the Blessed Mary of Agreda bilocated, she was physically present to the indigenous people living in the lower Mississipi, while at the same time she was physically present in Agreda Spain. She was physically present in two places at the same time! (This website is New Agey, but it quotes a more othodox source in giving details about The Blessed Mary of Agreda: The Blue Nun)

Here is my analogy, inadequate as it is. Think of the Fallen universe and universe that contains Paradise as being a case of large-scale bilocation. In a way that I cannot really because it is a holy mystery, the corrupted universe and the uncorrupted universe exist at the same time, and are mystically in communion with each other. In a sense, the Fallen world and Paradise are one entity, just as Mary of Agreda was one person that could be in two places at the same time.

This quote of Father Schmöger from the writings of St. Hildegarde helped me form my conceptualization of the “parallel universes” of the Fallen world and Paradise:The Fathers tell us that paradise still exists in all its first beauty…. The terrestrial paradise was not created for pure spirits, but for man composed of soul and body; consequently, it is provided with whatever is requisite not only for his sustenance but also for his safeguard against sickness and death, by virtue of the state of original justice in which he was first created. The creatures of this magnificent abode, its animals and plants, belong to a higher order, as much elevated above those of earth as the body of Adam before his sin was superior to his fallen posterity. And as the body of Adam was a real body of flesh and blood, not pure spirit, so, too, paradise is not a celestial or purely spiritual region, but a material place connected with human nature and earth itself. … St. Hildegarde says on this subject in her Scivias, Lib. I., visio II. :

“When Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise, a wall of light was raised around it, and the Divine Power effaced from it all marks of their sin. It was fortified, as it were, by this great light so that no enemy could reach it; but by this God also testified that the transgression which had taken place in paradise should in time be effaced by His mercy. Paradise still exists, a region of joy, blooming in all its pristine loveliness, and imparting abundant fruitfulness to the sterile earth. As the soul communicates life and strength to the body it inhabits, so the earth receives from paradise her supreme vitality; the darkness and corruption of sin, which shroud this miserable world cannot entirely check its influence.”

Carl E. Schmöger, C.SS.R., The Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Volume 1, pp. 155-156, TAN Books and Publishers, INC., Rockford, Illinois​

 

[Matt16_18]

PhilVaz

What I am saying about “parallel universes” is (in my mind) connected what we believe about the Eucharist. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ, i.e. God present among us in body, blood, soul and divinity. At any time of day, there are thousand upon thousands of consecrated hosts in thousands of places throughout the world, and Christ is there in his real presence in every consecrated host. Now that is a mystery that boggles the mind! :bowdown2: **Catechism of the Catholic Church

655** … Christ’s Resurrection - and the risen Christ himself is the principle and source of our future resurrection: “Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. . . For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” The risen Christ lives in the hearts of his faithful while they await that fulfillment . In Christ, Christians “have tasted. . . the powers of the age to come” and their lives are swept up by Christ into the heart of divine life, so that they may “live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”

1003 United with Christ by Baptism, believers already truly participate in the heavenly life of the risen Christ, but this life remains “hidden with Christ in God.” The Father has already “raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” Nourished with his body in the Eucharist, we already belong to the Body of Christ. When we rise on the last day we “also will appear with him in glory.”

 

[marciadietrich]

Matt16_18:

I asked my prayer group tonight if anyone thought that there was death and decay in the plant and animal kingdom before the Fall, and specifically, if they thought that animals were killing other animals in paradise. …
No one in my prayer group thought that death and decay could be in paradise, for exactly the same reasons that I have been saying, namely, that if death was already in creation before the Fall, then that means that God is the author of death.

Hi Matt,

I expect your prayer group consists of like-minded people.

Two possibilities on death pre-fall views:

1. that the garden was the only paradise area, sort of a special creation and set aside away from the outside forces and Adam’s sin brought that influence to the set-aside creation. …

• possibly the outside world was already effected by Satan - CCC 2852 says sin and death entered world thru Satan - though probably means via causing Adam and Eve’s sin as references scripture Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9.

1. that paradise was figurative terminology for an innocent state of the first human’s viewpoint before they became aware of sin and death and their mortality.

I agree the theology lines up best with no death at all pre-fall, that the Catechism does state God is not the author of death but rather Satan is the one who brought sin and death to the world … but it is certainly contrary to what scientists would say happened to say there was no sin and death until humans were on the scene.

Marcia

 

[kellyb32]

marciadietrich:

Hi Matt,

I expect your prayer group consists of like-minded people.

Two possibilities on death pre-fall views:

1. that the garden was the only paradise area, sort of a special creation and set aside away from the outside forces and Adam’s sin brought that influence to the set-aside creation. …

• possibly the outside world was already effected by Satan - CCC 2852 says sin and death entered world thru Satan - though probably means via causing Adam and Eve’s sin as references scripture Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9.

1. that paradise was figurative terminology for an innocent state of the first human’s viewpoint before they became aware of sin and death and their mortality.

I agree the theology lines up best with no death at all pre-fall, that the Catechism does state God is not the author of death but rather Satan is the one who brought sin and death to the world … but it is certainly contrary to what scientists would say happened to say there was no sin and death until humans were on the scene.

Marcia

What about what Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things. (Douay-Rheims translation)

Read the context of the verse:

5 I am the Lord, and there is none else: there is no God besides me: I girded thee, and thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know who are from the rising of the sun, and they who are from the west, that there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is none else: 7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things. 8 Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just: let the earth be opened, and bud forth a saviour: and let justice spring up together: I the Lord have created him. 9 Woe to him that gainsayeth his maker, a sherd of the earthen pots: shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it: What art thou making, and thy work is without hands? 10 Woe to him that saith to his father: Why begettest thou? and to the woman: Why dost thou bring forth?

This is a verse that has stumped me for a while.

Does it mean that God created Satan when God knew Satan was going to choose to be evil and in turn bring evil into the world? Or am I just oversimplifying this? Or am I missing a key piece that ties everything together?

 

[marciadietrich]

kellyb32:

What about what Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things. (Douay-Rheims translation)

Read the context of the verse:

5 I am the Lord, and there is none else: there is no God besides me: I girded thee, and thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know who are from the rising of the sun, and they who are from the west, that there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is none else: 7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things. 8 Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just: let the earth be opened, and bud forth a saviour: and let justice spring up together: I the Lord have created him. 9 Woe to him that gainsayeth his maker, a sherd of the earthen pots: shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it: What art thou making, and thy work is without hands? 10 Woe to him that saith to his father: Why begettest thou? and to the woman: Why dost thou bring forth?

This is a verse that has stumped me for a while.

Does it mean that God created Satan when God knew Satan was going to choose to be evil and in turn bring evil into the world? Or am I just oversimplifying this? Or am I missing a key piece that ties everything together?

Hi Kelly

Satan was created perfect, good and had free will. Then Satan turned on God and was the start and source of evil, so it is indirect in that a creation of God is the source of evil and God forsaw it knowing it would happen. So think that last statement is correct.

Then looking at the quote from Isaiah the NAB translates “I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe;” The NAB footnote says that “God permits evil for the sake of a greater good.”

In context looks like this is talking about punishment for the sake of justice -start of chpt 45 Thus says the Lord to his anointed Cyrus … "- vs. 8 and then in vs 19 justice promised, in vs 19 not an empty thing but sure for the descendents of Jacob

There are some verses which are problematic too, like God hardening pharoh’s heart seeming to take away his free will and causing him to act in an evil manner. I expect is just a particular way of saying God is all-powerful, forsees it and it all works for the greater good of his people in the end. Romans 8:28 speaks of that “… all things work for the good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.”

God sending the angel of death can seem evil, or having Joshua and his men kill every man, woman, child and goat … but would seem that it is allowed to happen in the already fallen world for a greater good (the freedom of the captives in Egypt and the establisment of Israel in the promised land). Originally all was created good, then with Satan’s rebellion and temptation of man the world is corrupted and God comes to us and works within a corrupted framework after that. Israel is in strife with other nations, they fight back and win to show God’s power and favor. When Israel sinned, they would lose and be scattered and captured being chastized for their sins.

Perhaps someone else can be clearer on this. But my take for what it is worth that the Isaiah verse in context is speaking of allowing woes to show God’s sovereignty over the world and for the sake of justice rather than God as the original author of evil.

Marcia

 

[jbania]

I’ve been appalled by the many suggestions that evolution is reconcileable with Catholicism. FOUNDATIONAL science is good and helps us to understand the physical world around us, but it’s excesses, do not supersede FOUNDATIONAL moral wisdom. The excesses of science need the careful evaluation and guidance foundational moral wisdom provides under the confines of Natural Law (Laws of Nature). We as Catholics should appreciate this gift that is an intrinsic and established, cornerstone of the authentic magisterium teachings of the church. It is this gift that is a guide to examining the moral, ethical nature of science. Understanding the morality of abortion, homosexuality, cloning and stem cell research of which are intrinsicly evil, help us to understand evolution’s explaination of the universe. I’m not suggesting evolution is in the same realm here, yet it requires extensive moral evaluation in it’s approach to explaining science.
Jim

 

[3Nails]

The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is not supported by solid empirical evidence, but circumstantial evidence only. Scientists scoff at religion because religion does not stand up to these scientific requirements:

1. Direct investigation of the question - impossible, inferences from passive observations of archeological findings and assumptions made from observed genetic similarities must be used. No one has directly witnessed an evolution.
2. Consistent and predictable results- no scientist has been able to cause an evolution, much less elicit consistent and predictable results
3. Reproducible - No one can cause an evolution, much less make it reproducible by others.
4. A matched control group to compare against intervention group- not possible

Other problems with the Theory of Evolution, especially the materialistic, mechanistic interpretation of the ToE:

“Survival of the Fittest”- there is nearly universal contention that insects, notably, the cockroach are the most fit for survival. Cockroaches have not “evolved” in millions upon millions of years. The paragon of evolutionary theory was reached long, long before humans arrived. Humans are far from top of “fittest survivors”.

Humans, widely espoused as the highest life form by ToE advocates, do not have the largest brains, nor do they have the most chromosomes of living creatures. Thus, potential intelligence and potential complexity are not possible, genetically, with humans.

Some prominent statisticians have found that mere random chance could not produce a single protein in the lifespan of the earth, let alone a human. Random chance in species production with extinction of lesser species is the underpinning of evolution. This statistical problem with ToE then strongly suggests “intelligent design” or outside influence, such as God.

The second law of thermodynamics states that all systems tend toward the lowest potential energy state, thus the second law of thermodynamics is in opposition with the theory of evolution. Some evolutionists will then deny this and invoke that living things are ordered systems, thus the second law does not hold there. This then strongly suggests “intelligent design” or outside influence, such as God or Monism.

The fact is that the ToE is an article of faith in the scientific community, not empirical science. Scientists are “looking through a glass darkly”. As per why there is such “religious” zeal that the ToE is so strongly defended as “fact” when it isn’t more than a theory is a whole 'nother thread or several.

 

[garylee]

carol marie:

I am a Christian fundamentalist who is currently enrolled in RCIA. On Sunday I asked the Priest if Catholics believe the Genesis account is true - that God created Adam & Eve and that they sinned and were cast out of the garden. He said no. He went on to say that the Church doesn’t take a stand either way really … it’s OK to believe in evolution, that we crawled out of the swamp & up onto the shore, so long as you believe that God made it all happen. Several sponsors in the class agreed that’s just what they believe - the story of Adam & Eve was just one of the many “myths” floating around when the book of Genesis was written and it’s not to be taken literally. I raised my hand and asked if I could be Catholic AND believe that God DID create Adam & Eve. The Priest sort of smiled and said, “Oh sure… if you want… go ahead…” It sounded very similar to the tone I use when my kids ask if Santa is true… why sure it is sweetie… wink wink. So here’s my beef. If Eve never existed why the heck is Mary called the 2nd Eve??

 

[garylee]

it is, I think, a somewhat sad fact that without the Pope Catholicism would blow into a hundred pieces just like Protestantism. I have heard priests say things that shocked me…I look to the Pope, who thank God is a good Catholic who teaches sound doctrine. You can’t be swayed by things you will hear from those who should know better. anyway, the Church does leave the door open for the theory of evolution because it is obvious that there is some truth in it. I will not give up the historical accuracy of the Bible for any scientific theory; but it is not a good witness to the world to be ignorant of what science is saying.

 

[3Nails]

garylee:

it is, I think, a somewhat sad fact that without the Pope Catholicism would blow into a hundred pieces just like Protestantism. I have heard priests say things that shocked me…I look to the Pope, who thank God is a good Catholic who teaches sound doctrine. You can’t be swayed by things you will hear from those who should know better. anyway, the Church does leave the door open for the theory of evolution because it is obvious that there is some truth in it. I will not give up the historical accuracy of the Bible for any scientific theory; but it is not a good witness to the world to be ignorant of what science is saying.

I agree with this post (IAWTP). THAT is why the Lord designed his Church to have a Pope.

 

[Orogeny]

3Nails:

The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is not supported by solid empirical evidence, but circumstantial evidence only.

1. Direct investigation of the question - impossible, inferences from passive observations of archeological findings and assumptions made from observed genetic similarities must be used. No one has directly witnessed an evolution.

Not true. See talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

1. Consistent and predictable results- no scientist has been able to cause an evolution, much less elicit consistent and predictable results

What does “cause an evolution” mean? The theory of evolution has been quite successful at predicting what we would expect from transitional forms.

1. Reproducible - No one can cause an evolution, much less make it reproducible by others.

Again, what does that mean? Mutations are quite easily caused.

1. A matched control group to compare against intervention group- not possible

Don’t know the question, so I can’t give an answer.

Other problems with the Theory of Evolution, especially the materialistic, mechanistic interpretation of the ToE:

“Survival of the Fittest”- there is nearly universal contention that insects, notably, the cockroach are the most fit for survival. Cockroaches have not “evolved” in millions upon millions of years. The paragon of evolutionary theory was reached long, long before humans arrived. Humans are far from top of “fittest survivors”.

I’m confused by this. Do you suggest that the concept of survival of the fittest (natural selection?) only allows for one species to survive at the loss of all other species?

Humans, widely espoused as the highest life form by ToE advocates, do not have the largest brains, nor do they have the most chromosomes of living creatures. Thus, potential intelligence and potential complexity are not possible, genetically, with humans.

Evolutionary biologists wouldn’t use the term “highest life form” because that would be meaningless in a scientific sense. In fact, from a purely scientific standpoint, no creature is greater or better than any other. Therefore, your statement is not valid.

Some prominent statisticians have found that mere random chance could not produce a single protein in the lifespan of the earth, let alone a human. Random chance in species production with extinction of lesser species is the underpinning of evolution. This statistical problem with ToE then strongly suggests “intelligent design” or outside influence, such as God.

I agree.

The second law of thermodynamics states that all systems tend toward the lowest potential energy state, thus the second law of thermodynamics is in opposition with the theory of evolution.

Based on this statement, you don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics. If you want to claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, please show your math.

The fact is that the ToE is an article of faith in the scientific community, not empirical science.

No, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, not an article of faith. Do you require proof, either direct or circumstantial, that the Holy Spirit is a real presence? I don’t. I believe it based on my faith which I have because of the grace of God. There is a LOT of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. All it would take to change the theory is valid evidence that it is not correct. Who knows, maybe one day we will find that evidence. As of now, it is the best explaination of the evidence we have.

Peace

Tim

 

[wanerious]

1. … No one has directly witnessed an evolution.

Ok, I’ll bite.

Sure, I personally have witnessed an evolution. I have kids. They are genetically different from me.

1. Consistent and predictable results- no scientist has been able to cause an evolution, much less elicit consistent and predictable results

Irrelevant. We cannot also cause earthquakes, supernovae, or thunderstorms, yet we may study them also.

1. Reproducible - No one can cause an evolution, much less make it reproducible by others.

Again, irrelevant. Genetic differences are natural phenomena, so we may study the ones we find. Of course, through direct genetic manipulation or radiation we can cause mutations, so we can study these also. The floral business is built on just this sort of consistency and predictability.

1. A matched control group to compare against intervention group- not possible

Sure, this would be nice, but scientists can get along just fine without one.

“Survival of the Fittest”- there is nearly universal contention that insects, notably, the cockroach are the most fit for survival. Cockroaches have not “evolved” in millions upon millions of years. The paragon of evolutionary theory was reached long, long before humans arrived. Humans are far from top of “fittest survivors”.

What’s wrong with that? Why should we be the fittest, at least physically? Were it not for our brains and engineering, we wouldn’t be very fit out in the wild.

Humans, widely espoused as the highest life form by ToE advocates, do not have the largest brains, nor do they have the most chromosomes of living creatures. Thus, potential intelligence and potential complexity are not possible, genetically, with humans.

I’m not sure I follow this. Cockroaches, as you say, are remarkably fit and adaptable to changing environmental conditions and competition from other organisms, so any genetic deviation is unlikely to produce organisms with an advantage. I don’t understand the point of the “most” chromosomes or largest brain. Since a great deal of genetic information on chromosomes is unused, it’s not clear that simply having more makes an organism “higher”.

 

[wanerious]

…part two…

Some prominent statisticians have found that mere random chance could not produce a single protein in the lifespan of the earth, let alone a human. Random chance in species production with extinction of lesser species is the underpinning of evolution. This statistical problem with ToE then strongly suggests “intelligent design” or outside influence, such as God.

If you’re going to argue scientifically, then it would help to know the scientific arguments. This site has been posted often, perhaps you would read some of the links:
Talk.origins archive

In short, these “statistical analyses” are flawed in that no biologist claims that the reactions are purely random. Some chemical bondings are much more likely than others, and the reactions occur much like steps on the ladder — once a particular protein has formed, it is much more likely that another one closely related can bond.

The second law of thermodynamics states that all systems tend toward the lowest potential energy state, thus the second law of thermodynamics is in opposition with the theory of evolution. Some evolutionists will then deny this and invoke that living things are ordered systems, thus the second law does not hold there. This then strongly suggests “intelligent design” or outside influence, such as God or Monism.

No, this is not what the 2nd law states. In a system with a given energy state, this energy may be identically calculated for a number of different system configurations. The 2nd law (one form of it) states that the system will most probably be found in that system with the greatest number of possible configurations.
Consider a pair of dice, where the energy state is the sum of the faces: on any given roll, you will most probably get a sum of 7, since there are more configurations adding to 7 than any other number (6+1, 5+2, 4+3, 3+4, 2+5, 1+6). This number of configurations is related to the entropy, so in a great many ensembles of measurement, you will tend towards the maximum number of total configurations.

Also, in nature there are many examples of the 2nd law being “violated” — growth of organisms, nuclear fusion, and creating snowflakes. In all examples, the “violation” is really due to the fact that the “system” was really not closed, and there was a flow of energy into the system. Are you prepared to posit that each snowflake is divinely designed, or is it possible that a natural process is responsible for their production? By the way, I can’t resist, here is a beautiful page of snowflake designs:

Snowflake photos

The fact is that the ToE is an article of faith in the scientific community, not empirical science. Scientists are “looking through a glass darkly”. As per why there is such “religious” zeal that the ToE is so strongly defended as “fact” when it isn’t more than a theory is a whole 'nother thread or several.

It is strongly defended as a very good theory, which in science is high praise. It is chiefly defended against people like yourself who do not understand it. You might be a little more charitable towards thousands of smart people who have dedicated their professional career to studying the natural world and organisms around us. It is a fascinating detective game, and you may enjoy learning more about it.

 

[3Nails]

Oregeny,

No, the Theory of Evolution has not been proven. You cannot run an experiment that is verifiable, reproducible, consistent, nor can a control and intervention group be used to prove the ToE. If someone can’t do an experiment over and over that does what a theory says happens, it cannot be proven.

Math was not my favorite subject, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all things tend toward lower potential energy and homogenous state. The ToE states that organisms evolve, i.e. get more complex (amoeba to human). Why can’t you see the conflict?

Mutations are not necessarily evolution, i.e. making more fit organisms. Species evolve, cells mutate. There is a difference.

Other species may parallel, but the underlying theme of the evolutionary theory is “the most fit for survival”. Insects are it. More than a few evolutionists hold humans as the highest life form.

There seems to be a trend toward an evolutionary model being feasible, but there is no solid experimental proof. Inferences made from observations is not solid experimental proof.

Your equating the ToE with the Holy Spirit just highlights my point, the ToE is a belief. You are in agreement with, it appears. I have personal witness and “proof” of the Holy Spirit working in my life. Regarding evolution, I’m an agnostic.

 

[3Nails]

wanerious,

Arguments are the province of philosophy. Experiments are the province of science. When scientists resort to arguements, then experimental proof is not there.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

3Nails:

Oregeny,

Math was not my favorite subject, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all things tend toward lower potential energy and homogenous state. The ToE states that organisms evolve, i.e. get more complex (amoeba to human). Why can’t you see the conflict?

The sun sort of torches the 2nd law objection as it introduces a continuous stream of energy into the Earth’s biosphere.

peace

 

[wanerious]

3Nails:

Oregeny,

No, the Theory of Evolution has not been proven. You cannot run an experiment that is verifiable, reproducible, consistent, nor can a control and intervention group be used to prove the ToE. If someone can’t do an experiment over and over that does what a theory says happens, it cannot be proven.

Aha, there’s the problem. No scientific theory is ever proven. Evidence can mount in favor of the probability of a certain theory’s predictions to be right, but we can never be sure that it is completely true. That’s true for every scientific theory.

Math was not my favorite subject, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all things tend toward lower potential energy and homogenous state. The ToE states that organisms evolve, i.e. get more complex (amoeba to human). Why can’t you see the conflict?

Because you’re wrong on both counts. That is not what the 2nd Law states, and evolution does not imply that organisms need to become more complex — only that descendants have a competitive advantage over other organisms. This may well have the side effect that systems grow and become more complex over time, but it is not a requirement or a metric for measuring fitness.

Mutations are not necessarily evolution, i.e. making more fit organisms. Species evolve, cells mutate. There is a difference.

Genetic variation is the mechanism behind some organisms being more competitive than their ancestors. Cells mutate, yes. This leads to different organisms, and, over time, separate species as these differences are reinforced.

Other species may parallel, but the underlying theme of the evolutionary theory is “the most fit for survival”. Insects are it. More than a few evolutionists hold humans as the highest life form.

You’d have a tough time arguing that we are the most physically fit to live in our environment. What makes us special is our brain.

There seems to be a trend toward an evolutionary model being feasible, but there is no solid experimental proof. Inferences made from observations is not solid experimental proof.

There is no such thing as proof in the scientific world. Only evidence. Hypotheses supported by evidence (and not contradicted, importantly, by evidence) become theories.