Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[buffalo]

Many of the most significant advances in science have been accomplished by Catholic priests.

Yes.

What has been left behind now has been the formal and efficient causes and only the material and efficient causes are now considered.

 

[buffalo]

Before Darwin’s book, I wonder how atheists justified themselves.

a universe without a beginning. They had a big issue when the Big Bang theory came about. An expanding universe and the 2nd law gave them fits. They are still fighting today with their own version of the “science of the gaps”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

What divide do you mean? Religious people and scientists? Remember that the Catholic Church was the chief guardian and promoter of science during the dark ages. Many of the most significant advances in science have been accomplished by Catholic priests. So I don’t know what divide you mean.

Yes.

What has been left behind now has been the formal and efficient causes and only the material and efficient causes are now considered.

Are you going to edit this post? It is unintelligible as it is.

 

[rossum]

Again, that is not being said by any scientists. However scientists do exclude divine intervention from scientific theories, not because it is impossible, but because it is not testable, and therefore not a proper hypothesis when doing science.

Some forms of divine intervention are scientifically testable, where that divine intervention has a detectable physical effect. We can tell that there was no worldwide flood within the last 6,000 years because the physical effects: geology and genetic bottlenecks, would be detectable now if such a worldwide flood had happened.

rossum

 

[Metis1]

We can tell that there was no worldwide flood within the last 6,000 years

Wrong!!! My basement flooded last spring.

Oh, “worldwide”. Sorry.

 

[edwest211]

Wow. No worldwide flood. I was taught there was one. God can do things only God can do.

Matthew 8:27

New International Version
The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!”

New Living Translation
The disciples were amazed. “Who is this man?” they asked. “Even the winds and waves obey him!”

English Standard Version
And the men marveled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?”

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Wow. No worldwide flood. I was taught there was one.

You’ve mentioned this before, but I’m not sure what you think it proves. I’m sure the nuns who taught your 9th grade science class were lovely ladies, but they weren’t infallible.

 

[Aloysium]

it does have a lot to say on the matter of observations of physical objects, alive or dead, and how they act and have acted

That would be “presumed to have acted”. And, for the most part, this approach works, because it reflects what actually happened. We can also incorrectly assume processes that are in place now, were those which acted in the past. Such is the case with evolution, understanding microevolution which we can observe, and projecting it onto creation, the beginnings of the kinds of things that now exist, calling that macroevolution. In terms of the origin of the universe, what makes most sense to me is described by the big bang theory. If we trace the physical universe back in time, we see everything gradually disappear into a singularity. Playing that moving image forward, we can visualize the creation of all matter with its properties, in expanding time and space, transforming itself in the coming into being of ever more complex beings. What is now, did not always exist, and how all these different kinds of things that exist as themselves, came into being is not explainable by appealing to a simple transformation of what were pre-existing forms.

 

[rossum]

God can do things only God can do.

But God cannot deceive, and removing all the geological evidence of a flood would be an obvious deception.

There has been no recent worldwide flood. That last worldwide flood (sort of) was Snowball Earth, and that was not recent.

rossum

 

[STT]

But God cannot deceive, and removing all the geological evidence of a flood would be an obvious deception.

There has been no recent worldwide flood. That last worldwide flood (sort of) was Snowball Earth , and that was not recent.

rossum

Interesting.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

it does have a lot to say on the matter of observations of physical objects, alive or dead, and how they act and have acted

…Such is the case with evolution, understanding microevolution which we can observe, and projecting it onto creation, the beginnings of the kinds of things that now exist, calling that macroevolution.

OK, this gambit has been played at least 500 times in this thread, and it just doesn’t fly. It is normal accepted practice in science to observe a phenomenon operating on a small scale and project that it probably operates on a larger scale. Then that larger scale hypothesis is tested to see if there are any contradictions. Seeing none, it is a reasonable scientific claim to say that the process occurs on a larger scale too.

In terms of the origin of the universe, what makes most sense to me is described by the big bang theory.

Which does says nothing pro or con about evolution, so let’s move on.

If we trace the physical universe back in time, we see everything gradually disappear into a singularity. Playing that moving image forward, we can visualize the creation of all matter with its properties, in expanding time and space, transforming itself in the coming into being of ever more complex beings.

Now you are doing exactly what you just criticized in your first paragraph. You are taking a phenomenon that occurred following the big bang (the formation of more complex atoms) and projecting it into the formation of more complex life forms under the same principle.

What is now, did not always exist

…a vague philosophical statement that has no bearing on science…

and how all these different kinds of things that exist as themselves, came into being is not explainable by appealing to a simple transformation of what were pre-existing forms.

Sure they are explainable. Evolution explains them.

 

[Edgar]

Progressive creation is a possibility, but it implies a trickster god who performed his progressive creation in a way that looks to us like those new species came about through processes that follow the observed laws of nature. I would rather believe in a God who does not trick us in that manner, but presents us with a mostly logical world whose rules of operation are amenable to human discovery.

What “trick”? The many gaps in the fossil record, the distinct lack of transitionals, the sudden appearance of fully-formed organisms, the stasis, all suggest separate creations. The fossils record reveals an “evolution”, to be sure - but not biological evolution. Perhaps the atheistic interpretation of the fossil record (biological evolution) is where the trickery lies.

The few times that those laws of nature are suspended are clearly presented by God as such - like the miracle at the wedding feast at Cana. Each time those suspensions of the laws of nature are presented to us for a purpose.

The process of creation, which I believe is a series of miracles and which science tells us took millions-billions of years, is not described literally in Scripture - rather it is presented figuratively in the early chapters of Genesis. Since the Bible is about the relationship between God and man, providing details about creation miracles prior to man is evidently not considered by the Author to be relevant or important.

 

[Edgar]

Wow. No worldwide flood. I was taught there was one. God can do things only God can do.

There are many problems with a worldwide flood - such as a lack of geological evidence, which surely would be unmistakable. Where did the dove that returned to the ark find fresh olive-tree leaves, if all olive trees on earth had been submerged for several months? If a global flood, the carnivores from the ark would have nothing to eat except other animals from the ark (not much of a survival plan for the victims!). Vast amounts of fresh water mixed with the oceans would probably have killed of all forms of water-bound life … plant and animal.
The New Testament confirms that Noah’s flood wiped out all of humanity except for eight people, that much we can be sure of.
If a regional flood only, the deep waters therein would have been held in place miraculously - just as the waters of the Red Sea were held back miraculously during the Exodus.

 

[rossum]

If a global flood, the carnivores from the ark would have nothing to eat except other animals from the ark (not much of a survival plan for the victims!).

Unicorns. They ate the unicorns.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

There are many problems with a worldwide flood - such as a lack of geological evidence, which surely would be unmistakable. Where did the dove that returned to the ark find fresh olive-tree leaves, if all olive trees on earth had been submerged for several months? If a global flood, the carnivores from the ark would have nothing to eat except other animals from the ark (not much of a survival plan for the victims!). Vast amounts of fresh water mixed with the oceans would probably have killed of all forms of water-bound life … plant and animal.
The New Testament confirms that Noah’s flood wiped out all of humanity except for eight people, that much we can be sure of.
If a regional flood only, the deep waters therein would have been held in place miraculously - just as the waters of the Red Sea were held back miraculously during the Exodus.

I don’t want to get into this too deeply on this thread, but you might want to check the evidence for the flood.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Progressive creation is a possibility, but it implies a trickster god who performed his progressive creation in a way that looks to us like those new species came about through processes that follow the observed laws of nature. I would rather believe in a God who does not trick us in that manner, but presents us with a mostly logical world whose rules of operation are amenable to human discovery.

What “trick”? The many gaps in the fossil record, the distinct lack of transitionals, the sudden appearance of fully-formed organisms, the stasis, all suggest separate creations. The fossils record reveals an “evolution”, to be sure - but not biological evolution.

The gaps you speak of are an expected consequence of examining a tiny fraction of the record of life. Most organisms did not leave any record at all, fossil or otherwise, since they were eaten by other organisms and bones rotted before any permanent record could be left. As we find more fossils the gaps begin to fill in, but there will always be gaps.

The few times that those laws of nature are suspended are clearly presented by God as such - like the miracle at the wedding feast at Cana. Each time those suspensions of the laws of nature are presented to us for a purpose.

The process of creation, which I believe is a series of miracles and which science tells us took millions-billions of years, is not described literally in Scripture - rather it is presented figuratively in the early chapters of Genesis. Since the Bible is about the relationship between God and man, providing details about creation miracles prior to man is evidently not considered by the Author to be relevant or important.

If those details are figurative rather than scientifically precise, then we can interpret them so that evolution is actually the mechanism God used to accomplish His creation of the varieties of life.

 

[Aloysium]

You are taking a phenomenon that occurred following the big bang (the formation of more complex atoms ) and projecting it into the formation of more complex life forms under the same principle.

Yes, it is called creation, which makes far more sense than evolution.

 

[rossum]

Yes, it is called creation, which makes far more sense than evolution.

In your opinion, not in mine. You start with the most complex entity imaginable. To me it makes more sense to start with simple entities and to incrementally build up towards complexity.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You are taking a phenomenon that occurred following the big bang (the formation of more complex atoms ) and projecting it into the formation of more complex life forms under the same principle.

Yes, it is called creation, which makes far more sense than evolution.

Giving both processes (atomic formation and diversity of life forms) a general label of “creation” does not diminish the fact that they are significantly different processes, so that the description of how one of them works is not applicable to how the other one works.

 

[Aloysium]

They both involve the creation of a kind of being.

All this that we are discussing is information. That information is an attempt to reflect the structure of the universe. Consider that structure as information-given-existence.

There is information that constitutes matter. Each atom can exist as itself or as part of a larger whole.

We are a larger unity that brings together all that information: atoms united as cells, brought together as the organ systems that constitute the person. This experience is one; a self perceives, feels, thinks and acts, as a relational being - the structure of the brain, and that of the universe united.

The person exists as a kind of being as does each individual atom. That which makes atoms what they are is relatively simple. Ours includes atoms existing as part of a greater whole (a soul) that shares with bacteria and plants, the capacity for life - the growth, development and reproduction made possible through the incorporation of matter which is other, into the formation of itself. We have in common with animals, perceptions, feelings and motion. But, we are a different kind of being, not simply temporal but rooted in eternity, having the capacity to know truth, goodness and beauty. You and I are one being in ourselves manifesting our particular version of humanity, in which we all come together as the body of Christ.

As you will no doubt say, that is not science. But, it is reality, and a science not rooted in reality cannot be trusted to provide us with the truth. Science is good for making things like gadgets and armaments; it has improved our corporal quality of life through medicine and technology. But, telling us who we are, based on the material knowledge we have acquired, it fails miserably. When we focus on who we are, which is essentially what is life, we have to go beyond what is the focus of modern science. Not doing so leaves us with only nonsense.