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

[rossum]

I’m afraid speciation is a complete red herring from the standpoint of those rejecting the fable of macroevolution (a fanciful belief with the scientific merit of a flat earth). Microevolution and speciation are clearly supported by real science and they are key concepts even for those crazy YECers who hold that everything was created after their “kind”.

The scientific definition of “macroevolution” is “evolution at or above the level of a species.” Hence, evidence for speciation is evidence for macroevolution. One species splitting into two is macroevolution as science defines it.

What definition of ‘macroevolution’ are you using?

You are right about AiG, they require large amounts of super-fact macroevolution to get from the few pairs on the Ark to all the species alive today in the time their dating allows. Just one example of the hoops some forms of creationism have to jump through in order to justify their ludicrously bad hypotheses, based on equally bad interpretations of the Bible.

You should be careful of AiG, they lie to you, and they tell you that they lie by omission:

4:6 By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

– AiG Statement of Faith

They deliberately ignore any valid science which contradicts their woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis. They lie by omission, and ignore the fact that of primary importance is the fact that the Biblical text is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

rossum

 

[William_Scott]

I’ve addressed the “macroevolution” semantic debate in the other thread–although I’ll provide the link I gave there:
What is the key distinction between speciation and macroevolution? | Socratic.

There is nothing dishonest about AiG’s statement of faith. The historic Christian faith (for 1800 years) believed that both natural and special revelation are absolute truths given to us by God and that by definition truth will not contradict itself. The one’s deliberately ignoring true science and facts are the evolutionists, who will close their eyes to how real science screams out the glory of the Creator (and real science laughs at their ludicrously bad hypotheses that rocks accidentally evolved feelings).

As I noted on the other thread–my schedule demands my speedy and lengthy departure from this thread–so have a great week

 

[Rosie11]

I’m sure the pope supports evolution and so do I, I believe we evolved and so did everything else but all part of God’s divine plan xx

 

[IWantGod]

IWantGod said

If God created species, then apart from animals that have gone extinct, all the animals that exist today should be no different from when they were first created; there should be no new species. So it should be true that the Platypus has always existed for as long as there have been animals. From the moment animals existed they ought to be identical to the animals that live today. The evidence does not bare out that cl;aim.

So while one might not want to take evolution as fact, i think one can think that it is the most likely origin of species when compared to the biblical 7 day creation explanation…

I’m afraid speciation is a complete red herring from the standpoint of those rejecting the fable of macroevolution (a fanciful belief with the scientific merit of a flat earth). Microevolution and speciation are clearly supported by real science and they are key concepts even for those crazy YECers who hold that everything was created after their “kind”.

For instance, those radicals at Answers in Genesis have a long list of articles defending speciation:

Lots of pretty words, but you have not addressed my argument.

 

[Edgar]

Does your version use a different font maybe to note the difference? Or is there a ‘Please note…’ at the beginning of the fourth?

There are no fonts, but all one has to do is read the text with a bit of common sense - oh, and by a mind that has not been terminally brainwashed by the evolution fable.

It’s ironic that you should raise this point - theistic evolutionists claim the first eleven chapters of Genesis are ‘figurative’, despite the fact that there is no stylistic differences between chapters 11 and 12.

 

[Edgar]

I was referring to the scientific studies that describe evolution as the mechanism for the development of life-forms. I thought you condemned evolution.

Firstly, the CCC doesn’t mention evolution.
Secondly, Catholics are free to completely reject Darwin’s evolutionary “tree of life” and believe in a literal, non-evolutionary interpretation of Genesis - a literal “six days” of creation. You seem to be implying that this Church teaching contradicts #283 of the CCC.

Furthermore, I’m not aware of any Scripture that precludes the evolution of non-human creatures. However, I believe Genesis 2:7 precludes the evolution of man.

That is why we look to the Church when there are disputes over how to interpret scripture.

I believe the Church will correct herself eventually and one day declare that Genesis 2:7 precludes human evolution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then you don’t exactly condemn evolution? That is good. As you say, our faith does permit you to believe in a literal 6-day creation. It also permits me to believe in evolution. And we can both be good Catholics in doing so.

 

[IWantGod]

Secondly, Catholics are free to completely reject Darwin’s evolutionary “tree of life” and believe in a literal, non-evolutionary interpretation of Genesis - a literal “six days” of creation.

You free to believe that the earth is the center of the universe and that the earth is flat. But that don’t make it reasonable to believe so. And evolution could be wrong, but it’s the best scientific explanation so far.

 

[William_Scott]

Duplicate Post

 

[William_Scott]

You should be careful of AiG, they lie to you, and they tell you that they lie by omission:

4:6 By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

– AiG Statement of Faith

Hello again evolutionary frenemy, I thought I should add as a postscript to what I said above, that I have a similar view to yours regarding the impact on honesty and objectivity in science that occurs from a deeply held religious faith in naturalism.

The well known evolutionist Richard Lewontin speaks forthrightly regarding the dogmatic worldview whereby his fellow devout evolutionists (in this case Carl Sagan in particular) must dogmatically force any conclusions drawn from observation, logic, etc. into their woodenly materialistic interpretation of the natural world:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." NY Review of Books on Carl Sagan’s final book, 1/7/1997

Loading…

www.nybooks.com

In other words, according to one’s devout faith in a universe that creates itself, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the [commitment to materialism].”

 

[William_Scott]

Of course, there are many that are not strictly materialistic who wholeheartedly and devoutly submit their thinking (and seek to submit the intellects of all other lesser beings who don’t tow the party line) to naturalism’s current government sponsored/enforced origin myth.*

*[Footnote on Tax-Funded Naturalistic Origin Myth: natural laws that must create themselves and then proceed to govern nature; matter that creates itself from the absence of matter; life that creates itself from a rock and then proceeds to morph via a wonderful mythological journey from ameoba like creature to musician–Talk about an awe-inspiring faith. It’s good to know that our hard earned tax dollars are supporting something that requires so much imagination].

We all have prejudice. I’d rather be prejudiced, though, by the words of the Lord Jesus Christ who said “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6) rather than the brains of a bunch of guys who think that if you wait long enough dirt can engage in critical thinking.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In other words, according to one’s devout faith in a universe that creates itself, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the [commitment to materialism].”

Your “in other words” is quite a twisted version of what you referenced.

 

[William_Scott]

Your “in other words” is quite a twisted version of what you referenced.

LeafByNiggle, is that you speaking or is it your a priori commitment to materialism speaking…

Despite our differences, I respect your deeply held religious beliefs in that which contradicts logic and reality.

 

[William_Scott]

LeafByNiggle, what I said before about your evolutionism was really mean (my wife who saw my post told me so). I am now amending my statement to say that I like you even though evolution is really silly.

 

[rossum]

naturalism’s current government sponsored/enforced origin myth.

That would be the theory of the Big Bang as proposed by cosmologists. How does this relate to evolution? Remember that Darwin’s book was called “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the origin of Species, Life, the Universe and Everything” Biological evolution explains the origin of species; just the origin of species.

Just because some people make the error of reading too much into it does not mean that the rest of us have to.

Lewontin is either talking about cosmology, or he is setting up a strawman version of evolution in order to shoot it down. Either way, what he is saying is not relevant to biological evolution.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Your “in other words” is quite a twisted version of what you referenced.

LeafByNiggle, is that you speaking or is it your a priori commitment to materialism speaking…

Despite our differences, I respect your deeply held religious beliefs in that which contradicts logic and reality.

No, I am speaking strictly from logic. Your summation of the words you quoted was inaccurate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle, what I said before about your evolutionism was really mean (my wife who saw my post told me so). I am now amending my statement to say that I like you even though evolution is really silly.

I don’t object to your having that opinion.

 

[Bradskii]

LeafByNiggle, what I said before about your evolutionism was really mean (my wife who saw my post told me so). I am now amending my statement to say that I like you even though evolution is really silly.

I smell pretentiousness. It has the faint whiff of…something fundamental. Anyone else get it?

 

[edwest]

A Bradski Quip TM. Uh… nope

 

[mVitus]

“On the origin of Species, Life, the Universe and Everything ”

I heard that book of his only sold 42 copies.

Firstly, the CCC doesn’t mention evolution.
Secondly, Catholics are free to completely reject Darwin’s evolutionary “tree of life” and believe in a literal, non-evolutionary interpretation of Genesis - a literal “six days” of creation. You seem to be implying that this Church teaching contradicts #283 of the CCC.

It may not explicitly mention evolution, but I’d ask what you think 283 refers to.

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”

To me, it’s a clear reference to modern science, which includes evolution.

I believe the Church will correct herself eventually and one day declare that Genesis 2:7 precludes human evolution.

Out of curiosity, does that mean you’re open to the possibility of non-human evolution?