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

[guanophore]

compiling self-reports about feelings and their intensity,

Isn’t that quite subjective?

Does it work for people’s expression about their faith in God? Or faith in anything else, for that matter? I agree that accumulating self report data can be a useful scientific approach, but it still falls very short of empirical methods.

This rests on there existing a common human psychology, the collective unconscious perhaps, that enables us to more or less understand one another.

Is the collective unconscious available for scientific validation?

there is no proof to what we know through intuition

Intuition is another good example of ways the psyche has of knowing that are not rational or able to be scientifically validated.

My point is that the majority of the human psyche is not scientifically verifiable. There is a small percentage of the human mind, as the tip of an iceberg, that can be validated empirically, but there is so much that cannot, that it is absurd to say that psychology is the study of “mind” (rationality) and behavior (that can be observed and counted). Psych = Soul, and she is, by nature, not too amenable to empirical methods.

 

[edwest]

Just when you think things are straightened out. Sigh.

Prehistoric cave art suggests ancient use of complex astronomy

As far back as 40,000 years ago, humans kept track of time using relatively sophisticated knowledge of the stars, new research shows.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Richca:

Philosophically speaking, ‘No effect is greater than its cause’.

Scientifically speaking, effects greater than their cause happen all the time.

It is not possible that an effect can be greater than its cause. Every effect is like its cause in some way and an effect can only proceed from a cause according to the being and nature of the cause and what the cause itself possesses. Accordingly, for an effect to be greater than its cause implies that the effect got something from nothing.

Being that you state that ‘scientifically speaking, effects greater than their cause happen all the time’, I’m interested to know what effects are you referring to here? Can you give any concrete examples?

Certainly. In a transistor, the a very small change in electrical current between the base and the emitter (the cause) produces a much larger change in current between the emitter and the collector (the effect). That is the foundation of all amplifiers.

Another example is when a gun is fired (the cause) near a snowy mountain causing an avalanche (the effect.)

 

[buffalo]

Certainly. In a transistor, the a very small change in electrical current between the base and the emitter (the cause) produces a much larger change in current between the emitter and the collector (the effect). That is the foundation of all amplifiers.

The power supply has the power available. Some of this current is lost in heat and noise. It amplifies a small (name removed by moderator)ut, but does consume power to do so and outputs less than 100%. The power supply has to have the available designed in output capability. The transistor is not creating more energy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Certainly. In a transistor, the a very small change in electrical current between the base and the emitter (the cause) produces a much larger change in current between the emitter and the collector (the effect). That is the foundation of all amplifiers.

The power supply has the power available. Some of this current is lost in heat and noise. It amplifies a small (name removed by moderator)ut, but does consume power to do so and outputs less than 100%. The power supply has to have the available designed in output capability. The transistor is not creating more energy.

That’s changing the goal post. I didn’t say it created energy. The challenge was to exhibit a cause that is smaller than the effect. The power supply does indeed supply power, but it does not cause the output signal. The (name removed by moderator)ut to the amplifier is the cause.

 

[Richca]

Richca:

Accordingly, for the animate or lets say a single cell to arise out of the earth or water according to a natural process, there would have to be an exterior cause/s to transmute the matter or nature of earth or soil, rocks, water, or the mineral substances here.

Science describes what is.

Given the complexity of a cell, it is natural to assume it is designed; an external rational mind has determined that particular form. This is an interpretation of the facts.

The claim that the emergence of life is the result of the inherent properties of matter…

The evolutionary Christian view is very poorly stated. It only works if the contingency of matter acting on its own includes the inevitability of life in its various forms, arising from properties inherent in it, granted to matter at its creation.

I would think a christian or non-christian evolutionist or scientist recognizes that soil or rocks which are very stable substances on earth do not transform themselves into different natures without an external cause/s acting on them, for example, weathering action such as heat, cold, freezing, and water. Without external causes such as this or some other, soil and rocks remain what they are. I’m not sure the soil on earth is even broken up into simpler substances by the natural inanimate processes on earth such as the weathering causes. Animate things such as plants transform soil into their own substance and probably break up the soil minerals which are probably composed of molecules of different elemental atoms into separate elemental atoms and other kinds of molecules that the plant utilizes for its life.

Soil and rocks in general are not radioactive unless there are radioactive elements in them. It is obvious that soil and rocks or water do not spontaneously transform themselves into life or cells otherwise we would see this happening all the time on earth. This is the reason why I said that if a cell emerged out of soil, clay, or rock, an external cause/s would be necessary to transform the nature of the soil, clay, or rock whether this cause or causes is supernatural or natural. The scientists are looking for natural causes if there be any and so some theorize the light from the sun and radiation coupled with a different atmosphere than what we have now, or maybe a meteorite hit the earth and caused some kind of transformation in soil or rocks, volcanic action, and other similar things. The elemental atoms on earth are extremely stable in themselves and so are the many inanimate compound substances of them such as minerals, rocks, water, soil. In general, they don’t break up by themselves unless acted upon by some external cause such as plants. These are facts that we can observe with the naked eye and confirmed by science as it were.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

I think you are absolutely correct when you state that ‘The evolutionary Christian view is very poorly stated’ if it follows that what is meant by this is what you subsequently state such as inherent properties of matter which I take to mean something like a rock transforming itself into a living cell such as without any external causality acting on it. This wouldn’t be science at all, contrary to observation, and non-common sensical so I don’t think this is what the evolutionists mean unless I’m wrong. In conclusion and as I’ve said previously, I don’t see life forms, cells, or DNA molecules emerging out of natural second causes and so I believe that God is the direct efficient cause in the formation of all the various species of plants and animals on earth. And here I’m not referring to intelligent design as a scientific theory which, however, I would agree with here. I’m saying simply that God is the direct efficient cause and as I understand it to mean in Genesis 1 too and the rest of the Bible.

 

[Richca]

Certainly. In a transistor, the a very small change in electrical current between the base and the emitter (the cause) produces a much larger change in current between the emitter and the collector (the effect). That is the foundation of all amplifiers.

Another example is when a gun is fired (the cause) near a snowy mountain causing an avalanche (the effect.)

Thank you for the examples. But I still hold to what I think is considered a philosophical axiom ‘No effect is greater than its cause’, if I’m wording this correctly, because it is simply incoherent and irrational that an effect can be greater than its cause. This means that in your examples if is is understood that we have here an example of an effect greater than the cause, than I believe we are misunderstanding or misinterpreting the principle or both.

I’d have to think about your first example. But off the top of my head, the cause of the transistor or amplifier or this whole system is an intelligent human being who designed it. That may and probably would have to be factored in.

I do not see in the second example that the principle is nullified. I do not see how an avalanche is greater than the firing of the gun which produces the shock or sound waves which causes a movement in the snow on a hill which is naturally going to go downward by the force of gravity. The gun itself we may presume was fired by a human being with a movement of the trigger with his finger and who also made the gun and the bullet. There are lots of things going on here with an order of quite a few efficient causes and effects following upon each other. The movement of the snow, which is inanimate and unintelligent, on the hill was caused by a human being who is animate and intelligent. So, in this respect, the avalanche of snow is not a greater thing than a human being. In cases such as these examples, I think we would need to understand what precisely is meant by the principle ‘no effect is greater than its cause’ and the proper application of it. In these examples, we do have some order of efficient causality and effects following upon each other. So, I think this needs to be taken into account too and what this means in association with the principle under discussion and the proper application of it.

 

[IWantGod]

‘The evolutionary Christian view is very poorly stated’

I think the Christian evolutionary view could be any number of things. But if it makes sense to call myself a Christian evolutionist in the first place, all that essentially means for me is that God works his will through the given natures of secondary causes. God may influence the nature of the effect of any given cause (although i don’t think that’s necessary because i believe that God infuses nature with his telos from the beginning). This is not something that science can measure, but i think there is some discernible evidence of this fact when we observe goal direction in the behavior of organisms.

 

[Richca]

Aloysium is the one who made this statement, not me.

 

[IWantGod]

That’s fine, i thought you was agreeing, and i was just stating my view. Sorry.

 

[buffalo]

although i don’t think that’s necessary because i believe that God infuses nature with his telos from the beginning )

Yes, God front loads intelligence, morality and teleology at the beginning to his creation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Certainly. In a transistor, the a very small change in electrical current between the base and the emitter (the cause) produces a much larger change in current between the emitter and the collector (the effect). That is the foundation of all amplifiers.

Another example is when a gun is fired (the cause) near a snowy mountain causing an avalanche (the effect.)

Thank you for the examples. But I still hold to what I think is considered a philosophical axiom ‘No effect is greater than its cause’, if I’m wording this correctly, because it is simply incoherent and irrational that an effect can be greater than its cause. This means that in your examples if is is understood that we have here an example of an effect greater than the cause, than I believe we are misunderstanding or misinterpreting the principle or both.

I’d have to think about your first example. But off the top of my head, the cause of the transistor or amplifier or this whole system is an intelligent human being who designed it. That may and probably would have to be factored in.

Of course if you define the sense of “cause” and “effect” as you wish, then you can make anything you say about them true.

 

[Aloysium]

I do not see how an avalanche is greater than the firing of the gun which produces the shock or sound waves which causes a movement in the snow on a hill which is naturally going to go downward by the force of gravity.

I would argue that the gun is not the cause of the avalanche. There is a sequence of events including the evaporation of water in lakes streams and oceans, variations in temperature and the rotation of the earth resulting in winds that blow humid hot air higher in the atmosphere as they meet the mountain range, the falling of snow and its accumulation giving rise to an increase in its potential energy. I think you get the point so I don’t have to continue ad infinitum.

Having the capacity to know and as causal agents existing in the here and now where all happens, we can project ourselves into any known place within the symphony that is the physical universe, as if we were there causing something to happen. We insert our capacity to cause the firing of a gun into the scenario described above, a massive series of events, linked together resulting in the avalanche. But, let’s take the human being out of the equation and imagine the falling of a tree precipitating the same outcome. Again here we identify a variable within the network of inter-related physical happenings, projecting onto it, our causal capacity.

The sound, snow and mountain would be material causes of the avalanche and their shape and size would be formal causes of which the gun is a part, giving rise to the vibrations in the air that destabilized the icy mound. The final cause may be to prevent a larger avalanche that could harm skiers. I am focussing on the efficient cause because it seems to be the most relevant to the statement:

‘No effect is greater than its cause’

We cannot create something greater than ourselves, that’s all it means. And atoms have a much lower capacity to arrange themselves in the exquisitely tuned anatomy and physiology of the cell, than even we might be able in the lab, let alone bring into existence, as only God can, a living being, whole and transcendent to the material order of things.

 

[Techno2000]

LeafByNiggle:

Certainly. In a transistor, the a very small change in electrical current between the base and the emitter (the cause) produces a much larger change in current between the emitter and the collector (the effect). That is the foundation of all amplifiers.

The power supply has the power available. Some of this current is lost in heat and noise. It amplifies a small (name removed by moderator)ut, but does consume power to do so and outputs less than 100%. The power supply has to have the available designed in output capability. The transistor is not creating more energy.

Right, the electricity itself, right from the start, is the greater cause.

 

[Edgar]

Of the three, one of them has signs of life.

Don’t forget to factor in the immense doses of wishful thinking that make up any claims of “signs of life” on other planets. Just as with evolution, there is a great deal of atheist fantasising going on in this field.

 

[Uriel1]

Richca:

‘The evolutionary Christian view is very poorly stated’

I think the Christian evolutionary view could be any number of things. But if it makes sense to call myself a Christian evolutionist in the first place, all that essentially means for me is that God works his will through the given natures of secondary causes. God may influence the nature of the effect of any given cause (although i don’t think that’s necessary because i believe that God infuses nature with his telos from the beginning). This is not something that science can measure, but i think there is some discernible evidence of this fact when we observe goal direction in the behavior of organisms.

WHAT THE CHURCH ACTUALLY HOLDS TRUE
While the church has always defended the truths of faith given to us by Jesus Christ, in the modern era the Catholic Church is also a stout defender of human reason. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the ‘death of God’ that "by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers."

The 1950 papal encyclical, Humani Generis , made plain Pope Pius X11ths sincere hope that evolution will be shown to have been a mere transient scientific fad, and goes on to challenge those who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution …explains the origin of all things.”

Neo-Darwinists today often seek to portray Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI as an evolutionist by referring to a sentence concerning common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission. They point out that Benedict was the head of that 2004 commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists – that is, with neo-Darwinism.

That 2004 commission’s document, on the contrary, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the earlier widespread misuse of John Paul II’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautioned that “(that) letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.” The commission went on to say, "An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist."

Pt 1

 

[Uriel1]

Pt 2

In his installation homily in 2005 Pope Benedict stated: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary," which reflects the Catechism itself. CCC 286 says, "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which (are unseen)."

Atheist advocates of Neo-Darwinist Evolution theory, godless apologists of the failed Miller-Urey abiogenesis experiment, and proponents of multiverse hypotheses in cosmology are rigorous in arguing against the compelling evidence of both purpose and design to be found in contemporary biological sciences. And the church is clear in its opposition to naturalistic abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution.

The Catholic Church promotes human reason in proclaiming that the immanent design seen in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the "appearance of design" as the simple outcome of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul II put it, "an abdication of human intelligence."

 

[PickyPicky]

What this discussion shows is how daft it is to talk about cause and effect as though they were discrete and isolated. The truth is, of course, that any event has a myriad combining and competing and colliding objects and events on which it is contingent, and each of those has a myriad of causes, forming a network of connections throughout the universe. It is not a simple chain of cause and effect: everything is, in however slight a way, contingent on everything else, which is one reason, I suggest, why the search for an uncaused cause is fruitless.

 

[Edgar]

There is no evidence that these angels had physical bodies, temporary or otherwise

Genesis 18-19 describes how three “angels” ate food with Abraham. How coud they eat food if they didn’t have physical bodies? Perhaps they were humans