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

[Techno2000]

buffalo:

LeafByNiggle:

Another answer: He chose to use evolution.

Evo proponents here tell us over and over evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Do you agree?

Yes. Abiogenesis is not a necessary prerequisite to evolution.

Well… it’s a start.

 

[Techno2000]

Wozza:

The list is a LOT longer than I have noted. It includes EVERY aspect of the natural world which is required for our existence. And they must all be myths according you you. Perpetuated by those pesky science-loving atheists! Because God doesn’t need to use any of them.

A counter argument to what your claiming here is that human artifacts made and designed by intelligent humans from materials nature provides whether they be simple such as a hammer or more complex such as a house, a watch, a computer, a car, or an airplane do not assemble themselves together by themselves. Accordingly, why should we think that the highly complex entire world of nature assembled itself together by itself? The processes of nature have limits, they cannot even make a hammer much less build a house. I think it is rather ironic that the theory that all the natural creatures of the world whether animate or inanimate assembled themselves together by natural processes of nature when at the same time the very sophisticated instruments that scientists use to study the highly complex world of nature and its processes are designed and assembled together by intelligent human beings.

This is where some pull the God card out to give evolution plausibility.

 

[Richca]

This is where some pull the God card out to give evolution plausibility.

The God card here is sort of irrelevant in a certain sense. The theistic theory assumes the universe assembled itself together through created secondary causes of nature which is what the non-theistic theory assumes except without the ‘created secondary’ part. It’s a natural process of nature from both points of view.

 

[IWantGod]

The theory assumes with or without God that the universe assembled itself together through secondary causes of nature.

God isn’t even a question. God is besides the point when analyzing scientific data. The world appears to operate according to secondary causes, and that’s the consensus until somebody scientifically proves that it doesn’t, and that will never happen.

 

[Richca]

I wouldn’t deny that the world operates through secondary causes of nature. But a second cause neither operates or exists without a first cause. The first cause God is the designer, creator, and maker of all second causes without exception.

 

[edwest]

Very sensible. I agree.

 

[edwest]

The science only crowd are missing the point: science is not the only source of knowledge.

The science only answer does appeal to those who don’t believe in God. Catholics are here to say there is more than science. Jesus Christ is alive right now.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The list is a LOT longer than I have noted. It includes EVERY aspect of the natural world which is required for our existence. And they must all be myths according you you. Perpetuated by those pesky science-loving atheists! Because God doesn’t need to use any of them.

I think it is rather ironic that the theory that all the natural creatures of the world whether animate or inanimate assembled themselves together by natural processes of nature…

So the formation of planets and stars and galaxies and the creation of continents and mountain ranges are all natural and don’t require God’s guidance? Even the very simple process (by comparison) of a flower turning toward the sun doesn’t require His (name removed by moderator)ut?

Oh sorry. You didn’t mean that. Of course God is involved. I wonder where in this thread you got the bizzare notion that God is not involved in anything whatsoever. My bad. I must have misunderstood.

You actually DO believe that God is involved in EVERYTHING. Whatever process we can describe using the scientific method, from the formation of galaxy wide black holes to the formation of a simple light detecting spot on a simple organism, you believe He is involved in ALL these things and chooses how they come about.

Last time I looked, continents weren’t being formed in the blink of a divine eye. God was using plate tectonics to form them over millions of years. Does the fact that we can describe this process using the scientific method mean that He didn’t arrange this? NO.

Last time I looked, planets weren’t being formed in the blink of a divine eye. God was using acretion of cosmic dust to form them over billions of years. Does the fact that we can describe this process using the scientific method mean that He didn’t arrange this? NO.

Last time I looked, new species weren’t being formed in the blink of a divine eye. God was using evolution to form them over biological time scales. Does the fact that we can describe this process using the scientific method mean that He didn’t arrange this? NO.

So where is your problem? Everything that we can describe using the scientific method are processes which we term NATURAL. And they do NOT deny God whether it is entirely natural nuclear fusion, the natural formation of galaxies, simple and natural chemical reactions, the natural process of photosynthesis or evolution.

Have I made the position clear enough? Is there some of that that is unclear? Is there some facet of that explanation that you would like clarified? I wouldn’t have thought so because I have made it crystal clear.

God has brought you and the rest of humanity to this place and this time because He considers us special. Above the rest of creation. We are to have dominion over it. And you want to deny the very process He used to do it.

Madness.

 

[Wozza]

Richca:

Wozza:

The list is a LOT longer than I have noted. It includes EVERY aspect of the natural world which is required for our existence. And they must all be myths according you you. Perpetuated by those pesky science-loving atheists! Because God doesn’t need to use any of them.

A counter argument to what your claiming here is that human artifacts made and designed by intelligent humans from materials nature provides whether they be simple such as a hammer or more complex such as a house, a watch, a computer, a car, or an airplane do not assemble themselves together by themselves. Accordingly, why should we think that the highly complex entire world of nature assembled itself together by itself? The processes of nature have limits, they cannot even make a hammer much less build a house. I think it is rather ironic that the theory that all the natural creatures of the world whether animate or inanimate assembled themselves together by natural processes of nature when at the same time the very sophisticated instruments that scientists use to study the highly complex world of nature and its processes are designed and assembled together by intelligent human beings.

This is where some pull the God card out to give evolution plausibility.

What did you say? ‘Pull the God card out’? You think someone can claim evolution is true only by suggesting that God might have had something to do with it? Do you think that God is a card you can play so you can use Him when your arguments don’t stack up?

That is the most egregious insult to all Christians and you should feel shame for having made it and you should retract it immediately.

 

[IWantGod]

The science only crowd are missing the point: science is not the only source of knowledge.

I agree, and clearly i am not in the science only crowd. There are epistemological differences between philosophy and science, and i accept those differences. Science operates on a limited epistemology and so does philosophy.

 

[IWantGod]

Catholics are here to say there is more than science.

I’m Catholic, and yet it is you that is making the theory of evolution out to be more than what it really is. You are making the theory of evolution to be the be all and end all of whether or not Christianity is true. The theory was not designed to attack your faith, and pointing out that atheists like science because it gives them the illusion of intellectual respectability is irrelevant.

 

[edwest]

Then it’s all back to square one.

Science is over here and religion is over there. “Why you should think that the natural-evoltion of species is true” is just a marketing campaign for an idea that has no practical scientific value.

 

[IWantGod]

I wouldn’t deny that the world operates through secondary causes of nature. But a second cause neither operates or exists without a first cause. The first cause God is the designer, creator, and maker of all second causes without exception.

And nobody here has argued differently. It is you that is questioning the theory of evolution.

 

[IWantGod]

Science is over here and religion is over there

I would say that they are two sides of the same coin. Science contributes to our knowledge of nature, and religion contributes to our knowledge of God. But i think you would prefer that God created a world where Behe was right and science was wrong.

 

[edwest]

For the record, there are people reading who don’t know who Mr. Behe is. Anyway, there is obviously a conflict. It won’t go away. Perhaps a thread about something practical should be started. Based on information posted here and other sources, evolution is not useful.

 

[IWantGod]

evolution is not useful.

I have never understood this argument. You seem to be arguing that in-order for something to be true it has to be useful. This is obviously ridiculous, sorry to say.

 

[edwest]

In the advancement of human knowledge, things had to be useful. From the earliest tools to the earliest study of the stars.

 

[rossum]

The God card here is sort of irrelevant in a certain sense. The theistic theory assumes the universe assembled itself together through created secondary causes of nature which is what the non-theistic theory assumes except without the ‘created secondary’ part. It’s a natural process of nature from both points of view.

If God created the universe, then He created both the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe. Given the laws and the initial conditions, together with an omniscient God to do the calculations, then God foresaw all the results of those laws operating on those initial conditions.

Human beings are one of the results of those natural laws operating on the initial conditions of this universe.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

evolution is not useful.

Atheists have in the past used evolution as a battle cry against a starw-man of Christianity. Unfortunately, instead of pointing out the straw-man, some Christians actually believe that the strawman really is a description of Christianity (AKA Christian fundamentalism) and so they feel compelled to protect what they think Christianity is by attacking science.

This thread has revealed two fundamentally important facts in regards to that problem

1. There are many Catholics who agree with the natural theory of evolution
2. The Catholic Authority does not in principle disagree with the natural theory of evolution when compared to Catholic dogma. The only argument they make is that God alone is responsible for the creation of the soul and its nature cannot be reduced to the nature of secondary causes…

That is some very useful information, especially for new Catholics that don’t feel intellectually inclined towards Christian Fundamentalism.

Obviously i haven’t convinced any Christian fundamentalist of why they should think that the natural theory of evolution is true. But that is to be expected considering the fact that Christian fundamentalism is a hopelessly biased position to hold in the first place…

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Richca:

Wozza:

The list is a LOT longer than I have noted. It includes EVERY aspect of the natural world which is required for our existence. And they must all be myths according you you. Perpetuated by those pesky science-loving atheists! Because God doesn’t need to use any of them.

A counter argument to what your claiming here is that human artifacts made and designed by intelligent humans from materials nature provides whether they be simple such as a hammer or more complex such as a house, a watch, a computer, a car, or an airplane do not assemble themselves together by themselves. Accordingly, why should we think that the highly complex entire world of nature assembled itself together by itself? The processes of nature have limits, they cannot even make a hammer much less build a house. I think it is rather ironic that the theory that all the natural creatures of the world whether animate or inanimate assembled themselves together by natural processes of nature when at the same time the very sophisticated instruments that scientists use to study the highly complex world of nature and its processes are designed and assembled together by intelligent human beings.

This is where some pull the God card out to give evolution plausibility.

What did you say? ‘Pull the God card out’? You think someone can claim evolution is true only by suggesting that God might have had something to do with it? Do you think that God is a card you can play so you can use Him when your arguments don’t stack up?

That is the most egregious insult to all Christians and you should feel shame for having made it and you should retract it immediately.

God of the gaps

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps