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

[Metis1]

I guess one question I would have is why would one ignore what the fossil record and the genome testing is telling us, and then also ignore our observations that all material objects appear to evolve over time and genes are material objects? On top of that, there is not one shred of evidence for some sort of magical wall between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”.

It’s not only well-established science, it’s also just plain old common sense, so why would one stick to a literalist interpretation of the Creation accounts under these circumstances? If our Catholic faith is to be enlightening, and I very much believe it is, we need to accept the reality of the evolution of life forms that goes well beyond “micro-evolution”. To not do so with all the evidence we now have is to use religious faith as a set of blinders, not enlightenment.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

To not do so with all the evidence we now have is to use religious faith as a set of blinders, not enlightenment.

Evolution could not happen without God, so God has to be far more important than evolution to anyone with a faith.

If there really was overwhelming evidence for the ToE; I am sure we would accept it. But 6k posts later and there still seems to be many causes for doubt.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

I’m not so sure people who are determined not to believe something could be persuaded by evidence. Ever hear of the flat earth society?

Virtually all biologists believe in evolution, and they are the people who are most familiar with the evidence. It really just seems to be people who think they have a religious obligation not to believe it who don’t.

 

[Vonsalza]

Oh, you’re right about there being questions that haven’t been answered.

Sure!

It’s just that the ToE is more comprehensive and has fewer rational blind spots than any if its rivals.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

It really just seems to be people who think they have a religious obligation not to believe it who don’t.

It was the ToE that helped me to find a faith in God about twenty years ago. I looked at the skeletal system as a whole; and all the hurdles blind nature would have to overcome from an engineering perspective. After a number of years, I concluded there had to be a God, and that belief has only become stronger since.

 

[edwest]

Very well said.

 

[buffalo]

I guess one question I would have is why would one ignore what the fossil record and the genome testing is telling us, and then also ignore our observations that all material objects appear to evolve over time and genes are material objects? On top of that, there is not one shred of evidence for some sort of magical wall between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”.

It’s not only well-established science, it’s also just plain old common sense, so why would one stick to a literalist interpretation of the Creation accounts under these circumstances? If our Catholic faith is to be enlightening, and I very much believe it is, we need to accept the reality of the evolution of life forms that goes well beyond “micro-evolution”. To not do so with all the evidence we now have is to use religious faith as a set of blinders, not enlightenment.

And there is not one empirical shred of evidence macro-evolution is real. The wall is self imposed.

No, we do not. The evidence is favoring ID more and more. Get used to it.

 

[buffalo]

Virtually all biologists believe in evolution

We do not do science by consensus.

 

[buffalo]

best information available today.

is ID. …

 

[rossum]

And there is not one empirical shred of evidence macro-evolution is real.

False. Again. I have already shown you the example of the Marbled Crayfish, the emergence of a new species, more than once. Why do you persist in this erroneous claim in the face of the evidence?

You will not advance your cause by ignoring the evidence. It is a cardinal sin to ignore evidence in science.

Science has evidence of macroevolution, of the evolution of new species.

rossum

 

[edwest]

I would have to say Intelligent Design is the best answer.

 

[buffalo]

False. Again. I have already shown you the example of the Marbled Crayfish, the emergence of a new species, more than once. Why do you persist in this erroneous claim in the face of the evidence?

You will not advance your cause by ignoring the evidence. It is a cardinal sin to ignore evidence in science.

Science has evidence of macroevolution, of the evolution of new species.

And I have showed you why this is not evidence.

 

[rossum]

And I have showed you why this is not evidence.

No you have not. All you have done is to personally redefine the word “macroevolution” to mean something different from it’s standard meaning, but which is more convenient for your argument.

That is Humpty Dumpty argumentation, not science.

Here, once again, is the evidence for macroevolution of the Marbled crayfish ( Procambarus virginalis): The marbled crayfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae) represents an independent new species.

If you can only support your argument by ignoring evidence then you need to find a better argument. This one has obviously failed.

rossum

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Beyond_Reason:

Virtually all biologists believe in evolution

We do not do science by consensus.

As far as I can tell you don’t do any science at all. I’m still waiting to here how you interpreted that paper earlier, and other questions I had in post 6142.

Good science leads to consensus. If I have to choose between the 99% of medical doctors believe that smoking can lead to lung cancer, and a couple guys who work for tobacco companies who are addicted to smoking, I’m going with the 99% of experts in the field.

 

[Vonsalza]

That’s fine.

But you need to honestly agree that your conclusion is emotionally derived rather than rationally.

The rational truth is that God and evolution and, say, electricity are separate fields. Different lanes. And advance in one doesn’t mean contraction on another. Knowledge is not a zero sum game.

 

[Edgar]

We would not have any religions and would all be atheists.

Oh, the irony … ! The belief/conclusion/theory/claim that all life on earth evolved naturally from a microbe is scientifially vacuous and useless - its only raison d’etre is to promote atheism.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Are you a reader of minds and souls, that you know that all biologists who believe in evolution are liars trying to promote atheism?

 

[Edgar]

It i s pretty much impossible to “witness” such a large change as that’s because the gap is wide enough whereas it would take a great deal of time. However, the effects of such a change will leave tell-tale signs such as what we see with the fossil record and the genome testing.

We are lead to believe that the fossil record reveasl one genus being superceded by an different by related genus, but the question is, is it a natural ongoing process, or were these transtiions a series of “one-of” events that constitute God process of creation? In other words, the fossil record can inform us somewhat as to to WHAT happened, but it can’t inform us HOW is happened.

The theory of evolution is no more than the best scientific explanation of the history of life on earth, which may or may not be the truth - I think the evidence suggests the latter.

the fossil record in no way is compatible with a literal interpretation of the Creation accounts

I agree - but the fossil record in many ways also contradicts the theory of evolution. For example, S. J. Gould described the fossil record as an “embarrassment” to Darwin’s theory of gradualism. I believe a progressive-creation model best fits the fossil record.

 

[Edgar]

And yet the irony is that it was especially Origen that felt that it was important for the Church to more closely use the scriptures as an “anchor” so as to keep the Church from straying off course.

Origen must have done a lot of things right, because he is a greatly respected figure in the history of the Church.

 

[Edgar]

The fossil record is an excellent reason to doubt that the “creationary” history of life is an unnatural process, as is the fact that no one has ever witnessed God creating any new species.

Not a new species, perhaps, but there are eye-witness accounts of dead people being raised from the dead, which means there is empirical evidence of God instantly creating an living organism from inanimate matter. That being so, I dare say God would have no trouble creating a new species.

Furthermore, all those gaps, missing-links and sudden appearances in the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion don’t support a contiguous process of biological evolution. The fossil evidence supports a progressive-creation model much better than the evolution model.
Evolutions use the excuse that the fossil record is incomplete - in other words, their argument rests on evidence that is hoped for but may not actually exist … which is a rather poor basis for a scientific theory.