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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I keep forgetting to consider who I’m speaking to.

I assume that people are aware of their specialness, their intrinsic and eternal worth. A simple look at the world today, with the great disparity, the wars and abortion rates, should be a clear reminder that this is not the case. Specialness is equated with narcissism in a world of persons placing themselves at the centre of their existence.

To equate oneself to the outcome of a shuffling of cards is the same I suppose as understanding oneself to be the outcome of a myriad of physical factors. If that is all one is, one is easily replaceable by another.

Anyone could be at the other side of this communication. In fact, the other here is an illusion, a conjuring of the mind putting together and projecting personality traits on what I imagine to be a being that is like me - a person. While there are people I know and love, it took a long time and much giving of myself for their good to get to that point. Actually, it was the recognition of the specialness of their individual existence, intuiting who they are in themselves that led me to the realization of God’s love as the ultimate reality and the means by which we truly can know one another.

I suppose the standard evolutionary theory considers the shuffling of a near infinite number of “cards” to have resulted in the specific configuration of matter that we witness as the world, with what is essentially an illusion of living forms in all their diversity. When it comes down to the person, the physical-spiritual unity which exists as a self in relation to what is other, we find that materialism is the illusion.

The argument would be that thinking that there exists some chance that the infinite amount of factors that would be involved could have come together to form what is essentially unique and irreplaceable is nonsense. It is equivalent to drawing an infinite series of fives from an infinite number of decks. There is no other reality but that which includes you and me, and we are meant to be, to the Ground of Existence itself.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
Rather a strange podcast, if I may so. The narrator (Scott Sullivan) seems rather out of his depth. More than half the video is spent defining evolution in terms acceptable even to “many people in the Intelligent Design movement itself”, which include the proposition “that all living organisms evolved from a common ancestor”.
Click to expand...
His point was, at the outset a correct understanding of how evolution is being defined in the conversation. Even on these threads there are differing understandings of mild, medium or hot…
 
Dan123 said:
Would you be impressed if I shuffled a deck of 52 cards and laid them out in a highly improbable manner? What if I could repeat that trick all day, each time laying the cards in an extremely unlikely order?
Click to expand...
You have stacked the odds by having a deck of 52 cards a limited number and suits.
 
Of course the probability of things millions of years ago turning out exactly as they have was vanishingly small. Of course the probability that things have turned out exactly as they have is 1. How do we reconcile these very different probabilities?

One thing we can’t do is pretend that the probabilities today are exactly as they were millions of years ago, because that isn’t true. So when people say that the way things have turned out is “improbable”, when in fact the way they have turned out has a probability of 1, what do they mean?

Well, they are sliding (I hope unintentionally) from the mathematical concept of probability to the everyday, colloquial concept. Colloquially, “improbable” means simply surprising, and possibly requiring some special explanation or conditions.

There is no necessity for a special explanation for why the world is as it is rather than being one of the other completely possible ways the laws of nature might have fashioned it. We know that the odds against a straight flush are tens of thousands to one against. But we know the straight flush that is dealt is no more “improbable” than any other hand.
 
Last edited:
In lectures to students I have sometimes told them that the audience is roughly 50/50 male and female, and then asked each member of it what the probability is that the person sitting next to them is male. It leads to lively discussion.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
In lectures to students I have sometimes told them that the audience is roughly 50/50 male and female, and then asked each member of it what the probability is that the person sitting next to them is male. It leads to lively discussion.
Click to expand...
… and occasional violence?
 
PickyPicky said:
But we know the straight flush that is dealt is no more “improbable” than any other hand.
Click to expand...
Deep down inside, before the lies and distortions, many people believe themselves to be to be merely an ace high. In response, to counter the damage to their sense of self and fight off the associated anxiety and depression, among the solutions is a flight into narcissism. In contrast to this illusion which requires an ongoing propping up to maintain, is the realization that one is “special” in that one’s existence is unique and irreplaceable by anyone else, the knowledge that one is loved to the core of one’s being in spite of all the failings. It comes with a recognition that we are all brothers and sisters under God. Each of us a new creation of one mankind. That didn’t happen by chance.

Many aspects of our lives are governed by the chaotic, undirected activity of influences that come with the order of the universe. Chance happenings like the bite of a mosquito that transfers the Zika virus, the winning of a lottery ticket, a volcanic eruption can have quite significant impact on our lives. In the end it is our free will that decides who we become given internal and external givens, some determined, some by chance, all ultimately coming under the will of God.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
what the probability is that the person sitting next to them
Click to expand...
The probability is high that it was a psychology class.

Obviously sociopsychological factors determine the placement of students in the lecture theatre.

The physical set-up also influences seating - such factors as the relative number of chairs to students, visual accessibility to the lecturer and screens/boards, whether there are left-sided desks and where they are situated, special seating and areas for people with physical disabilities.

Sociocultural factors can come into play. If the lecture is given in an orthodox synagogue or mosque, there is zero chance of sitting next to a member of the opposite sex. Those are the extreme and external determinants of the seating plan. But, there are more subtle internal tendencies reflecting cultural attitudes that impact on whether males and females sit next to each other, including those having to do with sexuality and socially reinforced gender-related interests. The subject matter and the approach of the lecturer also impacts on where people will sit, and influence the likelihood that men and women will sit together.

Some prefer to sit by themselves, others surrounded by people. Some men or women are more comfortable around men, some with women. Some like the front of the class for any number of reasons, some prefer the back. Visual and auditory acuity plays a role which may impact on the distribution. The time of the day also affects where people will sit in what is a first come first served situation and there are sexual differences with respect to such variables as the motivation to attend the particular lecture and the party culture of the institution.

Most things are this complex; that which has contributed to the diversity of life forms so much moreso.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Sociocultural factors can come into play. If the lecture is given in an orthodox synagogue or mosque, there is zero chance of sitting next to a member of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...
The breakdown was stated to be 50/50. So in your example if the students were in an orthodox synagogue or mosque (or some christian places of worship) they would still need to provide reasoning based on it being 50/50.
 
HarryStotle said:
Sounds like you are trying to hold onto the “randomness” element of evolution so as to maintain some kind of legitimacy with Darwinian evolutionists
Click to expand...
Exactly. The whole point of theistic evolution is to appease the scientific communtiy - lest one be accused of being - perish the thought! - “unscientific”. It is Scientism masquerading as Catholicsm, in other words, and is most probably the result of weak faith.

This is why it is common to find theistic evolutionists denying miracles, literal interpretations of Scripture and many Catholics beliefs - their god of science won’t allow them. For example, many theistic evolutions scoff at the idea that the theory of evolution is a demonically-inspired hoax. This is because they don’t believe in Satan or demons - such “superstition” doesn’t befit the scientifically-enlightened man.
 
Last edited:
"A grave error lies in the notion of ‘an evolutionary age’ - as if it were something positive to which the Church must conform. Does the author consider it progress, an awakening to true reality, that Teilhard de Chardin’s unfortunate ideas about EVOLUTION fill the air? Does he not see that the prevailing tendency to submit everything, even truth – even divine truth! – to EVOLUTION amounts to a DIABOLICAL UNDERMINING OF REVEALED TRUTH? Truth is not truth if it is ever changing. The “courageous response” called for is precisely the opposite of yielding to evolutionary mythologies
(emphasis mine) … from “A Word Of Caution” by Dietrich Von Hildebrand.

From Wikipedia:
“Hildebrand was called “the twentieth-century Doctor of the Church”[1] by Pope Pius XII. Pope John Paul II also greatly admired the work of Hildebrand, remarking once to his widow, Alice von Hildebrand, “Your husband is one of the great ethicists of the twentieth century.” Benedict XVI also has a particular admiration and regard for Hildebrand, whom he knew as a young priest in Munich. The degree of Pope Benedict’s esteem is expressed in one of his statements about Hildebrand: “When the intellectual history of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century is written, the name of Dietrich von Hildebrand will be most prominent among the figures of our time.””
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Most things are this complex; that which has contributed to the diversity of life forms so much moreso.
Click to expand...
But I think you miss the point. Whatever the complicated possibilities that contributed to the seating pattern, by the time @Hugh_Farey asked his question those complications had been resolved. Everyone was seated. If we assume for a moment that gender is approximately binary, the 50:50 and the surrounding seating pattern and all those influences on choice are now irrelevant and each student can determine to a very high degree of probability the gender of his/her neighbour.
 
Last edited:
Have you ever heard of Borel’s Law, regarding mathematical impossibility? It makes a mockery of atheistic abiogenesis.
 
Dan123 said:
You’re taking the end-product and then working backwards to try and show it’s unlikely and special
Click to expand...
I took a space shuttle, worked backards and came to the conclusion it was the result of intelligent design. Where did I go wrong?
 
Last edited:
I don’t see a conflict between the biblical narrative and the theory of evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top