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

[Fatima-Crusader]

Continuing the discussion from Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true:

The word “simul” in the Latin text of Lateran IV translates as “simultaneously” or “together at the same time” or “at once”:

Deus…creator omnium visibilium et invisibilium, spiritualium et corporalium: qui sua omnipotenti virtute **simul **ab initio temporis utramque de nihilo condiditcreaturam, spiritualem et corporalem, angelicam videlicet et mundanam: ac deinde humanam, quasi communem ex spiritu et corpore constitutam.

Lateran IV says: Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God is one alone, eternal, immense, and unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent and ineffable, Father and Son and Holy Spirit: indeed three Persons but one essence, substance, or nature entirely simple. The Father from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both; without beginning, always, and without end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the Holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal and omnipotent and coeternal; one beginning of all, creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body. For the devil and other demons were created by God good in nature, but they themselves through themselves have become wicked. But man sinned at the suggestion of the devil.

Does this condem evoultion?

 

[rossum]

You’re saying the DNA does not contain a blue print of the organism

It contains a sequence of bases which specify a sequence of amino acids which form proteins. That alone is not enough to form an organism. Leaving that DNA on a dish in a lab will not result in an organism.

I’ll wait for an actual example of an instance in actual reality where things are directed to behave a certain, specific way by things that are not intelligent.

Chemistry. There is a lot more H2O in the world that HO2. Chemical elements behave in a specific way due to the number of electrons in their outer shells. No intelligence needed.

 

[edwest]

Intelligent Design is the best answer. Zero intelligence is insufficient. Example: Scientists should be able to put the chemicals together and not just produce something that is alive but self-upgrading.

 

[Rubee]

Does this condem evoultion?

The “truly random” version? Absolutely.

There’s no contradiction though, in the notion of creatures evolving from prior creatures, if you don’t hold that creatures have not been specifically intended to exist by God in his design of the cosoms. It’s why I said that claiming both true randomness and a Creator-God is a direct contradiction.

The behaviour of creaturely free will is random in the sense that it is not directed by God in any way. God has designed this universe precisely in such a way that we (conscious creatures of free will) might be capable of true acts of love and non-love. So our freedom is part of the “design” or intention of this universe. It’s in fact the entire point of this universe! Our ability to make true choice to love. That’s why the universe is designed in the way it is.

But it’s not random in the sense that each choice we could possibly make has already been structured into the “design” of the reality we are in. As a rough example, think of a video game where at each point you’re presented with a number of possible options for behaviour. It’s not an infinite number of options since its confined by circumstances (in case of the game, by the setup in the game). But you are the one who makes the choices. They are not made for you.

So those “external” limits to our freedom confine it in a way that’s not random. But the actual choice between all available possible choices and behaviour is random in the sense that it is truly possible for us to make any of them. God is the game designer. The game is made up ultimately around a choice to love or not love. But all these possible choices of every instance of choice by every creature of free will are set up and designed in the game, apriori.

Nothing else is random in the universe except the free choice of every self-conscious transphysical entity.

This is why I found very strange the idea I saw expressed here that God setting creation up with specific outcomes was unCatholic. Stick around the internet long enough, you’ll come across the most bizarre, upside-down ideas.

 

[Rubee]

It contains a sequence of bases which specify a sequence of amino acids which form proteins. That alone is not enough to form an organism. Leaving that DNA on a dish in a lab will not result in an organism.

Still avoiding the question I see. So the DNA does not contain a blue print of the organism that directs protein and cells to behave in highly specific ways according to information that’s encoded in DNA? I never asked you if DNA was the complete process.

The entire cell operates like a little factory, complete with a blue print of the finished product, communication networks, builders, and materials. This only adds to your woes, it does not help your cause a single inch. Since you’re now involving even more of the engineering in the discussion, when you can’t even explain the blue print alone. Nor even the fact that it’s communicated to protein and cells so that they build what it says to build and not something else.

Chemistry. There is a lot more H2O in the world that HO2. Chemical elements behave in a specific way due to the number of electrons in their outer shells. No intelligence needed.

I don’t know how long you’ll keep playing this game of an endless string of irrelevancies. There is no code in H2O. Each H20 is itself, it is not arranged into symbols that mean anything else, let alone that can be communicated to other things to direct their behaviour so as to match the information in the H20. It is not information or a symbol or an instruction. So try again.

 

[buffalo]

Still avoiding the question I see. So the DNA does not contain a blue print of the organism that directs protein and cells to behave in highly specific ways according to information that’s encoded in DNA?

You understand that he cannot admit this , ever, or the gig is up.

Over and over it has been made clear that DNA is a code that is encrypted. Codes, symbols, maps, etc. always come from a mind.

 

[edwest]

Very true. Admitting to this is not possible.

 

[Techno2000]

Well… guess what, somebody started a new evolution thread.

 

[edwest]

It happens

 

[Techno2000]

It happens

I love these threads, because the more I read, the more I see the lack of details in this theory.

 

[edwest]

Same here. Same here.

 

[Edgar]

the Church allows for a Catholic to believe in the ToE as long as it is understood that God was and is behind it all

Actually, the only way evolution makes any sense is if its “mechanism” is a series of miracles performed by God. Such a model is pretty much the same as the progressive creation model I subscribe to. But as for Darwinan evolution as science, it’s so hopelessly far-fetched and flawed it’s a joke. It’s kinda disturbing that so many highly intelligent folks not only take the “scientific” explanation for the history of life seriously, but they do so without being even slightly embarrassed.

It’s likely that you’ve never really thought about the theory that much, but have accepted it blindly and uncritically because you are naive and gullible enough to believe that all those Darwinist academics and scientitsts can’t possiblly be wrong. The good news is, growing up late is better than not growing up at all.

 

[Edgar]

Karma does not require intelligence and more than gravity does. If you throw a stone straight up in the air then it will come down and hit you on the head.

Hmm, let’s consider what karma must do:

1. It must somehow be able to “see” or be aware of every deed of every human being. Karrma must therefore be ominiscient.
2. It must then judge the moral worth (or lack thereof) of every deed of every human being - ie, how good or evil (or somewhere in between) each and every deed is. How did karma - a supposedly mindless force - come to be the universal creator of morality, deciding what is good or evil? Do gravity or electricity or the wind have morality too? (And apparently, even though karma has decided what is good or evil, it doesn’t inform us poor clueless humans of these decisions - we have no choice but to stumble through our various lives and incarnations in a fog of moral darkness, not knowing what is good or evil, and then suffering the pitiless karmic consequences of our ignorance.)
3. Having judged every deed of every human being, karma must then faultlessly deliver reward or punishment in everyone’s future life, according to what each deed deserves. To ensure this happens, karma must pull the strings of the universe so that the fate of each and every human being matches karmic justice. In other words, karma must have total control over the universe and the lives of all humans. Karma must therefore be not only omniscient, but omnipotent as well.

Karma must perform all these tasks - which, let’s face it, only an all-knowing, all-powerful God could perform - and yet you claim “karma does not require intelligence”?

You still have no explanation for the origin of your proposed designer.

The God of Christianity had no origin, so no explanation is possible.

An intelligent designer is a complex entity, yet you have no explanation for the origin of that complexity. You do not explain complexity, you merely assume it.

The origin of the complexity of God? What?

 

[edwest]

Here’s the thing. I asked a younger relative about the concept. And I got a shocked, almost angry reply: “Why would they lie to me?” Think about it. A young person who hasn’t given the theory a personal critical evaluation would prefer that somebody just tell them it’s true and move on. Why would they lie to you? Simple. “You are an animal.” That’s it. You are more sophisticated than any other animal, which means you are accountable to no one and die to nothing. You are, on some level, your own god. Able to do whatever.

What an empty idea. Soulless. That is what this is about.

 

[edwest]

The answer is, God can do things only God can do. Like create everything from nothing.

 

[Edgar]

Because soft tissue from that long ago is unknown. I have to rely on possible examples from contemporary animals. The current mammalian circulatory system did not appear in one single giant step, it appeared gradually in lots of different steps.

So you’re saying there’s no evidence at all that it appeared gradually in lots of little steps, and that all you’ve got is an assumption that it did not appear in one giant step? Oh dear …

But wait! You’re playing the “Evolutionary Biology” game, so who needs evidence when a mere assumption based on an a priori belief is just as valid?

Insects are a potential model for the very early development of the tetrapod heart.

Er, no; they’re not - your logic makes no sense - there is no possible evolutionary link from insects to tetrapods.

The early stages would not have been the same as the current, much more developed, stage.

Pure speculation, but that’s ok, since you’re talking evolutionary biology.

 

[Edgar]

Here’s the thing. I asked a younger relative about the concept. And I got a shocked, almost angry reply: “Why would they lie to me?” Think about it. A young person who hasn’t given the theory a personal critical evaluation would prefer that somebody just tell them it’s true and move on.

Young people have an excuse and tend to be naive and gullilbe in this way. They think there is nothing subjective - and therefore suspect - about what scientists, academics, the mass media and the education system tells them. The idea of a personal belief being presented publicly as an established scientific fact is unthinkable.

 

[Edgar]

Are djinni needed to form a water molecule from hydrogen and oxygen?

How do you know the laws of chemistry and physics are not dependent on an ever-present, supernatural force?

 

[rossum]

There is no code in H2O.

There is no code in DNA, RNA or tRNA either. They are chemicals which bind in particular ways. We humans project our concept of a code onto them, but the only ‘code’ is the concept in our heads, not a property of the actual chemicals.

 

[rossum]

Codes, symbols, maps, etc. always come from a mind.

And you have no explanation for the origin of the complexity of that intelligent mind that you assume.

If, as ID assumes, complexity can only come from intelligent design, then your “mind” itself meeds intelligent design, and you have an infinite regress.