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

[o_mlly]

Why is faith required? You have agreed that evolution is just hunky dory. So we have some points we can make.

I have consistently rejected evolution theory that claims human beings evolved from non-human beings. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) does not allow an effect to possess a property (in this case, the faculty to abstract) not present in one or more of its causes.

And, we’ve been here before. Let’s resolve the open issue between us first (it’s a philosophical issue).

Continuing the discussion from Why you should think that the First-Cause has to be an Intelligent Cause:

Atheist’s objection to the PSR. “PSR is not universal.”

If PSR is not universal then under what principles does one invoke or not invoke PSR as controlling? Atheist answer: “Dunno. Maybe brute facts.”

Should one’s worldview be coherent? (Rational) atheist: Absolutely, Yes!

Does man have free will? Rational atheist: Absolutely not. The forces that work upon us determine our every action. PSR, you know, is universal.

If you replied, I missed it. So, if PSR is not universal then under what principles does one invoke or not invoke PSR?

 

[Bradskii]

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) does not allow an effect to possess a property not present in one or more of its causes.

This is patently and obviously completely and utterly incorrect. You have made a rod for your own back in accepting evolution but then attempting to separate man from the process.

This claim that nothing can exist if it wasn’t present in its cause is refuted by the fact of evolution itself.

If you accept evolution then everything alive today has a direct line back to a time when there was nothing but very basic life forms. So all that we have today has developed from organisms that possesed nothing that exists today.

There was no sight at one point. Yet sight developed. There was no flight. Yet it developed. There was no intelligence. Yet it developed. There was no ability to breathe air. Yet it developed. Every sense, every instinct, every single aspect of any living organism today was not a property of the organisms which originally preceeded them. Yet they evolved.

But you want an asterix placed next to homo Sapien (or somewhere back when the prefix ‘homo’ was applicable) because you need God to act specifically at some point in time in some way. For some reason known only to you He needs to have inserted this obilisk moment into our history when we became human. It seems you are unable or unwilling to allow God to let His nature take its course and have man evolve to this point.

I believe that man is an accident of the evolutionary process. Most Christians would believe that God directed the process to produce us. You, on the other hand, deny that God could have done this and you need a specific celestial command from on high. That God needs to intervene at some obscure point otherwise evolution (the process He designed) wasn’t going to do what He wanted it to do.

So be it.

 

[o_mlly]

… I believe that man is an accident of the evolutionary process.

As I posted, evolutionists are people of faith.

It’s a challenge to argue with one who buys bales of straw by the truckload. Thus my ellipsis as you continue to misstate my position.

Here’s the incoherence in your position.

Any and all truth claims of science are based on accepting self-evident metaphysical truth that the the universe is intelligible. I presume you do accept the principle.

The intelligibility of the universe depends on the existence of unchanging laws that govern the universe discoverable by man. Discovering the laws allows the reliable prediction that “if x then y” and, conversely, "if not x then not y.’ The latter, just as important as the former is the principle of sufficient reason. Nothing happens without sufficient reason.

For instance, sometime today, I will go out to the boxy thing in my garage which contains over 20 gallons of highly flammable liquid, strap myself into it and ignite it causing that liquid to begin to combust. I rely on the laws of cause and effect to 1) insure the boxy thing does not self-ignite while I sleep and, 2) insure that I am not immolated when I ignite it.

To assert that life popped out of non-life and human life from non-human life must necessarily deny selectively the PSR.

You deny free will in human beings asserting that there is no freedom of choice because sufficient reasons exist that always determine that choice; that all the active forces (causes) at the time of decision preclude any free choice (effect). So, I ask you again: What principles guide you is selective asserting PSR here (free choice) but not there (evolution of human life)?

 

[Aloysium]

That’s because man evolved this sense of abstraction and now possesses an ability not possessed by any other animals.

This comes across as merely a profession of faith. I think if you want to make a point you would have to explain how you understand this to have occurred. A specific example would help illustrate your point.

How about the Pythagorean Theorem:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Recall what it says and consider what you are doing in the process. This is an example of what we do when we contemplate the structure of the universe and our place in it.

How did what you are doing ever evolve from anything? We are, thinking about the question, entering into a more complex example of our rational mind, which reflects our relational nature. It involves our capacity for self-reflection in addition to that of abstract thinking and imagination. So, how has this come to be?

Give me anything and I will take it from there; let’s see where it leads.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That’s because man evolved this sense of abstraction and now possesses an ability not possessed by any other animals.

This comes across as merely a profession of faith.

No, just an explanation of why the abstraction abilities of man are not an argument against evolution.

I think if you want to make a point you would have to explain how you understand this to have occurred.

I don’t know how it occurred. So what?

 

[rossum]

I think if you want to make a point you would have to explain how you understand this to have occurred.

This is dangerous territory. If Christianity wants to make a point then, according to you, it has to explain how things occurred. That explanation requires removing all mysteries from the faith, since “mystery” is a place-holder for “I have no explanation”.

Do you have a description of the Christian religion with no mysteries included?

Science knows that it does not know everything; the default answer to any question in science is “we don’t know.” That is why science is always open to new data and does not come to final conclusions. Every scientific theory is provisional and is open to chance or replacement by an improved theory.

rossum

 

[goout]

…

This claim that nothing can exist if it wasn’t present in its cause is refuted by the fact of evolution itself.

Let me observe that you don’t understand this issue any better than the fundamentalists.
Please think about your above statement for a minute…

And as one who exalts rationality to the highest place, why are you picking the low hanging fruit offered by fundamentalists? Debating Christianity with fundamentalists is like going to an eternal free buffet.
It’s too good to be true, 'cause it’s not.

 

[Aloysium]

This is dangerous territory. If Christianity wants to make a point then, according to you, it has to explain how things occurred. That explanation requires removing all mysteries from the faith, since “mystery” is a place-holder for “I have no explanation”.

The revelation of creation rooted in Existence, in contradistinction to the darkness of ignorance, is a fathomless mystery of infinite brilliance.

All this is possible because we can know, and knowing any aspect of our existence in the world, drives us to know more and more. Knowledge then, would not be merely a linking of facts; it is the awareness of, the connection, through our perceptions, our thoughts and our feelings, to some aspect of the “structure” of reality. Ultimately, our desire to know is fulfilled in the knowledge of the Knowledge whereby we are known and are therefore able to know - the Beatific Vision.

The explanation is a byproduct of the journey which leads to the greatest mystery of them all - the ultimate Truth, encompassing all that is.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t know how it occurred. So what?

Evolution is said to describe how we came to be as part of the diversity of life on earth.
What is being demonstrated by your response is that it is essentially a belief.

the abstraction abilities of man are not an argument against evolution.

That you, or anybody else for that matter, cannot come up with an explanation as to how our capacity to know and abstract, let alone our individual seves as expressions of humanity, came to be as part of an evolutionary process, should be an indicator that the theory is without merit.

 

[o_mlly]

If Christianity wants to make a point then, according to you, it has to explain how things occurred.

For a truth to be a point of faith all that is needed is the descriptor, the in “what” is it that I believe. Some of the truths we profess are beyond reason but none opposed to reason.

Science knows that it does not know everything; the default answer to any question in science is “we don’t know.”

We agree. Science certainly ought to say, “we don’t know” when the evidence is less than compelling.

But what we may still disagree on is the rationality of the faith of those evolutionists who claim human beings evolved from non-human beings. Unlike truths in the Catholic faith, that faith subscribes to a belief that is irrational.

 

[rossum]

The revelation of creation rooted in Existence, in contradistinction to the darkness of ignorance, is a fathomless mystery of infinite brilliance.

So, you do not have an explanation, you just have a “mystery”. That means you fail on your own terms. As I pointed out, your earlier request was dangerous.

The revelation of creation rooted in Existence, in contradistinction to the darkness of ignorance, is a fathomless mystery of infinite brilliance.

And another non-explanation with a “mystery”.

I hope the hole in your foot does not hurt too much.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I don’t know how it occurred. So what?

Evolution is said to describe how we came to be as part of the diversity of life on earth.
What is being demonstrated by your response is that it is essentially a belief.

If it is a belief, it is a belief only that the laws of nature are consistent. They do not vary from time to time or from place to place. That is what gives me the confidence to know that gravity on Mars behaves by the same rules as gravity on Earth, even before we sent spacecraft there to experimentally verify it. This belief is what gives me confidence to say that certain atoms are present in the stars, even though I have no way of getting a sample of star stuff. I say that because of the spectrum of light emitted. I trust that the same elements produce the same spectrum on the stars that they do on Earth. It is what gives me the confidence to say that hydrocarbons of ten million years ago combined with oxygen to produce heat in fires, even though I have no way of performing an experiment in the past. I take it on faith that chemistry did not change over the millennia. If that makes my views essentially a belief, then color me a believer.

That you, or anybody else for that matter, cannot come up with an explanation as to how our capacity to know and abstract, let alone our individual seves as expressions of humanity, came to be as part of an evolutionary process, should be an indicator that the theory is without merit.

The merit of a theory is that it describes something about a physical process. In the case of evolution, it does that, so it has merit. It may not described everything about that physical process. But that does not detract from the merit it has in describing what it does described. Do I really need to give you examples of established scientific theories that explain some of the facts without explaining all of them? If you just reflect on this a while you can probably come up with several such theories.

 

[rossum]

But what we may still disagree on is the rationality of the faith of those evolutionists who claim human beings evolved from non-human beings. Unlike truths in the Catholic faith, that faith subscribes to a belief that is irrational.

Evolution deals with the development of the physical human body from non-human ancestors. It ignores the soul, which is outwith the boundary of science:

It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God

– Pope John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)

Genesis tells us that Adam had “nostrils” before God breathed. In order to have nostrils a physical body is required. Evolution describes, in a lot more detail than Genesis, the origin of that physical body and those nostrils.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

“mystery”

Again, if it was not made clear ignorance =/= mystery.

Let’s see if I can explain in what may be your terms. The concept in Buddhist terms is linked to that of enlightenment. The Buddha spoke of realizations he had as to the nature of human existence, the disorder that befalls us as suffering, its causes and cure. One can adopt the tenets of the religion as part of the process that leads to Nirvana.

It is all perfectly rational; there is a reality to all this mystery to which we can connect. All this wonder is only pointed to by our thoughts and explanations, which can never diminish its awesome beauty. The mystery ever grows, which is why the more and more one knows, one realizes how much more there is that one doesn’t.

 

[Aloysium]

the laws of nature are consistent. They do not vary from time to time or from place to place.

Evolution does not represent what nature did. It is not a law of nature.

The laws of nature are actually a component of mankind’s relationship with physical creation. They represent what we discern of the underlying structure of the physical universe from events that we obsrve and cause to happen.

Mankind is a new creation, as we each all are. We did not evolve from animals.

I take it on faith that chemistry did not change over the millennia.

The chemistry we observe today demonstrates the need to avoid radiation and chemicals that affect our genome. This is because random mutations, which for the most part may have neutral impact on us, are destructive to the established order of a living organism. The way that atoms and molecules relate to one another is chaotic to the whole, the living being that contains them. Reactions are tightly regulated within the greater system.

If I reproduce something I’ve written with random changes appearing, I will grt simwtjing thst is ultimatrku il;giblw, edpexiakky as tyr cgjngws accunulste obrr tune.

That is what chemistry demonstrates.

I would think that those who believe in God the Creator would understand that clearly a higher order of “design” to that which created molecules is needed.

The merit of a theory is that it describes something about a physical process. In the case of evolution, it does that, so it has merit. It may not described everything about that physical process.

I guess the theory is that it is simply a random, lucky coincidence that the human brain is structured in such a way as to be able to physically express the capacities inherent in the soul, with which it is one. No intervention by God required? You can fool some of the people most of the time, it seems.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

the laws of nature are consistent. They do not vary from time to time or from place to place.

Evolution does not represent what nature did. It is not a law of nature.

If you think the theory is false then it is natural that you should think it is not a law of nature.

I take it on faith that chemistry did not change over the millennia.

The chemistry we observe today demonstrates the need to…
[/quote]
You do like to wander off the subject, don’t you?

I would think that those who believe in God the Creator would understand that clearly a higher order of “design” to that which created molecules is needed.

“Is needed” for what? To complete my understanding of God in my world? Yes. To formulate scientific theories? No.

The merit of a theory is that it describes something about a physical process. In the case of evolution, it does that, so it has merit. It may not described everything about that physical process.

I guess the theory is that is simply random coincidence that the human brain is structured in such a way as to be able to physically express the capacities inherent in the soul, with which it is one.

As usual, you misrepresent the theory.

No intervention by God required?

Required for what? To override the laws of nature? Most of the time the answer is “no.” God rarely has to override the laws of nature. And even then, it is only perceived as a override to us. To God it is probably perceived as His laws that we understand imperfectly.

 

[Aloysium]

Evolution deals with the development of the physical human body from non-human ancestors. It ignores the soul, which is outwith the boundary of science:

The soul and the body are a unity.

Thinking of all this as information, the information that constitutes each of us as individual human beings contains that which is matter and mind in addition to our spirit as humanity. It is all one thing and temporally came into being as such. The appearance of mankind on earth did not involve any sort of transformation of a previously existing living being. We are a new creation, different in every respect other than some physical similarities to what was.

 

[Bradskii]

And as one who exalts rationality to the highest place, why are you picking the low hanging fruit offered by fundamentalists?

You’ll have to take that up with each of the people who profess fundamentalist views. I can only respond to what they post.

 

[Bradskii]

As I posted…

This scatter gun approach will not work (now we’re onto free will?).

All you need to do is accept or deny that aspects of every organism that now exists (and we’ll leave mankind out to make it easier for you) have developed from a time when they didn’t exist.

So let’s continue to keep it as simple as possible and limit ourselves to just one aspect, shall we? Let’s go with sight, because as sure as God make little green apples, the types of life forms that started off the whole shooting match did not posses that property. But now almost everything now does.

So we have an effect (living organisms today) which have a property (sight) not present in the cause (basic life forms from which today’s organisms have evolved).

If that is not clear enough then I am at a loss as to how to make it so. But do you concede the above?

 

[rossum]

The soul and the body are a unity.

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7

Belief in a soul is not universal. Buddhism denies the existence of a soul, whether of the Abrahamic or the Hindu versions.

Science does not deal with the immaterial. The Pope did well to separate the origin of the material body (which is within the ambit of science) from the origin of the soul (which is not.)

rossum