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

[Aloysium]

But you demand that we must accept than Man is somehow different from the rest of existence.

I don’t demand anything. I’m stating an opinion which rings true to me.

Not one person here has said that Man is just an accidental result of blind chance.

I am interested in Wozza’s version of evolution, in particular, since you are yourself and should know best, what you think you are and how it is that you came to be.

if mankind was somehow exempted by science from the process of evolution then you guys would have ZERO problem with it.

Wrong is wrong. There’s no “guys” here, just me saying this. Now if you said macroevolution were exempt we’d be getting closer to agreement, but speciation involves built-in genetic and epigenetic processes in addition to the gene deletion that random mutations cause.

nonsensical claims and farcical statements

I think the same thing about evolution.

THAT is why they were added to your statement.

You added it as a quote by me. I would report you if I believed it to be a purposeful act meant to post disinformation.

You not only throw the water out. You throw the baby out as well and then try to heave the whole bath with it.

I’m not doing that at all. If anything in keeping with that analogy, I’m trying to disinfect the scene, so the baby (the truth, which includes real science) doesn’t get sick (isn’t contaminated by what is an illusion)

It’s all smoke and mirrors. ‘Look, this is where our argument lies’. When the true position is one of fundamental beliefs and literal interpretations of scripture.

It is what reason tells us when we look at existence with an open mind…

 

[Richca]

I perfectly understand what your saying but apparently you do not understand or grasp what I’m saying. In a word, I simply do not believe in a certain sense and to a certain degree in the theories and opinions where ever they are coming from and whoever says it that you mention in your post. I thank God everyday that he created me with my own intellect by which I can form my own judgements concerning various things and not just accept the opinions of others.

• Your confusing scientific theory with scientific fact.
• You appear to not distinguish the natural sciences and their theories with other fields of study of a higher and more universal nature such as philosophy and metaphysics, natural theology, and sacred theology or revealed truth. Worse yet, you appear to place unproven scientific theories above revealed truth which is absolutely certain or appear to suggest that such theories are the only legitimate interpretation of revealed truth. This is irrational and not how it works. You are arguing solely from the point of view of the natural and related sciences and unproven theories and take this as your guide to all truth and all reality. This is a very limited understanding of reality and it is certainly not what catholics believe and in which the very foundation of our faith is revealed truth or divine revelation contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition which is the highest truth and science and from which all other sciences or theories of science are judged from. Since your not a catholic or believer, I understand where your coming from but that is your choice.

Personally, I neither believe in Darwinian biological evolution of species nor cosmic evolution such as the big bang theory and many of the natural theories in a certain sense or at least not in the same degree that follow from the big bang that you mention such as galaxy formation and planet accretion formation. For example, I believe that God created and formed planet earth himself, indeed, our whole solar system and galaxy. What I mean can be drawn from an analogy from the building and formation of a house. The builder first gathers the materials together provided by nature and than puts them together with his own hands to complete the form of the house. Analogously, in the formation of planet earth, for example, God first created and formed the elements that make up planet earth and the seas and then at the appointed time put them together into the formation of planet earth and the seas by his own ‘hands’. The theory of plate techtonics concerning the earth may have some truth to it but it was God I believe who designed and formed himself the entire earth and whatever makes it up including the plate techtonics if that be the case analogous to a builder of a house who places some materials in a certain part of the house or as a car maker places various parts of the car in their proper order to form a car.

 

[Aloysium]

Richca:

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.

When that evidence is misunderstood, rammed into current beliefs about underlying chaos within a purely urtilitarian universe, that’s when you come up with evolution. God, who is Love cannot be reconciled with that vision. Science cannot prove or disprove what exists outseide its realm of knowledge.

 

[IWantGod]

When that evidence is misunderstood, rammed into current beliefs about underlying chaos within a purely urtilitarian universe, that’s when you come up with evolution.

How have you come to that conclusion?

God, who is Love cannot be reconciled with that vision.

A universe where God is not the cause? I agree, but i fail to see what that has to do with the natural theory of evolution?

 

[Aloysium]

The theory was not designed to attack your faith

I try not to assume motives, but a quick review of the people involved in its development, suggests otherwise.

 

[IWantGod]

I try not to assume motives, but a quick review of the people involved in its development, suggests otherwise.

I wouldn’t mind hearing this conspiracy theory, even if it’s just for entertainment reasons

Even if Evolution was just a clever lie made up by atheists to destroy Christianity, they failed, because they were attacking a strawman of Christianity, which is something that you are failing to understand…

The only casualties are either those who do not understand this or those who have grounded their entire faith in William Paley’s watchmaker argument.

What did God say about building ones faith on sand.

 

[PickyPicky]

I’m a non-believer, and if I thought evolutionary theory was a good argument for atheism, I’d certainly use it. Unfortunately it ain’t. Just the best description scientists have for the way species came about.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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

Not the only source of knowledge, but it is the only source of scientific knowledge, as defined by the scientific method, which are the rules we play by when we do science.

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.

I don’t know why this “no practical value” thing is brought up again and again when trying to answer the question “is evolution true?” It certainly can be argued that it has value, but that argument would be a sidetrack from the original question. Obviously the presence or absence of practical use has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether or not a theory is true.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

When that evidence is misunderstood, rammed into current beliefs about underlying chaos within a purely urtilitarian universe, that’s when you come up with evolution.

How have you come to that conclusion?

God, who is Love cannot be reconciled with that vision.

A universe where God is not the cause? I agree, but i fail to see what that has to do with the natural theory of evolution?

This calls for another lengthy post which very few people read.

Basically, consider evolution to be a mosaic. If you take the pieces (scientific facts) and arrange them the way they fit best (using reason), utilizing knowledge inaccessable to science (which fill gaps proportionately the size of black energy and matter to the visible universe) the picture that is formed is completely different from the original. It is one of creation. Through the Light that is Jesus Christ, a truth is revealed; as silly as Genesis seems to sound to people in this age, it reaches the heights, where evolution remains in the dirt.

As to your last question:

 

[Aloysium]

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…

It’s not only Christian fundamentalists who remain unconvinced, and not only by the few arguments that you have proposed. Seeing that the idea of evolution is ingrained in the modern zeitgeist, I am equally expecting the counterargument not to be understood.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

I try not to assume motives, but a quick review of the people involved in its development, suggests otherwise.

I wouldn’t mind hearing this conspiracy theory, even if it’s just for entertainment reasons

Even if Evolution was just a clever lie made up by atheists to destroy Christianity, they failed, because they were attacking a strawman of Christianity, which is something that you are failing to understand…

The only casualties are either those who do not understand this or those who have grounded their entire faith in William Paley’s watchmaker argument.

What did God say about building ones faith on sand.

Various conflicting visions operating behind the scenes, projected onto groups, conspiracies, Christians, atheists, all strawmen, reflecting the tension that arises from the abyss that is ignorance, stabilized in and through society’s offering of evolution.

Let’s pray that we all awaken, our eyes open to the truth.

 

[edwest]

It doesn’t? Give me an example then. From the title “Why you should think…” Why should I? As I mentioned long ago, science is limited. I get that. And the importance of this theory does not seem to be based on anything. It’s like an advertising message: Why you should think Coke (or Pepsi) tastes good.

 

[IWantGod]

It doesn’t? Give me an example then. From the title “Why you should think…” Why should I? As I mentioned long ago, science is limited. I get that. And the importance of this theory does not seem to be based on anything. It’s like an advertising message: Why you should think Coke (or Pepsi) tastes good.

This thread is a response to other threads or posts on those threads that were going on before, made by those that disagree with evolution, hence the title “why you should think, that evolution is true”.

Your attempt to make it out to be an advertisement is quite funny and ridiculous.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It doesn’t? Give me an example then. From the title “Why you should think…” Why should I? As I mentioned long ago, science is limited. I get that. And the importance of this theory does not seem to be based on anything. It’s like an advertising message: Why you should think Coke (or Pepsi) tastes good.

There you go talking about the “importance” again. That is a separate issue (which has also been debated here, but I just want to clarify it is a separate issue.) But if you are asking why you should believe it is true, the simple answer is because evidence supports the claim that it is true. If the question is only about truth, then the secondary question of how important that truth is in some applications is irrelevant. (Although, I think a good case has also been made that not only is it true, but it is also useful in applications. But again, I am not going to get into that argument.)

 

[edwest]

Sometimes I feel like I’ve walked into a building with a sign outside that reads: “Ministry of No Straight Answers.”

What “evidence” supports the claim that it is true? I’ve seen a beautiful photo of an insect in amber. It had legs, wings and compound eyes and was apparently fully functional. No extraneous bits.

 

[IWantGod]

What “evidence”

Lets be honest, there has been plenty. You are only picking on evolution because you think it’s a threat. If you thought that the theory of general relativity was a threat you would probably say something like “how can space warp? Space is not a thing, it’s empty! It’s just an optical illusion. Atheists just made it up to undermine Christianity. it’s not a valid theory until it’s proven.”

The theory of evolution, apart from the age of the universe, is the only theory where ordinary people who are not scientists have felt the need to complain. No amount of evidence will ever be enough for some people.

 

[Techno2000]

edwest:

What “evidence”

Lets be honest, there has been plenty. You are only picking on evolution because you think it’s a threat. If you thought that the theory of general relativity was a threat you would probably say something like “how can space warp? Space is not a thing, it’s empty! It’s just an optical illusion. Atheists just made it up to undermine Christianity. it’s not a valid theory until it’s proven.”

The theory of evolution, apart from the age of the universe, is the only theory where ordinary people who are not scientists have felt the need to complain. No amount of evidence will ever be enough for some people.

It’s simple for me… just show me a creature now, that’s halfway in the process of morphing into something completely new and will believe.

 

[Richca]

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

If God wanted to create a world which somehow evolved by itself or out of itself from certain primal condition/s and laws, it would be very difficult if not impossible to say that He couldn’t. This I believe is where recent popes are coming from in the few comments in which they or at least St Pope John Paul II stated that in principle, i.e., according to the catholic faith such as what I just said, evolution is not against the catholic faith such as when Jesus said ‘nothing is impossible with God’.

But it doesn’t follow that God so created the world we live in such a manner, namely, through evolution nor even that it is possible according to this created order nor that such a theory may not in fact contradict revealed truth. We believe God to be omnipotent or all-powerful but we don’t believe he can do things that involve logical contradictions not because of a lack of power but because of the contradiction involved. God does have an intellect and possesses infinite wisdom and is in a certain sense ‘rational’. For example, we don’t believe God can make something not to have been made by Him; or that He can cease to exist; or make the past not to have been; or make a square circle; or that a being can be a non-being at the same time and in the same respect;

Consequently, I don’t think we can say God could create just any world which could somehow evolve out of itself from certain primal condition/s or laws unless such a world is presumed not to involve any logical contradictions or impossibilities. Being not God, I do not know what such a world would look like nor what would have to be the primal conditions or beings. I personally do not believe that the created order of the world we live in is of such a kind that it evolved out of a primal singularity such as is theorized according to the big bang theory. The theory involves innumerable assumptions and possibly logical contradictions. I believe the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2:3 is true according to the interpretation that God created and directly formed the universe and all its variety of creatures over a period of time (the 6+ days) which implies that this universe did not and could not evolve out of itself from a primal condition such as the big bang singularity to produce all the variety of creatures in this world whether animate or inanimate.

 

[IWantGod]

Is simple for me… just show me a creature now, that’s halfway in the process of morphing into something completely new and will believe.

Firstly there is no such thing as an incomplete organism and scientists have never argued that such is the case. So we would have to first agree on what counts as evidence for evolution. What do you mean by half-way? Do you mean like half cow half duck? Clearly if such an organism did exist you would argue that this was not a result of evolution but was how God created it. You would probably say the same thing about the platypus.

You mean a transitional fossil? Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

Here is a link because i no-longer wish to waste my time.

Evidence of evolution - rock fossils - Evolution - AQA - GCSE Biology (Single Science) Revision - AQA - BBC Bitesize

Revise principles of evolution by natural selection for GCSE Biology, AQA.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[IWantGod]

And here is my commonsense argument.

If God created species, then apart from animals that have gone extinct, all the animals that exist today should be no different from when they were first created; there should be no new species. So it should be true that the Platypus has always existed for as long as there have been animals. From the moment animals existed they ought to be identical to the animals that live today. The evidence does not bare out that claim.