Catholics and evolution

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Claim, Claim, Claim, Claim, Claim, Claim. Sorry no evidence, but could you swallow it just the same please.

How does this add to this interesting discussion?
Jbuza you dissapoint me.

[Yehren]

Yehren wrote:
My take on it is that only God is eternal, always having existed, and that He created all things.

Clearly, that creation was both instantaneous, in which He created the universe, and ongoing, in which it continues to unfold.

So if God created all things, and since you insist on seperating evolution from religion,

Plumbers separate plumbing from religion, for exactly the same reason.

how do you bring the two together?

Science, like plumbing, is unable to assess the supernatural. You need other ways of understanding that. Like plumbers, scientists apply their faith in their daily conduct, even if it can't be used to fix pipes or do spectral analyses.

Did God create evolution?

As all other things.

What exactly did God create in your opinion? Life, or the set of circumstances that produced life, or the first spark of the big bang?

If we can trust the Bible, then God created it and the rules by which it works in one instant, from which everything was brought forth as He intended.

[August]

Yehren wrote:
My take on it is that only God is eternal, always having existed, and that He created all things.

Clearly, that creation was both instantaneous, in which He created the universe, and ongoing, in which it continues to unfold.

So if God created all things, and since you insist on seperating evolution from religion,

Plumbers separate plumbing from religion, for exactly the same reason.

Plumbers don't make metaphysical claims, so stop with the false analogies.

Science, like plumbing, is unable to assess the supernatural. You need other ways of understanding that. Like plumbers, scientists apply their faith in their daily conduct, even if it can't be used to fix pipes or do spectral analyses.

No, science is by definition biased against the supernatural, but still uses supernatural presuppositions. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, and leads one to exclude any supernatural explanation by definition.

As all other things.

So God created evolution? Does that not mean that you actually believe in Intelligent Design with God as the designer, since if God created evolution, His intelligence is inserted in the process, and it explains all the complexity of life, just like ID proposes?

If we can trust the Bible, then God created it and the rules by which it works in one instant, from which everything was brought forth as He intended.

You are saying that the Bible is not necessarily reliable, but let's assume that it is for arguments sake. Please provide the Scriptural exegesis to demonstrate what you said. You also previously said that God continues to create, if all of that was done in one instant, then how is God still creating?

[sandy_mcd]

So God created evolution? Does that not mean that you actually believe in Intelligent Design with God as the designer, since if God created evolution, His intelligence is inserted in the process, and it explains all the complexity of life, just like ID proposes?

In a sense that is a reasonable explanation. But it should be "intelligent design" not "Intelligent Design" as the latter as different connotations (just as Liberals are not always liberal nor Conservatives conservative). And the complexity of life arises just as the simplicity of minerals does, from physical law. [ID proposes that the hand of the creator is obvious in the creation through violations of physical law which pertains to the rest of creation.]

[Yehren]

Yehren observes:
My take on it is that only God is eternal, always having existed, and that He created all things.

Clearly, that creation was both instantaneous, in which He created the universe, and ongoing, in which it continues to unfold.

Quote:
So if God created all things, and since you insist on seperating evolution from religion,


Plumbers separate plumbing from religion, for exactly the same reason.

Plumbers don't make metaphysical claims,

Most of them do. They are theists, after all. Plumbing theory doesn't, however. Neither does evolutionary theory.

so stop with the false analogies.

It's a perfect analogy. Neither plumbing nor evolutionary theory can make metaphysical assumptions.

Yehren observes:
Science, like plumbing, is unable to assess the supernatural. You need other ways of understanding that. Like plumbers, scientists apply their faith in their daily conduct, even if it can't be used to fix pipes or do spectral analyses.

No, science is by definition biased against the supernatural,

Nope. That's why theists can do science. Science can't even comment on the supernatural, much less say whether exists or not.

Methodological naturalism is a philosophical position,

Nope. You're confusing methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism. Hence, plumbers (who are also methodologically naturalistic) look for clogs in your pipes, not demons of obstruction. They are almost always right.

Yehren on the idea that God created evolution:
As all other things.

So God created evolution?

All things.

Does that not mean that you actually believe in Intelligent Design with God as the designer, since if God created evolution, His intelligence is inserted in the process, and it explains all the complexity of life, just like ID proposes?

I only object to ID demoting the Creator to a mere "designer." But let's not quibble about semantics. My religious faith in God creating all things is not that much different than that of IDers.

Engineers, BTW, have started emulating God's program, in that they now use genetic algorithms that mimic evolution to solve problems that aren't easy to solve by design.

If we can trust the Bible, then God created it and the rules by which it works in one instant, from which everything was brought forth as He intended.

You are saying that the Bible is not necessarily reliable,

No, that's not what I'm saying.

but let's assume that it is for arguments sake.

For me it's settled.

Please provide the Scriptural exegesis to demonstrate what you said

Sure.
Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

God creates nature, and then uses nature to complete creation.

You also previously said that God continues to create, if all of that was done in one instant, then how is God still creating?

Only the universe and the rules by which it works were created in that instant. You are a creature of God, are you not? And yet you were created later, by natural means.

Only your immortal soul is given directly by God, and is not part of nature. It is that soul that makes you different than all the rest of natural creation, and makes you potentially able to have fellowship with God.

[August]

Yehren observes:
My take on it is that only God is eternal, always having existed, and that He created all things.

Clearly, that creation was both instantaneous, in which He created the universe, and ongoing, in which it continues to unfold.

Quote:
So if God created all things, and since you insist on seperating evolution from religion,

Plumbers separate plumbing from religion, for exactly the same reason.

Plumbers don't make metaphysical claims,

Most of them do. They are theists, after all. Plumbing theory doesn't, however. Neither does evolutionary theory.

It's a perfect analogy. Neither plumbing nor evolutionary theory can make metaphysical assumptions.

Was all living things on earth created in 6 days? If not, why not? I seriously doubt that blocked pipes will explain that.

Nope. That's why theists can do science. Science can't even comment on the supernatural, much less say whether exists or not.

Quote:
Methodological naturalism is a philosophical position,


Nope. You're confusing methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism. Hence, plumbers (who are also methodologically naturalistic) look for clogs in your pipes, not demons of obstruction. They are almost always right.

I don't think I'm confusing anything. Can methodological naturalism appeal to the supernatural in any way?

I only object to ID demoting the Creator to a mere "designer." But let's not quibble about semantics. My religious faith in God creating all things is not that much different than that of IDers.

You can't have it both ways though. Either there is intelligence behind creation or there is not. The ToE clearly ascribes the variety of life to random genetic changes followed by natural selection. How can a purposeless process be related to a purposeful God? How do order, described by creation, and chance, described by evolutionary theory, co-exist? At what point does chance yield to order, and on what grounds?

Quote:
You are saying that the Bible is not necessarily reliable,


No, that's not what I'm saying.

Quote:
but let's assume that it is for arguments sake.


For me it's settled.

Good, glad to hear it.

Sure.
Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

God creates nature, and then uses nature to complete creation.

So what exactly does that say God created? What about man? This says that God created everything according to it's kind, not that He created a single ancestor which brought forth all living things. What do you mean by "nature"? Was the diversity of life created as good, or through the aimless process of evolution?

Only the universe and the rules by which it works were created in that instant. You are a creature of God, are you not? And yet you were created later, by natural means.
Only your immortal soul is given directly by God, and is not part of nature. It is that soul that makes you different than all the rest of natural creation, and makes you potentially able to have fellowship with God.

Is it nature which gives animals life and man life? Yet evolution teaches that we are but a collection of molecules, the result of a random process. While we are alive on earth, you cannot seperate body and soul, together they make you the person that you are. After which kind was man created, as described in the verse you quoted?

[August]

So God created evolution? Does that not mean that you actually believe in Intelligent Design with God as the designer, since if God created evolution, His intelligence is inserted in the process, and it explains all the complexity of life, just like ID proposes?

In a sense that is a reasonable explanation. But it should be "intelligent design" not "Intelligent Design" as the latter as different connotations (just as Liberals are not always liberal nor Conservatives conservative). And the complexity of life arises just as the simplicity of minerals does, from physical law. [ID proposes that the hand of the creator is obvious in the creation through violations of physical law which pertains to the rest of creation.]

What are those connotations that you are referring to?

The other issue is that we are back at square one, if the complexity of life arises through "physical law" (are you saying evolution is a law?), why is God needed? He is, in that hypothesis, just a God of the gaps, necessary to explain the origin, but not the complexity of life.

Secondly, if what you say holds true, how do you account for front loading, which postulates that for it to have happened in the way that you described, God had to front load all the information for the complexity of life into the single common ancestor, which is proposed to be a life form much simpler than the complex life forms we see today? How does God make sure that the random genetic changes prescribed by evolutionary theory not mess up His front loading, other than by interfering in the "natural" process?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Secondly, if what you say holds true, how do you account for front loading, which postulates that for it to have happened in the way that you described, God had to front load all the information for the complexity of life into the single common ancestor, which is proposed to be a life form much simpler than the complex life forms we see today? How does God make sure that the random genetic changes prescribed by evolutionary theory not mess up His front loading, other than by interfering in the "natural" process?

Are you saying that if this were God's plan that natural processes may interfere with his desired outcome? Don't the natural forces exist as a result of his desire?

Being the omnipotent God why would anything interfere with his plan?

[Yehren]

Yehren observes:
My take on it is that only God is eternal, always having existed, and that He created all things.

Clearly, that creation was both instantaneous, in which He created the universe, and ongoing, in which it continues to unfold.

So if God created all things, and since you insist on seperating evolution from religion,

Yehren observes:
Plumbers separate plumbing from religion, for exactly the same reason.

Plumbers don't make metaphysical claims,

Most of them do. They are theists, after all. Plumbing theory doesn't, however. Neither does evolutionary theory.

It's a perfect analogy. Neither plumbing nor evolutionary theory can make metaphysical assumptions.

Was all living things on earth created in 6 days?

Nope.

If not, why not?

Assuming so would require that God be logicallyi inconsistant. As St. Augustine observed, it is absured to imagine literal mornings and evenings with no sun.

I seriously doubt that blocked pipes will explain that.

Right. It takes a careful reading of Genesis.

Yehren observes:
Nope. That's why theists can do science. Science can't even comment on the supernatural, much less say whether exists or not.

Methodological naturalism is a philosophical position,

Yehren observes:
Nope. You're confusing methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism. Hence, plumbers (who are also methodologically naturalistic) look for clogs in your pipes, not demons of obstruction. They are almost always right.

I don't think I'm confusing anything. Can methodological naturalism appeal to the supernatural in any way?

No, it's too weak a method for that. Plumbing can't access the supernatural. But plumbers can.

Yehren observes:
I only object to ID demoting the Creator to a mere "designer." But let's not quibble about semantics. My religious faith in God creating all things is not that much different than that of IDers.

You can't have it both ways though. Either there is intelligence behind creation or there is not. The ToE clearly ascribes the variety of life to random genetic changes followed by natural selection. How can a purposeless process be related to a purposeful God?

As Pope Benedict remarked, those who think God is too weak to use contingency in His creation, greatly underestimate God.

How do order, described by creation, and chance, described by evolutionary theory, co-exist?

Since natural selection is not random, it's not a problem.

At what point does chance yield to order, and on what grounds?

It's the way the universe works. Thank Him.

You are saying that the Bible is not necessarily reliable,

No, that's not what I'm saying.

For me it's settled.

Good, glad to hear it.

Yehren observes:
Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

God creates nature, and then uses nature to complete creation.

So what exactly does that say God created?

All things. It's just that he uses nature to create most things.

What about man? This says that God created everything according to it's kind, not that He created a single ancestor which brought forth all living things. What do you mean by "nature"? Was the diversity of life created as good, or through the aimless process of evolution?

Obviously, by evolution. As a Christian, one has to accept that abiogenesis is correct, since God says that the earth brought forth life.

Precisely how that happened is not explained, nor is how the diversity of life came about explained.

Yehren observes:
Only the universe and the rules by which it works were created in that instant. You are a creature of God, are you not? And yet you were created later, by natural means.
Only your immortal soul is given directly by God, and is not part of nature. It is that soul that makes you different than all the rest of natural creation, and makes you potentially able to have fellowship with God.

Is it nature which gives animals life and man life?

God gives us life. In most cases, He uses natural means to do it. In man's case, He also steps in and gives us an immortal soul.

Yet evolution teaches that we are but a collection of molecules, the result of a random process.

Sorry. Not part of the theory. It doesn't say that we are only our physical bodies, nor does it say the process is random. Would you consider getting a book on evoluitionary theory and learning what it actually says?

While we are alive on earth, you cannot seperate body and soul, together they make you the person that you are. After which kind was man created, as described in the verse you quoted?

The Bible says that we were brought forth from the earth, as the other animals were. But it also says we were given an immortal soul by God.

This is the great dichotomy, the very thing C.S. Lewis speaks of through Screwtape the devil, who describes man as a thing of "blood and slime, speaking freely to beings before which we can only cower."

It is the dilemma of our being. For what purpose we must be this way, we are not told, nor does it matter. Trust God.

[August]

Secondly, if what you say holds true, how do you account for front loading, which postulates that for it to have happened in the way that you described, God had to front load all the information for the complexity of life into the single common ancestor, which is proposed to be a life form much simpler than the complex life forms we see today? How does God make sure that the random genetic changes prescribed by evolutionary theory not mess up His front loading, other than by interfering in the "natural" process?

Are you saying that if this were God's plan that natural processes may interfere with his desired outcome? Don't the natural forces exist as a result of his desire?

Being the omnipotent God why would anything interfere with his plan?

Exactly the point I was making, Bgood. Evolutionary theory prescribes random genetic changes as the mechanism for generating diversity. This would be contrary to any plan that God could have made prior to that, would it not? Furthermore, Sandy also states that God does not interfere supernaturally in His creation, everything happens according to the physical laws. How does that agree with the randomness of genetic variation, since "laws" would imply some sort of order? Sandy's position would also necessarily assume that God had to have inserted all the information into the natural process up front, since He cannot interfere with His creation supernaturally afterwards. How is that information preserved if genetic variations are random? There are 2 possibilities, maybe more: 1. The genetic variations are not random, they are directly dictated by God, which means that God interferes in the process. 2. God does not play any role in it, and so either does not exist, or assumes a deist but not theist role. 3. God preplanned all the genetic variations, and regulates the environment to make sure that those specific variations occur, again implying interference from God, and contrary to what the ToE states.

[sandy_mcd]

What are those connotations that you are referring to?

That the design is not only present in ID, but in addition it is discernable to us (IC, probability, or other). I don't see why design has to leave behind evidence.

if the complexity of life arises through "physical law" (are you saying evolution is a law?), why is God needed?

No, I prefer laws to be mathematical, such as that of gravity. Evolution would be a consequence of the basic laws governing physics and chemistry. E.g., a light bulb works because of the same laws but there is no "light bulb law".

Secondly, if what you say holds true, how do you account for front loading, which postulates that for it to have happened in the way that you described, God had to front load all the information for the complexity of life into the single common ancestor, which is proposed to be a life form much simpler than the complex life forms we see today? How does God make sure that the random genetic changes prescribed by evolutionary theory not mess up His front loading, other than by interfering in the "natural" process?

Just as the first life presumably arose from inorganic materials, so its development to later forms is governed by physical laws. The information doesn't have to be present in primitive lifeforms. Basically I am saying the laws are such that they produce the world we see today.
For example, at one time there were state banks in the US. The Federal government did not outlaw them, but instead instituted a tax on them that federally chartered banks were not subject to. As a consequence, the state banks eventually shut down. The law did not require this, but that was the consequence. So even though the law did not explicitly require state bank closure, that was the effect.
Or for a sporting example, compare bowling and curling. In the former you let the ball go and the consequences are determined by the initial conditions; in the latter there is constant tweaking during the course of the stone.

[Jbuza]

Well it 's hard to have an interesting conversation when I get irritated about evolution failing to openly discuss but simply claiming to accomodate everything, answer for everything and rest high and mighty as an unproven speculation about how life could have possibly risen from only currently observable causes.

It is hard to be interested when the majority of the claims are empty. IF perhaps it could be slowed down to actual investigation of the plausibility of evolution based on some concrete evidentiary basis without all the unsupported claims than it would be more useful.

I'll try to intrude less in these discussions unless I see some indication of actual sincere inquiries into the truth of evolution, but I admittedly lack the ability to contain my outrage at all the nonsensical claims that some have assumed as truth that are far from any similarity to a fact.

[sandy_mcd]

How is that information preserved if genetic variations are random?

To me (as I have said before) this is directly analogous to: How is God's omnipotence preserved if human actions are subject to free will?

There are 2 possibilities, maybe more: 1. The genetic variations are not random, they are directly dictated by God, which means that God interferes in the process.

Science does not answer the question why. What is "random" to science could well be the effect of initial design. I think the difference between "preloading" and "continual interference" is perhaps meaningless, as it constrains God's actions to our own temporal framework.

[August]

Hey guys, great discussion, don't go away. I will be back tomorrow, Thursday, to continue.

I just want to make a brief personal comment, based on observation, not meant as an ad hominem. Both of you seem to be so committed to evolution that you seem to be a little bit intellectually dishonest. You both agree that God inserted intelligence into the process, but then don't seem to see that the ToE, as stated, does not agree with that. The ToE states clearly that it is a random unguided process that accounts for the diversity of life, which is not compatible with intelligence in the process.

More anon, will answer your questions and comments then.

[Yehren]

The Catholic Church recognizes that evolution is completely compatible with Christian faith. Orthodox Christians generally agree, although a few aberrant churches deny evolution.

However, the Church recognizes that science is one thing and faith is another.

So it's not a doctrine, nor should it be.

I just want to make a brief personal comment, based on observation, not meant as an ad hominem. Both of you seem to be so committed to evolution that you seem to be a little bit intellectually dishonest.

No, and you should be ashamed of yourself for stooping to make such a false accusation.

You both agree that God inserted intelligence into the process, but then don't seem to see that the ToE, as stated, does not agree with that.

You don't seem to understand that the TOE can neither agree nor disagree with that. It is too weak a method to say one way or the other. You might as well assail chemistry for not including God.

Please, no more false accusations. Let's keep this honest and civil. Your cooperation will be appreciated.

The ToE states clearly that it is a random unguided process that accounts for the diversity of life,

(sigh) No, that's not what it says. Please learn what it actually says. I would help you greatly in these discussions.