Catholic FAQ


Help support Catholic Answers!

Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Philosophy
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #31  
Old Jul 17, '08, 2:34 pm
VociMike VociMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Posts: 8,730
Religion: Catholic (revert)
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodern View Post
I understand it abstractly, but I can't help feeling the Darwinism does indeed "kill God". I don't like such an idea, but it seems like modern science continually erodes theism, God has less and less rome to act.
Imagine you were visiting some immensely complicated mechanism, let's say the space shuttle. And you saw a screwdriver on the ground. Would seeing that screwdriver tend to make you think that the shuttle was not designed by intelligent beings?

Now what if you found a whole toolbox? Would a whole toolbox make you think the shuttle came about "naturally"? What about an entire building filled with machine tools, and another building filled with computers used for shuttle CAD (computer assisted drafting), and yet another building filled with more computers where the shuttle software is developed? Would all those tools make you think, yes, no doubt about it, the shuttle must have come about naturally. After all, you can see every design file, every piece of machinery, every line of software used to build the shuttle. The more you see, the more obvious it is that the shuttle came about naturally and did not require intelligent beings for its existence.

Right?
__________________
"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

G.K. Chesterton
  #32  
Old Jul 17, '08, 2:54 pm
emotel emotel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2007
Posts: 178
Religion: ex-Catholic
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by agapeist View Post
The laws of nature seem to point directly to the creation of life and to mankind ourselves. Does it seem possible if not probable that the greatness of God would utilize a complex yet simple process to create humans in his own image?
If God is all powerful then anything is "possible".

However, we now know that human DNA is about 3,000,000,000 base pairs in length and that the information it contains will fit easily on a DVD with plenty of room to spare.

Arriving at that information via 4,000,000,000 years of the horrific process of evolution by natural selection doesn't seem to me to be a more probable approach for a God to adopt than simply creating it in an instant. It also strongly suggests that a God is not necessary for it to happen.

Why would God choose a method of creation with such a strange combination of properties?



Quote:
Originally Posted by VociMike
The more you see, the more obvious it is that the shuttle came about naturally and did not require intelligent beings for its existence.

Right?
Irony noted but Wrong!

That's just a version of William Paley's watch argument from 1805. Darwin knew about it and he identified and explained the fatal flaw in that kind of argument in 1858.

You are 150 years behind the times

Emotel
  #33  
Old Jul 17, '08, 3:13 pm
VociMike VociMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Posts: 8,730
Religion: Catholic (revert)
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by emotel View Post
Irony noted but Wrong!

That's just a version of William Paley's watch argument from 1805. Darwin knew about it and he identified and explained the fatal flaw in that kind of argument in 1858.

You are 150 years behind the times
Nope, this is not the watchmaker argument. I suppose you could call it the watchmaker's tools argument, but it is fundamentally different from the watchmaker argument.
__________________
"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

G.K. Chesterton
  #34  
Old Jul 17, '08, 3:21 pm
emotel emotel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2007
Posts: 178
Religion: ex-Catholic
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VociMike View Post
Nope, this is not the watchmaker argument. I suppose you could call it the watchmaker's tools argument, but it is fundamentally different from the watchmaker argument.
Paley argued that the watch was too intricate to have happened "by chance" and concluded that an intelligent designer must have constructed it. That designer could have had tools and a workshop.

So I don't see a fundamental difference. What am I missing?

Neither scenario parallels the evolutionary process as described by Darwin?

Emotel.
  #35  
Old Jul 17, '08, 3:26 pm
bullfrog543 bullfrog543 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: March 6, 2008
Posts: 117
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

the theory is such as monkey evolution - ex monkeys typing randomely on a computer cockpit 747 segreagating evolution in a system i call the athiest gambling system
  #36  
Old Jul 17, '08, 3:31 pm
VociMike VociMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Posts: 8,730
Religion: Catholic (revert)
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by emotel View Post
Paley argued that the watch was too intricate to have happened "by chance" and concluded that an intelligent designer must have constructed it. That designer could have had tools and a workshop.

So I don't see a fundamental difference. What am I missing?

Neither scenario parallels the evolutionary process as described by Darwin?
My argument says nothing about "complex things must have a designer". What it does do is show the fallacy of believing that the more we understand how the natural world is put together, the more that understanding eliminates the possibility of an intelligence being behind all those laws and facts.

Scientific discoveries are not evidence against God, and they should not be presumed to be so. They are entirely neutral to the question of God.
__________________
"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

G.K. Chesterton
  #37  
Old Jul 17, '08, 3:31 pm
emotel emotel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2007
Posts: 178
Religion: ex-Catholic
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullfrog543 View Post
the theory is such as monkey evolution - ex monkeys typing randomely on a computer cockpit 747 segreagating evolution in a system i call the athiest gambling system
The monkeys and Fred Hoyle's "Whirlwind in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747" are monumental misrepresentations of what Darwin said. If you tell people that they represent evolutionary theory then you bear false witness against your scientific neighbours.

So you shouldn't so that.

Emotel
  #38  
Old Jul 17, '08, 3:38 pm
VociMike VociMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Posts: 8,730
Religion: Catholic (revert)
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by emotel View Post
The monkeys and Fred Hoyle's "Whirlwind in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747" are monumental misrepresentations of what Darwin said. If you tell people that they represent evolutionary theory then you bear false witness against your scientific neighbours.

So you shouldn't so that.

Emotel
Just to clarify my own position, I have no problem believing that God could bring about life as we know it through Darwinian evolution. I am not the least bit anti-evolution (though I am anti claiming evolution says things it does not, just as a century ago people claimed that Relativity said things it did not).

The supposed "gotcha" that "disproves" God in DE is the randomness of each mutation. Well, to an omniscient and omnipotent God, there is no such thing as randomness, so it's no gotcha at all.
__________________
"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

G.K. Chesterton
  #39  
Old Jul 17, '08, 3:38 pm
emotel emotel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2007
Posts: 178
Religion: ex-Catholic
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VociMike View Post
My argument says nothing about "complex things must have a designer". What it does do is show the fallacy of believing that the more we understand how the natural world is put together, the more that understanding eliminates the possibility of an intelligence being behind all those laws and facts.

Scientific discoveries are not evidence against God, and they should not be presumed to be so. They are entirely neutral to the question of God.

I agree that science can never prove that God doesn't exist. In fact, I can prove that science cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

However, science can deliver tremendous explanatory power regarding ways in which life can come about without any need for an intelligent designer. That results in changes in what believing humans say about God's actions because previous claims can be seen to be wrong.

That doesn't sound very "neutral" to me?

Emotel.
  #40  
Old Jul 17, '08, 3:45 pm
Nullasalus Nullasalus is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2006
Posts: 580
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by emotel View Post
I agree that science can never prove that God doesn't exist. In fact, I can prove that science cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

However, science can deliver tremendous explanatory power regarding ways in which life can come about without any need for an intelligent designer. That results in changes in what believing humans say about God's actions because previous claims can be seen to be wrong.

That doesn't sound very "neutral" to me?

Emotel.
Science can also "deliver tremendous explanatory power regards ways in which life can come about" without any need for an ateleological assertion or denial of an intelligent designer.

It's entirely neutral - it needs no reference to a designer or the lack of one to do what it does.
  #41  
Old Jul 17, '08, 3:55 pm
VociMike VociMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Posts: 8,730
Religion: Catholic (revert)
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by emotel View Post
I agree that science can never prove that God doesn't exist. In fact, I can prove that science cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

However, science can deliver tremendous explanatory power regarding ways in which life can come about without any need for an intelligent designer. That results in changes in what believing humans say about God's actions because previous claims can be seen to be wrong.

That doesn't sound very "neutral" to me?
I think you're conflating some people's possibly incorrect explanations about how God works, with the way God actually does work (which we don't fully know now, and will never fully know in this existence).

Your mention of an intelligent designer is a good example. Just because some theory that says "X required an intelligent designer to do Y" is later proven to be wrong, that doesn't prove that an intelligent designer was not behind X in some different capacity. As you note, whatever we may learn about X can never disprove God, although it may disprove many human statements about God.

Myself, I don't much care if ID is true or false. Either way, more of the watchmaker's tools will have been revealed. And I think that's darned cool.
__________________
"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

G.K. Chesterton
  #42  
Old Jul 17, '08, 3:56 pm
emotel emotel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2007
Posts: 178
Religion: ex-Catholic
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VociMike View Post
Just to clarify my own position, I have no problem believing that God could bring about life as we know it through Darwinian evolution.
If God is all powerful then he can clearly do that if he so wishes. So that's not the problem. We need to ask "Why does he so wish?".

Why would God create life in such a way that mountains of exidence existed indicating that it evolved naturally via an extremely painful and terrible process?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullasalus
Science can also "deliver tremendous explanatory power regards ways in which life can come about" without any need for an ateleological assertion or denial of an intelligent designer.

It's entirely neutral - it needs no reference to a designer or the lack of one to do what it does.
The can be little doubt that the evolutionary explanation has either caused a change in what people say about God's involvement or has shown it to be wrong. Consequently evolutionary theory cannot be said to be "neutral" relative to people's claims about God.

Before Darwin there was no plausible alternative to the creation of life on Earth by an intelligent designer. Now there is.

Emotel.
  #43  
Old Jul 17, '08, 4:04 pm
VociMike VociMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Posts: 8,730
Religion: Catholic (revert)
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by emotel View Post
If God is all powerful then he can clearly do that if he so wishes. So that's not the problem. We need to ask "Why does he so wish?".

Why would God create life in such a way that mountains of exidence existed indicating that it evolved naturally via an extremely painful and terrible process?
Painful and terrible as opposed to what? Evolution is no more painful and terrible than Young Earth creation.

I think it's the general situation brought on by the Fall of Man that you're really talking about here, not evolution in particular.

Quote:
The can be little doubt that the evolutionary explanation has either caused a change in what people say about God's involvement or has shown it to be wrong. Consequently evolutionary theory cannot be said to be "neutral" relative to people's claims about God.

Before Darwin there was no plausible alternative to the creation of life on Earth by an intelligent designer. Now there is.
Yes, when people don't know the right answers they usually give the wrong answers. But the wrong answers given by ignorant people shouln't be taken as evidence against God.

And again, finding the mechanisms behind evolution are like finding the buildings full of tools used to build the shuttle. In no way do the discoveries of those mechanisms refute the notion of God.
__________________
"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

G.K. Chesterton
  #44  
Old Jul 17, '08, 4:07 pm
emotel emotel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2007
Posts: 178
Religion: ex-Catholic
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VociMike View Post
As you note, whatever we may learn about X can never disprove God, although it may disprove many human statements about God.
If humans are shown to be prone to make incorrect claims about God then there's a philosophical problem. When they misrepresent what science is saying because of such conflicts then there's a moral problem.

So I see little by way of neutrallity.

Quote:
Myself, I don't much care if ID is true or false. Either way, more of the watchmaker's tools will have been revealed. And I think that's darned cool.
I agree that how it all seems to work is awesome. But why did the watchmaker use techniques that strongly suggest that a watchmaker is unnecessary?

Emotel.
  #45  
Old Jul 17, '08, 4:10 pm
Nullasalus Nullasalus is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2006
Posts: 580
Default Re: Theistic Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by emotel View Post
Why would God create life in such a way that mountains of exidence existed indicating that it evolved naturally via an extremely painful and terrible process?
I wouldn't consider it terrible at all, and 'extremely painful' depends on what a person means. Had pain, yes. Was tortuous? I don't think so.

Quote:
The can be little doubt that the evolutionary explanation has either caused a change in what people say about God's involvement or has shown it to be wrong. Consequently evolutionary theory cannot be said to be "neutral" relative to people's claims about God.
It's certainly neutral relative to the existence of God. Specific claims about God? Sure - but those were changing all along, due to philosophical and theological developments, even in the Catholic Church along. We didn't need science to tell us that Genesis may be in part allegorical - Augustine was doing that far in advance of science coming in. We didn't need science to tell us other parts may mean different things than people said - there were theological arguments over such to begin with.

Quote:
Before Darwin there was no plausible alternative to the creation of life on Earth by an intelligent designer. Now there is.
Not really, no. Evolution itself doesn't provide an alternative to a creator - that position still requires as much of a metaphysical assumption as it did before. At most, evolution provided scientific challenge to a past conception of how life arose in their given forms.

And I'm a big fan of evolution, myself. Brilliant creative process.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Science only Evolution Thread Sideline Apologetics 92 Aug 30, '08 9:46 pm
Evidence for Evolution SeekingCatholic Apologetics 503 Jul 3, '08 4:50 am
How evolution undermines Salvation Catholic Dude Apologetics 290 Feb 1, '08 8:00 am



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8021Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Roddy1234
4816CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: 77stanthony77
4284Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: johnthebaptist2
4027OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: fencersmother
3809SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3358Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3183Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: CountrySteve
3145Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
2958For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: tammany
2677Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:46 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2013, Catholic Answers.