Evolution a Farce?


#1

How does one know evolution is an undisbuted fact? Is not every shroud of evidence open for interpetation? Take the fossils of fish to amphibians, how does one know for certain that the creatures in the strata in between are actual transitional forms? Sometimes those “links” show up not in the correct order. What if they were their own type of creature, similar to fish and amphibians? But that’s all, not links of evolution. This goes the same for all fossils.

In Marvin L. Lubnow’s “Bones of Contention,” he shows many interesting features, like species showing up in the wrong evolutionary time line, and even how professional scientists argue over some of the “links” between homo sapiens; some will believe the fossils belong to true humans, others say they belong to another species of extinct ape, still others an all together ape-like creature not quite like common apes or true humans. You see, the professionals don’t know either. Perhaps it’s a farce?


#2

Its not a farce and the Church does not condemn evolution. We are free to believe in evolution because there is no contradiction between evolution and our faith. We must believe God created the universe out of nothing. How he chose to make things happen is up to him.


#3

Despite the fact that the conditions under which fossils can be created are very restrictive, transitional fossils pop up all the time.

Here’s your transitional salamander-frog fossil, discovered in May 2008.

ucalgary.ca/news/may2008/Gerobatrachus


#4

interesting, but how can it be proven that this was a process of evolution? What if a Holy Being created it like this, as the duck-billed platypus? Why don’t we see evolution occuring today, in the present?


#5

No one should be claiming that evolution is undisputed fact. It is properly known as the theory of evolution. It is not fact and cannot be proven as such, but it is the most complete explanation of the scientific evidence that we have. Of course new discoveries will dispute older ones; this is the nature of scientific research. It doesn’t mean that the science is a farce, simply that we’re more knowledgeable now than we were then.


#6

People all the time claim it’s a fact.


#7

Well, those people are wrong. You can tell them so. It’s a theory. It’s a well-supported theory, with a lot of evidence to back it up, but is not proven as fact. If it were fact, it would be called a scientific law.


#8

I just read the Amazon page for this book. It looks very good - I will put it on my list. I’d be concerned by his Protestant errors which apparently he preaches alongside of the scientific evidence, but I’ll read it for the good parts.
I’ve seen contradictory information on hominid fossils also.


#9

Evolutionists say this book is one of the best out there for an opponent, but still doen’t stand a chance against their overly convincing “evidence.” And the author misunderstands evolution. I don’t see how though.


#10

The whole problem with evolution per se is that it either has to be dependant upon a creationist aspect to the origination of it, or it can’t work.

One must use ones brain logically, take for example the sexual organs, unless they were pre-pogrammed in our original genetics back when we were slime then it is IMPOSSIBLE for a perfectly fully functioning fully formed sexual organ of both male and female species to occur out of randomness in the same place and time and for such organisms to meet together.

Unless something is pre-programmed it is a mutation.

The reality is that unless we have a time machine we will never know whether evolution of the Darwinian type is true or not. Science will never ever even remotely be able to prove it.

Mind you same can be said for us Christians, we can never prove the existense of God either for that matter.


#11

Nope - I hear “educated” Catholics spout this nonsense time and time again.

There are intersects that evolution has to explain.

  1. Adam and Eve as our first parents.
  2. Eve coming from Adam
  3. Bodily immortality
  4. preternatural gifts
  5. infused knowledge
  6. Body and soul created together

Just a few.


#12

buffalo -

Your list is very good. All the evolutionists want is for everyone to admit that it all happened “naturally.” To even suggest God made Eve from the rib or side of Adam is claimed as not science. Well God is “not science” and just happens to have the power to do this. As I’ve posted earlier, a scientist standing next to the ressurected Christ would not be able to show how it was done.

God bless,
Ed


#13

Newton’s idea of gravitation is also just a “theory”. A “scientific law” is not set in stone. Until we have a working theory of “everything” we will never have a perfect model. But that doesn’t stop engineers from using those theories to create the modern technology that we all depend on.

Newton’s theory of gravitation does a darn good job of explaining gravitational attraction and the motion of the stars but general relativity gives us a more accurate model under extreme conditions.

I started writing this off the top of my head and then did a quick google. No point re-inventing the wheel, so I paraphrased from this site: home.att.net/~numericana/answer/newton.htm

Bottom line: “Gravity is a physical phenomenon which is obvious all around us. As such, it’s begging for a scientific theory to describe it accurately and consistently. The rules within a theory are called laws and the inverse square law of the Newtonian theory of gravitation does describe gravity extremely well”


#14

You are confusing evolution with the origin of life. Two different things.


#15

Abiogenesis is necessary to go to the alleged second step. The link is there.

God bless,
Ed


#16

Not sure what your point is in relation to what I said.
Are you denying the Church allows us to accept evolution?


#17

I honestly don’t understand how this topic keeps getting brought up. Some Christians are under the impression that entertaining the concept of evolution means that you’re denying the validity of the Bible. Atheists think that one incomplete scientific theory can disprove the existence of the omnipotent Creator of all reality. I can’t decide which one is more foolish. So here are some things for both to chew on.

Darwin was a faithful Christian. Mendel was a priest. They marveled at the intricacies of God’s creation and prayed that some day we would learn more. Problems didn’t arise until someone decided that they could use the theory of natural selection to demonstrate that God wasn’t necessary for the formation of life. Which is rather short-sighted, seeing as how God could create life using any means He wanted. So, for both sides, here’s what it boils down to:

Christians: God is bigger than your narrow assumptions of Him. He created everything. From a theological standpoint, in regards to our eternal salvation, does it really matter HOW He did it? What matters is that He did it. Life is still a miracle, whether God made it in days, or over billions of years. It’s all the same to Him.

Atheists: God is bigger than your narrow assumptions of Him. There are still big questions left unanswered in the mystery of life, such as the dilemma of spontaneous protein generation and irreducible complexity, which nobody has even attempted to explain yet. So until you manage to create life out of lifeless goo, don’t try to pretend you’ve successfully removed God from the equation. Even then, what makes you think God couldn’t do it too? And He even created the goo. Can you create the goo?

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times. Science and Religion are not in conflict, and anyone who thinks they are doesn’t understand either one.


#18

These constant evolution threads make me so mad :mad: that I’m gonna have to finish updating my awesome evolution evidence summary article:

“Common descent is a general descriptive theory that proposes to explain the origins of living organisms…Because it is so well supported scientifically, macroevolution is often called the ‘fact of evolution’ by biologists…the evidence and the conclusion are independent of any specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. This is why scientists call universal common descent the ‘fact of evolution.’ None of the evidence above assumes that natural selection is true or that it is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Thus, the macroevolutionary conclusion stands, regardless of the mechanism.” (from my Nov 2002 summary of Theobald’s Evidences)

From a booklet “Evolution and the Fossil Record” PDF published jointly by the American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society:

“Evolution is the central unifying concept of natural history; it is the foundation of all of modern paleontology and biology…Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community – organisms become new species through modification over time… ‘it simply has not been an issue for a century’ [citing Futuyma]…The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory…” (Evolution and the Fossil Record 2001 PDF, pages 1, 10, 13)

From Theodosius Dobzhansky, the famous geneticist and an Orthodox Christian:

“Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.” (Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” in American Biology Teacher, March 1973)

From Philip Kitcher, professor of philosophy and zoology:

“Like Newton’s physics in 1800, evolutionary theory today rests on a huge record of successes. In both cases, we find a unified theory whose problem-solving strategies are applied to illuminate a host of diverse phenomena. Both theories offer problem solutions that can be subjected to rigorous independent checks. Both open up new lines of inquiry and have a history of surmounting apparent obstacles. The virtues of successful science are clearly displayed in both…Darwin is the Newton of biology. Evolutionary theory is not simply an area of science that has had some success at solving problems. It has unified biology and it has inspired important biological disciplines.” (Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism [MIT Press, 1982], page 54)

From the Botanical Society of America, representing thousands of botanists, plant biologists and scientists:

“Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, ‘evolution is just a theory,’ the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true… But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning.” (Statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America, 2003)

From Ernst Mayr, Professor Emeritus in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, called the “Darwin of the 20th century”:

“Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity…The evidence for evolution is now quite overwhelming. It is presented in great detail by Futuyma (1983, 1998), Ridley (1996), and Strickberger (1996)…” (Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 12-13)

Evidence for Evolution :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Stephen Jay Gould on Evolution as Fact and Theory :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Phil P


#19

cyber << Darwin was a faithful Christian. Mendel was a priest. >>

Thank you! And I almost forgot to include along with my awesome pro-evolution quotes:

The Church and Science (mp3)

(from chapter 5 of How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization)

also a program (mp3) on the views of Darwin at the time he wrote Origin of Species

Thank you for listening. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Phil P


#20

Bones of Contention is a well written book, for a creationist, one of the best, agreed. I own it, read it mutiple times. However, if my memory serves correctly, much of Mr. Lubnow’s arguments rest upon one or two human bones that date back to almost a million years ago, wheh according to him, humans should not of been around yet if evolution were true. And a human bone was found in a cave I believe, and the cave also dates to I think 500, 000 years ago. But come on, ONE or TWO bones…that’s it! No offense but big whoop. what about all of the other overcompelling evidence that show ape-like creatures evolving into us?

It’s like finding one or two verses in the Bible which “seem” to indicate that Jesus is not God, or sola scriptura, but when taken all together with all the other numerous verses battling against it, clearly do not.

And yes there are debates in science regarding what fossils are what, especially homids because the bones are similar. But there is by far more general argeement.

peace


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.