The Creation/Evolution Debate in a Nutshell


#1

The Creation/Evolution Debate in a Nutshell

Conclusion: Natural science offers no evidence that would contradict the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11, the concensus of the Fathers of the Church, or the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church on creation and the origins of man and the universe.


#2

Well that kinda mixes up the details like lumping cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution together and I’d explain it differently but yes, you’re right there is no conflict :thumbsup:


#3

Oh dear. I am not qualified to judge the Kolbe Centre’s theology, but their science is very very bad. A lot of reheated creatinist arguments refuted so many times before.

[quote=Kolbe Centre]Molecules-to-man evolutionary theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by positing spontaneous increases in order through random interactions of matter.
[/quote]

False. The second law of thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution in an open system with a large energy source such as the Sun. As long as the entropy increase in the Sun outweighs the entropy decrease on Earth then the law is fulfilled. See here for more details. Evolution 1 Kolbe 0.

[quote=Kolbe Centre]Matter from explosions does not condense to form objects like galaxies.
[/quote]

Technically the Big Bang was not an explosion. Even apart from that, is the Kolbe Centre denying the theory of gravitation? Matter condenses due to gravitational attraction. Evolution 2 Kolbe 0.

[quote=Kolbe Centre]Chemicals do not react together randomly to form amino acids through natural processes.
[/quote]

I can agree with “Chemicals do not react together randomly”, chemicals react together according to the laws of chemistry and not at random. The second part is completely wrong. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that amino acids can be formed from the right ingredients in the right conditions. Amino acids have even been detected in space. Chemicals can react together according to the laws of chemistry to form amino acids. Evolution 3 Kolbe 0.

[quote=Kolbe Centre]Amino acids do not randomly interact to form living cells through undirected natural processes.
[/quote]

I can agree with “Amino acids do not randomly interact”. Amino acids are chemicals and interact according to the laws of chemistry. The Kolbe centre is also lacking in biological knowledge since it takes a lot more than just amino acids to make a modern cell. Even the original ur-cell had more than just amino acids, it would need some lipids for the cell-wall. While the mechanisms of abiogenesis are less certain than those of evolution we do know enough to make it clear that there are no insuperable obstacles. For more details see Jump-Starting a Cellular World for more details of current developments in abiogenesis. Evolution 4 Kolbe 0.

[quote=Kolbe Centre]Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.
[/quote]

This is a misunderstanding of “Biogenesis”, that concerns the origin of metazoans such as flies. Again the Kolbe Centre is showing its lack of knowledge of biology. Perhaps it ought to stick to theology. Evolution 5 Kolbe 0.

Continued in Part Two.

rossum


#4

Part Two

The story so far: Evolution 5 Kolbe 0.

[quote=Kolbe Centre]The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or
chimpanzees into human beings.
[/quote]

There are many different measures of complexity. Without a detailed definition of “specific complexity” I cannot comment on whether it can or cannot increase. References to a definition and to experiments indicating this result would help here. What is certain is that genes can be duplicated by a copying error and that one of the two copies can mutate to produce a different protein. If producing two proteins where there was one before is an increase in complexity then complexity can increase. Evolution 6 Kolbe 0.

[quote=Kolbe Centre]All organisms are irreducibly complex. Therefore, in order for any kind of organism to exist, all of the essential parts of that organism must be fully functioning from the beginning of its existence.
[/quote]

By this definition the “essential parts” of a human being are a single cell, the zygote formed by the fusion of the sperm with the egg. Everything else: heart, lungs, brain etc is presumably inessential. We all started as a single cell. That cell increased in complexity as it grew, adding new parts. Eventually it resulted in a fully grown human being.

A single cell does not need a lung, only larger animals need lungs. Fish do not need lungs, they have gills. Some fish have lungs as a useful (not essential) addition - lungfish. If a lungfish spent a lot of time out of the water then its lungs would be more useful. If it left the water entirely then, and only then, its lungs would be essential. That is roughly the way we developed from a fish without lungs to a fish with useful (but not essential) lungs to an amphibian with very useful (but not absolutely essential) lungs to a land dwelling mammal whose lungs are essential. There is no problem with evolving irreducible complexity. Evolution 7 Kolbe 0.

[quote=Kolbe Centre]As now used by evolutionary scientists there is virtually no value in radio dating as an objective source of prehistoric chronology.
[/quote]

False. See Radiometric Dating - a Christian Perspective Evolution 8 Kolbe 0.

[quote=Kolbe Centre]Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less. These include
population kinetics, influx of radiocarbon into earth’s atmosphere, absence of meteorites from the
geologic column, and decay of earth’s magnetic field.
[/quote]

Let’s treat these individually:

population kinetics: Assumptions of constant growth rates lead to absurd poplation figures in the early years. When Moses led more than 600,000 people out of Egypt there were only 726 people in the whole world. See here for more details.

influx of radiocarbon: I need more details here, references please.

absence of meteorites from the geologic column: False, there are meteorites in the geologic column, see here.

decay of earth’s magnetic field: As well as being bad at biology the Kolbe Centre is also bad at geophysics. The earth’s magnetic field sometimes reverses as shown by paleomagnetism in old rocks. You cannot do linear extrapolation of a cyclical process: “judging by the rate the tide is going out this beach was under 200 feet of water ten months ago”. That is the sort of elementary mistake the Kolbe Centre is making here. Further details at the inevitable link here. Evolution 9 Kolbe 0.

[quote=Kolbe Centre]Sedimentological research has challenged the principles upon which the geological time scale is based.
[/quote]

I suspect this is news to most geologists. I will need the references here. The score reamins Evolution 9 Kolbe 0.

[quote=Kolbe Centre]There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types.
[/quote]

False. There are lots of intermediate types. Whales, humans, birds, mammals and others have good intermediates. We would like to have more but there are enough to show evolution beyond reasonable doubt. Unreasonable doubt will never be satisfied. Evolution 10 Kolbe 0, yes it’s a clean sweep for evolution!

Conclusions:

1 The Kolbe Centre should stick to theology, it is very bad at science.

2 Buffalo needs to find a better source.

rossum


#5

[quote=rossum]I suspect this is news to most geologists. I will need the references here. The score reamins Evolution 9 Kolbe 0.
[/quote]

Go ahead and score this one for evolution (even though it is geology rather than evolution). I believe that would make the final score evolution 11, Kolbe Center 0.:wink:

Peace

Tim


#6

Please, if you don’t want me to treat that document as a load of hooey, go find an “evolutionist” that says the following: “part of the sun detached itself and became planet Earth.” Show me the peer-reviewed papers which conclude that “the specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously.” And perhaps instead of “spontaneously” “through the process of evolution” might be better. Show me the peer-reviewed papers which conclude that radiometric dating doesn’t work, and that there is other evidence that the Earth is less than 10k years old. Does that vague reference to thermodynamics describe evolution as it is actually used, or is it talking about the origin of the universe?

Does this document have any scientific citations to supplement the thorough theological ones? No. Is it loaded with false statements and straw men? Yes. Is it “bunkum”? Yes.


#7

buffalo << Conclusion: Natural science offers no evidence that would contradict the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11, the concensus of the Fathers of the Church >>

Really how can that document be the creation/evolution debate in a nutshell, when it is primarily a document about Catholic theology?

And most of the science is wrong as you’ve seen. They at least have to get the science right to accurately represent the “creation/evolution debate” in a nutshell.

They are also well aware that Pius XII in 1950 clearly said the study of human evolution is OK. Now how in the world could he say this if the “creation/evolution debate” was settled by Lateran IV, Florence, Vatican I, or for that matter anything the Fathers might have written on science issues 1,500 years ago? Please. Make some sense. :smiley:

Do I have to quote yet again John Paul II and Benedict XVI on evolution? The “creation/evolution debate” (at least for a Catholic) is a bit more sophisticated than the simplistic and error-riddled “science” understanding of the young-earth and even geocentrist Kolbe Center folks.

Here is the real “creation/evolution debate” in a nutshell (especially, paragraphs 62-70 which discuss creation, evolution, design, purpose and divine providence)

Maybe the Greeks blew it when they introduced the spherical earth to replace the FLAT earth BIBLICAL cosmology of the ancient Hebrews, Babylonians, and Egyptians. Some of the Fathers (at least two, perhaps more) were flat earthers. Maybe the Church went into “apostasy” on her science in the 5th century AD, never mind the 16th century of Copernicanism, or the 19th century of Darwinism. :banghead:

Phil P


#8

[quote=buffalo]The Creation/Evolution Debate in a Nutshell

Conclusion: Natural science offers no evidence that would contradict the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11, the concensus of the Fathers of the Church, or the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church on creation and the origins of man and the universe.
[/quote]

[left]Before considering the guidelines, let’s be clear about the difference between evolution and evolutionism. Evolution is a scientific theory that says that more complex forms of life developed from less complex forms, over extremely long periods of time (perhaps a couple of billion years). As a scientific theory, it is to be accepted or rejected based on the evidence.

Evolutionism, on the other hand, is the belief that everything that exists can be explained in exclusively materialist terms, apart from a Creator. According to evolutionism, everything that exists developed from “blind chance,” with no knowing or planning of its purpose or end.

Evolutionism is not only unscientific; it is unreasonable. A complex organism like the human brain could not have developed by “blind chance.” Because evolutionism denies the creative action of God, it is not only a false but also a dangerous view for us to hold (Rom 1:19–20; CCC 287). It implies that humans are mere animals. And, as the 20th Century showed, it is only a very short step from saying human beings are animals to treating them that way.

Here are some guidelines on what a Catholic should believe regarding creation and evolution.

The first three chapters of Genesis “pertain to history in a true sense even though the inspired author may have used a poetic literary form to communicate these truths” (CCC 289; Humani Generis). When the Church says “pertain to history in a true sense,” it means something that really happened. The first sin (original sin, the fall of our first parents) really happened at a certain time and place in history. Perhaps it was six thousand years ago; perhaps six hundred thousand years ago. For all we know, the first sin may well have had something to do with eating a certain fruit that God had commanded man not to eat. But it need not have. That may simply be a poetic way the Genesis writer chose to communicate the historical truth about man’s fall from paradise. What we must affirm is that there really was a first sin (Rom 5:12; CCC 390, 396, 397).

We must also affirm the following:

  1. All things were created by a loving God (Jn 1:1–3; CCC 291, 315).

  2. Man is made in the image of God, which means, among other things, that he is a spiritual being with the powers of knowing and freely choosing (Gn 1:27; CCC 355).

  3. Even if man’s body evolved, God still created man, because God created the process of evolution, and His providence guided it to give rise to the human race (Jn 1:3; CCC 302, 308).

  4. Whatever the origin of man’s bodily form, his soul is a special creation of God, not the result of an evolutionary process (Gn 2:7; CCC 362-367). This is because spirit, unlike matter, is incapable of evolving, since it has no parts that could evolve from one thing to another. The soul is the direct creation of God, not a product of matter.

  5. Our original parents were created in a state of perfect happiness, a state of “holiness and justice” (Gn 2:7–9, CCC 375, 376, 398).

  6. Their obedience was tested and they transgressed the divine law at the prompting of the devil (Gn 3:1–7, CCC 397).

  7. They lost the supernatural gifts given to the human race by God at creation. (Gen 3:16–19; CCC 400). (For example, freedom from bodily death, freedom from suffering, control of the soul over the body).

  8. This state of original sin was passed on to their offspring. (Rom 5:12–19; CCC 402). Therefore, all human beings are born in this wounded and weakened condition. (CCC 404)

  9. They were promised a redeemer (Gn 3:15; CCC 410), who would restore mankind’s relationship with God…

As long as these basic elements of Catholic teaching on creation are held, Catholics may accept the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, a Catholic is not obliged to do so if he or she thinks the evidence is against it. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a theological dogma. It stands or falls on the evidence.
[/left]


#9

This is a reply to Rossum.
Your box score is evolution 10, Kolbe Center 0.
I am one of the least talented people that belongs to Kolbe Center. So, in any contest on creation vs evolution you should win by a huge margin. Given all the scholarship you showed to Buffalo, you ought to be properly rewarded. How about a debate for $10,000 with only scientific evidence in the form of mini-trial?
Agree and I’ll post the nine very simple rules. Mastropaolo.


#10

[quote=Redbandito] … According to evolutionism, everything that exists developed from “blind chance,” with no knowing or planning of its purpose or end…
[/quote]

I don’t know if this distinction between evolution and evolutionism is real or not. (I suspect it is specious but I’m just a dumb engineer and not a philosopher so I’ll keep quiet.)

However, I am curious about the common objection to evolution(ism) because of “blind chance” as it is so often put

Leaving aside the deterministic qualities of some aspects of the evolutionary process, I do not see any difference between the supposed blind chance in evolution and the very obvious blind chance in procreation.

I mean a slightly different timing or geometry (to keep this G rated) and you would be a completely different you …or not here at all. :eek:

Why the objection to the chance involved in evolving and not to the chance involved in you being you? :confused:


#11

[quote=PhilVaz]buffalo << Conclusion: Natural science offers no evidence that would contradict the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11, the concensus of the Fathers of the Church >>

Really how can that document be the creation/evolution debate in a nutshell, when it is primarily a document about Catholic theology?

And most of the science is wrong as you’ve seen. They at least have to get the science right to accurately represent the “creation/evolution debate” in a nutshell.

They are also well aware that Pius XII in 1950 clearly said the study of human evolution is OK. Now how in the world could he say this if the “creation/evolution debate” was settled by Lateran IV, Florence, Vatican I, or for that matter anything the Fathers might have written on science issues 1,500 years ago? Please. Make some sense. :smiley:

Do I have to quote yet again John Paul II and Benedict XVI on evolution? The “creation/evolution debate” (at least for a Catholic) is a bit more sophisticated than the simplistic and error-riddled “science” understanding of the young-earth and even geocentrist Kolbe Center folks.
[/quote]

This is getting to be like one of those threads discussing Biblical criticism - “what was good enough for the Fathers should be good enough for us”. Not everything the Fathers say is:

[list]
*](a) inerrantly accurate
*](b) valid for all time and peoples to come
*]© more than the opinion of each or many or all of them
*](d) beyond correction
*](e) based on enough info to be beyond correction
*](f) more than the common opinion of the culture
*](g) agreed by all of them
[/list]- it doesn’t follow that they talked nothing but complete and utter rot, or that they have absolutely nothing to say to future generations, or that they are best ignored: only that they are not quite the universally inerrant oracles on all subjects they speak of that some might think.

Which is why it was not - and is not, nor will be - impious, sinful or immoral of their successors to differ from them or to correct them when there is reason to do so.

It makes no sense to treat their word on geography as final - facts like the existence of Australia are about as final a disproof of the idea that the whole world had been evangelised in the time of the Fathers as one could ask for; so ther are Antipodes; awkward as this may be for theological ideas. And the world is not flat - it’s an oblate spheroid. Since the Fathers had no means of knowing it was not, any counter-assertions by them carry no weight.

St. Thomas Aquinas was aware that the apparent motions of the earth might be more adequately explained than by the Ptolemaic hypothesis - he did not close his mind to the possibility that ideas on that point might need correction; so showing himself more open-minded than many Christians later. ##

Here is the real “creation/evolution debate” in a nutshell (especially, paragraphs 62-70 which discuss creation, evolution, design, purpose and divine providence)

Maybe the Greeks blew it when they introduced the spherical earth to replace the FLAT earth BIBLICAL cosmology of the ancient Hebrews, Babylonians, and Egyptians. Some of the Fathers (at least two, perhaps more) were flat earthers. Maybe the Church went into “apostasy” on her science in the 5th century AD, never mind the 16th century of Copernicanism, or the 19th century of Darwinism. :banghead:

Phil P

What does one call Cosmas Indicopleustes (apart from a possible relation of Theophylact the Unbearable) ? An ark-earther ? :slight_smile:

An alternative history of the Church, resting on the premise of just such an apostasy, might be very interesting. Maybe the Big Endians and Little Endians in “Gulliver’s Travels” are really worshippers of the Mystic Egg of Astarte, which was worshipped by these apostates. An egg is an oblate spheroid - sort of. The haggis is plainly a form of the Grand Abominable Egg of the Round-earthers. The Book of Mormon implies a spherical earth - which proves that this heresy is as old as the Confusion at Babel. Now we know why eggs used to be forbidden in Lent. But since Vatican II, with the passing of the fast, the Church has been re-Babylonised, and this error of a round earth has spread with in it.

The possibilties are endless.


#12

mastro << How about a debate for $10,000 with only scientific evidence in the form of mini-trial? Agree and I’ll post the nine very simple rules. Mastropaolo. >>

I believe rossum is Buddhist. What the Kolbe Center needs to do is find themselves some Catholic astronomers, Catholic physicists, or Catholic biologists with knowledge of creationism willing to debate. Ken Miller has refused, but please keep trying. Not because I think you have any valid science, but I just love debates. :smiley:

Information on your “Life Science Prize” for $10,000

Sorry TalkOrigins knows all about that. :smiley: Your challenge has already been done and won decisively by evolutionists twice. In case you forgot, these are:

Here in 1981-82 in the Arkansas Creationist Trial

Here in 2005 at the Dover ID Trial

Phil P


#13
  • Part of the sun detached itself and became earth

hmm…whomever made this site needs to do some research; cosmology has advanced a lot since the 1960’s. That was the publishing date of the last book I remember that giving this as one of the three theories of how the planets formed. If I remember correctly it had something to do with a large object coming too close to the sun and pulling material out. Hardly the sun deciding to spit out a planet which is what this sounds like.

What’s comforting is that for every one Creationist there are at least five people who understand that real science could never contradict real religion. :slight_smile:


#14

The first three chapters of Genesis “pertain to history in a true sense even though the inspired author may have used a poetic literary form to communicate these truths” (CCC 289; Humani Generis). When the Church says “pertain to history in a true sense,” it means something that really happened.

If that is what the Pope meant. it is a thousand pities he did not say so. The use of the words “pertain to history” suggests that what is referred to is less directly related to “what happened” than a statement that it happened implies.

The first sin (original sin, the fall of our first parents) really happened at a certain time and place in history.

So did the War of the Ring - that’s why Tolkien wrote LOTR - he wasn’t aware of this, but he could write so vivividly about it only because it really happened, thousands of years ago. The distance of those events from our times explains why there are so few traces of them now. But take Tolkien’s book for what it is - the history of a campagn and a war - and the solutions to many puzzles that were unexplained fall into place.

The evidence for the War of the Ring is at least as good, if not better, as that for the events in the garden of Eden.

Read LOTR and the Silmarillion, and discover:
[list]
]the true* cause of continental drift
*]the earliest evidence of human language
*]what really happened to the dinosaurs
*]why Greenland is cold
*]why there is an Atlantis story
*]the real origin of the trees in Macbeth
*]why there are mountains
*]that fairies really exist - and why no one sees them
*]why history suggests a young earth, but geology an old one
*]what happened before recorded history began
]that all geographers are wrong - and why
]how human technology really
began
*]why everyone is afraid of spiders
*]how all those dragon legends began
*]what really inhabits the deep sea
[/list]- no other books will tell you any of this.

ON SALE NOW !!! ##


#15

This is a reply to PhilVaz.
Sorry, none of those trials admitted only objective, valid, reliable, calibrated scientific evidence.
If you are so sure of yourself, when may I expect you to contend?
Mastropaolo


#16

[quote=Mastropaolo]This is a reply to Rossum.
Your box score is evolution 10, Kolbe Center 0.
I am one of the least talented people that belongs to Kolbe Center. So, in any contest on creation vs evolution you should win by a huge margin. Given all the scholarship you showed to Buffalo, you ought to be properly rewarded. How about a debate for $10,000 with only scientific evidence in the form of mini-trial?
Agree and I’ll post the nine very simple rules. Mastropaolo.
[/quote]

I would need a lot of discussion prior to any debate to agree terms, valid sources of knowledge, definitions, boundaries etc. I am not prepared to debate for money as that tends to distort things: the purpose is to reach agreement, not to win money.

One of the basic things needed would be agreed definitions of “evolution” and “creation”. From the piece I read the Kolbe Centre’s definition of “evolution” includes cosmology and abiogenesis. That is not a definition I would accept.

I did not show real scholarship, merely some reading of the net and the use of Google. There are many much more talented people than me in this area.

PhilVaz is correct, I am a Buddhist.

rossum


#17

[quote=buffalo]The Creation/Evolution Debate in a Nutshell
[/quote]

Reminds me of that old commercial for Almond Joy candy bars -

Sometime you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t …


#18

[quote=Gottle of Geer… ]Book of Mormon implies
[/quote]

a spherical earth - …

A few points:

  1. How do you know Australia was not evangalized by even the apostles, and the message rejected?
  2. Were the fathers unanomous on the Antipodes? Have the Popes or councils made any declarations regarding them?
  3. All but one father (Lactinius) held a spherical earth.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


#19

[quote=PhilVaz]buffalo << Conclusion: Natural science offers no evidence that would contradict the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11, the concensus of the Fathers of the Church >>

Really how can that document be the creation/evolution debate in a nutshell, when it is primarily a document about Catholic theology?

And most of the science is wrong as you’ve seen. They at least have to get the science right to accurately represent the “creation/evolution debate” in a nutshell.

They are also well aware that Pius XII in 1950 clearly said the study of human evolution is OK. Now how in the world could he say this if the “creation/evolution debate” was settled by Lateran IV, Florence, Vatican I, or for that matter anything the Fathers might have written on science issues 1,500 years ago? Please. Make some sense. :smiley:

Do I have to quote yet again John Paul II and Benedict XVI on evolution? The “creation/evolution debate” (at least for a Catholic) is a bit more sophisticated than the simplistic and error-riddled “science” understanding of the young-earth and even geocentrist Kolbe Center folks.

Here is the real “creation/evolution debate” in a nutshell (especially, paragraphs 62-70 which discuss creation, evolution, design, purpose and divine providence)

Maybe the Greeks blew it when they introduced the spherical earth to replace the FLAT earth BIBLICAL cosmology of the ancient Hebrews, Babylonians, and Egyptians. Some of the Fathers (at least two, perhaps more) were flat earthers. Maybe the Church went into “apostasy” on her science in the 5th century AD, never mind the 16th century of Copernicanism, or the 19th century of Darwinism. :banghead:

Phil P
[/quote]

Lets just face it, evolution theory is making us all nervous right?
All we can say is something like “God used evolution to create”, which is a logical nonsense. Evolution Theory does not say anything about divine interference, it operates on the assumption of randomness and a very long time. So to say that we accept Evolution Theory with God at the background is laughable, because this sentence contradicts the theory right away.
And please leave all this thermodynamic nonsense to the experts.


#20

This is a reply to Rossum, who suddenly wants lots of discussion on scientific definitions from a poor person from the Kolbe Center, which is a place for theology, not science. Yet, without all that discussion Rossum’s box score was evolution 10 Kolbe 0 on science.
Rossum you remind me of the buck naked emperor showing off his fantastic wardrobe. Evolution is nonexistent, always has been and always will be. Science proves it and the Life Science Prize doubly proves it.
Buffalo take over. If you ever come across a real contender, then let me know.
Mastropaolo


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.