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


#5337

It is remarkable how dumbed down humanity seems to have become, at least on the surface, which is the educational system and the media. The seduction of having things, pleasure, power and fame has skewed our understanding towards that which can be manipulated and produce material goods. People want their kids to have high paying jobs, so why would they spend their time learning philosophy or something as worthless to the world as Latin, a class I actually loved. As everything is emptied of everything but its material structure, the form of things, that which makes them what they truly are in reality disappears.

I’m thinking that the use of the word unchanging when applied to material things takes the life out of them. Everything changes in time, but here we are talking things eternal, immaterial, something like our existence in the moment. Now is unchanging, but is always changing. We can’t be anywhere else but when it is now. In the past, we would have thought, “This is happening now.”, as we do so now, and will also on our death bed. That’s where everything happens, everywhere. These universals generate the structure of the being that exists.

This relates to this discussion because that is what has been created out of nothing, be it a primordial plasma that once was the universe in the first “day”, the atoms that were brought into existence from that initial formless energy, the cells that arose as matter was unified into that new living form of being, followed by multicellular individual creatures, and we ourselves on the “sixth”. The kind of being we are, our “species” is human, whatever our genetic make up. The unifying principle that subsumes all the “information” that is found in animals, in all living forms and matter, ass well as the psychological counterparts, in us has an eternal nature and bestows upon us the capacity to reason, to know, and to act with a free will, enabling us to know our Creator through love. That is what was created, which no evolutionary process can do, existing as an “idea” in the Divine Mind, manifested in the individual reality of the person.


#5338

There may be significant issues with communication here. I’m reading this to say that atheists have accepted that evolution would be a guided process, guided by God. This is would be a contradiction. I don’t believe atheists would say that evolution, or anything is guided. Existentialist philosophers would argue that we make ourselves, we decide in a universe with no imperatives, so maybe at the point that we enter to picture, evolution would become guided by our choices.

Deists would say that their transcendent god preprogrammed matter for that eventual probability. A naturalist would say that the universe transforms itself into these various forms, as would basically a pantheist who imagines the universe to be one in a supreme identity manifesting itself in the many. None of this has anything to do with love, so I’m not sure how God would be involved in such a project.

My point is that there was no evolution, guided or unguided. What has occurred is the creation of different forms of being, which are whole, having existential/spiritual, physical, and psychological dimensions to the unity that is their existence as components of a greater system. I have mentioned earlier that I strongly believe that there was an Eden and that creation fell through original sin. Since then everything is devolving; this will all end, to be resurrected in a new world, centred around God, a New Jerusalem.

When these sorts of statements pop into my mind, I try not only to not act on them, but try to reflect on how they may apply to myself.


#5339

First of all I do not believe in evolution. Although the science behind it is good enough and growing, evolution is too far-fetched for me and not reflective of reality as I experience it. I am proposing an alternative way to bring the facts together into a picture that makes sense in view how we experience our daily lives, especially as an expression of our relationship with God.

So, there was no evolution of a chimpanzees eyes. The essential structure of the eye that most animals share is amazingly constructed. An eagle is known to be able to see a rabbit 3.2 km away. The building of our bodies shares that same information. It seems to me that it is up to you to explain how the eye evolved, since that is what you, not I, believe happened, supposedly in very small random incremental steps over millions of years.

There is no way to empirically determine whether any part of the human body derived from that of an ape. From a chimpanzee’s, it could not happen since they and we are considered to be different branches of the would-be tree of life.

As you say:

I’m talking about something more than the realm of science today, which would include the possiblity of evolution. What must be taken into account if we are to get a better story of who we are and where we came from, is the reality of things in themselves. Whether you wish to believe it or not you are a self, existing in relation to the world. We are communicating, two entities who are other to each other, but of the same kind, with the capacity to know and act. This is what came into existence, and evolution is nowhere close to any sort of rational explanation as to how this happened, let alone, in a universe that exists within God’s infinite ocean of compassion, how it is that there exists suffering.


#5340

Utterly and completely irrelevant. Things aren’t wrong because you find them far-fetched. If that were the case then almost all scientific discoveries would be wrong. Science IS difficult to comprehend. Especially when one is talking about processes that take place over time limits that we cannot comprehend.

And whether it reflects your personal experience of reality is even less than irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that you have fundemental beliefs and science contradicts those. So rather than adjust your position, you claim, with an all too observable lack of an undertsanding of the scientific process you wish to decry, you deny the evidence.

For the life of me I canot understand why you and the others like you just don’t come clean and admit it. No-one is going to chastise you for it. You might even get some pats on the back for a degree of honesty and integrity. I would image that any disinterested person reading your posts would think the same. But keep making ill-informed comments about something you don’t understand, cannot grasp and admit to finding far fetched and you’ll keep getting shown how wrong you are.

Creationism is no different to believing in a young earth in that reasonable people consider each to be an affront to common sense and basic science.


#5341

Thank you for making it clear that you are not coming at this from the science side.

rossum


#5342

We now agree that micro-evolution is intelligently designed. Progress.


#5343

Ah, you noticed your error. But a bit too late now. You can’t even delete it as I quoted you. in my post.

Progress, as you say.


#5344

I just want to clear up your misconception. I am an Agnostic and know many Atheists. What we would claim scientifically is that we currently cannot rule out God starting or shaping the process. We think that the evidence isn’t available yet to claim why evolution is used. All we can give is the evidence for how it occurred. Some scientists may be confident that God was not needed for guidance but they are stepping outside the bounds of science at that point and giving a philosophical opinion as the evidence doesn’t yet exist to claim it scientifically.

(Back to my looky loo status)…


#5345

I made no error. This went exactly as planned.

You well know by now no one argues micro-evolution aka adaptation. It is macro that is the issue.


#5346

What is meant by the word ‘unchanging’ in relation to the species of things is their essence, nature, or substance. Things undergo many accidental changes all the time without however a change to their substance, essence, or nature. For example, our bodies undergo a continual change in dimensions from being an infant to adulthood. This is a bodily accidental change but we remain substantially human beings composed of soul or spirit (form) and body (matter) and the body remains substantially a human body. It is not just bodily or material accidental changes that we undergo, but also spiritual accidental changes in our intellect and will. For example, we grow in knowledge and think new thoughts all the time and we are performing new actions all the time with our will by willing to do them including willing to think on new thoughts. These human actions perfect our nature as human beings if they be good actions or if they be bad actions they have the opposite effect, namely, bad actions are a defect of nature and a tending to non-being and nothingness. Human actions proceed from our substance or nature and they are accidents of our being because we remain substantially individual human beings of a human nature and the same person. These accidents do not cause a substantial change in us or change our nature from being human beings to some other species or nature of thing. Essentially, what we’re talking about here is that there a distinction between substantial and accidental change in things. Substantial change involves a change in the nature or species of something, accidental change does not.

You appear to indicate what I’m talking about here in a certain sense in the last paragraph of your post.


#5347

Thanks for the input.


#5348

Issue? There is no issue. We have the example of the macro-evolution of a new species of crayfish.

Macro-evolution happens and has been observed.

rossum


#5349

Nope. …


#5350

Yep. You don’t get to use your own definition of macro-evolution. A new species is macro-evolution.

rossum


#5351

Here we go again. Losing function equals a new species.


#5352

Here we ago again. A loss of one function (breeding with the ancestor species) is replaced by another function (breeding with the new species). It is only under a very imaginative way of describing things that one says there was loss of function, as if the organism becomes less capable to succeed in its environment. To most objective observers the new species is overall more capable.


#5353

Great things can be achieved when we all work as a team.


#5354

The maths says the limit of this equation is infinity.


#5355

There is no rule that says atheism has to be reasonable.

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” - Psalm 14:1


#5356

“great swelling words of emptiness” - 2Peter2:18.

The belief that Darwinian evolution explains the history of life on earth is completely useless in any practical sense. Applied science just ignores it.


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.