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


#6005

What? You are arguing for evo and do not know what the modern synthesis is? My my…


#6006

Hey, you asked for a transitional stage toward becoming the T-Rex and an exact specimen was provided.

At this point, the rational discussion between us is likely over.


#6007

Upon a little clicking around, it appears the idea was replaced/revised by the scientific community around the time I was born. So as it was a discarded idea and thus never taught in the many classrooms I’ve occupied, I’m not familiar with it.

So apologies for not being aware of the subtopic within evolution that the ID sources you provide critiques, despite being replaced nearly 4 decades ago. I’m still not sure your rebuttal is relevant though, on that basis.

And as a caution, that’s the great strength of adopting a current scientific position - science is not afraid of changing the position if new information comes to light. That’s the point of science. No need to plant an ideological flag and still attempt to sadly defend it when new research passes it by.


#6008

ID is passing it by, but they are mightily resisting it.


#6009

ID simply can’t “pass it by” as far as rationalists go.

They have to prove:

  1. The Intelligent Designer exists
  2. That it affected the development of life

They can’t even prove #1, which you must do before you can proceed to #2.


#6010

In a worldview that holds science above all, nothing can be proved. The Catholic knowledge of the world provides the complete answer.

“But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”


#6011

We are already there. DNA code was created by a mind. There is not natural process that could have done it.


#6012

Molecular Evolution is a field dedicated to explaining just that.


#6013

Of course it is. It has to be for a “divine foot cannot be let in the door”.


#6014

That’s a silly exaggeration, Ed. Some would call it a straw-man.

“Catholic knowledge” doesn’t explain how to swap-out the exhaust manifold on my wife’s SUV. In order to explain that, I require knowledge from elsewhere. And there’s nothing un-Catholic about that.


#6015

This doesn’t have anything to do with the divine. Just like my Ford repair manual doesn’t have anything to do with the divine.

Rationalists just don’t like answers that require supernatural poof-ing. They are, in themselves, irrational events.


#6016

…That include the formal and final causes.


#6017

Please stop the false comparisons. I can swap out car parts - What does that have to do with the topic?


#6018

Rationalists don’t recognize the supernatural? They just rely on their Ford repair manual?


#6019

My repair manual tells me how to swap my alternator. Evolution tells me how life arose. Neither disproves nor affirms God. Totally different lane.


#6020

No. Because if they accepted supernatural explanations they’d have to come up with some way to affirm that the Catholic explanation is somehow more demonstrably true than the Hindu one.

Since there’s no way to do that, they turn to non-religious explanations.


#6021

Evolution does not answer the big question of how did I get here. The Big Bang is not a satisfactory answer, because we want to know what happened before. An infinite regress of causes is a lacking theory. Life from no life still needs an explanation, so the theory of evolution would explain very little by comparison.

The only satisfactory answer to the big question is God.


#6022

The same God hears the prayers of Hindus, Catholics, Muslims and everyone else. There is only 'One God the creator of all that is seen and unseen. How can Catholics or Hindus own a god?


#6023

Whether the eye evolved through a thousand species or just one is kind of irrelevant. Nilsson and Pelger say that it might have taken 1829 incremental changes of a 1 % improvement. Random mutation has to work 1829 times and natural selection has to work 1829 times.

I have worn glasses for the last sixty years. There have been a number of occasions when the opticians said; your prescription has changed marginally, but there is no real need to get new glasses.

Likewise, natural selection would have to work with miniscule and almost undetectable improvements 1829 times. The brain would also have to evolve 1829 times to keep up with the eye evolution. The reaction of the limbs would also have to improve 1829 times for the benefits to be felt.

Evolution has no goals, yet the Nilsson and Pelger model clearly defines 8 separate goals for the eye to evolve. 176 steps to the first goal, then change direction slightly and a further 362 steps to the next goal, etc; hardly random.

If the ToE is to work, then it has to seem truthful.


#6024

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.