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

#6026

That’s simply untrue as the ToE is virtually silent when it comes to dealing with Divine creation, and a survey I saw several decades ago had it that a significant majority of Christian theologians have no trouble accepting the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

0 Likes

#6027

Survival of the fittest and random mutation. That’s the other side. Evolution is based on how this world works, where death is the final outcome. Think love, the natural beauty and wonder, the creativity in the diversity all planned, designed and corrupted by sin. Where is Eden in your philosophy, where is the New Jerusalem? Look squarely at evolution, follow it to its foundations and end, and one will either drop it, understanding it to be merely an illusion or drift further from the truth.

0 Likes

#6028

Actually, that’s exactly the question it answers. Now, it does not address in any way your metaphysical telos. That’s beyond the realm of the sciences and very suitably explained by a divine creator.

That’s being studied as we type. But the current theory is that the Big Bang simply popped out of the void. I think this is a great place to identify a divine role.

Who says it’s infinite regress? As it currently stands, the Big Bang is the origin. There is no meaningful “before” that occurred prior to that.

A substantial part of the field of biology is actually dedicated to addressing that very thing. In keeping with the theory, life may have likely evolved from primitive RNA molecules that aren’t unlike viruses that appeared in naturally occurring lipid bubbles.

That’s just one theory among many, but point being we’re a long ways away from saying “Gosh Golly! We just don’t have any idea how that could have happened!”

These answers are not exclusive of God.

The creation mythos is different between those religions, which was the point.

Given the absolutely tremendous selective advantage sight would grant in some species, there’s certainly enormous positive pressure for that evolution to occur.

If life’s been around for 3.5 billion years, 1829 evolutionary changes means 1 change every 2 million years.

No sweat there. But it’s even faster than that. All the different types of genus “homo” (like people and neanderthals) popped up in just the last 2-3 million years.

Ya gotta admit, it’s a pretty tight theory.

1 Like

#6029

Or you’ll do what I, and millions of other faithful Catholics, have done, and recognize evolution as the physical process which God has chosen to develop the necessary form of the physical world, and grow in faith through recognition of God’s majesty and power.

I still find the ability to guide evolution over ~13.5 billions years to be at least equally as impressive as popping everything into existence exactly as intended. My knowledge of evolution and the world before us puts in my greater awe of God and spurs me to try harder to make it to Heaven so that I can know about it. (As an aspect of learning about the fullness of God, which would include the entire history of our universe.)

1 Like

#6030

I will stand up for the truth, even if I were the only one, and I am not. All the science freed from the illusion of evolution into which it has been cast, points to creation when understood from the Light that is Love, illuminating all that He brings into existence. Reason, gifted and informed by the Holy Spirit, as revealed to us obliges us to be faithful to the truth, and the truth is the progressive creation of a hierarchy of being, culminating in the existence of humanity, beginning as one man, who was made male and female, and from whom all of us arose and fell, to be made whole within and among ourselves as the mystical body of Christ.

0 Likes

#6031

I believe in a rational God who gave us the ability to use our rational minds to understand His rational universe.

I also see the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution.

That is the truth, and that mechanical truth does not detract from God’s sovereignty and power.

If anything ever comes out that actually disproves it, then I will adjust my understanding. Until then, I will be just as dedicated to the Truth as you, the only difference being that I also believe that science is an avenue to understanding our natural world.

I don’t think we fully understand the mechanics, and based on the new study linked a bit ago I think evolution is a lot quicker and more disjointed than we previous believed, but I still believe the mechanical processes are accurate.

Or maybe God chose to create life in disjointed segments throughout the history of the world, and each explosion of life after an extinction event is just that, a spontaneous explosion of mostly-new life. That’s entirely within His prerogative. I don’t believe the evidence indicates that, but I’m not going to call it impossible.

1 Like

#6032

Rule #1 - when out of arguments always attack the person. Nice.

Message to all - Only evo’s are the paradigms of honesty and integrity. :grinning:

0 Likes

#6033

This we all know as micro-evolution. No issue there.

1 Like

#6034

Arranging the tiles of scientific fact in into the mosaic of evolution produces a distorted image of reality. We construct that picture on assumptions based on what governs this world - the laws of nature and utilitarian principles. It is Darwin who indicated that what would invalidate his theory would be evidence of true altruism. All creation rests on a Ground that is Love itself, having been corrupted by original sin and the rebellion of the angels before that. Excluding the overriding supernatural/metaphysical/ontological reality of everything, believing that the workings of matter alone can clarify what this all is and how it came to be, evolution with randomness filling the massive gaps of knowledge seems reasonable. It comes a poor second to creationism and design.

0 Likes

#6035

FYI, here you accused the author of a nasty ad hominem and then you, yourself commit an ad hominem. :+1:

0 Likes

#6036

Prove it. That’s a pretty big assertion you’ve just made there.

I wouldn’t even think about arguing against that. That is the ontological, spiritual reality of our universe. And it has nothing to do with the physical mechanics of reality.

I am not excluding any of those things. You are not arguing against what I am saying. You are arguing against atheistic evolution, which I also reject. You’re just as bad as the atheists, constructing a straw man argument against what you want me to be saying, not what I’m actually saying.

I believe that God is the basis of life, the spiritual reality behind all existence, and the progenitor of everything.

I also believe that He chose to use a physical process to create our physical forms.

I believe in the scientific and the spiritual.

As has been said repeatedly during this conversation, even by multiple atheists, the fact that you are trying to force a distinction and conflict where none exists is irrational. Understanding the physical process does not detract from God.

Since you obviously have no interest in addressing my actual argument, and instead are completely focused on atheistic evolution to the point that you are either unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge what I’m actually arguing, I am once again backing out of this topic. It’s pointless to waste my time arguing with someone who isn’t willing to listen to my argument.

Aloysium, I love talking with you about spiritual stuff, but you really are coming off as irrational and overly-argumentative here. You’re are creating conflict where none exists, and it’s only making you look bad. I am just as dedicated to the Truth as you.

1 Like

#6037

On a Catholic forum, God’s role must be affirmed. Otherwise, all there is is atheist materialism.

1 Like

#6038

Science is limited. I get that. So after all these years, all I’m seeing is the promotion of atheist materialism here. Science is not the whole answer because it cannot include vital information about human beings.

1 Like

#6039

Yes, I know :slight_smile:

0 Likes

#6040

So, creatures had to wait millions of years just to see. :thinking:

1 Like

#6041

Well, yeah. Your theory about just adding 000,000s is proving itself.

1 Like

#6042

No one would dispute that sight is a selective advantage, the question is how did it happen? Single cell life managed for about 2.5 to 3 billion years with just a light detector. There does not seem to be that enormous positive pressure for an eye to evolve.

Like Nilsson you have omitted to say how the brain evolved 1800 times to process the extra information. And how did the limbs evolve 1800 times to respond more accurately to what is seen?

When you watch the short video by Nilsson he keeps saying what needs to happen, so he is setting goals each time. Yet the ToE is not goal driven. His explanation does not seem to fit in with ToE.

I probably have to disagree with you on that.

1 Like

#6043

That’s a false dichotomy, Ed. And I show that by using my truck’s repair manual to swap an intake.

By using it, am I affirming God’s role? Or am I affirming atheist materialism? Neither, of course. False dichotomy revealed.

I agree completely. If I had a question about Babylonian history or how to imitate impressionist paintings, I wouldn’t ask a scientist.

Science does not posit itself as the end-all-be-all. It only rules the things under its limited dominion. The things in its “lane”. Don’t make it into a great big boogeyman.

Sure. The first organisms certainly didn’t have eyes.
The first step toward having “eyes” was likely just a bit of nervous tissue that could sense light and dark
Then the ability to detect shadows,
Then the ability to detect shapes,
Then color.
Over time, an eye as useful and functional as yours had arisen.
Over more time, an eye even better than yours (like those is eagles and owls) arose.

See above.

Of course there was. If your metabolism was partially photosynthetic, it would be enormously useful to simply detect light and dark. If you stayed in the dark too long, you’d die.

Past that, a better eye allowed predatory critters to hunt their prey better (and thus eat). A better eye allowed prey to avoid predatory critters better (and thus avoid being eaten).

That’s absolutely enormous selective pressure. Helps explain why it evolved so darn fast.

On grounds that are either openly religious or crypto-religious, sure.

-Or, at least, your religious perception. However, the RCC has stated ad nauseam that you can be a good Catholic and affirm that life evolved.

2 Likes

#6044

Scientists Seek to Update Evolution

Royal Society Meeting - Modern Synthesis is Broken

Read a report on the Royal Society Meeting

“The Modern Synthesis, while undoubtedly productive for a time, is a misconception of reality that has reached the limits of its explanatory power. The problems are fundamental. No amount of cosmetic surgery is going correct them.”

“To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species. It is collaboration in its various forms that causes biological evolution. Hence I’m sur prised by calls for extending the neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis. You can’t extend something that is broken. Surely what is needed now, after 65 years, is using the empirical evidence to develop a new paradigm for biological evolution.”

"If you want the definition of the Modern Synthesis, take a look at how Neil deGrasse Tyson explains evolution in the 2014 remake of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series. Tyson, an astrophysicist, is unaware that he is misinformed, as are most in science, academia, government, literature, the arts, and the public by this outmoded theory of evolution."

“Shuker tried to interrupt but Noble held his ground:
‘No, YOU need to listen. I used to think exactly like you. I embraced the reductionist mindset for years. When I got out of school I was a card-carrying reductionist. Reductionism is powerful and it’s useful. I am not dissing it. Many times we need it. But it is not the whole story.’ Noble described how bacterial regulatory
networks rebuilt those genes in four days by hyper-mutating, actively searching for a solution that would give them tails and enable them to Nind food. Natural selection did not achieve that. Natural genetic engineering did.’”

“It’s appropriate that this meeting is being held at the Royal Society, whose motto, we were reminded yesterday, is “Nullius in verba”: Accept nothing on authority."

“Not one whit of empirical evidence shows that new species arise from the neo-Darwinian mechanism. To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species.”

1 Like

#6045

It is clear now natural selection is not all the evo’s make it out to be. This is big trouble for them.

#Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0065

0 Likes

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.