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


#7232

Creationism assumes the existence of life by faith. Do not project your beliefs onto science. That is an error.


#7233

People in general should not try to project their science onto Divine Revelation.


#7234

I was not projecting science, I was referring to the Bible: “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” (Psalm 41 or 42)

As I said, Creationism assumes the existence of life.


#7235

I’m not sure what you mean.

I guess I assume that I am alive because I am.
That assumption is what I call knowing.
Perceptually and intellectually we don’t directly experience the other’s existence.
It is impossible to imagine that existence except as being something similar to our own.
The other’s existence cannot be empirically known.
Material processes do exist, but they are not life.
We therefore err in projecting that knowledge onto a science of material processes.
It is only the beloved that we truly know.
The knowledge is love is being and is faith in our condition of ignorance.

Yes, I have faith that you are alive. Evidently you don’t. People can go through periods when they don’t feel alive or don’t want to be alive. Buddhism offers not a means to kill the spirit but to plumb its depths. In a tradition close to the one you proclaim, it’s held that “Atman is Brahman and that thou art.” Consider Being to be relational as is every aspect of our lives, especially in introspection. And, perfect relationality is Love, the connection between self and other, in which one gives of oneself for the good of the other. We have replaced the One True Vine with a humunculus. He who is God, who is Love, lies at the Centre of our being, waiting to be discovered within in our relationship with God, by whose will we here come into existence this very moment. Found, as we ourselves are transformed into love. In Christ, we are one humanity - individual persons, united in God’s infinite compassion. In that Light, the entire universe is alive.


#7236

Faith assumes the existence of God; a living God. Hence creationism also assumes the existence of a living God.

Since God is alive then the existence of life is assumed, not explained. Science is working towards an explanation of the origin of life. Creationism assumes an answer, so is not interested in discovering more on the subject.


#7237

I find this reasoning bizarre. It doesn’t represent any kind of reasoning I’ve ever seen by Christians. If anything, you have it the other way around. We analogize truths about God from ourselves, not the other around. That God is living is something humans know from the fact that we ourselves are living, (beside Scripture) not the other way around.

In addition, such analogies are infinitely limited. God’s ‘life’, whatever it is, is unlike the life whose origin science is trying to find. Science isn’t trying to find the origin of God’s life, that’s what makes your statement confusing. There is a big difference between God’s ‘living’ and our ‘living’, and you seem to think Christians think those are the same thing.

The fact that God exists doesn’t mean Christians think creaturely life has no origin or that we know the mechanisms of the universe. Creaturely life absolutely has an origin and we don’t know everything about it except that it, like the rest of the cosmos and anything else that exists, receives its being from God.

So it is enough for us to know that God is the creator of the universe, from the tiniest quark to the largest star. It doesn’t matter what mechanism science finds within this universe to explain an origin of any part of it within it. It’ll still find a mechanism in a universe with a creator.

The reason some of the things ‘science’ suggests about life’s origin are dismissed by some of us is that they defy logic, pure and simple. Logic according to the working of this universe as we know it.

It’s not because Christians think life’s origins need not be explained (!?) That’s like saying we assume stars exist because God exists, and so their origin need not be explained. We assume gravity exists because God exists so we need not explain it. That’s just not true. It’s christian belief in God and creation that allowed science to get started in the first place because of the assumption that the universe was ordered and therefore intelligible.

I don’t know what gave you the notion that what u described is Christian or at least Catholic thinking, but I can tell you you’re mistake.


#7238

If I could add, everyone knows life exists because life actually exists. It’s no more an assumption among Creationists than any other group of people. I don’t believe life has always existed on this planet, though, or this universe. At least not material life, who knows perhaps angels have always been here and had a role to play in the development of the cosmos. But everyone knows material life has an origin in the universe at a specific time and place in the universe.

I will not believe in impossible things, though. Like molecules bumping into each other created the DNA. That’s crazy to me. Give me something reasonable and I’ll happily accept it because nothing you can find can escape being God’s creation, as I explained above. But assuming that the rejection of such unsatisfying “explanations” is only because ‘God is a living God’ is far fetched. The rejection is because the explanation is irrational.


#7239

I am not Christian, so that is not surprising.

Creationists often ask scientists to explain the origin of life. However, those same creationists have no explanation of how life originated, since that would require them to explain the origin of God. They have no actual explanation for God’s origin; they merely assume it.

They are asking a question for which their side has no answer. For many questions the creationist answer is “God did it”. In this case that is not a viable answer since God cannot have created Himself.


#7240

That is a personal opinion, and in science personal opinions do not count for much. What science does have is evidence. We have evidence of the natural formation of amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, ribozymes, lipid bilayers and other chemical precursors of life.

In the RNA world hypothesis, the very first life was a bunch of ribozymes contained in a lipid bilayer membrane. Science is getting close. I have yet to see evidence of any deity creating a purine.


#7241

This is simply untrue. Tell me why a ‘creationist’ must explain “the origin” of God to explain life. All a person need argue here is that something couldn’t have happened by itself without an intelligence. Everything else you’re injecting is far fetched. I’d suggest you ask rather than speak for other people, especially when you don’t identify with them. It helps prevent setting up strawmen. This and the one I first responded to are both far-fetched and strawmen.


#7242

Logic isn’t opinion. You don’t get to escape it by typing ‘science’. That’s called fideism. You also do not have evidence that the DNA was randomly coded before you have it. Amino acids are not a code. Might as well tell me presence of the material that forms computer hardware is proof that the computer was randomly coded.


#7243

So, your God is not a living God but a dead, non-living God? If God is a living God then the origin of life is the origin of the first living entity: God.

Any subsequent living entity must be the second, third etc. Not the first, so not the origin of life.

And what is the origin of your “intelligence”? Is it a living intelligence or a non-living intelligence, some alien supercomputer perhaps? Or do you accept that an intelligence can spontaneously form from the non-intelligent constituent elements of the universe? See Fred Hoyle’s “The Black Cloud” for an example.

No scientist will accept that DNA is random. All living DNA has passed through the non-random filter of natural selection, so is not random. Any living organism is descended from a parent, or parents, whose DNA enabled successful reproduction. That gives a non-random distribution of DNA. In short: “If your parents didn’t have any children then the chances are that you won’t have any either”.


#7244

A lot of words that don’t amount to an explanation.


#7245

The Bible has a lot of words. The Catechism of the Catholic Church ha a lot of words as well.

You are correct that neither contains an explanation of the origin of the first living entity.


#7246

I never wrote that.


#7247

More projections and evidence of zero understanding of what you’re objecting to. God’s life has nothing to do with this universe or anything science can discover. The God you’re referring to is a creature and we don’t believe in him, but keep putting your hands over your ears if that’s what you’re determined to do and pretend that this ridiculous caricature is believed by anyone in real life.

Who cares as far as science goes if that’s what you’re really concerned about? It’d just have to be an intelligence, not molecules bumping into each other and poof! Coded instructions and Life.

Natural selection creating a code of instructions makes natural selection an intelligent mechanism. The claim is one of magic unless you also purport that natural selection itself is not random at all but guided. Then you have a rational explanation.


#7249

Natural selection of variations within a species does nothing to explain how a microbe evolved into all the forms of life that have existed on earth.

… which evolutionary theory doesn’t do very well at all - for staters, there is a distinct lack of transitional fossils (which should be plentiful) and the fossil record contains many inexplicable and problematic gaps and sudden appearances of fully-formed creatures with no evolutionary history at all. The Cambrain explosion, for example, exposes many flaws in evolutiionary theory. The fossil record is best explained by a progressive creation model, rather than a model of biological evolution.

Which is simply explained by natural selection and doesn’t require accepting the Darwinian interpretation of the fossil record.

Which can explained by a creation model.

Not even the village idiot would be so stupid as to believe life arose naturally from inanimate matter. And what sort of Christian would doubt that God is responsible for creating life? Does the Creed not state that God created everything “seen and unseen”? Me thinks you’ve been spending too much time reading science comic books and not enough time contemplating the miracles described in Scripture.


#7250

You forgot to mention that Lenski’s E. coli already had the ability to digest citrate under anaerobic conditions, so the ability to digest citrate under aerobic conditions wasn’t exactly novel and may not have required the evolution of new genetic information.
Besides that, changes within a species demonstate nothing more than changes within a species - they don’t demonstrate how all life on earth evolved from a microbe.


#7251

… which is how, like multitudes of graduates, you ended up so brainwashed. So of them manage to grow out the indoctriantion they received at the hands of the education system, but most don’t.

You mean “anti-science folklore”. The best scientific explanation for life on earth is probably not even close to the truth.

Really? You were a progressive creationist who accepted the same fossil record and geological ages as an evolutionist? I have never been a young-earther, btw.

I can’t recall saying that, but I do believe evolutionary biology is foolishness and a product of atheism. A card-carrying evo-believing scientist can still be competant at real science.


#7252

Yeah…they found the letter Z they just can’t seem to find the rest of the alphabet. :slight_smile:


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.