Pope Says Evolution Can't Be Proven

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Sanvean' post='1243280' date='Apr 14 2007, 10:08 PM']Yes, I know what you're intending to do. It's not that I think it's a bad idea to explain technical language. In fact, I advocate it- I just think it's important to be precise in our translations, and "proof" is a misleading term.

Why not just give proper definitions of terms? [/quote]

Because far too often, I've seen proper explanations deliberately twisted so that the person I'm speaking with can say "See! I told you all along." That's part of the reason I left the last Christian forum I was on.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Read [u]In the beginning: A Catholic understanding of the story of the Creation and the Fall[/u] for the Pope's personal views on creation.

[Sanvean]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1243287' date='Apr 14 2007, 10:13 PM']Because far too often, I've seen proper explanations deliberately twisted so that the person I'm speaking with can say "See! I told you all along." That's part of the reason I left the last Christian forum I was on.[/quote]

That's true yes. I just tend towards a bit of idealism.

Besides, no matter [b]what[/b] you say, someone can, and probably will, find a way to twist it. As you know, it's one of the reasons I stay away from debates with anti-Evolutionists these days; I just don't have the energy.

Still, when I do come out and play, I strive for accuracy.

[mortify]

[quote]Science is not at all concerned with beliefs--such things are outside of the purview of science. Indeed, I do not state that I "believe" the theory of evolution, though it is true that I accept it as the best material explanation for the biological diversity present on earth. The fact that I believe that God guided that evolution is utterly and totally irrelevant to the scientific revelance of the theory.[/quote]I'm not rejecting evolution because it contradicts my beliefs, I question aspects of the theory because it goes against common sense. You can't have a gradual evolution of a circulatory system because that would be fatal. You either have a complete system or you don't. I mentioned valves before, if they were not in your veins the blood would pool in your legs and you'd die. If they were in your arteries they'd hinder the flow of blood and you'd died. Now, how did valves end up where they needed to be? By sheer accident, according to evolutionary theory. Mutations are spontaneous errors, usually detrimental (some beneficial), there is nothing that governs where, how, and when mutations should occur even though natural selection takes care of the negative ones. Ultimately we are led to believe this complexity is by a blind process, but this can't be simply because the complexity (and it is far more complex than the placement of valves) requires guidance. There is a book written by a philosophy Professor, Errol E. Harris. He accepts the theory of evolution, he simply believes it's incomplete. The theory lacks the element that explains for existence of complex life in the short period of time that it supposedly evolved. What I mean by "short" is, statistically evolution models showed it would require more time for a primitive single celled organism to evolve to a mammal than the supposed age of the solar system. Clearly the theory is missing something. I'm not a philosopher so I don't quite get what Harris suggested, he called it an "auturgic principle," whatever that means. I call Him God.

Now, is this important? I think so because the theory doesn't make sense without it. If you're an atheist you've already decided there is no Supernatural Power and the best explanation is a purely materialist understanding life (this is where "belief" in science comes in.) I'm not such a person, and so naturally I find the theory difficult to swallow. It's easier for me to believe an omnipotent God created everything than saying this is all a product of innumerable astronomical coincidences.

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1243286' date='Apr 14 2007, 08:11 PM']
I'm happy for you. Now, such beliefs as yours are admirable ... but they do not, and cannot, contradict the facts.[/quote]

What facts did I contradict?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='mortify' post='1243373' date='Apr 14 2007, 11:09 PM']I'm not rejecting evolution because it contradicts my beliefs, I question aspects of the theory because it goes against common sense. You can't have a gradual evolution of a circulatory system because that would be fatal. You either have a complete system or you don't. I mentioned valves before, if they were not in your veins the blood would pool in your legs and you'd die. If they were in your arteries they'd hinder the flow of blood and you'd died. Now, how did valves end up where they needed to be?[/quote]

Actually, there is a common-sense way for the valves specifically to form. The first animals with circulatory systems were quite a bit smaller than we are, and do not have the problems of gravity-induced blood pooling issues that we do. For those animals who had circulatory systems, it is possible that valves developed. The species where valves developed in the arteries died of course. The species where valves did not develop were not able to go above a certain size before recirculation issues became a limit. Only those species that developed valves in the veins were able to exceed that limit.

[quote]By sheer accident, according to evolutionary theory.[/quote]In all reality, the use of the term "sheer accident" is a mis-statement of evolutionary theory. There is no known naturalistic cause for why certain things happen--we can, as human beings, posit a theological explanation, but such explanations fall outside of the purview of science. Science cannot even [i]consider[/i] theological explanations--it is not competent to do so.


[quote]Clearly the theory is missing something. I'm not a philosopher so I don't quite get what Harris suggested, he called it an "auturgic principle," whatever that means.[/quote]

"Auturgic principle" means "spontaneous or self-governing principle"--in other words, Harris feels that evolution could not have happened spontaneously. That's a fine philosophical observation ... but it's not science.

[quote]I call Him God.[/quote]

Guess what--I do, too. But in doing so, we have both stepped outside of the boundaries of science.

[N/A Gone]

I made a great post here..dang phatmass ate it.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1243552' date='Apr 15 2007, 12:33 AM']I made a great post here..dang phatmass ate it.[/quote]

So that was where that burp came from......

[mortify]

[quote]Actually, there is a common-sense way for the valves specifically to form. The first animals with circulatory systems were quite a bit smaller than we are, and do not have the problems of gravity-induced blood pooling issues that we do. For those animals who had circulatory systems, it is possible that valves developed. The species where valves developed in the arteries died of course. The species where valves did not develop were not able to go above a certain size before recirculation issues became a limit. Only those species that developed valves in the veins were able to exceed that limit.[/quote]The above sounds more like scientific myth-making than something based off facts. There are many gaps in the above scenerio. I personally don't know what animal you have in mind but the existence of valves in an animal that doesn't need them would only hinder it's blood flow (even if they developed in the veins) and therefore would be detrimental. The valveless species lacking any hindrance to blood flow would outcompete its valved counterpart (assuming an animal could survive with such a detriment.) How do you imagine such a detrimental mutation being retained until the small animal species finally evolved to require them? This is what I was talking about before. The nature of these systems (like the circulatory system) is that all factors be present. These factors are dependent on one another to make the system function as a whole. Keep in mind with valves we are talking about one small aspect of the circulatory system. Valves themselves are incredibly complex, designed in such a way to keep the blood from flowing backwards even under the tension of muscular movement (imagine if they prevented blood flow?)

A species that gradually evolved the innumerable factors of the circulatory system would not survive. We aren't even factoring in the fact that function of the circulatory system depends on others systems (i.e. pulmonary). When you try to comprehend all that is required to live and function the idea of gradual blind evolution sounds absolutely untenable.

[quote]In all reality, the use of the term "sheer accident" is a mis-statement of evolutionary theory. There is no known naturalistic cause for why certain things happen--we can, as human beings, posit a theological explanation, but such explanations fall outside of the purview of science. Science cannot even [i]consider[/i] theological explanations--it is not competent to do so.[/quote]

To take a process that has "no known naturalistic cause" (i.e. mutation) and describe it as "random" or "spontaneous" carries an underlying belief/philosophy. If you don't believe me, consider the significance of substituting the antonym for those words.

Edited April 15, 2007 by mortify

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='mortify' post='1243631' date='Apr 15 2007, 12:51 AM']The above sounds more like scientific myth-making than something based off facts. There are many gaps in the above scenerio.[/quote]

Of course there are--I am not a biologist. I don't even play one on TV. This is simply a common-sense depiction of how it [i]could[/i] have happened.

Did it happen that way? While I have no real idea, that is something that can only be determined evidentially. My scenario might make a half-way decent hypothesis (probably not even that), but if it was a good hypothesis, it would be testable in the lab. But let's say for a moment that some scientific textbook came out with my explanation above without laboratory tests--then, but only then, would you be able to accurately complain that it was myth-making.

[quote]To take a process that has "no known naturalistic cause" (i.e. mutation) and describe it as "random" or "spontaneous" carries an underlying belief/philosophy. If you don't believe me, consider the significance of substituting the antonym for those words.[/quote]

Substituting the antonyms is irrelevant: we describe it as random because it appears, to science, to be random. Remember, science is not competent to evaluate non-naturalistic phenomena: if God acts to produce a specific mutation, and a second mutation occurred spontaneously, science cannot differentiate between the two.

[Phoenix Reborn]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1243565' date='Apr 14 2007, 08:36 PM']So that was where that burp came from......[/quote]

Are you sure it wasn't your M&M friend?

I personally don't care about the 'evolution' topic. People shouldn't try and figure out how we were created, because we were created as images of God and that's all that matters.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Phoenix Reborn

[mortify]

[quote]Did it happen that way? While I have no real idea, that is something that can only be determined evidentially. My scenario might make a half-way decent hypothesis (probably not even that), but if it was a good hypothesis, it would be testable in the lab. But let's say for a moment that some scientific textbook came out with my explanation above without laboratory tests--then, but only then, would you be able to accurately complain that it was myth-making.[/quote]How could you make a test to confirm or reject your hypothesis? Can we ever really know how something like the circulatory system came about? Ultimately the scientist will posit an imaginative scenario that tries to explain the unknown, and that is what makes her a myth maker.

[quote]Substituting the antonyms is irrelevant: we describe it as random because it appears, to science, to be random. Remember, science is not competent to evaluate non-naturalistic phenomena: if God acts to produce a specific mutation, and a second mutation occurred spontaneously, science cannot differentiate between the two.[/quote]

It's relevant because it reflects a materialist world view, even though world views should have no place in science. The neutral position would be to leave it as you had stated earlier. To fill in the blank with words like "random" or "spontaneous" is on par to me substituting them with words like "planned" and "meaningful." The materialist and theist will look at these processes differently.

Right now a materialist world view underlies science.

[mortify]

I'm sorry, I forgot to add that describing something as "spontaneous" delves into the "why" of the process, which is as Justin said beyond science.

Edited April 15, 2007 by mortify

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Phoenix Reborn' post='1244191' date='Apr 15 2007, 10:44 AM']Are you sure it wasn't your M&M friend?[/quote]

That's my picture.

[quote]I personally don't care about the 'evolution' topic. People shouldn't try and figure out how we were created, because we were created as images of God and that's all that matters.[/quote]

I don't know about "people shouldn't"--nothing wrong with science, as long as people remember that science can neither prove nor disprove God. That's what faith is for.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='Phoenix Reborn' post='1244191' date='Apr 15 2007, 09:44 AM']Are you sure it wasn't your M&M friend?[/quote]

Man, Justin, you have [i]no life[/i]. I didn't realize that was your display pic...*giggles*

[quote]I personally don't care about the 'evolution' topic. People shouldn't try and figure out how we were created, because we were created as images of God and that's all that matters.[/quote]

My theory works like this:

"Creation? Evolution? Who cares? *points at feet* You are here. Deal with it."

I mostly agree with you, Phoenix.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='mortify' post='1244370' date='Apr 15 2007, 01:42 PM']How could you make a test to confirm or reject your hypothesis?[/quote]

Aw, heck, that's where the analogy falls apart. Knowing as little biology as I do (just the basic Freshman year biology from college ... more years ago than I care to admit ), I would have no idea.

[quote]Can we ever really know how something like the circulatory system came about? [/quote]Why not? It is theoretically possible. I do not have the knowledge in biology to tell you how it could be achieved, but other structures can (and have) been traced.

[quote]Ultimately the scientist will posit an imaginative scenario that tries to explain the unknown, and that is what makes her a myth maker.[/quote]

Mortify, I have rarely seen such a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Is this your analysis, or one that you have learned from someone else?

[quote]It's relevant because it reflects a materialist world view, even though world views should have no place in science. The neutral position would be to leave it as you had stated earlier. To fill in the blank with words like "random" or "spontaneous" is on par to me substituting them with words like "planned" and "meaningful." The materialist and theist will look at these processes differently.

Right now a materialist world view underlies science.
[/quote]A materialistic methodology? Yes. A materialistic worldview? No. There are many scientists--including evolutionary biologists--who are Christian, even specifically Catholic Christian. While you may disagree with evolution (which is, of course, your right), it would be better not to do so based on false claims of what science is, or what underlies science.

[quote]I'm sorry, I forgot to add that describing something as "spontaneous" delves into the "why" of the process, which is as Justin said beyond science.[/quote]

Again, Mortify, that is such an extreme misunderstanding of the word "spontaneous" that I wonder if you came up with this particular argument, or if you heard it from another source.

The word "spontaneous," like many English words, can have different meanings in different contexts, but in this context the meaning is "happening without any apparent cause." Again, you must remember that we are speaking of science: science is not competent to evaluate non-materialistic issues. If event A occurs randomly, and event B occurs because of divine will, science is not capable of differentiating between the two.