As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[eleos1954]

Regardless what you believe the theory of evolution is not a explanation for the origins of life. The ToE starts with the first common ancestor of all life.

yeah .... lots of theories out there about a lot of things.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Then you agree with the Church that the human mind does not emanate from matter?

I dont think the church agrees with you, the comment was about the soul.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution.

1) Creation is a unified explanation of all that is. Evolution attempts to explain only a fragment of what is, ie., the diversity of life on earth, and presumes, without explanation, the prior existence of that which is necessary for the origin of life to have emanated from the natural order.

2) Bias is intrinsic to a scientific explanation for the observed diversity of life. Constrained to the material, evolutionists’ hypotheses (as they ought) posit only material causes for observed material effects. However, working under the principle of uniformity, the scientist introduces bias as he shapes the evidence and strains reason to conform to his proposed hypotheses. Rather than follow the evidence, the evidence is made to follow the hypothesis.

3) Creation explains the orderly operation of natural laws as rooted in and emanating from an unchanging rational ground. Evolution has no explanation.

4) “Mind from matter” presents a difficult and unresolved problem for evolution. Evolution proposes that “mind” spookily emerged from matter only in the most recent geological moments of time. Creation proposes the intuitive "mind from Mind".

5) When the evolutionary scientist cannot provide natural explanations for observed effects, he often masks his ignorance with flowery language, eg., “order emerges from the interactions of multiple subsystems as a result of their intrinsic properties, without external guidance …”. Rather than assign the observed effect to a super-natural or unnatural cause the scientist presumes a natural cause without identifying it.

6) Creation is not a scientific explanation for the existence of man. However, the forced scientific explanation for man's existence lacks intelligibility and strains credulity.

OK, I'd like to use some reasonable criteria for a good explanation to see if we can rank creation as an explanation for the existence of man against evolution as an explanation.

To paraphrase a recent post of mine:

I don't know how you judge a good explanation, but for me (and many scientists & philosophers), a good explanation should:

1. make testable predictions (so you can find out if it's wrong).
2. it should have specificity, so it gives an insight into and understanding of the particular phenomenon it explains.
3. it should preferably have some unifying scope so that the underlying principles from point 2 can give an insight into and understanding of other phenomena.
4. it should be parsimonious so that it introduces no unnecessary entities (Occam's razor).
5. it should not raise more questions than it answers, particularly unanswerable questions.
6. it should preferably be consistent with our existing body of knowledge.
7. an explanation that can explain anything is not really an explanation at all.

Now, not all explanations can satisfy all of those criteria, but the Creation explanation is interesting in that it satisfies none of them.

Evolution:
Has satisfied criterion 1 - its testable predictions of man's origins have been verified in a number of independent ways (as have a vast number of other predictions it makes).
Has satisfied criterion 2 - it provides a simple and elegant natural process that explains numerous human traits, features, including otherwise puzzling oddities.
Has satisfied criterion 3 - the underlying principles apply to all life on Earth and have been extremely useful in the biological & medical sciences, and in computational problem solving and industrial design.
Has satisfied criterion 4 - it requires no additional entities beyond living things in nature.
Has satisfied criterion 5 - the questions it raises are about specific details, not how it works in general; I don't know of any thought to be unanswerable in principle.
Has satisfied criterion 6 - it is entirely consistent with our current body of knowledge.
Has satisfied criterion 7 - it only explains the development and diversity of life on Earth.

If you can make a reasonable argument for why the criteria above are not good ways to judge an explanation, or show how the Creation explanation satisfies those criteria, or show how the Creation explanation is a better explanation than the evolution explanation by those criteria, or simply show how it's a better explanation than the 'It's Magic!' explanation (which also fails on all criteria), then we can discuss the merits of the Creation explanation.

From where I sit, it's a slam dunk for evolution as an explanation, but I'm interested to see what counterarguments you can present - in the previous paragraph I've given four reasonable approaches you can take.

Go for it!

 

[Frank Robert]

? What is it that you think is the difference in what I posted and your citations from the catechism?

The Catholic Catechism refers to the "human mind." Perhaps you can add something more from the Catechism on how the human mind evolved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Prior to DNA, evolution theory relied primarily on the historiographical sciences of geology, paleontology and archaeology to support its claims.

Er, no. Little of that featured in Darwin or Wallace's foundational work on evolution. Prior to molecular biology, there was also evidence from embryology, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and comparative biochemistry, biogeography, direct observation of natural selection and speciation, and so-on. As paleontology developed, it provided increasing support for the patterns that had become apparent in those other independent lines of evidence.

 

[pitabread]

The problem is in the interpretation of the evidence compounded by the indirect methods used to estimate the age bones in rocks. The greater the number of specialist appliances and specialist technicians needed to interpret the ages, the greater the uncertainty of the data.

So now we're throwing physics and geology into the mix of unreliable science in your view?

Actually, that's how they do work.

What specifically do you think supports your claim that, "Their conclusions are less derived and more contrived (at times, from outright falsified evidence) to support the evolution hypothesis that the grant money which underwrote their endeavor expects."

Really? I think not.

The context of this is not scientists forging fossils; rather, the context is a forgery for the purpose of selling the fossil. It was immediately exposed as such by scientists. If you think this is supporting your conspiracy theories, it doesn't.

Can you provide a few links to support the claim that industry (other than sci-fi movie production companies) utilizes the theory of evolution profitably (other than the novel DNA science already allowed as highly more reliable than the evidence from the historiographical work)?

I'm not sure what the phrase, "other than the novel DNA science already allowed as highly more reliable than the evidence from the historiographical work" is supposed to mean here?

Generally the applications of evolution that I do often cite are related to genetics/genomics (specifically related to comparative genomics and applied phylogenetics).

Do you already accept those as valid applications of the theory of evolution?

 

[Bradskii]

No, the two quite obviously overlap and make contrary claims as explanations for the existence of man. Nonsensical? Apparently you have not read the title of this forum: "Creation & Evolution".

Can you cite in any thread in any forum that I claimed the "planet is only a few thousand years old"? The answer is, "No".

That would be creation as opposed to a natural process? Then there's no overlap. We can check. Let's look at a creation event.

Nyx laid a golden egg. Eros was hatched from this and he called the sky Uranus and the earth Gaia.

Nope. Nothing there that we can associate with science. We can't reference any of that to any scientific process. It's just a story. OK, it's the Greek creation story but yours is no different in that respect (unless you have some information that we can verify).

And if I need to check with you if you accept a statement or claim that something has been around for a few million years then that ain't goading. That's simply checking what you believe as it relates to the discussion. I'm sure there'll be a fair amount of that. For example...

If you really want to tie in Creation with science then we need to check how it aligns. Where that overlap occurs. Let's see if it ties in with the evidence. So when was this creation event? How long ago did God create the planet?

 

[o_mlly]

This is exceedingly hard to believe. For this to be true, thousands, nay tens or even hundreds of thousands of highly trained scientists would all need to have made a monumental blunder. This seems a priori exceedingly unlikely.

Can you think of one other example, during the era of modern science (say after the Enlightenment) where one cay say that a widely accepted scientific theory turned out to be "bad science"? Stuff like replacing Newtonian physics with Einsteinian is not such an example since Newtonian physics was "good science" given the observations that were available at the time.

See the fallacy of the argument from consensus. Would atheists accept the fallacious argument that since most humans believe in God that God therefore exists?

Do you believe that humanity is fully explained as having evolved from eukaryotes? If not then do you think science constrained to only material causes will ever provide the complete explanation of man's existence? There is no monumental blunder; only "a bridge too far". If God directly and immediately creates every human soul then such knowledge is beyond the grasp of science. Therefore, only another mode of human knowledge can reach that reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

See the fallacy of the argument from consensus. Would atheists accept the fallacious argument that since most humans believe in God that God therefore exists?

Which god? There is no god worshiped by a majority of humans. In fact you can tell anyone on Earth that a majority of humans disagree with their god.

 

[VirOptimus]

See the fallacy of the argument from consensus. Would atheists accept the fallacious argument that since most humans believe in God that God therefore exists?

-snip-

Science does not work the same way as faith.

 

[o_mlly]

So now we're throwing physics and geology into the mix of unreliable science in your view?

All science is provisional. No more, no less.

What are you expecting "molecular biology" to show since thus far the study of DNA, a biological molecule" and proteins and protein structure etc. have only reinforced the theory of evolution? Phylogenies based on DNA have recapitulated those created priorly from morphology alone.
As for the rest of the post it is more appropriate for the conspiracy subforum.

Apparently, you are behind in your reading.
The evolution of the genetic code: impasses and challenges
https://core.ac.uk › download › pd
by Á Kun · Cited by 28 — 2 MTA-ELTE Theoretical Biology and Evolutionary Ecology Research Group

To be honest, we are stuck. The existing theories each capture some aspect of the origin of
the genetic code, but they still contain a lot of assumptions that could be cleared by experiments. New theories are either slight variation of old theories (science mostly advance incrementally) or theories that make little impact on the literature (which is unfortunate, there could be a lot of good idea out there to be discovered). So there is an impasse. Most papers onthe origin of the genetic code are reviews (like this) and not original research. It seems thatthe field has been stalled. We strongly urge empiricist to conduct the experiments we proposed here in order to overcome this impasse and go on with the challenging task of solving the “notoriously difficult problem” of the origin of the genetic code and translation.​

 

[o_mlly]

Not really plausible. Yes, this idea that profit motive can introduce distortions is correct. But you ignore at least two factors that, I think, may your position untenable. First, there is the self-correcting nature of science - it is in the very nature of the scientific system of thinking to correct for such biases.

Second, and even more importantly, if what you were saying is true, it is very difficult, if not almost impossible, to explain why science "works" - why medicines make people better, why airplanes stay in the air, why we can predict exactly when hurricanes make landfall, and why we can deliver missiles right down the shorts of the bad guy from hundreds of kilometers away.

If science were really so fundamentally flawed as you imply, it would indeed be a miracle that all our technology still works.

Search "Theory Laden Observations" for articles supporting my position.

 

[o_mlly]

So your contention is that the spiritual soul is a material effect of the mind? This seems to me to be in contradiction with current Catholic teaching.

No. If you wish to put words in my mouth then we are at an impasse. The forum has a quote feature to cite others posts. Please use it in future.

 

[Bradskii]

See the fallacy of the argument from consensus. Would atheists accept the fallacious argument that since most humans believe in God that God therefore exists?

If everyone believed in the same God and all agreed on what He was and what He wanted, then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief. But as you know, not even Catholics can seem to agree. Even disagreeing with each other on matters of basic science.

 

[o_mlly]

If you're only concerned about the evolution or origin of humans, then why in the OP do you put an concern to the origin of life?

The most fundamental property of a human being is that they are a living creatures. A comprehensive explanation of human beings, therefore, requires an explanation of how human beings came to life. Creation provides the explanation. Evolution does not.

 

[AV1611VET]

4) “Mind from matter” presents a difficult and unresolved problem for evolution. Evolution proposes that “mind” spookily emerged from matter only in the most recent geological moments of time. Creation proposes the intuitive "mind from Mind".

Indeed.

Man is a gestalt: we are greater than the sum of our physical parts.

Where did our vitality come from, if not from God?

 

[o_mlly]

Oh, you're just going to ignore everything I said. Since I was replying directly to what you wrote, I'll assume everything you wrote in the OP was off topic too. So I'll forget about replying to the rest of the OP then.

? Pls re-post what you think i missed.

You've confused "truth" with church doctrine in the last phrase.

No. Science is always and only provisional. Like all worldviews, scientific materialism is also founded on a faith statement.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The most fundamental property of a human being is that they are a living creatures. A comprehensive explanation of human beings, therefore, requires an explanation of how human beings came to life. Creation provides the explanation. Evolution does not.

Let's try again and see if you understand this time: Creation is the claim, it is not an explanation.

Evolution doesn't attempt to address origin of life.

 

[o_mlly]

This statement makes it clear you've never had a research grant as this is not how grant programs work. Your earlier claim of being a scientist seems more dubious with each post.

Citations that support your counter claim? How naive to think that scientists are saints. With each of your posts, your claim to hold any advanced degree looks dubious.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution does not.

Evolution doesn't attempt to address origin of life.

Sounds like you agree.