Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah why is it that whenever we discuss evolution some people have to go back to the accusation that we’re all atheists?
I’m Catholic and it’s acceptable for a Catholic to believe in it and I do.
This single sentence told me all I needed to know about you and to conclude that reading any further sentences from you would be pointless.
The pope was no scientist, and as a Catholic I disagreed with many of his ideas. But as to that particular statement I personally would agree, although there are weaknesses in the overall of Theory of Evolution. The approach of the Catholic Church has been to accept various scientific theories as theories, not stating whether the theories are true or not. Many Catholic theories were ridiculed by the world, Catholic Copernicus proposed that the planets revolve around the sun and dedicated his theory to the pope. It was accepted as a theory by the Catholic Church, but not ruled upon as being true or false. Likewise a Catholic priest introduced a theory which was so ridiculed it was jokingly call the "Big Bang," it went against the idea of a static universe taught by Albert Einstein. It did eventually become accepted as a THEORY compatible with the creation narrative, not ruled upon as being true or false.No, you are correct that there is no official position on the matter. But when the last Pope, Francis, says "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation" then... that kind of reads like an acceptance of evolution as scientific fact.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive,
The pope was no scientist, and as a Catholic I disagreed with many of his ideas. But as to that particular statement I personally would agree, although there are weaknesses in the overall of Theory of Evolution. The approach of the Catholic Church has been to accept various scientific theories as theories, not stating whether the theories are true or not. Many Catholic theories were ridiculed by the world, Catholic Copernicus proposed that the planets revolve around the sun and dedicated his theory to the pope. It was accepted as a theory by the Catholic Church, but not ruled upon as being true or false. Likewise a Catholic priest introduced a theory which was so ridiculed it was jokingly call the "Big Bang," it went against the idea of a static universe taught by Albert Einstein. It did eventually become accepted as a THEORY compatible with the creation narrative, not ruled upon as being true or false.
Show how you meld the two.
No, you are correct that there is no official position on the matter. But when the last Pope, Francis, says "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation" then... that kind of reads like an acceptance of evolution as scientific fact.
Okay, I misspoke since you can't really meld science and religion, unless you want to create the Adeptus Mechanicus from Warhammer 40,000 were science and religion do get melded together to form something... quite abominable.
But they can exist together quite easily.
Indeed they can:
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.
( You saw this coming, didn't you?)
If every single base pair difference between the LCA between humans and chimps doesn't require its own separate mutation and doesn't have to confer a benefit, and if large numbers of base pair differences can arise via single mutation events (indels for example) then the argument presented in the video in the OP is wrong. It's just that simple. That's not surprising though since E. Hovind isn't a scientist, let alone a geneticist, which is likely why he makes such fundamental mistakes.Not at all. I’m aware that both are said to have evolved from a common ancestor. My point is simply that the functional genetic differences, whatever their origin, must be significant enough to explain the vast gap between humans and chimps in anatomy, cognition, and behaviour. That’s a high bar for random mutations to clear.
Yes, I’m aware of CNVs (copy number variations) and other large-scale mutations. But the concern isn’t just the quantity of changes, it’s about the functionality of those changes. Even if thousands of base pairs change at once, how many of them are beneficial, coordinated, and preserved without disrupting existing systems? It's not just about generating variation, but producing integrated, functional innovation.
I'm not assuming all mutations must be beneficial, only that the key functional differences driving major anatomical and cognitive changes would need to be. Differences in neutral regions like microsatellites or retrotransposons don’t explain the development of complex traits. The real challenge is whether enough functional changes can arise, become fixed, and coordinate to produce the profound differences we see.
A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed with overwhelming evidence. By referring to it as a theory, the Church is confirming that it's true. You seem to be confusing theory with hypothesis.The pope was no scientist, and as a Catholic I disagreed with many of his ideas. But as to that particular statement I personally would agree, although there are weaknesses in the overall of Theory of Evolution. The approach of the Catholic Church has been to accept various scientific theories as theories, not stating whether the theories are true or not.
Supportive Science Field Contribution to Evolution Genetics Explains heredity, mutation, recombination, and how genetic variation arises and is passed on. Molecular Biology Reveals conserved DNA, RNA, and protein sequences across species, supporting common descent. Biochemistry Shows evolutionary conservation of metabolic pathways and biomolecules like ATP, hemoglobin, and cytochrome c. Comparative Genomics Compares whole genomes across organisms to trace evolutionary relationships and shared ancestry. Population Genetics Uses mathematical models to study allele frequency changes due to selection, drift, mutation, and gene flow. Evolutionary Biology Integrates data from molecular, genetic, and ecological sources to model and explain evolutionary mechanisms. Geology Provides fossil dating (radiometric methods), stratigraphy, and Earth's history essential for placing evolutionary events in time. Paleontology Supplies fossil evidence of transitional forms, extinction events, and lineage divergence. Developmental Biology Shows how changes in gene regulation during development lead to evolutionary changes in body plans. Comparative Anatomy Examines homologous structures (e.g., limbs, skulls) that support descent with modification. Physics Indirectly contributes via radiometric dating methods (e.g., uranium-lead, carbon-14) and modeling biological systems. Chemistry Explains molecular interactions, mutation mechanisms, and the chemical origin of life (abiogenesis). Mathematical Biology Uses equations and models to describe evolutionary processes quantitatively (e.g., Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, selection coefficients). Bioinformatics Analyzes massive biological datasets (e.g., DNA sequences, protein structures) to infer evolutionary relationships.
Supportive Science Field Contradiction to Creationism Genetics Demonstrates shared genetic material and endogenous retroviruses across species, inconsistent with separate creation; observed mutation and speciation events show gradual change. Molecular Biology Shows deep homology in genetic sequences and proteins (e.g., cytochrome c, Hox genes) across vastly different organisms, contradicting claims of independent creation. Biochemistry Reveals conserved molecular pathways (e.g., ATP synthesis) across life, suggesting common ancestry rather than unrelated creation events. Comparative Genomics Identifies shared non-functional DNA (e.g., pseudogenes) between humans and other primates, which has no purpose in a “designed” model but makes sense via evolution. Population Genetics Demonstrates the mathematical impossibility of a single human pair origin (e.g., Adam and Eve) within the last few thousand years. Evolutionary Biology Observes speciation, adaptation, and natural selection in real-time (e.g., Darwin’s finches, bacteria resistance), which creationism denies as significant drivers of biodiversity. Geology Shows the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old through radiometric dating and layered rock strata, contradicting the 6,000–10,000 year age posited by YEC. Paleontology Provides a rich fossil record with transitional forms (e.g., Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, hominin species) absent in creationist models of sudden appearance. Developmental Biology Reveals conserved embryonic stages and gene expression patterns, inconsistent with independent design of species. Comparative Anatomy Homologous structures (e.g., vertebrate limb bones) show modified reuse of the same blueprint, which contradicts the notion of unrelated, optimal creation. Physics Radiometric decay rates and thermodynamic evidence refute a young Earth and indicate an ancient universe, contrary to creationist cosmologies. Chemistry Demonstrates natural pathways for the formation of biological molecules (e.g., amino acids, nucleotides), undermining the claim that life cannot arise naturally. Mathematical Biology Models evolutionary processes that match observed patterns in nature, while creationist models lack predictive power and are not mathematically coherent. Bioinformatics Detects statistical signals of shared ancestry in large genetic datasets—patterns incompatible with separate creation or intelligent design models.
"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed with overwhelming evidence. By referring to it as a theory, the Church is confirming that it's true. You seem to be confusing theory with hypothesis.
"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."
And this is not the place for debating those worldview things. Defend creation scientifically as you mostly have.There are many scientists who are Christians and accept evolution. But it's also true that there are highly qualified scientists who are Christians and reject evolution, holding instead to a six-day creation. The difference isn't always about the data itself, but the worldview through which that data is interpreted.
Most of these scientists who are creationists are not in biology, but are working in field where their ideology doesn't interfere with their capacity to do good science.Both sides, evolutionary and creationist, start with different assumptions. Evolutionary scientists often interpret evidence through a naturalistic lens, while creationist scientists interpret it through a biblical framework. So, the debate isn't just about actual science; it's about the foundational worldview each person brings to the evidence.
I really don't care about worldviews, or especially, theology.You're right that interpretation has varied throughout history, sometimes with serious consequences. But differing interpretations don't mean all interpretations are equally valid. The goal is to interpret Scripture faithfully and consistently, using context, genre, and the original languages. It’s not about claiming personal authority, but about seeking truth with humility.
But it is about whether you believe the word of God or not.
I’m not denying divine sovereignty over natural processes. But if life requires intelligent input even in the lab, it challenges the idea that unguided, mindless processes can do the same unaided. The issue isn’t about ruling out divine causality, it’s about whether the evidence supports that life can arise without it.
Uh, do you recall who it was who wrote, 'we supposedly need 30 million meaningful genetic changes'? In the context of the argument you're presenting, it's only functional differences that matter, so why would you be introducing any other kind of changes?The 30 million figure refers to estimated genetic differences, not necessarily all functional.
Well, yes, that would have been a good question to have started with. Your argument kind of depends on the answer to it. But let's take a wild guess at it. There are ~20,000 genes in our genome. Most of them do exactly the same thing in humans and chimpanzees. So let's guess that 10% of them differ in meaningful ways between humans and chimps. If there were 5 functional mutations per gene just in the human lineage, that would be 10,000 differences, which is 5% of the (generous) limit you offered before. So what exactly is supposed to be the problem here?But the real question is: how many of those differences had to be functional to account for the profound anatomical, cognitive, and behavioural differences between humans and chimps?
That's an assertion, one that is contradicted by the numbers that you've already posted in this thread.Even if it's just a few thousand, that still presents a serious challenge for the time and mechanisms available, given the limits of mutation and selection.
To summarize: you've gone from "destroying evolution in less than five minutes" to "maybe there's a conflict between a very poorly understood limit on the number of beneficial mutations that could have fixed and the even more poorly understood number of beneficial mutations that actually did fix, although at present there is precisely zero reason to think there is." Admittedly, that is a difficult argument to refute, since it doesn't actually end up saying anything.You cited a 2024 Genetics paper suggesting that Haldane’s Dilemma isn’t a major constraint in most species. But even that paper admits the cost of selection can be significant, especially in slowly reproducing organisms like humans. While sex and recombination help, there are still real biological limits. Dismissing these concerns doesn’t make them go away, it just avoids the hard questions about whether unguided processes are enough to explain the changes we see.
More accurately, there are many, many highly qualified Christian scientists who accept evolution and a handful who are YECs.There are many scientists who are Christians and accept evolution. But it's also true that there are highly qualified scientists who are Christians and reject evolution, holding instead to a six-day creation.
I note in this thread the use of the term “creationist scientist” which is an oxymoron ...
"Creation Scientist" is a contradiction in terms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?