Evolution conflict and division

[Fervent]

Which is what the evidence shows. Since science depends on evidence, that's what's needed. This might seem wrong to you, but nothing humans can do, works better for understanding the physical universe. If something else worked, scientist would use that instead of evidence. But nothing else works. So they will continue to learn more about the universe with the tools they have, regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

It's not 'what evidence shows", its built into the base assumptions of the model. And evidence collected under an assumption cannot be evidence for that assumption.

Scientists are funny that way.

Failing to recognize your assumptions and then calling it evidence based is hardly scientific.

Wrong. Uniformitarianism would be (for example) consistent with a God who constantly acts on every particle of the universe, but chooses to do so in an understandable and consistent way.

I disagree, but this point isn't as big of an issue as the assumptions involving causal structures that are built into the scientific method.

 

[Job 33:6]

The specific forces don't invalidate the interaction, as it is the interaction between an object and another object(the photon) that is primary. As for the history, what I am saying isn't that the specific interactions will have a shared history but that the flow of cause and effect relationships is assumed to be a simple move from cause to effect in sequence rather than being shaped by a future purpose. Realism isn't a sufficient condition for science to proceed, without adopting notions about cause and effect relationships.

Not occasionally, but is the eternal sustainer who is constantly acting. Uniformitarianism requires that God not be relevant to explain the workings of the universe, only some base property or law for interaction between objects.

I think that you're still sliding between two categories here, that science makes methodological claims vs science making ontological claims. Every time we talk about it, you move to a methodological position, but then I turn and you slide to the other side of things in which science is assumed to make ontological claims.

Your position commits science to a metaphysical claim about what kinds of causes exist. However, science only specifies which kinds of causes are tractable for modeling. Final causes may be real without being scientifically describable, just as meanings or intentions can be real without being part of physical theory.

If the concern is that people misinterpret scientific models as metaphysical claims, that is a failure of philosophical and theological education rather than a flaw in scientific modeling.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's not 'what evidence shows", its built into the base assumptions of the model. And evidence collected under an assumption cannot be evidence for that assumption.

Failing to recognize your assumptions and then calling it evidence based is hardly scientific.

I disagree, but this point isn't as big of an issue as the assumptions involving causal structures that are built into the scientific method.

We are still sliding between two distinct categories here.

Evidence can justify the success of a modeling framework without justifying the metaphysical assumptions that make the framework possible in the first place.

In uniformitarianism, the same types of physical processes we observe operating today are sufficient to explain geological features in the past. It does not say God is absent, irrelevant, or inactive.

Uniformitarianism doesn’t rule out God’s action; it rules out invoking God as an unmodeled physical cause within geological explanations. That’s a limitation of scientific description, not a claim about what ultimately sustains or governs reality.

 

[o_mlly]

Again, you're rejecting what God says about this.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Again, your claiming "God's lips to your ears" is just laughable.

As to God's words: The correct understanding of Romans 1:20 is simply that the observable effects disclose something about causes. But read verses 21-22 to improve your exegesis of 20:

​

"... for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools". ​

 

[o_mlly]

And, as mentioned before, you're rejecting what the Church says about this. (which admittedly is not required of Catholics to believe)

? Here's what our church says in the elevated authority of encyclical teaching:

If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism (Humani Generis p .5).​

​

... Pope Pius XII warned against mistaken interpretations linked to evolutionism, existentialism and historicism. He made it clear that these theories had not been proposed and developed by theologians, but had their origins “outside the sheepfold of Christ”.68 He added, however, that errors of this kind should not simply be rejected but should be examined critically: “Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in human hearts, cannot afford to ignore these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these theories well, not only because diseases are properly treated only if rightly diagnosed and because even in these false theories some truth is found at times, but because in the end these theories provoke a more discriminating discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths”69 (Fides et Ratio p. 54).​

Of course, our non-Catholic friends need not give their assent to our teachings.

​

How about we both try that?

Fair enough. I will not respond to your posts if you agree to not respond to mine.

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, you're rejecting what God says about this.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Again, your claiming "God's lips to your ears" is just laughable.

He said it. I'm just showing you what he said. You should believe Him.

Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.

This describes the error YE creationists make. As you've been repeatedly told, biological evolution is not about the origin of everything. This is why you confused the Church's statement about the origin of the universe with it's statement on human evolution. Two different things.
And of course, science never "proves" anything. It merely confirms theories to the point that a reasonable person would accept them.

The evidence uncovered since Pius XII has led the Church to find that the evolution of man from an early common ancestor of all life is "virtually certain."

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*

...While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

As to God's words: The correct understanding of Romans 1:20 is simply that the observable effects disclose something about causes.

Not if we can believe what Paul has written here. It's not just evidence for "causes." It also discloses to those willing to see, God's divine nature and power. Why would any Christian object to that?

Of course, our non-Catholic friends need not give their assent to our teachings.

It is fact that the vast majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that accept evolution as consistent with our faith.

Fair enough. I will not respond to your posts if you agree to not respond to mine.

Not what I said. The key here is that your claims have been very useful in making clear how Christian belief is consistent with evolution. And that matters.

 

[The Barbarian]

Which is what the evidence shows. Since science depends on evidence, that's what's needed. This might seem wrong to you, but nothing humans can do, works better for understanding the physical universe. If something else worked, scientist would use that instead of evidence. But nothing else works. So they will continue to learn more about the universe with the tools they have, regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

It's not 'what evidence shows"

It is. Remember, science doesn't say theories are proof; it merely regards all such findings as provisional on new evidence. Science is inductive, observing the game and inferring the rules. There are inductive proofs, but I can't think of one that applies to science.

It's not 'what evidence shows", its built into the base assumptions of the model. And evidence collected under an assumption cannot be evidence for that assumption.

Evidence is just fact. It doesn't matter what beliefs you might hold as long as you accurately record the fact. Nor does science claim that such facts are evidence for the metaphysical assumptions of science. It merely shows that the theories supported by facts reliably predict the world around us. And that's all it's intended to do.

 

[o_mlly]

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*

You will benefit if you learn about the hierarchy of Catholic teachings. The ITC is not magisterial; encyclicals are.

​

The third level of the magisterium is based on the pope’s teaching authority in a way that excludes further discussion, much less dissent. We commonly note this level in the encyclicals.​

 

[The Barbarian]

You will benefit if you learn about the hierarchy of Catholic teachings. The ITC is not magisterial; encyclicals are.

But as you now realize, those documents don't conflict with each other. The Church does not stand against itself. The Church teaches that the evolution of humans from a first common ancestor is "virtually certain." The report was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger. I would think that he was a competent theologian, do you not?

 

[o_mlly]

Guess how we know you aren't a real scientist.

? What we do know is that people who teach science are not ipso facto scientists. Often they are merely pontificating academics. If "scientist" is a person learned in science and as a professional is compensated for applying that knowledge to problem solving then I am a scientist.

Guess how we know you are not a real scientist? Real scientists know that science has a future and make their provisional claims in the proper indicative or subjunctive mood maintaining thereby a healthy skepticism. You, on the other hand, generally prefer the imperative mood; a dead giveaway for a "wannabe"

 

[Fervent]

I think that you're still sliding between two categories here, that science makes methodological claims vs science making ontological claims. Every time we talk about it, you move to a methodological position, but then I turn and you slide to the other side of things in which science is assumed to make ontological claims.

I'm not distinguishing because in practice the idealization of science as nothing but a methodology isn't realized. Making a sharp distinction between ontological and methodological issues doesn't appear to me realistic to how science is typically understood.

Your position commits science to a metaphysical claim about what kinds of causes exist. However, science only specifies which kinds of causes are tractable for modeling. Final causes may be real without being scientifically describable, just as meanings or intentions can be real without being part of physical theory.

Because that's how most people understand it, looking to science to tell them what is true about the world.

If the concern is that people misinterpret scientific models as metaphysical claims, that is a failure of philosophical and theological education rather than a flaw in scientific modeling.

I never said it was a flaw of scientific modeling, as I said I see it as pedagogical; because science is taught as if what it discovers is true from a naive starting point and not just a model. So yeah, it's an educational failure but that educational failure but that educational failure involves how science is taught without making the necessary assumptions explicit for such modeling to take place.

 

[Fervent]

It is. Remember, science doesn't say theories are proof; it merely regards all such findings as provisional on new evidence. Science is inductive, observing the game and inferring the rules. There are inductive proofs, but I can't think of one that applies to science.

It's not, it's baked into the model itself. I'm not sure what you mean by "inductive proofs", but reducing all causation to efficient causes is a requirement of the method and so science cannot produce evidence for that assumption.

Evidence is just fact. It doesn't matter what beliefs you might hold as long as you accurately record the fact. Nor does science claim that such facts are evidence for the metaphysical assumptions of science. It merely shows that the theories supported by facts reliably predict the world around us. And that's all it's intended to do.

No, evidence isn't just a fact. Data may just be facts, but evidence requires theoretical understanding(not in the technical sense but in the ordinary sense). And the only time I see people making distinctions about science not being proven is after the fact, while often casually treating it as if scientific models are discovering what is true about the universe sans metaphysical assumptions.

 

[The Barbarian]

What we do know is that people who teach science are not ipso facto scientists.

Perhaps you teach science? All the people in university who taught me science were scientists.

If "scientist" is a person learned in science and as a professional is compensated for applying that knowledge to problem solving then I am a scientist.

I see the denial, but you didn't even know the basics of biological science. And that speaks more persuasively. Granted, one could be a computer scientist, or a social scientist or whatever, and still be entirely ignorant of the subject at hand. But those guys generally know their limitations.

Real scientists know that science has a future and make their provisional claims in the proper indicative or subjunctive mood maintaining thereby a healthy skepticism.

Perhaps you don't know what "inductive" means. When I showed you that all theories in science are subject to future evidence, you didn't know enough to comprehend what that means. "Imperative mood" can include requests as in when I asked you to show us even one of Darwin's four points that had been refuted. But it can also include suggestions. Let me be imperative again. Perhaps it would increase your credibility if you would step up and show us which of the four points of Darwinian theory have been refuted or even have not been confirmed by evidence. Or perhaps that would be subjunctive. Or maybe the previous sentence is subjunctive. Whatever. I never learned that stuff very well; I learned to write by reading, and adapting the styles of writers I liked.

There is a tendency for researchers to use tentative wording for results, even when the results are quite conclusive. It's not entirely a good thing...
Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine
Oct. 2024
The use of tentative language in scientific publications
...However, the use of tentative language in scientific titles and key sections may also pose challenges. These terms create a perception of weakness or inconclusiveness, potentially leading to the undervaluation of the research. Moreover, when tentative findings are cited or referenced, they may be misinterpreted as more definitive than intended, influencing clinical guidelines, policy decisions, and further research directions.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm not distinguishing because in practice the idealization of science as nothing but a methodology isn't realized. Making a sharp distinction between ontological and methodological issues doesn't appear to me realistic to how science is typically understood.

Because that's how most people understand it, looking to science to tell them what is true about the world.

I never said it was a flaw of scientific modeling, as I said I see it as pedagogical; because science is taught as if what it discovers is true from a naive starting point and not just a model. So yeah, it's an educational failure but that educational failure but that educational failure involves how science is taught without making the necessary assumptions explicit for such modeling to take place.

I agree this is a pedagogical failure, not a flaw in scientific modeling. Where we differ is that I see the cultural conflation as the problem to be corrected, not evidence that the distinction itself is impractical.

For example, here is a quote from you earlier, and I'll double check this, but you said:
"Uniformitarianism requires that God not be relevant to explain the workings of the universe, only some base property or law for interaction between objects."

But in fact, it doesn't actually require such a conclusion, because as noted, the issue is pedagogical, not methodological.

If uniformitarianism requires God to be irrelevant in principle, then the problem is methodological. But if the issue is pedagogical, how science is taught and interpreted, then uniformitarianism itself remains metaphysically neutral. It seems like the tension here is not with the method, but with how its limits are understood.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

? What we do know is that people who teach science are not ipso facto scientists. Often they are merely pontificating academics. If "scientist" is a person learned in science and as a professional is compensated for applying that knowledge to problem solving then I am a scientist.

Keep in mind that the reverse problem is also present among many working scientists within the secular institutions---that is, there are a number of working scientists who either fail to consider various philosophical tropes used in their praxis, or they do know but not only refuse to engage with the mediation of Philosophy (i.e. Applied Critical Thinking) in their praxis, but they eschew it altogether as being useless.

Furthermore, sometimes teachers of the Philosophy of Science and/or the Nature of Science (N.O.S.) have something to say that is roundly ignored. So, I'm not about to hand over the reigns to either well-meaning Theologians on the one hand to pontificate about Science, NOR am I going to allow scientists of whatever stripe to call the shots where Philosophical Analysis should have mediating license to speak.

Sometimes, scientists press ahead with things they shouldn't and they do so while roundly ignoring both religious principles as well as Philosophical reconsiderations (Critical Analysis. Unfortunately for them and their enterprises, at the end of the day, I'm going with the Bible [Jesus, specifically] because science has no remedy for Death.

Guess how we know you are not a real scientist? Real scientists know that science has a future and make their provisional claims in the proper indicative or subjunctive mood maintaining thereby a healthy skepticism. You, on the other hand, generally prefer the imperative mood; a dead giveaway for a "wannabe"

I'm not overly concerned about what scientists, especially secular scientists, have to say about the nature of the world.

What folks like you seem not to understand is that someone like myself doesn't 'believe' evolution because I take it on authority from scientists of any stripe. I in fact don't. No, my belief is merely the default position of understanding which I currently have because the reports of massive amounts of evidence seem to point in that direction, and my position on evolution could change.

My position on my impending Death, however, will not change and science can't help with that, despite claims by Transhumanists to the supposed contrary.

 

[Fervent]

I agree this is a pedagogical failure, not a flaw in scientific modeling. Where we differ is that I see the cultural conflation as the problem to be corrected, not evidence that the distinction itself is impractical.

I see the cultural conflation as needing correction, but at present I don't think that it is possible to make the distinction in ordinary conversation.

For example, here is a quote from you earlier, and I'll double check this, but you said:
"Uniformitarianism requires that God not be relevant to explain the workings of the universe, only some base property or law for interaction between objects."

But in fact, it doesn't actually require such a conclusion, because as noted, the issue is pedagogical, not methodological.

I suppose if we uncouple unifornitarianism from causal closure an intercessory God might not be excluded, but it would still be subject to Occam's razor.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not distinguishing because in practice the idealization of science as nothing but a methodology isn't realized.

It's a lot more mundane than people might think. Spending some time in a biology dept. break room is instructive.

Making a sharp distinction between ontological and methodological issues doesn't appear to me realistic to how science is typically understood.

It's just that in break rooms, I've heard a lot of methodological discussions but rarely anything about the nature of being or God.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inductive proofs"

I wasn't even aware of them until a mathematician explained to me how they work. As I said, nothing like that in science.

Inductive reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions after examining particular observations. This reasoning is very useful when studying number patterns. In many situations, inductive reasoning strongly suggests that the statement is valid, however, we have no way to present whether the statement is true or false, for example, Goldbach conjecture. But, in this class, we will deal with problems that are more accessible and we can often apply mathematical induction to prove our guess based on particular observations.
3.1: Proof by Induction

but reducing all causation to efficient causes is a requirement of the method and so science cannot produce evidence for that assumption.

Yep. As I said, science never gets to logical certainty. It's inductive, merely increasing our confidence level in whatever theory best explains the phenomena.

No, evidence isn't just a fact.

If it's not fact, it's not evidence.

Data may just be facts, but evidence requires theoretical understanding(not in the technical sense but in the ordinary sense).

I can't think of a case where data would require some kind of esoteric understanding to be data. Do you have something?

And the only time I see people making distinctions about science not being proven is after the fact, while often casually treating it as if scientific models are discovering what is true about the universe sans metaphysical assumptions.

In fact, I've heard scientists (wrongly) say that something is "proven" because there was 99+% statistical confidence for it. I don't know of a scientist who would deny that all science is provisionally true, but there might be one somewhere.

 

[Job 33:6]

I see the cultural conflation as needing correction, but at present I don't think that it is possible to make the distinction in ordinary conversation.

I suppose if we uncouple unifornitarianism from causal closure an intercessory God might not be excluded, but it would still be subject to Occam's razor.

We could draw this same conclusion about many areas of life. I use a plumbing manual to fix my kitchen sink, and God is absent from that explanation due to relevance and Occam’s razor, not because God is unreal or excluded.

That isn’t the plumber’s fault.

This is why I think the language matters. Saying “uniformitarianism requires” (or “plumbing requires”) suggests a logical or ontological exclusion, when what you’re really describing is how these disciplines are culturally treated. If we don’t keep that distinction clear, we end up targeting the wrong problem when we start talking about solutions.

And as scientists and Christians, it is important to us that this distinction stays intact, lest we end up confused about what the real issue is.

Plumbing does not exclude God, nor does uniformitarianism. Rather, people who use plumbing and people who use uniformitarianism may or may not use those tools as a justification to exclude God.

 

[The Barbarian]

Keep in mind that the reverse problem is also present among many working scientists within the secular institutions---that is, there are a number of working scientists who either fail to consider various philosophical tropes used in their praxis, or they do know but not only refuse to engage with the mediation of Philosophy (i.e. Applied Critical Thinking) in their praxis, but they eschew it altogether as being useless.

Used to be, one of the advantages of a biologist was that back in the day, it was considered important for a biologist to have some understanding of philosophy, particularly epistemology. I haven't heard the word "praxis" in science, since I took a graduate course in immunology, a very long time ago.

 

[Fervent]

It's a lot more mundane than people might think. Spending some time in a biology dept. break room is instructive.

It's just that in break rooms, I've heard a lot of methodological discussions but rarely anything about the nature of being or God.

The issue isn't a direct assault, but silent assumptions being treated as not existing.

I wasn't even aware of them until a mathematician explained to me how they work. As I said, nothing like that in science.

Induction is a form of inference, where a person sees a pattern of one thing following another and then infers that they are causally connected. It's the entire basis of the scientific method, even if "inductive proofs" are mathematical in nature.

Inductive reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions after examining particular observations. This reasoning is very useful when studying number patterns. In many situations, inductive reasoning strongly suggests that the statement is valid, however, we have no way to present whether the statement is true or false, for example, Goldbach conjecture. But, in this class, we will deal with problems that are more accessible and we can often apply mathematical induction to prove our guess based on particular observations.
3.1: Proof by Induction

Yep. As I said, science never gets to logical certainty. It's inductive, merely increasing our confidence level in whatever theory best explains the phenomena.

It's more serious than that, there's no non-circular way to justify science. It's open to question whether it gives us knowledge at all. Particularly if we open the can of worms that is the problem of universals.

If it's not fact, it's not evidence.

And here's where you've slipped from your previous statements into reifying the models. Facts require certainty, yet you've denied science the power to produce any such thing. So which is it?

I can't think of a case where data would require some kind of esoteric understanding to be data. Do you have something?

In fact, I've heard scientists (wrongly) say that something is "proven" because there was 99+% statistical confidence for it. I don't know of a scientist who would deny that all science is provisionally true, but there might be one somewhere.