Stop Believing in Evolution

[RileyG]

I do think that belief in theistic evolution has a profound effect on one's religious faith.

It's not that people stop believing in God, or in Jesus, or the Bible, but their perceptions are very different.

One can say "God the Father" and have images that range from an elderly gentleman sitting on a cloud with a beard and crown to a mysterious and ultimately unknowable loving presence whose love is continually creating an ever expanding universe.

When someone who looks at evolution looks at the Bible critically, it's not just the first chapter of Genesis that is seen allegorically.

And so maybe it is "safer" to deny evolution. Here in the south, I know lots of bright, well-educated people who have done that...but I'm just not able to myself.

 

[RileyG]

And to be a part of the Church one must be baptised, and to be baptised is to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and to willfully renounce submission to the Holy Pontiff is a sin which separates you from the Church and grace.

Yours in Jesus an Mary,
SCIM.

 

[bill5]

And to be a part of the Church one must be baptised, and to be baptised is to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and to willfully renounce submission to the Holy Pontiff is a sin which separates you from the Church and grace.

Yours in Jesus an Mary,
SCIM.

Well there goes the thread.

 

[Chany]

Well there goes the thread.

Well, I can bring it back again.

I got an entire list of creationist claims and their problems at my fingertips and can probably muster up some of the guys/gals on the science part of the "discussion and debate" forums.

 

[Azureknight 773]

Well this thread has turned out to be quite the litmus test.

That's quite a claim. I am particularly interested in hearing your evidence from archaeology.

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

 

[Chany]

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

Archaeology is the study of historical study of human activity in the past, primarily though the study of artifacts and remnants of past civilizations.

Paleontology is the study of past creatures and ancient life in general.

Also, define "transitional form".

 

[Azureknight 773]

Archaeology is the study of historical study of human activity in the past, primarily though the study of artifacts and remnants of past civilizations.

Paleontology is the study of past creatures and ancient life in general.

Also, define "transitional form".

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Transitional form means the form in between two or more lifeforms.

 

[Chany]

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Transitional form means the form in between two or more lifeforms.

Okay, so, what we are looking for is something like this:

We have Fossil A or Organism A. This is the most recent in the spectrum.

We have Fossil B. This represents the remnants of an organism from a earlier time.

Finally, we have Fossil C. Fossil C is the hypothetical transitional fossil. It has a number traits that would be seen in Fossil B but would also have some of the traits found in Fossil/Organism A.

Now, here are some important points:

1. Do not expect a fifty-fifty split or whatever percentage of time Fossil C lies in between A and B.

2. Do not expect chimera-like mixture of traits. In other words, don't expect one trait to be fully formed as it is in Fossil/Organism A. Because biological evolution is based upon small, gradual change, expect to see something in between.

3. Do not assume the transitional fossil must be in direct lineage to A and/or B. Fossil C may be an extinct cousin of a similiar organism, a branch on the evolutionary tree that stopped. There may be some traits found in C that are in neither A or B.

 

[Ave Maria]

I do believe in evolution. I am what one would call a Theistic Evolutionist which simply means that I believe that God used evolution and guided it to create all living creatures. I also believe God created the universe and everything in it ex nihilo as the Catholic Church teaches. However, I do believe that the Big Bang Theory can explain how it happened to a certain extent.

 

[Chany]

I know this is technically an ad hominem attack, but I don't consider it a fallacy to examine the veracity of sources. A broken clock may be right twice a day, but we still throw the clock away in favor of a clock that works. All bolding mine.

Human Conscience

"Everyone is given a sense of morality. We were created to love our Creator and to love one another. We experience guilt when we do not."

This is objectively false. Psychopaths (or, if you prefer the older term, sociopaths) are people marked by the very rejection of this statement. They do not feel remorse or guilt; the parts of our brains that normally regulate and allow for empathy and remorse are malformed. They are physically incapable of feeling guilt. They understand that others feel these emotions and that displaying a facade of them is highly important, but, at the end of the day, they are faking it. They feel no different about brutally mutilating people and lightheartedly pranking them.

Knows That Good Is Better Than Evil

"Kindness and care for family members, especially little children, are universal traits. Compassion for the elderly, poor, and weak is a quality valued by cultures around the world. Instead of "might makes right," our consciences teach us that might should choose to do right. This reflects our God-given command to care for each other."

If you would add infants to this list, then I know, without any real research, that it is false. Ancient Greek society had the practice of abandoning newly born children to death.

"A naturalistic model of origins would not predict socially-established actions like care and kindness, actions that every culture recognizes as "good." Selfish and cruel use of force—"survival of the fittest"—is routinely condemned, not praised."


I'm reading a book that deals heavily with this very topic. Also, what did you think Richard Dawkins did in the scientific community? There are models that predict it as entirely plausible.


Also, these guys are Young Earth Creationists, so they kind of left the science behind a while back. I was going to comment on their claims, but they really offer nothing truly specific, like, you know, scientists would; just vague claims. They believe the earth flooded when some trees that are currently alive today are almost 10,000 years old, so what do you expect?


Transitional form example: dinosaurs and birds.


You know velociraptors had feathers, right? We discovered quill knobs markings on their bones.


Velociraptor Had Feathers

 

[Meowzltov]

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms[/url]

There are zillions of transitional forms. In fact, if you really understand evolution, you understand that EVERY species is a transitional form.

Just tell me one thing... Is Homo Habilus a man or an ape? Don't be surprised if you have a hard time deciding.

 

[Chany]

There are zillions of transitional forms. In fact, if you really understand evolution, you understand that EVERY species is a transitional form.

Just tell me one thing... Is Homo Habilus a man or an ape? Don't be surprised if you have a hard time deciding.

That's kind of the thing. Evolution is treated as something it's not in creationist circles. Just reading the site Azure linked is funny.

Actually, I was just thinking about it. It's not every species, but every individual organism.

The best way to look at it is like a color wheel.

We have a definite concept of blue and red, for example, and even purple. But when does blue cease to be blue and become purple? When does purple cease to be purple and become red? If I picked a random part of the spectrum between all of possible blue and possible red, would you be able to definitively claim exactly what color it is?

Of course not. Biological evolution works in the same fashion. It really is nothing more than a gradual shifting around, modification, and re-purposing of traits over time.

 

[ChesterKhan]

That's kind of the thing. Evolution is treated as something it's not in creationist circles. Just reading the site Azure linked is funny.
Of course not. Biological evolution works in the same fashion. It really is nothing more than a gradual shifting around, modification, and re-purposing of traits over time.

Except for two things:

1) there is still a definite "red" and "blue" out of the trillions of colours in a colour wheel. The difference between red-orange and red-blue may not be great, but it is there. So there is a difference between a man and homo neandertalis. Which leads me to...

2) No animal on Earth seems to have one thing humans have, uniquely. I do not exactly know what to call it, but it has many examples. While animals communicate, play, create, and perhaps even have emotions... well, how many statues, however crude, has anyone seen a monkey make? Ants build anthills. Has anyone seen ants build statuettes of the queen? Or of the common drone? Do animals write? Where are the great runestones of the deer? The Vedas of the zebu? I know mountain goats butt heads, but do they re-enact famous buttings of heads? Is such a concept as famousness even applicable to animals? Do oxen make jokes?

I guess, in short, does an animal ever appreciate a thing for itself - even a thing it makes? This is a mystery, I admit. But I do not think the evidence is in favour of the affirmative. The traffic cone on the Duke of Wellington is more artistic than the most complex of termite mounds.

 

[Agnikan]

well, how many statues, however crude, has anyone seen a monkey make? Ants build anthills. Has anyone seen ants build statuettes of the queen?

Many human tribes don't make statues either.

 

[completeme]

I am curious too! Looking forward to how this develop?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Christ was made perfectly wholly God, wholly Man. To become like us is essential in the Incarnation to unite Himself to us with his divinity and humanity as only He can do. If we are continually growing, evolving, in a state of flux and each day is but a journey toward becoming something more evolved, then the Incarnation is, in many ways, insufficient. If humanity exists another 500,000 years and we theoretically continue to evolve, Christ will be united to a former type of hominid. This is folly.

We see in Genesis and the entire arc of the Scripture that God made Man in His own Divine Image. God made it, and says it is good. Nothing about man is lacking or sinful, sick or diseased, changing or faulty. No need for anything except to walk in the garden with God and grow toward theosis. Death doesn't exist. Only LIFE! Then the sin, the great sin of Adam and Eve creates death, introduces this scourge into the matrix of ALL CREATION, not just man! Everything is turned upside down and profoundly affected. Death reigns and rears its ugly head. God allows death as a concession, the Fathers tell us, so that our sin isn't immortalized in the fruit of the second tree.

So with Christianity we see nothing but life, perfection, joy, peace, and love, then death is introduced.

With evolution, death is apparent, inherent, and mankind starts as a simple life form that steadily grows through one incarnation after another. At what point do these ape-like hominids become the "Man" that God created and wanted? At what point do all these 'other' hominids die off and there are only two first parents?

Why would God create a chaotic adaptation-driven steady violent, death-laden, evolved ape and allow thousands and thousands of them to die and compete and wipe each other out only to allow two of them to "WAM!" become humans in the garden. So let me get this straight---there was death, then only life, then death again?

Is Creation nothing but "mutation, it is the key to our development" X-Men comic/film or is it what the Holy Spirit breathed to us in Scripture?

Man was "good." He was made "good." He knew no death. To accept evolution really throws the Fathers, the Scriptures, and the profound theology of the ancient Church on its head. Trying to create an unholy matrimony of modern atheist-driven secular scientism and the pious, timeless beauty of Christianity is dangerous if you ask me. Just this Orthodox Christian's two cents....or fifty!

 

[Chany]

Except for two things:

1) there is still a definite "red" and "blue" out of the trillions of colours in a colour wheel. The difference between red-orange and red-blue may not be great, but it is there. So there is a difference between a man and homo neandertalis. Which leads me to...

2) No animal on Earth seems to have one thing humans have, uniquely. I do not exactly know what to call it, but it has many examples. While animals communicate, play, create, and perhaps even have emotions... well, how many statues, however crude, has anyone seen a monkey make? Ants build anthills. Has anyone seen ants build statuettes of the queen? Or of the common drone? Do animals write? Where are the great runestones of the deer? The Vedas of the zebu? I know mountain goats butt heads, but do they re-enact famous buttings of heads? Is such a concept as famousness even applicable to animals? Do oxen make jokes?

I guess, in short, does an animal ever appreciate a thing for itself - even a thing it makes? This is a mystery, I admit. But I do not think the evidence is in favour of the affirmative. The traffic cone on the Duke of Wellington is more artistic than the most complex of termite mounds.

1. Correct. We can pick out two different but closely related species and compare and contrast definite differences, such as the differences between Neanderthals and humans. What I'm emphasizing is the perspective from a definite ancestor to modern descendent. That is, besides a few choice mutations of preexisting structures, evolution is gradual and we do not usually notice a difference from one generation to the next because of it. It is only after many generations that we start to notice differences.

2. First, more complex animals do have emotions (how conscious they are of these emotions and differences between animals are still up for study). Highly social animals display some level of morality and a basic (compared to humans) social structure. I don't really understand the point of bringing this up. We are currently the only organism at our level of intelligence. We are different in that regard. It should come as no surprise that humans have aspects and actions that make them unique from all the other life on earth. We don't currently know exactly why we started to do art. We also don't know how highly intelligent and social animals, such as elephants and chimpanzees, feel about inspiring sights.

I don't see what any of this stuff has to do with the fact of allele frequencies changing in a population overtime.

 

[Azureknight 773]

Now thank you my Orthodox brother for encoding it better for me. I for one am a strict creationist on the context of biology due to the Intelligent Design of everything. Back in Adam and Eve's time in the Garden, everything was perfect until the Enemy came to ruin everything.

 

[Chany]

Azure, how old is the earth?

 

[AmericanChristian91]

everything was perfect until the Enemy came to ruin everything.

Just curious, how do you know for sure the snake in the story was actually satan? I know some people believe that because the devil is referenced as a serpant in other parts of the Bible, however just taking Genesis alone, the snake seems to be implied to be a creature of the garden, and within Genesis, it and all of its kind is cursed to now slither on the ground (why would God punish all of the snake species over the act of a fake snake?).

Perhaps the snake is a metaphore for Satan. Or perhaps the Christian view of Satan was not even being thought about when the story was written by its author(s).

Serpent (Bible) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems "serpents/snakes" were used a long time ago as symbolism for evil even before Genesis story was written.

Of course the serpent in the Genesis story not actually being Satan does not mean that Satan was not involved somehow in the more historically accurate version of the "Fall of Man", however long ago, when Man first began to sin.