The definition and value of science

[The Barbarian]

In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).'

St. Tom had it right. God can use chance to effect His will just as easily as He can use necessity.

Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency”

This is another reason why creationism is such a bad fit with Christianity.

 

[returnn23]

Only the Catholic Church has the full, complete answer regarding God's work in Creation. The Biology textbook does not.

 

[returnn23]

Post 61,

You apparently missed the part where Thomas Aquinas states that God works infallibly in Creation. The Biology textbook cannot, and does not, acknowledge this. Therefore, too many have a distorted idea of Creation and the origin of man.

Intelligent Design is supported by the Catholic Church.

 

[Halbhh]

According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency.

Yes, exactly! So, you are already agreeing with me 100% if you are agreeing with this that Aquinas said here. You need only realize that God created Nature and is responsible for all that happens in Nature to realize that any and every natural process that happens is God's design, His work.

neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.

That's the atheist idea which atheists often are adding on -- that such evolution is 'random' in some ultimate sense, or 'unguided', etc., which are added characterizations.

Claiming it's 'random' is in reality an extraneous idea (not essentially what evolution is in itself), an extra characterization which someone can paint onto evolution. That idea that evolution is truly random in a total way or 'unguided' is an extra thing tacked onto the top, like as if someone walked up and taped a piece of paper onto a car. The paper isn't part of the car, but is added.

If evolution is inevitable because it follows from the laws of nature, then it's not 'unguided' at all! It's guided by the laws of nature in that case!

 

[returnn23]

As I posted previously, evolution somehow caused man to appear by accident. God created man in His image. No Biology textbook can mention that. So, the average person is unaware of God's role in Creation. Or of his true identity as a creation of God.

Science cannot demonstrate that evolution works as described in Biology textbooks.

 

[Halbhh]

As I posted previously, evolution somehow caused man to appear by accident.

No, saying it's 'accidental' is not 'evolution' but a spin or claim about evolution. An added idea. Tacked on top.

Evolution is a process, and even in the view that doesn't know of God, evolution is guided entirely by the fixed and perfect laws of nature (physics/chemistry...) even to someone unaware of God having created those laws of Nature. That's not 'accidental', but inevitable, and flowing from the design of nature.

So, guided and inevitable -- that's a much more realistic characterization that is still just naturalistic: evolution is guided by fixed natural laws: chemistry/physics.

If you hear an atheist claiming evolution is just supposed to be 'accidental' as if entirely random and total chance, and might have never happened, etc. -- they are merely blowing smoke/talking about what they don't understand much about.

A a natural process entirely guided and controlled by physics/chemistry, and inevitable -- that's not 'accidental' in any sense. Inevitable isn't 'accidental'.

Now, we have the advantage of knowing Who created/designed nature!

But to help someone that doesn't know of God, they really most need to hear the good news about Jesus Christ -- the gospel message -- much much more than our exposition about science....

 

[returnn23]

Evolution is guided by chemistry and physics?

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)"

 

[Halbhh]

Evolution is guided by chemistry and physics?

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)"

You've quoted a spin, added idea, about evolution there.

I did not claim that all scientists are careful or objective or non-ideological, etc. Some scientists are ideological atheists (and it would tend to reduce the quality of their science if they get too caught up into ideology usually).

Some other scientists are believers. And there are many more who don't try to make claims/statements about God either way. (and some of them will become believers and some will not)

 

[returnn23]

That was just one of a number of Biology textbooks I quoted from. As you may know, science books are screened for accuracy before being released for distribution to schools.

 

[The Barbarian]

Only the Catholic Church has the full, complete answer regarding God's work in Creation.

That's what it's there for.

The Biology textbook does not.

That's not what it's there for.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is guided by chemistry and physics?

Um, partially. Environment working on phenotypes. And phenotypes push back. It's not as simple as mere chemistry and physics.

You're still confusing efficient causes and final causes.

 

[returnn23]

Post 70,

This does not explain the purpose of Biology textbooks. If the theory of evolution holds that human beings appeared by purely 'natural' means then the student is not told critical information about human beings. I realize that science cannot include the supernatural but the Catholic Church can. This whole, complete answer is the truth about man. The Biology textbook is deficient in this regard. I think people should know this.

 

[The Barbarian]

Science cannot demonstrate that evolution works as described in Biology textbooks.

So far, it has. Darwin's points remain as solidly demonstrated as ever. And even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the many transitional series in the fossil record are very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

As I posted previously, evolution somehow caused man to appear by accident.

As you learned, Darwin's discovery was that it isn't by accident. But since, as St. Tom pointed out, God can use contingency as easily as He can use necessity, it wouldn't matter to a Christian.

 

[The Barbarian]

This does not explain the purpose of Biology textbooks.

More precisely, it tells you what the purpose is not. The purpose is to describe how living systems work.

If the theory of evolution holds that human beings appeared by purely 'natural' means

It doesn't. It does show that humans evolved from other apes, but of course, no scientific theory can say anything about God giving us a living soul. You're expecting things from biology that only faith can do for you. If your faith is not strong enough to find God, science won't be able to help.

I realize that science cannot include the supernatural

That's not what it's for.

but the Catholic Church can.

That's what it's for.

The Biology textbook is deficient in this regard.

That's like saying your automobile is deficient because it can't make you a milkshake.

 

[returnn23]

Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’

 

[Halbhh]

That was just one of a number of Biology textbooks I quoted from. As you may know, science books are screened for accuracy before being released for distribution to schools.

Over the years I've had the questionable pleasure of having found various errors in textbooks, usually physics and math, and sometimes the teacher of the class already knew about an error in the text, or other times it was news to the teacher, but confirmed on close inspection.

 

[returnn23]

That's not my point, especially when similar statements can be found in a number of textbooks. Here is another example of what I'm talking about.

Haeckel’s Embryos

 

[Halbhh]

Evolution is guided by chemistry and physics?

This is something it will help to consider more closely.

In a scientific point of view, all the natural process of any and every last kind, you name it -- chemistry, gravity, geology, any evolution, microbiology...anything that happens -- is ultimately operating by the laws of nature. And that means physics.

Chemistry for instance is physics based (like everything else), but it's a specific area of study, about molecular reactions.

Physics is the basic science of nature, aiming to understand the basis of every and all natural processes. So, all natural phenomena operate by physics, by definition of 'physics'.

(It's good to also know that physicists think we know some of the laws of physics, and that we don't yet know all of the laws of physics, but may eventually discover the remaining pieces of the design of physics we haven't yet discovered.)

Now, many views are possible for a believer that perfectly fit Genesis chapters 1 and 2. For example, just one view of the several is that God specifically intervened in evolution at some points, special moments of changing course for example, so that 'evolution' in this view has been both by natural processes and the interventions of God, both.

But looking even at just the natural side, all that happens just by the laws of nature, that's physics, and as believers, we believe that physics is God's design -- He made physics.

When something happens naturally, it's God's design fulfilling it's purpose, because He made physics.

So, a natural evolution is simply God's design playing out as He designed it to happen...

 

[The Barbarian]

Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’

Kind of old news. Twelve years ago, there was a journal dedicated to it:
Epigenetics April 2010 189-93
DNA methylation in adult stem cells: new insights into self-renewal

In 2008 epigenetic trait "stably heritable phenotype resulting from changes in a chromosome without alterations in the DNA sequence"
An operational definition of epigenetics

Ironically, Darwin suggested that acquired traits might be heritable. In some ways he had that right, too.

 

[returnn23]

Post 78,

I reject the Biology textbook portrayal of evolution. I accept Intelligent Design.

The average person has no way of knowing when or if God intervened. I reject this as well. God upholds Creation moment by moment.

Colossians 1:17

"And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."