Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Nov 28th 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Hi Chelsea et alia,Evolution is more than a hypothesis. And the biologists didn...
(Quote) James-17080 said:



Hi Chelsea et alia,

Evolution is more than a hypothesis. And the biologists didn't even need JPII to tell them that. Evolution is in fact the underlying framework of biology, without which nothing makes very much sense. Biologists have observed the evolution of new species (on a minor scale), and of course microevolution, which even the creationist crowd accepts. What's the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? A longer period of time during which more and more changes can take place. So why does evolution occur at all? There are several fundamental reasons. First, anyone who has taken more than a modicum of organic chemistry at the college level knows that organic reactions are "messy". When doing an experiment to create a given organic compound, you usually got the compound you were seeking, along with a whole cluster of "impurities". These impurities are the result of, in part, a carbon atom's ability to link to another carbon atom, which in turn links to other carbon atoms, forming at times large polymers (DNA is a polymer). Even after controlling for all possible variables in the laboratory, reactions typically don't go exactly the same way twice. Another reason is the latent radioactivity of not only the metals potassium and rubidium, but carbon itself. Potassium is an essential trace metal for all plants and animals. Rubidium is a fairly common radioactive metal which is closely related to potassium (they are both alkali metals). A person weighing 100 kg has about a gram of rubidium in his body. And then there is carbon itself. Carbon 14 drifts down from the upper atmosphere where living beings ingest it. Eventually, they die, and the carbon-14 importation stops. This is why carbon-14 dating works (up to about 50,000 years). All this natural radioactivity can easily cause genetic mutation.

Is evolution "certainly true"? This is a tricky question, but the answer is "no". It is no more certainly true than Newtonian mechanics (which fails for things that are very small or going very fast), or any other field in science. It's happened before that today's Wonderful Theory turns out to be tomorrow's junk. But for a 150 year theory, evolution is stronger than ever. This should not be construed to mean evolution is perfect. Evolution, like every other current branch of science, has its share of unanswered questions. And it is quite possible that they will remain forever unanswered (this has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with a peculiar result arising from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. I had some details here somewhere, if I can find them I will post them).

A couple more comments, and then I'm off. No biologist considers evolution to be "dogma". Science (and scientists) do not work that way. Finally, "proof" exists only in mathematics and alcohol (I got that from someone arguing with the Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis).

James ☺

--hide--

Hi, James,

This can be settled as to whether "evolution" as you use it is a hypothesis or not by simply providing a definition for the concept you hold (not that it will necessarily be the same as the concept taught in grade school, secondary school, college or university)...and offer the objectively verifiable support for the concept.

Thanks.

Nov 28th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: Hi Chelsea et alia,Evolution i...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:



Hi Chelsea et alia,

Evolution is more than a hypothesis. And the biologists didn't even need JPII to tell them that. Evolution is in fact the underlying framework of biology, without which nothing makes very much sense. Biologists have observed the evolution of new species (on a minor scale), and of course microevolution, which even the creationist crowd accepts. What's the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? A longer period of time during which more and more changes can take place. So why does evolution occur at all? There are several fundamental reasons. First, anyone who has taken more than a modicum of organic chemistry at the college level knows that organic reactions are "messy". When doing an experiment to create a given organic compound, you usually got the compound you were seeking, along with a whole cluster of "impurities". These impurities are the result of, in part, a carbon atom's ability to link to another carbon atom, which in turn links to other carbon atoms, forming at times large polymers (DNA is a polymer). Even after controlling for all possible variables in the laboratory, reactions typically don't go exactly the same way twice. Another reason is the latent radioactivity of not only the metals potassium and rubidium, but carbon itself. Potassium is an essential trace metal for all plants and animals. Rubidium is a fairly common radioactive metal which is closely related to potassium (they are both alkali metals). A person weighing 100 kg has about a gram of rubidium in his body. And then there is carbon itself. Carbon 14 drifts down from the upper atmosphere where living beings ingest it. Eventually, they die, and the carbon-14 importation stops. This is why carbon-14 dating works (up to about 50,000 years). All this natural radioactivity can easily cause genetic mutation.

Is evolution "certainly true"? This is a tricky question, but the answer is "no". It is no more certainly true than Newtonian mechanics (which fails for things that are very small or going very fast), or any other field in science. It's happened before that today's Wonderful Theory turns out to be tomorrow's junk. But for a 150 year theory, evolution is stronger than ever. This should not be construed to mean evolution is perfect. Evolution, like every other current branch of science, has its share of unanswered questions. And it is quite possible that they will remain forever unanswered (this has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with a peculiar result arising from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. I had some details here somewhere, if I can find them I will post them).

A couple more comments, and then I'm off. No biologist considers evolution to be "dogma". Science (and scientists) do not work that way. Finally, "proof" exists only in mathematics and alcohol (I got that from someone arguing with the Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis).

James ☺


Hi, James,

This can be settled as to whether "evolution" as you use it is a hypothesis or not by simply providing a definition for the concept you hold (not that it will necessarily be the same as the concept taught in grade school, secondary school, college or university)...and offer the objectively verifiable support for the concept.

Thanks.

--hide--


Hi Chelsea,

Okay. Evolution may be defined as the changing of allele frequencies over time. A suitable reference would be Evolutionary Analysis, 4th ed., by S. Freeman and J. C. Herron, Prentice Hall, 2007. Jerry, if he sees this, might be able to give you a better answer. Knowing Jerry, he almost certainly can.

James ☺

Nov 28th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: Hi Chelsea et alia,Evolution i...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:



Hi Chelsea et alia,

Evolution is more than a hypothesis. And the biologists didn't even need JPII to tell them that. Evolution is in fact the underlying framework of biology, without which nothing makes very much sense. Biologists have observed the evolution of new species (on a minor scale), and of course microevolution, which even the creationist crowd accepts. What's the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? A longer period of time during which more and more changes can take place. So why does evolution occur at all? There are several fundamental reasons. First, anyone who has taken more than a modicum of organic chemistry at the college level knows that organic reactions are "messy". When doing an experiment to create a given organic compound, you usually got the compound you were seeking, along with a whole cluster of "impurities". These impurities are the result of, in part, a carbon atom's ability to link to another carbon atom, which in turn links to other carbon atoms, forming at times large polymers (DNA is a polymer). Even after controlling for all possible variables in the laboratory, reactions typically don't go exactly the same way twice. Another reason is the latent radioactivity of not only the metals potassium and rubidium, but carbon itself. Potassium is an essential trace metal for all plants and animals. Rubidium is a fairly common radioactive metal which is closely related to potassium (they are both alkali metals). A person weighing 100 kg has about a gram of rubidium in his body. And then there is carbon itself. Carbon 14 drifts down from the upper atmosphere where living beings ingest it. Eventually, they die, and the carbon-14 importation stops. This is why carbon-14 dating works (up to about 50,000 years). All this natural radioactivity can easily cause genetic mutation.

Is evolution "certainly true"? This is a tricky question, but the answer is "no". It is no more certainly true than Newtonian mechanics (which fails for things that are very small or going very fast), or any other field in science. It's happened before that today's Wonderful Theory turns out to be tomorrow's junk. But for a 150 year theory, evolution is stronger than ever. This should not be construed to mean evolution is perfect. Evolution, like every other current branch of science, has its share of unanswered questions. And it is quite possible that they will remain forever unanswered (this has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with a peculiar result arising from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. I had some details here somewhere, if I can find them I will post them).

A couple more comments, and then I'm off. No biologist considers evolution to be "dogma". Science (and scientists) do not work that way. Finally, "proof" exists only in mathematics and alcohol (I got that from someone arguing with the Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis).

James ☺


Hi, James,

This can be settled as to whether "evolution" as you use it is a hypothesis or not by simply providing a definition for the concept you hold (not that it will necessarily be the same as the concept taught in grade school, secondary school, college or university)...and offer the objectively verifiable support for the concept.

Thanks.

--hide--


There is one more thing I thought I would bring up. I am not certain that it is relevant to our discussion, but I thought I would mention it anyway. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that somehow, tomorrow, evolution would be decisively proven to be false. This does not mean that creationism is automatically true. I have not seen it here in this thread (thank heavens), but in previous discussions (which were really bitter arguments) there was this notion that only if evolution would lose, creationism would win. This sort of binary thinking is maddenly hard to eradicate. So, what would it mean if evolution were proven untrue? It would mean that scientists would look for another naturalistic method to describe the fossils and the progression of nature.

James ☺

Nov 28th 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Hi Chelsea,Okay. Evolution may be defined as the changing of allele frequencies ov...
(Quote) James-17080 said:



Hi Chelsea,

Okay. Evolution may be defined as the changing of allele frequencies over time. A suitable reference would be Evolutionary Analysis, 4th ed., by S. Freeman and J. C. Herron, Prentice Hall, 2007. Jerry, if he sees this, might be able to give you a better answer. Knowing Jerry, he almost certainly can.

James ☺

--hide--


That's the definition I gave above for micro-evolution.

Just an aside: That doesn't explain the fantastical notion of macro-evolution, however.

Nov 28th 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: There is one more thing I thought I would bring up. I am not certain that it is relevant t...
(Quote) James-17080 said:



There is one more thing I thought I would bring up. I am not certain that it is relevant to our discussion, but I thought I would mention it anyway. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that somehow, tomorrow, evolution would be decisively proven to be false. This does not mean that creationism is automatically true. I have not seen it here in this thread (thank heavens), but in previous discussions (which were really bitter arguments) there was this notion that only if evolution would lose, creationism would win. This sort of binary thinking is maddenly hard to eradicate. So, what would it mean if evolution were proven untrue? It would mean that scientists would look for another naturalistic method to describe the fossils and the progression of nature.

James ☺

--hide--


There are two groups of "evolution" fans that I've seen, by the way:

1) those who use the hypothesis to describe objectively verifiable observations of living matter in nature.

2) those who use it as the dogmatic foundation for pantheistic materialism (how's that for a contradiction?)

Those in the first group use the hypothesis as long as it is beneficial. When it stops being beneficial, they pick up the next best way to express what they observe in nature.

All that is fine and in line with what can be observed in material reality. The problem begins when "evolution" is used as a foundation for theological musings...like the arrogance of Galileo presuming to disprove the Scriptures on astronomical motion when he had never proven the Copernican model of the solar system in the first place. The authorities at the time, in general, had no problem with the study of the Copernican model of the solar system...but obviously there was a huge problem with falsely extrapolating the invisible purpose of the universe from material reality, when that had already been revealed by Jesus Christ, Our Lord.

As long as "evolution" is not used to the exclusion of what explains natural aspects of living material reality either as well or better, then I have no problem with it.

"Evolution" is not a certainly true science...and doesn't really make a difference in the economy of salvation.

Nov 28th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Not everyone who bucks at the notion of a hypothesis called "evolution" bein...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Not everyone who bucks at the notion of a hypothesis called "evolution" being truth is having trouble with it. I don't ascribe to it as a certitude because it's never presented as such. There may be much that supports the hypothesis, but that still doesn't make it certainly true, it merely lends a degree of probability to the hypothesis. It's old news now people pushing "evolution" as dogma, but that doesn't make "evolution" into dogma.

Until there is some way to prove "evolution" is the case amongst the natural sciences, it stays in the realm of probability.

--hide--
Hi Chelsea. Though I haven't made anymore input here, I am updating myself every time a new post comes by. I can see big minds working in this thread. There is a quote that says "small minds talk about people; big minds talk about issues."

Nov 29th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: There is one more thing I thought I wo...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:



There is one more thing I thought I would bring up. I am not certain that it is relevant to our discussion, but I thought I would mention it anyway. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that somehow, tomorrow, evolution would be decisively proven to be false. This does not mean that creationism is automatically true. I have not seen it here in this thread (thank heavens), but in previous discussions (which were really bitter arguments) there was this notion that only if evolution would lose, creationism would win. This sort of binary thinking is maddenly hard to eradicate. So, what would it mean if evolution were proven untrue? It would mean that scientists would look for another naturalistic method to describe the fossils and the progression of nature.

James ☺




There are two groups of "evolution" fans that I've seen, by the way:

1) those who use the hypothesis to describe objectively verifiable observations of living matter in nature.

2) those who use it as the dogmatic foundation for pantheistic materialism (how's that for a contradiction?)

Those in the first group use the hypothesis as long as it is beneficial. When it stops being beneficial, they pick up the next best way to express what they observe in nature.

All that is fine and in line with what can be observed in material reality. The problem begins when "evolution" is used as a foundation for theological musings...like the arrogance of Galileo presuming to disprove the Scriptures on astronomical motion when he had never proven the Copernican model of the solar system in the first place. The authorities at the time, in general, had no problem with the study of the Copernican model of the solar system...but obviously there was a huge problem with falsely extrapolating the invisible purpose of the universe from material reality, when that had already been revealed by Jesus Christ, Our Lord.

As long as "evolution" is not used to the exclusion of what explains natural aspects of living material reality either as well or better, then I have no problem with it.

"Evolution" is not a certainly true science...and doesn't really make a difference in the economy of salvation.

--hide--

Hi Chelsea et alia,

Chelsea, for no particularly good reason, I'll address your issues out of order.

Is evolution is true science? Oh yes. Is it a "certainly true" science? That depends on what you mean by "certainly true". So, rather than continuing further with that, I sill pose that question to you.

Could you please explain your sentence, "As long as "evolution" is not used to the exclusion of what explains natural aspects of living material reality either as well or better, then I have no problem with it." I must confess that my lack of understanding is probably my fault, as I am very tired right now.

Obviously, those who use evolution for theological musings are taking it far beyond anything that it was intended to be. So to that extent, we both agree.

As for myself, I fall into the first category of your first paragraph. CM would certainly be a strange place to hang out if I was a believer in pantheistic materialism, unless I was a masochist of some sort.

Jim :-)

Nov 29th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: Hi Chelsea,Okay. Evolution may...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:



Hi Chelsea,

Okay. Evolution may be defined as the changing of allele frequencies over time. A suitable reference would be Evolutionary Analysis, 4th ed., by S. Freeman and J. C. Herron, Prentice Hall, 2007. Jerry, if he sees this, might be able to give you a better answer. Knowing Jerry, he almost certainly can.

James ☺




That's the definition I gave above for micro-evolution.

Just an aside: That doesn't explain the fantastical notion of macro-evolution, however.

--hide--

Hi Chelsea et alia,

Macroevolution is just a whole series of steps of microevolution.

Jim :-)

Dec 1st 2012 new

[quote]Liberacion-894835 said:

I have a very close friend whose 14-year old son, an altar boy does not go to church anymore unless they can explain to him the theory of evolution. She said his son believes in what his teacher taught in the class. How safe would our children be in public schools that teaches evolution and the teacher happens to be a non-Catholic and believes in this theory.


Liberacion, Take this opportunity to teach him about skepticism of common world views.


Teach him about Intelligent Design - you may find good videos on you tube that are age appropriate. I hope this helps. Ted

Dec 1st 2012 new

Liberacion, It is good to be concerned about indoctrination-style teaching of evolution. American progressives rely on the theory to claim that human beings are becoming more morally virtuous as time goes on and this is the basis of humanism - a belief system that is akin to atheism.

Posts 41 - 50 of 58