Question for ID subscribers on Evolution?
Question by APCc: Question for ID subscribers on Evolution?
I just do not understand it at all. You either believe in evolution by means of natural selection or not. I don’t see how people can honestly say that their faith and evolution are compatible. Richard Dawkins even mentions in his book the God Delusion, that a true believer of evolution cannot possibly find a compatibility between the two. Evolution is a completely naturalistic process which does not use any divine intervention. Where then do the metaphysical aspects of spirituality fit into something that is 100% naturalistic? If we share a common ancestral lineage with a non-metaphysical nature (abiogenesis for example), then where do aspects such as the after life and the soul fit in?
I am not asking how theory or evidence shows evidence of evolution, read the whole question! I am simply asking how the spiritual nature of the afterlife or soul exist in humans if we are just another product of naturalistic processes.
Best answer:
Answer by Biochem
Well, first of all Richard Dawkins is a HACK! Even other atheist are ashamed of him. Anyhow, I will answer your question in a true scientific manner!
When discussing the Theory of Evolution that was purposed my Dawrin, you need to understand some history first. During the time period of Darwin, the fossil record only showed evidence against his theory and he knew it. He made the statement that future discoveries would show evidence for his theory. On the contrary, they have only shown evidence against it. There is no missing link, and no fossils for that matter than link any predecessor fossils to any current living species. There is just no link, and with the abundance of fossils collected worldwide, this evidence is astounding! Also there are things like the flagellum, and the Cambrian explosion that no evolutionist can reason away with any theory.
Now, the concept above is referred to as macro-evolution in the science community, because the term micro-evolution does occur. There are adaptations that we have been able to observe, mainly in bacteria with a high rate of making progeny. These adaptation however do not create a new species.
The fact is, at the current knowledge of science there is no supporting evidence of macro-evolution.
Now concerning Intelligent Design supporters believing in evolution (if in the future is scientifically evident, which I am not going to hold my breathe for!) is a completely relevant idea. Who is to say how God should or should not have created life on Earth. If God deemed it necessary to create life by means of evolution, then he could have done it. The thought that evolution disproves God is one of the biggest ignorant statements ever said.
The Theory of Evolution is not a problem to Intelligent Design and it never will be. The problem for atheistic evolutionist is the creation of the Universe. There is NO current plausible theory as to the origin of the Universe. The Big Bang is a theory of how it may have happened, but the explanation of it’s occurrence is still a mystery to unbelievers!
You said “Evolution is a completely naturalistic process which does not use any divine intervention.” which it is NOT. I answered your part on how ID believes correlate to it. Read my entire response! I will reiterate it. ID or creationist can believe in both evolution and in a Creator, they do not conflict with each other! Especially since evolution is incorrect. Your question is invalid scientifically! Therefore, it is simple and easy to believe in a after life that God has promised!
Abiogenesis, has already been shown to not be possible, because scientist have re-studied the possible atmospheric conditions. The molecules that are made from that atmosphere and lightning or any other environmental catalyst make formaldehyde, arsenic, and cyanide! Not very inviting for the beginning of life. Also the idea that RNA could have been the first genomic information has also been shown to not be possible. I got an idea for you. Go and actually find the whole scientific research behind these findings. Do not just take half evidence that people like Dawkins put into their books. Try places like PubMed, that have thousands upon thousands of research papers!
Hopefully this time you will read the entirety of my answer with an objective mind rather than a closed one. The reason why I gave you an answer to evolution as well was because your question holds no real scientific basis and is therefore invalid. Go read and do some research and try again!
Well it looks like I need to add some more to you close minded people. You need to look past atheist scientist because they use half truths to shows their ideas. The fossil record shows only evidence against Darwin’s theory… go check better sources than Wikipedia. Come on people use your damn brains! Look at actual published research articles. Evolutionist cannot explain why the big bang occurred. It is interesting to note that many respected physicist and other scientist are embracing the idea of a Creator because science shows evidence of one!!! If you wish to remain ignorant, then fine by me, but do not warp the minds of people seeking answers.
I have many atheist friends and scientist who cannot win an educated debate with myself and other beleivers whom are scientist. They all portray Dawkins as a moron and hurtful to many atheist ideas. How about you educate yourselves and read the Dawkins delusion. I have read the God Delusion and like many other atheist books it is full of half truth and augmented evidence. The face remains that macro-evolution still has no real scientific basis, yet people are holding out HOPE!
What do you think? Answer below!
4 Responses to Question for ID subscribers on Evolution?
• Have your Advertisment Featured here
Contact us now <<click here>> have your advertisment featured on our site.
• Welcome to Thorn & Oak
• Join the Mailing List
Keep up to date with the latest changes on this site join our mailing list sign up below.
FREE TAROT READINGS
Lotus Tarot card readings can show you a fresh perspective on your life.
Lotus Tarot
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Actually, ID is the ultimate antithesis of Creationism, but the Creationists don’t recognize the hypocrisy. Intelligent Design was a political doctrine that was devised for the sole purpose of trying to get around the US Supreme Court ruling in Edwards vs Aguillard. I say was because it died in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District. Those who embrace this dead doctrine actually deny their faith. They adopted a doctrine that distanced them for their religious doctrine for purely political reasons, and cling to the doctrine when it has been abandoned. They embraced materialism for expedience.
Posters like Biochem mislead others with explanations searching for evidence where evolutionists have evidence searching for an explanation. In addition, Dawkins is highly respected.
At every turn, creation/ID (both are really the same as proven in the Dover case) has been refuted as being total BS.
When the ID’ers claim there is nothing more than microevolution, they fail to acknowledge the evidence of fossils for Heinerpaton, and Acanthystega.
Richard Dawkins is probably the most respected evolutionary biologist on Earth at present. Many scientists do not care for his anti-religious views, but he is beyond question a brilliant scientist. Not the “hack” as Biochem would have you believe.
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection hes been supported by every piece of scientific evidence remotely connected to biological science. The fact remains that there has been no supportable evidence against it. NONE!
There has been some loud, oft repeated arguments about micro- and macro-evolution, about the second law of thermodynamics, about irreducible complexity etc etc, all of these have been easily dismissed in about 5 minutes during debates.
That being said, in answer to your question:
The Catholic Church has managed to accept evolution, while obviously still retaining a strong spiritual base.
Here a a rather long extract from an even longer treatise on the Vatican website. It seeks to separate the evolution of the body and development of the soul. If you want to read about balancing evolution and religion, look up Ken Miller, an eminent biologist, “evolutionist” and a staunch Catholic.
There needs to be a separation of the physical and the philosophical.
If the Pope can accept it without the walls caving in at St Peter’s, then so can anyone else.
63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. 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
I am not an ID advocate by any means (I think it’s a scientific dead end) but as I can’t find anything in your question that actually relates to ID, I’ll go ahead and answer.
>”You either believe in evolution by means of natural selection or not. ”
Ouch. No. That is as close to a statement of absolutist faith as you can get!
The more you divide the world into True or False … “you either believe it or you don’t” … the less you are thinking like a scientist. Science is not about what you “believe”, it is about what you understand.
Imagine if advocates of the particle theory of light, and the wave theory of light, said to each other “you either believe that light is a particle (or wave), or not.” We would never have found the *synthesis* of these two ideas that we today call the photon.
>”I don’t see how people can honestly say that their faith and evolution are compatible.”
Read Stephen Jay Gould. His doctrine of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) of faith and science answers this question (see source). They do NOT have to conflict as long as you do not use the mindset of one to answer questions in the domain of the other. Again, science is about understanding, religion is about belief. There is nothing wrong with faith … the act of believing in things beyond your understanding. The problem is when you bring that concept into *science*, it leads to truly BAD science … because science doesn’t just allow, but *requires* a constant re-examination of current assumptions. Absolutist, unshakeable “you either believe it or you don’t” faith, is the antithesis of good science.
Science and religion should have as little to say about each other as each has to say about art.
>”Richard Dawkins even mentions in his book the God Delusion, that a true believer of evolution cannot possibly find a compatibility between the two.”
Could you give me a page number on that. I have the book.
As a Catholic, I strongly disagree with Dawkins’ atheism. But I am also a staunch supporter of evolution … and on matters of biology, Dawkins is unimpeachable. (Anyone who wold call him a “hack” has either never read him … or has no understanding of biology whatsoever.)
>”Evolution is a completely naturalistic process which does not use any divine intervention.”
Yes … and it does not *preclude* divine intervention either. Science does not say that divine intervention is False … only that it is not *scientifically testable*.
It is a two-way street. By limiting itself to the sphere of naturalistic explanations (as it should) this also prevents science from commenting on non-naturalistic questions (such as the existence of the supernatural). It is good that science limit itself to that which can be verified using empirical evidence … that is how science progresses. But that very same choice also means that science can’t comment one way or the other about non-empirical questions … like the existence of an afterlife or the soul.
We (science advocates) can’t have it both ways. We can’t insist on evidence, while at the same time feel like we can comment one way or the other on questions for which there is no evidence.