Books - The Catholic Church & Science
DVD - Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution 1
and Darwin's DilemmaPosted on 11/18/2012 6:18:07 AM PST by GonzoII
Creationism or Evolution?
by Sebastian R. Fama
Is it possible to know that God exists even though we cannot see or touch Him? Well, we believe that radio waves exist and we can’t see or touch them. And we believe it because the evidence allows for no other conclusion. We turn on a television and we see and hear someone who is many miles away. Adjusting the antenna changes the quality of the picture. Disconnect the antenna, and there is no picture. Obviously the television is receiving the pictures and sound from the air. Thus we can know that radio waves exist even if we cannot see or touch them.
Similarly, we can know that God exists because the evidence allows for no other conclusion. For instance, the fact that we exist is an indication that God exists. But, you might ask, what about the theory of evolution? Couldn’t that explain our existence? No, not at all. A look at the evidence will show us why.
Honest evolutionists will admit that evolution is not a science. It is nothing more than a theory, an assumption that the universe and living things created themselves by a totally naturalistic, materialistic process. Creationists claim that a look at the facts rules out the theory of evolution. Evolutionists reject the idea of a Creator because they claim that facts must be observable by the senses. Thus, this would exclude God. However, it would also exclude radio waves. As we saw earlier, radio waves are not observable by the senses - their effects are. Likewise, God is not observable by the senses, but His effects are. Thus we can know that God exists even if we cannot see or touch Him.
The theory of evolution contends that billions of years ago the elements which the universe is made up of were packed into a dense mass at an extremely high temperature. The mass exploded (the Big Bang) and over millions of years this mother of all chaotic events formed an orderly solar system with planets and stars. After our own planet cooled down, a variety of complex and delicately balanced ecosystems consisting of tens of thousands of species of animals, fish, plants, and bacteria were formed by chance. All of this supposedly evolved from a burnt rock, which is all the earth would have been after cooling down. Now, if life could come into existence by chance chemical reactions, why can’t the process be repeated in the laboratory with deliberate actions, millions of dollars and the brightest minds?
But what about the fossil record, isn’t that evidence of evolution? Hardly! Just how old the fossils are, is itself a matter of controversy. But more important is the fact that the fossil record contains no transitional forms. Transitional forms are not important to evolution - transitional forms are evolution. No transitional forms means no evolution!
What is a transitional form? Imagine that you are watching a cartoon illustrate how a fish evolved into an amphibian. At the beginning you would see a fish. As the cartoon progresses, the fish’s fins begin to shrink and change shape until they have formed legs. Each frame of the cartoon would be a transitional form. If evolution takes millions of years, then there should be billions of transitional forms for each evolved group. But we find no such thing in the fossil record. Even in the earliest fossil layers we find completed, complex life forms, such as clams, snails, jellyfish, sponges, worms, etc. No one has been able to find fossilized ancestors for a single one of them.
Another problem arises when we realize that even the so-called "simple" life forms are not really simple. Today we know that a cell is one of the most complex structures known to man. In a book titled "The Evidence for Creation" by Dr. G.S. McLean, Roger Oakland and Larry McLean, we find the following on page 113:
"The cell has turned out to be a micro universe containing trillions of molecules. These molecules are the structural building blocks for countless complex structures performing chains of complex biochemical reactions with precision… a single cell surrounded by a cellular membrane exhibits the same degree of complexity as a city with all of its systems of operation, communication and government. There are power plants that generate the cell’s energy, factories that produce enzymes and hormones essential for life, complex transportation systems that guide specific chemicals from one location to another and membrane proteins that act as barricades controlling the import and export of materials across the cellular membrane."
In the nucleus of every cell is the DNA. DNA contains millions of bits of coded information – information necessary for the building and development of our bodies. The function of DNA is more complex than a computer’s. Is it not reasonable to conclude that something this complex had an intelligent designer?
Within the human body there are a number of irreducibly complex systems. That is, systems that would not function if they were any simpler. One example is our digestive system. Microvilli, which line the intestines, are microscopic bristles that somewhat resemble the bristles of a hairbrush. The spaces between the bristles are wide enough to allow nutrients to pass through to be absorbed and digested. However, the spaces are narrow enough to block the passage of bacteria, bacteria that would kill you if they were allowed to pass. This in itself refutes the theory of evolution, which contends that when a need presents itself, the body adapts by gradually changing (evolving) over millions of years. In this case millions of years would be too long. As soon as the deadly bacteria appeared, the body would have minutes to hours to design and evolve a system to block them. Failure to do so would result in immediate extinction. Our continued existence rules out the evolutionary premise.
But, some may wonder, what about the alleged ape-men? The answer is simple: no one has ever found a fossil that indicates a link between man and ape-like ancestors. Fossils are either pure ape or pure man. Except for Neanderthal Man, the skulls of the alleged ape men were not found intact. They were pieced together from fragments and given the desired look.
Neanderthal Man had been traditionally portrayed as being chimp-like. However, in recent years he has been upgraded to human status. He had, on average, a larger brain size than modern man. He cared for his sick and elderly, buried his dead, employed art and religious rites, appreciated agriculture, clothing, and music. He is not that different from a number of cultures existing in recent centuries.
Nebraska Man was supposed to be half man and half ape. This was all based on the finding of a single tooth. Years later it was found that the tooth belonged to a wild pig. Piltdown Man was also supposed to be a great evolutionary find. The upper part of a skull was found in a quarry. Within the same quarry there was found, among many other types of bones, a broken lower jawbone. The two were put together and we had Piltdown Man. Decades later it was found that the skull was human and the jawbone was that of an ape. The teeth had been filed down to simulate human teeth. Piltdown Man was a hoax, an outright fraud.
Some propose the idea of theistic evolution. The idea that God created everything in a primitive state and then evolution took over. But there are no laws of nature to support this. However, we do have observable laws of nature, which refute such an idea. For instance, we can infer the following from the Second Law of Thermodynamics: (1) Natural processes always tend toward disorder, (2) the simple will never produce the complex and, (3) the universe is running down. Nothing has been observed to break this law. Evolution would have us believe that all the observable laws of nature are false. By the way, if the universe is running down (stars burning out), that would make the universe finite. Consequently, the elements that make up the universe could not have always been there. With time being eternal (there was always a yesterday and there will always be a tomorrow), all finite processes should have been completed in the past. This would be true no matter how far back in time that you went. So now we are left with two choices: Either an intelligent being created everything out of nothing, or nothing created everything out of nothing. Which do you suppose is more likely?
Copyright © 2001 StayCatholic.com
For Further Study
Early Church Fathers on Creation out of Nothing (Free)
Books - The Catholic Church & Science by Benjamin Wiker and Creation Rediscovered
by Gerard J Keane and Science and Evidence For Design in the Universe
by Michael Behe, William Dembski and Stephen Meyer.
DVD - Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution 1
Not "technically": if he believed it, then it wasn't a lie, period.
Further, regardless of how we look at it, there is still great Truth in his words.
But why do you wish to argue over the mere technicality of what, precisely, does "at the beginning" mean, when that is irrelevant to Christ's clear point here, which is:
I've found no place in the Bible, outside of Paul's unique exegeses, which expressly says: "no death before Adam".
Sure, Genesis makes no mention of death before Adam, but why would anyone suppose plants and animals did not then live & die, just as they do today?
More to the point: why would anyone suppose that God is especially concerned about the natural lives & deaths of non-soul bearing individuals?
CofA: "...what about the evolutionary timetable?
It says man evolved over millions of years and is a recent arrival."
According to science, male and female have been present from the beginning of DNA based life on earth, some two billion years ago.
At no point does the Bible contradict "male and female" from the beginning.
Nor does the Bible contradict the findings of science that mankind, in our present form, is the most recent of God's creations.
On those points, at least, there is good agreement between Bible and science.
CofA: "This is one of the inherent dangers of theistic evolution.
It waters down the truth of the Bible and plants ideas that Jesus Christ is something less than omnipotent God and co-Creator in the flesh. "
First, that's a curious argument, since the Bible nowhere directly says that Jesus is "omnipotent God and co-Creator in the flesh."
All that kind of language came later, was first codified in law at the council of Nicea in 325 AD.
Second, I don't know of a way to protect ancient biblical understandings from modern perspectives, except by remaining focused on those higher truths which every biblical episode -- however historically accurate it might or might not be -- points to.
Third, and bottom line for this whole discussion is: you are absolutely entitled to believe whatsoever you wish about the Bible versus science, so long as you don't claim that your religion is scientific, or that science is just another religion.
Neither is truthful.
CofA: "Are we really going to descend into silliness like this?
Really? I just had a thought...what if I'm really a washing machine?"
Of course we are washing "machines"!
We wash dishes, clothes, ourselves and anything else within our responsibilities.
Yes, we are only talking definitions of words here -- those we use every day, those in the Bible and those of science.
Of course, if you wish to use words to make war between your religion and science, that's your choice.
I'm only trying to demonstrate how such wars are unnecessary.
;-)
Agree with the first, but not the second.
At its best our religion, more than any other idea or belief, expresses the best that we are, and hope for.
It is a powerful motivator, protector, prioritizer and "users' manual" for the human soul.
In good times it guides toward a full life, in terrible times it comforts our afflictions.
Indeed, most people easily recognize that the very best among us are those who do not leave their religion in church, but take their faith whereever they go.
Happy Thanksgiving, FRiend!
>> “Science is about physical matters and facts” <<
.
Yes, but evolution and global warming are in no way related to science. They are religion, and politics masquerading as science for the less aware.
Organic chemicals require organs to create them. Organs require a creator to design and then create them (intelligence)
I only believe in one truth: That which exists. I don’t believe in a higher level truth or a material world and a spiritual world. There is only one existence. Science is the study of that which exists. So when you say to me there is no such thing as scientific truth I say what in the world do you think a fact is? Science deals with objective reality. What other means does man have of learning about reality other than observation?
I can totally understand your seeing a dichotomy between facts and truth since you are a subjectivist. I can also understand you not wanting me to get caught up in definitions since you are a subjectivist. The fact that you put the word truth in quotation marks is very telling and proves that you are a subjectivist. All truth is an objective absolute. There is no difference between the fact that 2 and 2 equals 4 and other “higher truths” whatever that means.
That simply is not true. Organic simply means compounds whose molecules contain carbon. They can be produced in many ways other than by organs or organisms.
I do not, in any way, want to assert that there is no divine Creator or that carbon and its compounds are not products of creation. I just don't want your argument to be made ineffective because of a simple mistake.
Peace be with you.
To imply that the chemicals of life were available on Earth to enable evolution is simply false.
>> “I don’t believe in a higher level truth or a material world and a spiritual world” <<
.
While I agree that all truth is an objective absolute, that there is a spirit world that is not visible is one of those objective absolutes to all those that are fully aware of all things. Those that are unaware are truncated from reality.
This is what the evolutionists would have us believe and would like for us to talk because, if that is true, it is only a small step to believe that there is no God and we all just evolved from single cell bacteria.
In its original intent, Darwin proposed the theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of the species, apart from God being the Creator. But, in recent years, as the theory of evolution has been progressively disproven, evolutionists have begun to describe adaptation as evolution. The two are different! God's creation adapts to changes because it was designed that way. But to call that evolution, and then conclude that creation's ability to adapt proves that we all evolved from a single cell, without God, is how they would like to shape the discourse, but that argument is totally without objective, scientific validity.
Evolution, adaption and change/innovation are all different. Don't be victim to the evolutionists' rhetoric and attempts to blur the differences.
By what means are those “who are fully aware of all things” aware of this supernatural world and how do they validate that knowledge?
To be fully aware of all things is to be omniscient. Who are these omniscient beings you are speaking of?
I suggest you think again sir. Since the supernatural world can not be seen as you say or measured as I would add, then any knowledge about it would have to be taken on faith. To accept any knowledge on the basis of faith destroys the concept of certainty and therefore the concept of an objective reality. So that would make truth subjective. If truth is subjective then there is no truth.
Let me suggest a couple of additional ways we see the evidence of God:
1) Eclipses: Our solar and lunar eclipses are truly unique in the universe and suggest a special creation. The angularity between the sun, earth and moon (e.g., the size and distance relationships) means that the moon almost exactly covers the sun during a solar eclipse and the earth almost exactly covers the moon during a lunar eclipse.
2) Factors allowing life on earth: The improbability of the factors that allow life to exist on earth occurring anywhere else in the universe is astronomical, also suggesting a special creation.
There are numerous others, but these, to me, are quite remarkable.
I think you're right about global warming, but wrong about evolution.
Modern science has come a long way since the dark ages when scientists like Galileo and Copernicus were mistreated (to put it mildly) by the church.
Recommended reading: "Origin of the Species" by Darwin and "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jones.
Both books end with the words ... "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one, and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
I think going with Darwin is going with God.
"I've found no place in the Bible, outside of Paul's unique exegeses, which expressly says: "no death before Adam".
"Sure, Genesis makes no mention of death before Adam, but why would anyone suppose plants and animals did not then live & die, just as they do today?"
I would suggest you look up the word "beginning" to get its definition.
"More to the point: why would anyone suppose that God is especially concerned about the natural lives & deaths of non-soul bearing individuals?"
Joe. :( Is that the view you have of God---really? I say this sincerely: it saddens me.
Scripture has quite a few examples of His love and caring for the animals He created, and admonitions on treating them well. Of course He loves his little creatures, His creations; when He was done with them, He looked at them and pronounced them good.
"According to science, male and female have been present from the beginning of DNA based life on earth, some two billion years ago. At no point does the Bible contradict "male and female" from the beginning."
Now, now. Don't be so deliberately obtuse.
" Nor does the Bible contradict the findings of science that mankind, in our present form, is the most recent of God's creations".
Of course it does. The two are completely contradictory, as has been illustrated repeatedly.
Just curious. Is this what you usually do? Once the discussion gets to a certain point, you put your hands over your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and pretend you missed everything that was said, LOL?
"Second, I don't know of a way to protect ancient biblical understandings from modern perspectives, except by remaining focused on those higher truths which every biblical episode -- however historically accurate it might or might not be -- points to."
Mm-hmm. I'd say that's a big part of your problem.
"Third, and bottom line for this whole discussion is: you are absolutely entitled to believe whatsoever you wish about the Bible versus science,"
That's big of you.
"so long as you don't claim that your religion is scientific, or that science is just another religion. Neither is truthful."
Well, listen up, Joe. It's like this: science IS a religion to some of the atheistic scientists who believe in nothing else, and who have to make evolution "fit" somehow. The truth of Jesus Christ is not a "science", but He did create the principles we recognize as "science.",along with the heavens, the earth, and everything else. He is the Lord of creation, the Son of God, and our Holy Redeemer. He is God in flesh, and His Scriptures, which are God-breathed, are infallible and inerrant. He has given us freedom to believe or not believe, as we wish, but when we try to twist and shoehorn His word to fit into other dogma, we make a grave mistake. You can trust the authority of Scripture. Everything else is a product of our weak, limited human minds----and yes, I know there are some folks who absolutely hate to think of themselves that way. We are chock full of towering intellects who never hesitate to remind us of it. ;)
"Of course, if you wish to use words to make war between your religion and science, that's your choice. I'm only trying to demonstrate how such wars are unnecessary."
Too late. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity; theistic evolution is nonsense. :)
Enough for me.....I'm going to have HTML nightmares.
Evolution is nothing!
There is not a single shred of evidence to support evolution. All of the geological and fossil evidence is strongly in support of the Genesis judgment, and the 6000 year old Earth.
Just go through all of their propaganda, Cromagnon man, Nebraska man, Lucy, etc. Its all fragments of bones, or teeth of animals mistakenly identified as men.
God’s word states specifically in over 100 places that evolution didn’t happen.
Evolution is going with humanism and creature worship.
Science has completely demolished the fairy tale of evolution, but the MSM won’t let it die.
>> “I’m going to have HTML nightmares.” <<
.
There is an easier way.
Type it all in plain text, then hit “spell,” then “apply” and all the lines you typed will be setup in html spacing, then all you have to do is add in the HTML tags for italic or bold, etc. then hit “preview” to check it.
Being fully aware fo both worlds is not in any way being omniscient.
You’re just full of meaningless jabber!
You need not see the spirits; they do affect you constantly. They can destroy your health in less than an hour, and one that is fully aware spiritually can order them away and your health will be restored immediately.
You can open your self to the Holy Spirit, and he puts thoughts in your mind to guide you constantly, and puts signs up to show you that he is there when you least expect it.
If you don’t want it, that’s OK, it just might not be for you. Not everyone can appreciate, or even enjoy eternal life; it’s just for the few, his elect.
I am not full of meaningless jabber sir. I gave you sound logic which you have answered with meaningless jabber.
I am aware of one world which consists of matter and consciousness. There is no justification for separating the two. There is no justification whatsoever for believing that I am affected by invisible spirits. I don’t want anyone putting thoughts into my head. I am the most spiritual person you will likely meet in that I take the spiritual part of me, my consciousness, extremely seriously.
So you are an atheist?
Why not just say so?
albionin: "Science is the study of that which exists.
So when you say to me there is no such thing as scientific truth I say what in the world do you think a fact is?
Science deals with objective reality.
What other means does man have of learning about reality other than observation?"
You're missing the point here.
Sure, informally you can use the word "truth" all day long, like a witness in court who promises to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Those words simply mean the witness will say what he knows to be facts.
But in formal scientific terms, there are no "scientific truths".
Instead, there are facts, laws, hypotheses and theories, any of which you may consider, in your own opinion, to be "the truth", but science itself makes no such claim.
albionin: "I can totally understand your seeing a dichotomy between facts and truth since you are a subjectivist... you are a subjectivist... you are a subjectivist. "
No matter how often you repeat your charge, it's still not true, nor is there evidence here to support such a false claim.
Instead: objectively confirmed facts are facts, and your intense desire to call them "the truth" is understandable, it's just not normal scientific usage.
If I understand correctly, you claim there is only one existence, the natural or material world, with no "spiritual world" or "higher truth" beyond that, right?
And you have evidence to prove this?
I think not, rather you've rejected a higher spiritual world as a matter of assumption -- essentially, what you've done is take the methodological naturalism assumption of working scientists, and expanded it into the philosophical naturalism of the atheists' religion.
Was that too much for one sentence?
I'll try again: Christians can be scientists so long as they understand that the basic scientific assumption of methodological naturalism is necessary for their work.
But if they make the intellectual leap from methodological to philosophical naturalism -- which denies the possible existence of a spiritual realm above or beyond the natural world -- then they are no longer Christians, or even deists.
Finally, there is no law anywhere which says that belief in God makes one a subjectivist.
So your intense desire to make that accusation probably says more about you than it does me.
Thank you for that tip! It might save my sanity at some point in the future. :)
Happy Thanksgiving to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.