Posted on 11/07/2005 12:05:04 PM PST by Mikey_1962
THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly. His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.
"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
No, that would be you.
In any case, you posted to me and my answer was effectively, "When have I ever said that the second law is violated?"
That wasn't the question. Since you don't accept evolution, you might think the two are in conflict, and still the second hasn't been violated. ~P>Never mind.
One can never demonstrate that God has NOT done something. But one can reasonable deduce that a lot of crap has been written by men and attributed to God. Certainly a lot of conflicting testimony.
If you look at my statements, I am saying exactly the opposite.
By definition Laws have Lawgivers. Who gives the Moral Law?
If you believe moral laws come from a divine being, then that is the lawgiver. I don't believe that, however. Rather, I believe moral laws are created by societies in order to ensure the continued survival of such societies.
Like the Communist Manifesto?
History has shown that the moral rules embodied in the Communist Manifesto are disastrous for a society.
All of the available evidence points to the opposite conclusion.
Simply adding energy to something doesn't make it an open system.
What is your definition of an open system, then? I fail to see how a system with an external energy source is not an open system.
That is incorrect. By definition, natural laws are predictable and consistent. Now, if there is a God, he can violate or bend such laws. However, that doesn't mean that such laws don't exist.
How, then, would a miracle (nature obeying the voice of God) be in violation of natural law
Because, by stepping in and actively bending or violating the natural laws he created, such a God is comitting acts outside of the natural world and moving in the supernatural.
As far as we know, there is no water on the moon, and no atmosphere. That is not a good medium for life.
Venus receives even more concentrated energy. Where is the evolved life on Venus.
Venus' atmosphere seems to be fairly deadly to life. That being said, we don't know if there isn't life on Venus.
It is evident that "order" involves more than just sunlight heating things.
Clearly. But we weren't discussing the conditions required for life, we were discussing whether or not the Earth is a closed system.
And although the earth is closed
So, in your opinion, a system that receives a virtually limitless external energy input qualifies as a "closed system?" Interesting.
You are not the same AndrewC who posted on these threads two or three years ago. That fellow at least was capable of parsing a sentence.
How does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Another question- water molecules organize themselves into snowflakes. Does this violate the 2nd law?
All through nature we see the second law at work, animals becoming less complex ---- man to be specific.
What leads you to believe that animals, and humans, are becoming less complex?
There are 400 parts to the human eye. All 400 hundred must work in perfect harmony and in sequence or it will not work.
Not true. There are various different types of eye in existence in nature. Many have different structures. In any event, the evolution of the eye is well understood. I've seen creationists bring up this argument over and over again, with no evidence to support their claim that the eye would not work if it did not exist in its present form.
I was trying to answer your question: How can any Christian, think that God used evolution to make man, given the above passage?
You freely acknowledge that God is powerful enough to create man as man, whole, intact, and without using Evolution, but then you justify the heriscy of Evolution by saying "But, being unlimited, he could take all the time and varied processes he wanted to, as well."
Wait, evolution is heresy now? Darn all those heretical animals! It's time for an Inquisition on the petri dishes.
And, yes, I freely acknowledge that God is unlimited and can do whatever he wants however he wants. Don't you? What limits do you, a man, put on God?
Why would God do that?
All we can possibly try to determine on this earth is HOW God might have done something. We'll have to wait to ask him WHY until we see him ...
If God did what you seem to be supporting, why not just state that in the Bible?
So people without scientific understanding could see the Truth, if not the precise facts. Would the Bible be as compelling if it was structured like a physics textbook? Perhaps with some multiple choice quizzes at the end of each chapter?
After all, it wouldn't be a lie, just not telling us the whole truth because our feeble little minds couldn't handle the awful truth.
"Awful" truth? Truth is.
There's just one problem with that, God doesn't deceive, he doesn't tell little white lies to protect our feeble little minds.
But it doesn't mean he needs to give all the specifics. In fact, there may be certain things he doesn't want us to know. Things that are available in a handy fruit form, for instance.
He is God. He doesn't change to fit man's mold. To do so would be to alter who and what God is.
Well, obviously.
Your second point is implying that I am supporting Intelligent Design. "I am not". I am supporting God's statement on creation.
It was not my intent to imply you support intelligent design.
"And God Said, 'Let "US" make man in "OUR" image.' Not let's evolve man into our image.
Once again, it doesn't give precise directions as to how he made it. Instantly? Through a long, loving process? By using a tachyon field with reverse-induced dilithium crystals? I think too much concern is made in the religious community over HOW God created the universe, and not enough focus on the fact that yes, God created everything. The Bible (from God) can be studied to know that God created the universe. The UNIVERSE (ALSO from God!) should be studied to see how the iniverse actually works. Primary sources, and all that.
Your statement: I think the idea of God as he exists implies that he's the one holding the end of the chain, and not necessarily part of the chain itself ...
God is the chain.
I think we're starting to argue analogies, and not the points we're making.
(I'm not sure how the rest of your post relates to me, anyone reading this can refer back to your post for it. There was more, I'm just not duplicating it here.)
Your statement fascinates me. Please post references outlining this change in the theory, specifically textbooks and journals showing the change in the second law of thermodynamics over time.
All through nature we see the second law at work, animals becoming less complex ---- man to be specific.
Your statement fascinates me. Please post references outlining this overall reduced complexity in animals, specifically man.
(Calculations --- which assume evolution knew what end result it was trying to achieve --- omiited.)
I believe you may want to revise your calculations to imclude the following:
1. You have a "draw" occuring every second. You must include in your calculations the numbers of every-second drawers, not just the single one you've assumed. I'm not sure how many drawers there'd be on earth in 14 billion years (you mentioned that time frame, we'll go with that).
2. You should factor in all possible alternatives to an "eye" that would have been acceptable. Perhaps some sort of glass lense, instead of flesh lens? A sonar device? Perhaps an eye was not needed for survival? Would three fingered-hands work?
3. You should include all the planets in the universe where life may have occurred. (This would increase the number of possible "drawers" as mentioned in (1). I'm sure if God created life elsewhere, they've also pondered the unlikelihood of their individual existance.
And it doesn't have to work once, it has to work twice .... to perpetuate the species.
Actually, it just has to work once ... as long as the trait of quasi-symmetry in a creature has developed. Also, does it HAVE to work twice? Would a creature with one eye ... or thirty eyes ... not have any ability to survive?
And, finally, those odds mean nothing. If life didn't come about as it did (1:1 odds, it happened), we wouldn't be here arguing over odds.
That isn't true. The reason order/disorder was ever used in the 2LoT was because the structure of the molecule was not universally acknowledged or understood in the 1870s when the 2LoT was coming into its own. The order/disorder analogy was used because without knowledge of molecular structure no other short hand description was available. It wasn't until quantum mechanics and Bohr's atomic model were developed and understood that the order/disorder analogy was dropped.
"All through nature we see the second law at work, animals becoming less complex ---- man to be specific. Yet, we are to believe everything around us was all by chance? Give me a break!
That all through nature we see the 2LoT at work is true. However there is no evidence that any biological organism is becoming less complex. The 2LoT is essential for biology to continue, without it we would not exist. Remember, the 2LoT is a description of what we observe.
"I'm just going to use one example, just one and it's a very simple one. The Human eye. There are 400 parts to the human eye. All 400 hundred must work in perfect harmony and in sequence or it will not work. Now the chances of that happening are pretty remote but just for argument sake let's see how remote.
You make the erroneous assumption that the eye would need to develop all at once. It can be shown quite easily that there exists today organisms that span the development of the eye from a simple light sensing patch of skin to an eye as complex as the Octopus'. From this extant sequence it is quite apparent that there would be no need to have an eye develop all at once as you claim. Simply put, you are wrong.
"Using the alphabet, 26 letters, and a bowl, what are the chances of pulling an "A", putting the "A" back in the bowl, then pulling out a "B" so on and so forth? According to my calculator, there are 4.032914611 followed by 26 zero's to one chance in completing that feet.
"403,291,461,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 pretty bad odds. If you did a complete sequence once every second, it could take up to
"12,788,288,340,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to create the perfect alphabet in sequence.
This overly simplistic, badly thought out, probability calculation has been shown to be a waste of time and simply wrong by many people. Depending on what part of evolution you are trying to address here, there are quite a few conditions it leaves out. This includes the tendency of complex molecules to be created by following the 2LoT, the tendency of chemicals to spontaneously combine according to the 2LoT, the tendency for feedback systems to develop in the simplest of organisms, a number of observed selection mechanisms, and a number of others I am too lazy to look up.
The calculation itself is in error because it demands a specific length and order for the letters to be picked. In nature this is unnecessary, literally billions of combinations of length and order of gene will work.
"Are the leading scientist in the world today saying the world is only 14 billion years old????
The Solar system is 4.6 byo. This is verified by dating of earth rocks, moon rocks and asteroids (meteorite)
"At any rate, for the human eye to come out perfect just once, the probability is beyond the ability of my calculator to compute but I've been told it's a number with over 100 zero's following it. That's just the human eye, a 1 followed by 100 zero's to 1 chance for it to work just once. And it doesn't have to work once, it has to work twice .... to perpetuate the species.
As shown above this is ridiculous. The eye did not and need not develop all at once. Nor was it by 'chance' You have been fed a lie.
"Evolution vs. Creation, you tell me which one takes greater faith?
Creation; by definition.
"No sane person believes that the entire Bible is devoid of metaphor. Sane people disagree on which passages should be taken literally and which should be regarded as metaphorical."
Every metaphor is a metaphor or something that is true, and a clear declarative statement about plant and animals reproducing their own kind is not metaphor.
The Fall indicates a decent from a higher state to a lower state, evolution promotes the achievement of a higher state from a lower starting point. They are not compatible ideas, metaphor or not.
I think there's a mix-up of the physical and the spritual here. Man has a lower state of a connection with God ... out of the Garden. It doesn't mean man's "state" can't go to a higher level in other, less important, areas. Language has advanced, technology has advanced, why couldn't physical complexity/adaptation advance? Heck, even religion can move to a higher state for man, as it did a couple thousand years ago. I don't see how that conflicts with a fall from grace.
It's merely man trying to be fruitful and multiplying ...
A common misstatement, but untrue. Evolution is change, but progression is not implied. The modal form of life is still bacteria, and the perceived complexity of "higher" life forms is not directly correlated with the length of their genomes.
Much of what we intuitively consider increase in complexity is not an increase in any objective, mathematical sense.
Strawman.
"Venus receives even more concentrated energy. Where is the evolved life on Venus.
Strawman
"It is evident that "order" involves more than just sunlight heating things.
Define 'order'. The order/disorder analogy was given up a while ago, starting with Bohr's model of the atom. The 2LoT has nothing to do with order or disorder.
"And although the earth is closed, heat flows from hot to cold spontaneously and not vice versa.
Outside of the laboratory you will be hard pressed to find an isolated system. The Earth is far from an isolated system. We receive energy from the Sun, meteorites, radioactive decay, and even dust from comets. Some of that energy dispersed by the above sources is 'grabbed' and put to work by organisms using chemical reactions to develop and maintain complexity before it too is dispersed after some variable amount of time.
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.