Replies

The one thing that all modern science has shown is that organisms are just plain too complex to have ever arisen by any sort of random means

Then it's just weird that all modern science textbooks don't mention what all modern science has shown.

This is the 'I'm too stupid to figure out how, so everyone else must be too stupid too' fallacy. Actually, if one of the more minimalist bacteria is too complex, it's sure escaped me. We can sequence a small bacterial genome in under a day. The whole thing is a bit of circular DNA, a membrane, a few ribosomes, a few hundred enzymes, 21 tRNAs. Even our undergrads can handle that list of components. And the whole thing pretty much self-assembles.

Then it's just weird that all modern science textbooks don't mention what all modern science has shown.

They sure do show that. They show that no mutation has ever added a single piece of information to the genome. It shows that every single organism is run by a program that controls every aspect of its life and reacts to and is affected by the environment around it. It shows that the creation of new genetic traits cannot occur at random and much more.

The one thing that all modern science has shown is that organisms are just plain too complex to have ever arisen by any sort of random means

Then it's just weird that all modern science textbooks don't mention what all modern science has shown.

This is the 'I'm too stupid to figure out how, so everyone else must be too stupid too' fallacy. Actually, if one of the more minimalist bacteria is too complex, it's sure escaped me. We can sequence a small bacterial genome in under a day. The whole thing is a bit of circular DNA, a membrane, a few ribosomes, a few hundred enzymes, 21 tRNAs. Even our undergrads can handle that list of components. And the whole thing pretty much self-assembles.

So, you're suggesting that the undergrads are throwing a variety of amino acids into a beaker, and over time, they gradually sequence themselves into the necessary proteins, RNA and DNA molecules for this bacteria, which in turn started to work together to assemble themselves into this self-replicating small bacteria? Is that what they did? Somebody ought to tell Scientific American, because abiogenesis (which is what it seems Gore3000 was referring to) is one of those issues that even SA admits is troublesome.

Or perhaps you were suggesting that the undergrads were working with preexisting complex molecules, and added some intelligence (versus random molecular interaction) to "sequence" the bacteria....which doesn't seem at all to have anything to do with Gore3000's point.

To: Right Wing Professor

My mistake. In linking to the words of John Paul, I implicitly assumed that those reading them would possess some level of comprehension. It was a speech by a sophisticated metaphysician to an audience of scientists. Do you really think you should be responding to it without being sure you understand it?

In the preceding text, the Pontiff referred to a multiplicity of theories of evolution. In the section you quote, he discusses that subset of such theories which "regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter".

Got it now, or would you prefer a translation into monosyllables?

209 posted on 7/11/02 2:02 PM Pacific by Right Wing Professor

5. The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has given us a magnificent exposition of this doctrine, which is one of the essential elements of Christian thought. The Council recalled that "man is the only creature on earth that God wanted for its own sake." In other words, the human person cannot be subordinated as a means to an end, or as an instrument of either the species or the society; he has a value of his own. He is a person. By this intelligence and his will, he is capable of entering into relationship, of communion, of solidarity, of the gift of himself to others like himself. St. Thomas observed that man's resemblance to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, because his relationship with the object of his knowledge is like God's relationship with his creation. (Summa Theologica I-II, q 3, a 5, ad 1) But even beyond that, man is called to enter into a loving relationship with God himself, a relationship which will find its full expression at the end of time, in eternity. Within the mystery of the risen Christ the full grandeur of this vocation is revealed to us. (Gaudium et Spes, 22) It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis)

As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.

487 posted on 7/12/02 10:31 AM Pacific by f.Christian