Posted on 03/02/2015 7:49:16 AM PST by Salvation
In a courtroom, the judge can bring an unruly outburst to an end by shouting, “Order! Order in the court!” I often feel the same urge in the debates of our time about God’s existence and His role in the created universe. It is not so much that the debates can get unruly, but that I, with the insistence of a town crier, want to shout, “Order! Order, there IS order the universe!” And I want to ask everyone to be quiet and listen to the universe herself declaring, “I am ordered! I am designed! I am remarkably complex, from the largest galaxies to the smallest atoms! And even what you think is chaos is but an order currently hidden from your limited view.”
As a prelude to a series of articles I plan to post this week on cosmology, liturgy, and Sacraments, I would like to begin with a summons to this call: “Order! Order in the universe!” I want to apply some of the insights of creation, a kind of root “sacrament” that underlies the seven Sacraments, and the reason for liturgy. For our seven Sacraments presuppose that matter and creation are not just dumbly present but that they bespeak order and purpose, and manifest God, their maker. Today I’d like to simply ponder order and then listen to a liturgical hymn that celebrates, in the Wisdom tradition, the One who in His wisdom designed and ordered the cosmos.
It is a strange and remarkable thing to me that in this day and age, when we have discovered magnificent realities that show a universe steeped in order and unbelievable size, increasing numbers of people claim that the whole thing is just dumbly there, that it’s all the result of a series of random mutations. In other words, to more and more people today, the obvious order of the universe is accidental; we human beings are simply the result of random, blind, unguided mutations. All the order of creation we can plainly observe and all the sophisticated, interdependent systems that give rise to complex life are all just accidental. We are asked to believe that all this obvious order, order that no one can miss, somehow leapt together, unguided and accidentally, from a primordial soup; that from disorder came order.
Although things tend to fall apart and go back to their basic components (the Law of Entropy), we are asked to believe that in this case, in a random and accidental way, things actually moved from disorder to order all on their own, even though, as some insist, no outside force, energy, or intelligence acted on them.
To me, this sort of belief requires more “faith” than simply believing that a higher and intelligent being (whom we call God) both created and introduced the order that is so obvious in the universe, not to mention in our bodies, down to the smallest cells and atoms. And to be sure, the atheist/secularist notion of random, unguided, accidental order is itself a belief, for its conclusion is outside of what science can study or demonstrate. For all the denunciation by many atheists of philosophy, theology and metaphysics, those who deny God’s role in creation are not making a scientific claim; they are staking out their own philosophical, theological, and metaphysical claim and asking others to believe it. To me, such a “belief” in the random, unguided, and accidental existence of things, in the face of such overwhelming and consistent order, is unreasonable in the extreme.
The whole universe shouts, “Order! Consistency! Intelligibility!” Our bodies and every delicately functioning system on this planet echo back the refrain, “Order! Consistency! Intelligibility!” And while I cannot, and do not, ask scientists to specifically affirm the biblical and Christian God and our whole Catholic theological tradition, the existence of consistent order in the universe is obvious and serves as the basis of the whole scientific method. For if things were truly random, rather than orderly, intelligible, and predictable, science could not propose theories, test results, or verify them. No experiment would produce similar results if everything acted randomly. The scientific method presupposes order and consistency within a verifiable range. Thus while science need not draw conclusions as to how this order came about, it is wholly inappropriate (as some scientists have done) to be dismissive of believers, who conclude from order that someone ordered it so.
Yes, what a glorious and magnificent thing creation is! And to this believer, it loudly proclaims the God who made it.
There is a beautiful hymn, one that I have seldom heard sung in Catholic parishes, that takes up the voice of creation, especially that part of creation we call the stars (firmament) and the planets. The hymn is based on Psalm 19, and I think it is a minor masterpiece of English poetry. It was written by Joseph Addison in 1712.
It comes from a time before skeptical agnosticism and hostility to the very notion (let alone existence) of God had taken deep root in our culture. And, frankly, it also comes from a more sober time, when people accepted the plainly obvious fact that creation is ordered, and therefore that it was ordered by someone in a purposeful and intelligent manner. That someone we believers call God.
Consider the beautiful words of this song and its reasoned conclusion that, as Psalm 19 notes, creation shouts its Creator.
The spacious firmament on high,
with all the blue ethereal sky,
and spangled heavens, a shining frame,
their great Original proclaim.
The unwearied sun from day to day
does his Creator’s power display;
and publishes to every land
the work of an almighty hand.
Soon as the evening shades prevail,
the moon takes up the wondrous tale,
and nightly to the listening earth
repeats the story of her birth:
whilst all the stars that round her burn,
and all the planets in their turn,
confirm the tidings, as they roll
and spread the truth from pole to pole.
What though in solemn silence all
move round the dark terrestrial ball?
What though no real voice nor sound
amid their radiant orbs be found?
In reason’s ear they all rejoice,
and utter forth a glorious voice;
for ever singing as they shine,
“The hand that made us is divine.”
Yes, the hand that made us is divine, and He has done a marvelous thing!
Here is a sung version:
Cycling at night after work has given me many “moon moments”, where I look up at “that faithful witness in the sky” and just glory in the work of my Father in heaven and the One He made everything through...JESUS.
Sounds kinda corny, but it’s real to me.
Also, I work near the flight path to a major airport and have a similar thrill watching the jets take off and land not far over our building. Flight amazes me and is yet another proof of “Order! Order”, lest the planes fail to lift or land based on typically predictable atmospheric truth. Engine failure is another matter...
No, evolution and the geologic record support each other. Radiometric dating further supports the fossil record. As I’m sure you know, there is a theory of evolution which has made great strides in filling in the why of the nineteenth century discussion of biology. Darwinism is a pejorative applied the evolutionary theory which attempts to color modern science with the ambiguity and falsehoods of the past. The questions have been answered and scientists are looking at new questions.
The questions have been “answered” without any regard to “teleological impulse.” That bespeaks falsehood in any other endeavor, but somehow it has been enshrined in the folly which has come to be falsely called science.
And Darwinism is a quite accurate term for what is actually being called upon to drive this thing. If it is pejorative it is because it is actually inferior.
I don’t do teleological, I don’t think theology and science mix.
Talking about the science of a creation without reference to a creator — that’s like talking about the science of sociology without reference to people.
It is nonsense, regardless of what you “don’t like.”
No, evolution and the geologic record support each other. Radiometric dating further supports the fossil record.
Interesting.
Do they “support” each other or do they “Depend” on each other?
It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but as Darwinian theory was gaining traction they NEEDED the conclusions of other aspects of science to maintain the theory.
To think that politics or ideology being used to corrupt science is something new would be very shortsighted.
As I look into the TOE, I can’t overcome the mathematics required, the pure numbers.
Most mutations literally kill the species or leave it unable to reproduce. The number of “Random Mutations” required to change, say, a cow like animal into a whale must number into the tens and tens of thousands.
Along the way you would expect to see hundreds if not thousands of intermediaries, yet they claim to have discovered four.
There is something really wrong here.
Then we have “Irreducible Complexity”. What are the odds that a random mutation would be conserved long enough to first not kill the thing, second to allow for reproduction, long enough for another random mutation to come long and provide some survival benefit based on a changing environment?
The math is insane.
The evolutionists have known that this is a huge problem and in order to solve the problem, they add time out of necessity.
guided by the environment.. Guided, that is a purpose filled word. Just who is this environment who leads toward a goal? not random, order. leads to survive ability. leads to organisms. Something that creates life. We used to call Him God.
The whole universe shouts, Order! Consistency! Intelligibility!
Intelligibility was the kicker for me.
It is extraordinary and nearly mathematically impossible that we can know anything if you believe what the evolutionists would want you to believe.
The fact that Humans on this planet, at this time, have the ability to even do real meaningful science is nuts.
The evolutionists counter this with, “but we can, therefore evolution is true”. And in order to make the math work they need to invoke a Multi-Verse theory that is unprovable, and they call it science.
I’m not talking about “the science of creation” I’m talking about the geology and biology of change and it’s time frame.
Most evolution is by genetic drift, not mutation although mutation is very important. There are a great many inheritable variations within a species. Some people have red hair, some are tall, some can digest milk easily. If it benefits people in one region, ( ie being tall to look over grass, using milk as a food by herders, being more attractive to females who like red hair ) that region will have more tall milk drinkers although other traits exist in portions of the population. If the people in that region remain isolated, the differences from the species as a whole will most likely accumulate to the point were the isolated trabecular can no longer breed with the other groups.
Evolutionary change happens most rapidly due to drastic changes in climate (environment). The greatest spur to evolutionary change was the great oxygenation event. All types of multicellular life expanded, protective shells and exoskeletons , etc. developed as life spread into many new areas. 2,600 minerals that hadn’t existed before come into the geologic record.
That’s what I mean by “guided”.
So, the neck of the Giraffe is really long so it can eat from the higher branches?
BTW, the beaks of the finch are still on a finch.
A Great Dane is as much a dog as a Chihuahua and neither will ever be anything but dogs.
Your understanding of evolutionary theory reads like a fifth graders text book from the 1970’s.
Jim,
I’m sorry but when you really look at BOTH sides of this issue, there are only TWO possibilities.
Life on Earth is either the result of Aliens or that of God, and the alien theory doesn’t exclude God.
But the large, hard beaked finches can no longer mate successfully with small narrow beaked finches. Speciation = evolution. Do you really think that I would be better off using the technical language of biology? Also, genetic drift was not understood in the 1970s as it is today.
But the large, hard beaked finches can no longer mate successfully with small narrow beaked finches. Speciation = evolution.
How in the world can you call that Speciation?
It’s still a Finch and will either survive or go extinct as a finch.
When you breakdown Darwinian Evolution honestly, the biology, it’s death.
Genetic drift?
Please explain how that works to create new species.
The definition of a species is creatures or plants that can successfully mate and have full functioning offspring. Thus, there are many species of birds but they are all birds. There are many species of mammals but they are all mammals. The finches are a good example of genetic drift.
To be clear.
Species is easy, speciation is another story all together.
A simple search of the definition would yield results that show, based on your posts, that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Best of luck.
I didn’t review my last post and thus it wasn’t clear. Sorry. The definition of a species is animals or plants that can mate and have fully functioning offspring. When successful mating is no longer possible, you have different species. A horse and a donkey can mate but the offspring is most often unable to reproduce — a mule. Thus, although they appear similar and doubtless have common ancestor, horses and donkeys are separate species.
The missing element for understanding change is time. Most animals have very short lifetimes and they reproduce often. That’s a lot of opportunity for mutations and some drift. When you consider genetic drift and mutation over thousands and even millions of years, you can grasp evolution. Sometime back in time every animal and every plant has a common ancestor. Look up a modern (ie 2014 ) representation of the tree of life and you’ll see what I mean.
So we have come full circle with the NEED for time in-order to MAKE the TOE work.
When successful mating is no longer possible, you have different species./i>
No. When successful mating is no longer possible you actually have extinction.
Darwin made a big deal out of dog breeding. Nevermind they are still dogs. To get a "Chocolate Lab" breeders breed yellow labs with black labs. You can't get a chocolate lab by breeding two chocolate labs no matter how many times you try.
When successful mating only occurs among a sub population but no longer is possible with the larger population you have a new species like the large beak finch or the donkey vs horse.
Yes, is it so unusual that time or more specifically number of generations is required? Seems clear to me.
Will dogs continue to be the same species? Or will they branch into little dogs who can no loner mate with big dogs. Anyhow, without human intervention it is very doubtful that any of today’s dogs would exist.
There must be something in the gene allele where there are two recessive traits involved for the labs.
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.