Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Darwinism and evolution
- On 6/29/2009, gluadys wrote:
>So, the first thing is that you agree the soul is immaterial.Which is an epiphany?
> >The Church teaches that spiritual soul is created immediately byThe soul, being the determinant of form, is immediately created by God
> >God and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it
> >separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with
> >the body at the final Resurrection.
>Now, this is where I begin to have some difficulties. The soul is immediately
>created by God. When? Before or after the body is created or at the same
>moment? How is it united with the body? I believe you suggested earlier that
>the soul is the formative principle which governs genetic expression in
at the very moment of conception.
>Is it not rather inconsistent to insist on the indivisibility of soulNo. The soul is IMMATERIAL, necessary, absolutely simple and unextended,
>and living body and then say the soul separates from the body at
and immortal. The corporeal body that the soul enforms is material,
therefore contingent, "corruptible" and mortal.
>How can a soul which forms a single nature with the body exist separatedIt is the soul that determines form, essence / nature, that binds form,
>from the body?
essence / nature, and matter, the immaterial and the material.
>And if it can exist separated from the body after bodily death, why notBecause the body's "existence" is contingent upon the soul that enforms
>during bodily life?
>How could a body and a soul capable of being separated from the body beIt is the soul that gives the body its "nature."
>anything other than a union of two natures?
> > Mark Ridley, _Evolution, Third Edition / Blackwell PublishingWhat Ridley provides is assumptions extrapolated from prior assumptions.
> > / 2003:
>Ridley provides lots of information on the measurability of mutation
>rates, evolutionary rates, and various other measurements pertinent
> >>When a scientist tells me that there is a 3% difference in the DNA"Change" and random mutation and natural selection aren't synonymous. That
> >>sequence of a fruit fly from that of its ancestor, I take that to
> >>mean the DNA sequences of both insects have been observed and the
> >>differences logged. Hence mutation has been observed.
> >Whether that 3% difference is an effect of mutations / natural
> >selection is an inference, not an observation.
>A change in DNA sequences is not an effect of mutation. It IS a mutation.
"a 3% difference in the DNA sequence of a fruit fly from" its putative
"ancestor" is an effect of Darwinian _random_ mutation and natural
selection is a "theory-laden" inference, not an observation.
> >The point: your perspective is not an _argument_.On June 10, 2009, gluadys wrote re: Forces and fallacies:
>The reference to my perspective was a preliminary statement. Focusing on
>it is not an acceptable way of dodging the argument presented.
Fair enough. However, my perspective is that you are unconvinced for fallacious
reasons. Part of the fallacy lies in the way you describe the evolutionary
process. What meaning is assigned to "force"? Is this an appropriate term to
apply to either mutation or selection? (Scientists themselves debate this sort
of thing.) If the answer is negative, then what is a good term for describing
the way they affect the assembling of proteins (mutations) or the frequency of
alleles (natural selection)?
Mutation and natural selection play a necessary role in the history of the
biosphere. Evolution does not describe the origin of life. But current
theories of abiogenesis certainly envisage early replicators whose
self-replication was not perfect and therefore open to some sort of evolutionary
Are mutation and natural selection sufficient as a complete explanation of the
origin and history of the biological world? Of course not. There is a good
deal more to the theory of evolution than these two mechanisms. They are simply
the first two mechanisms to be clearly identified and whose relationship to each
other was understood.
On June 12, 2009, I replied:
Your "perspective" couldn't be less relevant to the debate. Since
we profoundly disagree about what _is_ the true representation of
the Darwinian "evolutionary process," it's certain that from your
perspective my skepticism is fallacious and my understanding and
representation of the Darwinian "evolutionary process" are
fallacious. The point of the debate is reasonably, substantively
and persuasively _arguing_ that my skepticism is fallacious and
my understanding and representation of the Darwinian
"evolutionary process" are fallacious. That you have not done.
I can't "dodge" an argument that's a figment of your imagination....
> >>You yourself have been referring to the processes of evolution as "blind"Message #17916 [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/17916%5d
> >>and "autonomous". What does that mean if not that they function (or are
> >>alleged to do so) apart from God?
> >That's the _Darwinian_ party line, not mine. The _only_ people
> >I "have seen expressing the view that the Creator only acts
> >outside the physical laws" are the very "evolutionary
> >creationists" whose "view" you champion, like the author of
> >the quoted citation.
>The author of the quoted citation was yourself. Message 17916
is devoid of any reference whatsoever to "the view that the creator only
acts outside the physical laws."
The "theistic evolutionist / "evolutionary creationist" citation _I_
It is a few among those who profess to be "theistic evolutionists" or
"evolutionary creationists" who insist that "the [C]reator acts only
_outside_ the created physical laws," that "random mutation" and
"natural selection" _are_ autonomous physical / "natural" forces,
that "random mutation" and "natural selection" _are_ necessary and
sufficient to explain the origin and history of the earthly biological
world: "'the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the
development of biological diversity and complexity,' and 'humans are
part of this process.' Moreover, 'once evolution got under way, no
special supernatural intervention was required.'" After all, "a
_proper_ understanding of theism implies God has endowed nature with
a certain degree of freedom. In much the same way that humans can act
freely in the world, nature itself has an inherent liberty. This is
not to say that nature has a mind of its own, but only that nature
is not restricted to a machine-like, predetermined evolution."
That's a _proper_ understanding of "theism." Well, maybe so. What
thoughtful _Christian_ would be fooled by such nonsense?
>Although I do note that the "citation" has varied from when it was firstHello?
>posted. The original read: Darwinism, or Darwin's theory of evolution,
>or _the_ theory of evolution, or "evolution," is a random search that,
>it is claimed, fortuitously created, continuously "fine-tunes" and
>sustains the awesomely designed biosphere we inhabit.
>But in a later post it reads:
> >"random mutation and natural selection are the Darwinian _generative_
> >physical _forces_ that have autonomously created, continuously
> >sustain and "fine-tune" the awesomely designed biosphere we inhabit"
>My comment ("And designed it too") was a reply to the first paragraph, not
>the second. I don't know where the second version came from.
Neither of the comments you have quoted is remotely relevant to "the view
that the creator only acts outside the physical laws" and both are _my_
> >>Well, I could be mistaken, but I did not think the Church taught determinism.I'll remind you that your stark, bipolar assertion called a false dilemma,
> >>Isn't that supposed to be a Calvinist error?
> >nor has the Church ever taught "determinism."
>So, I was right. Thank you. I will remind you of that when you present again
>arguments that depend on determinism.
i.e., either the Catholic Church has blessed the "understanding of theism"
_gluadys_ is certain is "proper," or the Church has taught "determinism,"
is wronger than wrong. And I'll remind you that attributing your own
to an opponent is also wronger than wrong.
- It is essentially a lie that Professor Gould said any such thing as Laurie has attributed to him, in the sense that Gould's remark was lifted out of context in such a way as to imply something contrary to his overall intention, as revealed further on within his writings.
This common creationist ploy is wickedly deceptive, and no doubt is done to bring honor and glory to God.
The quote Laurie lifts is more clearly examined and explained in the link below:
For greater detail on this evil creationist tactic, I refer to the following link:
Scroll down to the first occurrence of the word "bad" then scroll up to the beginning of the section.
"So it would seem
that Gould has no problems with the
fossil record. But did he believe that transitional forms
are lacking? Note that in the quote originally presented,
the claim is made that they are rare, not absent. Also, as
anyone who is familiar with Gould's writings will know, the
text quoted reflects his recognition that, while there is a
scarcity of transitional fossils between species, there is
no such lack of transitional fossils between major
groups." - Jon (Augray) Barber
Caveat: The quote of Mr. Barber provided above was NOT lifted out of context in such a way as to imply anything contrary to the author's original intent.
And, to set the record straight, here is Dr. Stephen J. Gould himself, concerning the deceitful practices so ruthlessly engaged by creationists:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil
record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally
lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger
In astra lumina, Veritas! --Danus Croskretus