Posted by seigneur  4/23/2018 12:16 pm | #11 |
Wyvern wrote:
I already explained exactly what the problem was. I won't do so again.
Did you? I brought an example from the National Geographic documentary. You did not even attempt to explain how that statement got it right and the other is a strawman.
Apes, monkeys, and humans are all simians. On the Darwinian theory of evolution, when biologists have come up with one common name for a group of species, then this group shares a common ancestor. Right or wrong?
It doesn't "simplify", it displays a stunning, and I mean stunning, degree of ignorance of what is even being proposed. In fact, if I remember correctly, Dr. Feser explicitly uses the "monkeys gave birth to humans" as an analogy for precisely that. Of course, tautologically the statement "apes give birth to humans" is correct insofar as it happens all the time (humans, in strictly biological terms, are a type of ape, and thus give birth to apes).
What do you mean "tautologically"? Does the theory of evolution affirm universal common descent or not? On that theory, we are all "a type of" something from a primordial soup. Am I stunningly ignorant when I have textbook references at hand to show that that's exactly the theory?
|
Posted by Wyvern 4/23/2018 12:57 pm | #12 |
Apes, monkeys, and humans are all simians. On the Darwinian theory of evolution, when biologists have come up with one common name for a group of species, then this group shares a common ancestor. Right or wrong?
Clearly I need to state this in simpler terms.
Monkeys are more like a cousin than a direct ancestor. You are not descended from your cousins. Therefore humans are not descended from monkeys. You have a common ancestor with a monkey, sure, but in no way are you descended from a monkey. Again, nobody believes this.
Did you? I brought an example from the National Geographic documentary. You did not even attempt to explain how that statement got it right and the other is a strawman.
Re-read. I was referring to the misleading implication that something resembling a modern ape (like a chimpanzee or whatnot) gave birth to a human at some point. "Species in the same category as [x] are the ancestors of Homo sapiens" =/= "a member of [x] species gave birth one day to a Homo sapiens".
Your original question was about whether or not posters on this board believed evolution was contrary to their religious beliefs. You have your answer. Evidently your actual goal was to embark on painfully obtuse arguments over the veracity of human evolution, which I see no profit in following any further.
Last edited by Wyvern (4/23/2018 12:58 pm)
|
Posted by seigneur 4/23/2018 1:13 pm | #13 |
Apes, monkeys, and humans are all simians. On the Darwinian theory of evolution, when biologists have come up with one common name for a group of species, then this group shares a common ancestor. Right or wrong?
Clearly I need to state this in simpler terms.
Monkeys are more like a cousin than a direct ancestor. You are not descended from your cousins. Therefore humans are not descended from monkeys. You have a common ancestor with a monkey, sure, but in no way are you descended from a monkey. Again, nobody believes this.
Correct. And it is so blatantly obvious that nobody believes this that you should remember to be generous with people.
Nobody means to imply that we are descended from our cousins. Even one who summarizes the theory of evolution as "monkeys gave birth to humans" does not mean to imply that evolutionists believe that humans were descended from their cousins. Rather, the implication is that humans had monkey-like ancestors, where "monkey-like" is a non-scientific vulgarism for simians.
When interpreted generously like this, you should see that the ballpark is right. Whether you are a cousin with monkeys or your great-grand-grand-grand...father was a monkey (an ancient extinct ape rather), you are the same family either way.
Your original question was about whether or not posters on this board believed evolution was contrary to their religious beliefs. You have your answer. Evidently your actual goal was to embark on painfully obtuse arguments over the veracity of human evolution, which I see no profit in following any further.
My actual goal is to hopefully get some clarification on how some people are able to reconcile the theory of evolution with their religious beliefs.
I personally see no way to reconcile them. Because, again, it is not permissible that monkeys are our literal cousins, much less ancestors. God is the Father of all, not an ancient Ape the father of Man.
But I did not believe the theory of evolution even when I was irreligious back in the days. It just does not make any scientific sense on multiple levels, as I have explained in a longer post earlier.
Last edited by seigneur (4/23/2018 1:34 pm)
|
Posted by DanielCC 4/23/2018 4:03 pm | #14 |
I personally see no way to reconcile them. Because, again, it is not permissible that monkeys are our literal cousins, much less ancestors. God is the Father of all, not an ancient Ape the father of Man..
Explain what you mean.
Last edited by DanielCC (4/23/2018 4:03 pm)
|
Posted by Miguel 4/23/2018 4:37 pm | #15 |
I accept it and have no problem with it; to me what's relevant is thhe fact that man is superior to all the animals and evolution cannot in any way explain the power of abstract thinking. So evolution may be able to explain the origins of our body, but not the immaterial rational soul capable of logical reasoning, self-reflection, etc. And since this is a purely philosophical issue that has nothing to do with modern biology, it doesn't really get in the way of anything.
The issue of polygenism x monogenism is a bit trickier, but there are ways to reconcile the evidence with the faith (and Feser provides an example). Granted, I think it can seem ad hoc and as such it represents a cost, but I don't think it's a big one, and in the end it is outweighed by different arguments and motives of credibility for the faith.
That's how I see it. And as far as intelligent design controversies go, I frankly don't know enough to comment on it.
Last edited by Miguel (4/23/2018 4:40 pm)
|
Posted by Hypatia 4/23/2018 7:07 pm | #16 |
I have concerns over evolution, in that I used to be a bit of a Neo-Darwinist and remember what kneejerk irrational hostility towards religion and teleology looked like. So much naturalistic ideology is riding on evolutionary theory that I feel like I can no longer trust what "skeptical" scientists have to say about it. Unfortunately, this just makes every side suspect and I worry that my recent adoption of Neo-Aristotelianism as the neutral position is ultimately arbitrary.
I do not have a problem with the theory itself, though, at least up until materialists start insisting that consciousness obviously emerged because it was a useful adaptation.
|
Posted by Brian 4/23/2018 9:54 pm | #17 |
I am not extremely well read on this topic, but I think the smoking gun would be to witness evolution of one natural-kind to another in the lab, or in a closely monitored environment. Insofar as the scientist's species are not the same as the natural kinds of common-sense, a lot of people call what we have witnessed "evolution" on account of of two species of fruit fly being produced in the lab or something like that. But of course when kids ask the question "why are there different animals?" They don't mean why are there different types of fruit fly. They mean why are there lady bugs and seagulls and dogs.
Insofar as science has a methodological commitment to naturalism, and we have no philosophy of nature to govern over the sciences, it seems almost inconceivable that any significant number of scientists would abandon the theory, because to do so would seem to abandon something of science itself. I'm not convinced either way on whether evolution is true or false, but those are just some thoughts on the topic. There are a lot of subsidiary issues that people don't take into account in popular discussions of evolution.
|
Posted by seigneur 4/24/2018 12:56 am | #18 |
I personally see no way to reconcile them. Because, again, it is not permissible that monkeys are our literal cousins, much less ancestors. God is the Father of all, not an ancient Ape the father of Man..
Explain what you mean.
According to the theory of evolution, some species of ape is an ancestor of man (or that apes and humans have the same ancestor, which is really saying the same thing for the current purposes).
According to the Bible, Adam was a direct creation of God.
What further help does one need to see that these two views are disparate?
|
Posted by seigneur 4/24/2018 1:05 am | #19 |
I am not extremely well read on this topic, but I think the smoking gun would be to witness evolution of one natural-kind to another in the lab, or in a closely monitored environment. Insofar as the scientist's species are not the same as the natural kinds of common-sense, a lot of people call what we have witnessed "evolution" on account of of two species of fruit fly being produced in the lab or something like that. But of course when kids ask the question "why are there different animals?" They don't mean why are there different types of fruit fly. They mean why are there lady bugs and seagulls and dogs.
Unfortunately (unfortunately for everybody involved), evolutionists refuse to distinguish microevolution and macroevolution properly. They think that when you assent to microevolution, you assent to all of it.
When you concede that dogs came from wolves and that the differences between dog breeds are amazing, they consider that you also obviously must accept that man came from an ape(-like species) and that you have swallowed the entire macroevolutionary universal common descent with its tail and horns. This is the standard view by speciation specialist Ernst Mayr, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution"
|
Posted by seigneur 4/24/2018 1:24 am | #20 |
And as far as intelligent design controversies go, I frankly don't know enough to comment on it.
Intelligent design is just a controversy. It does not reach the level of a coherent theory. The idea is that "design" (in their specific sense) is mathematically measurable or inferrable ("design inference") by means of some probability calculation.
As far as I have looked into it, the intelligent design idea is ludicrous. Hypothetically, would it be possible that for example doctors could examine Lazarus after Jesus raised him from the dead and determine something like, "Yup, the finger of God right there. A miracle detected!"? In my opinion, they would see an ordinary healthy man in front of them, no traces of a miracle.
The general principle is that when God creates, things look absolutely natural. When man creates, things tend to look artificial or at least less than natural. They are qualitatively different kinds of creation that cannot be covered with the same concept of "design", especially when your aim is to put a number on it.
Last edited by seigneur (4/24/2018 4:53 am)
