Darwin and Man
I believe in Evolution. I believe that God has set certain physical processes in place to evolve variety and function in living organisms. That said, I find Darwinism difficult to swallow.
People understood that species evolve before Darwin came on the scene. What Darwin did was attempt to work out the details of how evolution functioned. The mechanism he devised was Natural Selection, which says that life evolves because random changes in the environment kill those who are not fit, leading to changes in the species. If the species changes enough, it becomes a new species entirely.
This has never been proven in the fossil records. We should see a linear curve where a species evolves as a result of some environmental change, yet the record isn`t there. We should see ``missing links`` as they used to be called, the transitional creatures between species-we don`t. We should have more than 5 Phyla, because creatures should be endlessly mutating. During the Great Extinction, 90% of all life died, yet we see the same Phylum before and after the extinction. (For those of you who are wondering, the 5 are Lizards, Fish, Birds, Mammals, and Insects.) Darwinian theory just isn`t born-out by reality.
Furthermore, the whole mystery of life just can`t be explained by Darwinism. Entropy is the universal tendency of organized systems to break down into simpler systems. Things don`t become more complex-they become simpler. This is one of the most fundamental physical principles, yet life seems to defy this. Starting with viruses containing RNA, we have witnessed an ever-increasing complexity. RNA was replaced by the more complex DNA, and species went from virus to bacteria, to multicellular life, through plant life to animal, up until we reach Man. Every step required greater complexity. We are supposed to believe that random events could drive this continuous evolution to HIGHER AND MORE COMPLICATED FORMS! This is in direct contradiction to the law of Entropic Decay, which states that systems should become more simple over time. This is especially true at the molecular level, where randomization should have broken down the original RNA molecules. Darwinism is asking us to believe in the suspension of basic rules of physics.
I think Darwinism has been a red herring for science for over a century. I think there ARE mechanisms which cause evolution, but our obsession with what has clearly become a secular religion has kept us from actually discovering what those mechanisms are and how they work. I suspect history will laugh at our devotion to Darwin in the same way that we laugh at the Geocentrists who mocked Copernicus.
Christoph Schonborn, Archbishop of Vienna, has written a powerful op-ed in the New York Times discussing Catholic views on Darwinism. Read his article below:
By CHRISTOPH SCHĂ–NBORN
Published: July 7, 2005
Vienna
EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
Skip to next paragraph
Forum: Op-Ed Contributors
But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:
"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."
He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."
Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity."
Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."
In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.
The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."
Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."
Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.
Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.
Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.
People understood that species evolve before Darwin came on the scene. What Darwin did was attempt to work out the details of how evolution functioned. The mechanism he devised was Natural Selection, which says that life evolves because random changes in the environment kill those who are not fit, leading to changes in the species. If the species changes enough, it becomes a new species entirely.
This has never been proven in the fossil records. We should see a linear curve where a species evolves as a result of some environmental change, yet the record isn`t there. We should see ``missing links`` as they used to be called, the transitional creatures between species-we don`t. We should have more than 5 Phyla, because creatures should be endlessly mutating. During the Great Extinction, 90% of all life died, yet we see the same Phylum before and after the extinction. (For those of you who are wondering, the 5 are Lizards, Fish, Birds, Mammals, and Insects.) Darwinian theory just isn`t born-out by reality.
Furthermore, the whole mystery of life just can`t be explained by Darwinism. Entropy is the universal tendency of organized systems to break down into simpler systems. Things don`t become more complex-they become simpler. This is one of the most fundamental physical principles, yet life seems to defy this. Starting with viruses containing RNA, we have witnessed an ever-increasing complexity. RNA was replaced by the more complex DNA, and species went from virus to bacteria, to multicellular life, through plant life to animal, up until we reach Man. Every step required greater complexity. We are supposed to believe that random events could drive this continuous evolution to HIGHER AND MORE COMPLICATED FORMS! This is in direct contradiction to the law of Entropic Decay, which states that systems should become more simple over time. This is especially true at the molecular level, where randomization should have broken down the original RNA molecules. Darwinism is asking us to believe in the suspension of basic rules of physics.
I think Darwinism has been a red herring for science for over a century. I think there ARE mechanisms which cause evolution, but our obsession with what has clearly become a secular religion has kept us from actually discovering what those mechanisms are and how they work. I suspect history will laugh at our devotion to Darwin in the same way that we laugh at the Geocentrists who mocked Copernicus.
Christoph Schonborn, Archbishop of Vienna, has written a powerful op-ed in the New York Times discussing Catholic views on Darwinism. Read his article below:
By CHRISTOPH SCHĂ–NBORN
Published: July 7, 2005
Vienna
EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
Skip to next paragraph
Forum: Op-Ed Contributors
But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:
"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."
He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."
Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity."
Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."
In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.
The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."
Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."
Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.
Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.
Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 9:09 AM
2 Comments:
I am always surprised at how many people believe in Darwinism because, as you pointed out "the whole mystery of life just can`t be explained by Darwinism." Also, the fossil record lacks corroboration.
Now, as to religion (I am a Christian), I don't require corroboration of my faith because faith is a matter of the soul. I trust God as the Creator and cannot plumb His wisdom.
The problem I have with teaching Darwinism as truth (and many schools do so) is that it reduces the spiritual significance of each human being.
Wonderful article, Tim. Thanks so much -- I have always marveled at the way that life is contrary to the laws of entropy -- it's mind boggling stuff, all right.
Post a Comment
<< Home