Hugh Owen interviewed on Athanasius Contra Mundum smashes Evolution

[audax]

http://athanasiuscm.org/2015/05/04/interview-011-hugh-owen-of-the-kolbe-center/

Another great interview from this site! Mr. Owen was extremely detailed and clear, and explained things scientifically that I have never heard.

[GloriaPatri]

Hugh Owen doesn't even have a credible degree in evolutionary biology. He has as much right to talk about evolution (let alone purport to "refute" it) as Richard Dawkins has to talk about theology.

[audax]

This is a logical fallacy, the appeal to authority. Can you show how any of the things he says are false?

[SouthpawLink]

This is a logical fallacy, the appeal to authority. Can you show how any of the things he says are false?

An appeal to authority is an informal fallacy which occurs only when the authority cited is not an authority on the subject, as appears to be the case here.  Either way, I'll listen to the interview later.

See here: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

[Quaremerepulisti]

2 1/2 hours??  Seriously??

I don't have time to listen to the whole thing.  Maybe you could provide a summary.

[Baldrick]

This is a logical fallacy, the appeal to authority. Can you show how any of the things he says are false?

An appeal to authority is an informal fallacy which occurs only when the authority cited is not an authority on the subject, as appears to be the case here.  Either way, I'll listen to the interview later.

See here: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

I don't see how an appeal to an authority could constitute an argument - even in the best of cases, i.e. if that authority is actually and veritably an authority. 

But even so, this misses the problem:  it's the very veracity of that authority that is often erroneously assumed to be shared. 

So, a person might cite Richard Dawkins as an authority on evolution - assuming, usually erroneously, that everyone else party to that discussion agrees that he is actually an authority.

So, really, the use of authority in an argument is question-begging at best.

[audax]

Quite correct, I was mistaken as to the logical fallacy. I couldn't remember which logical fallacy this was, and I named the wrong one. Guess I do need to go back and review all those, its been a long time!

Still I submit, if we were to say so and so can't talk about this because he doesn't have a piece of paper that says "PhD in Evolutionary Biology" we have destroyed science of philosophy and made philosophy of science redundant. Because reasonable people who study issues and understand them should be able to comment on their coherence, their evidence, and he does not need training in the field to make his criticisms/support of an issue, though he does need to understand the terminology and meanings within that discipline. Now if you said so and so is arguing a scientific discovery, but he has no applied science training, it is not wrong to hold his findings suspect until further inquiry.

In this case, we are talking about the advancement or rejection of a philosophical theory that we are told to believe on evidence x, y and z. One does not need a degree in this or that science to look at the evidence and draw the conclusions from it, particularly when he has the work of other scientists that he is referencing frequently. The question is not what his authority is, but rather whether what he says is true or false. Therefore I ask, what is Hugh Owen saying that is false?

Likewise, I grant Richard Dawkins the right to question and argue against God's existence. My rejection of his thesis is not based on the fact that he is a zoologist and not a Theologian, but that his arguments lack philosophical reasoning and and are incoherent, not to mention fail to address the issues.

[audax]

2 1/2 hours??  Seriously??

I don't have time to listen to the whole thing.  Maybe you could provide a summary.

It is broken into parts. His so-called "Mobile Version" also works on the computer. I downloaded the parts which are about 30 mins each and listened to them as I could.

[james03]

So, a person might cite Richard Dawkins as an authority on evolution - assuming, usually erroneously, that everyone else party to that discussion agrees that he is actually an authority.

Richard Dawkins is not an authority on evolution.  Anyone that has been trained in the incredibly outdated, obsolete "evolutionary biology" starts with negative qualifications.  They have been trained in evolution via Biochemistry, which is completely wrong.

Going forward experts in cellular biology will have to be experts in electrical charges, statics, mechanics, and thermodynamics.  In short, they will have to be experts in nano-engineering.  Of course, once you start treating cells correctly as nanotechnology, you will quickly renounce evolution.

A real world example in biology:  For 60 years biologists were aware of the Warburg effect in cancer cells, whereby cancer uses fermentation for energy.  However, science was stuck in the biochemical paradigm (Krebs cycle), and further believed that was all that was possible due to the ridiculous Hiesenburg Uncertainty Principle.  AFTER the nanotech revolution, when scientists realized that the "Krebs Cycle" biochemistry was actually alien nanotech called ATP synthase, or more properly, ATP fabrication machine, did they make progress.  With the new, realistic outlook, they discovered a drug called 3-BP.  This was only possible once the false previous "science" was discarded.  Evolutionists have yet to go through this transformation.  They are therefore quacks who have no understanding.

[LausTibiChriste]

So, a person might cite Richard Dawkins as an authority on evolution - assuming, usually erroneously, that everyone else party to that discussion agrees that he is actually an authority.

Richard Dawkins is not an authority on evolution.  Anyone that has been trained in the incredibly outdated, obsolete "evolutionary biology" starts with negative qualifications.  They have been trained in evolution via Biochemistry, which is completely wrong.

Going forward experts in cellular biology will have to be experts in electrical charges, statics, mechanics, and thermodynamics.  In short, they will have to be experts in nano-engineering.  Of course, once you start treating cells correctly as nanotechnology, you will quickly renounce evolution.

A real world example in biology:  For 60 years biologists were aware of the Warburg effect in cancer cells, whereby cancer uses fermentation for energy.  However, science was stuck in the biochemical paradigm (Krebs cycle), and further believed that was all that was possible due to the ridiculous Hiesenburg Uncertainty Principle.  AFTER the nanotech revolution, when scientists realized that the "Krebs Cycle" biochemistry was actually alien nanotech called ATP synthase, or more properly, ATP fabrication machine, did they make progress.  With the new, realistic outlook, they discovered a drug called 3-BP.  This was only possible once the false previous "science" was discarded.  Evolutionists have yet to go through this transformation.  They are therefore quacks who have no understanding.

You know a lot of stuff, man...Im impressed

[Quaremerepulisti]

Well at least judging by the webpage, it contains several boilerplate creationist Points Refuted A Thousand Times (PRATTs) like problems with radiometric dating, C-14 dating, the "myth" of vestigial organs, etc.

Of course one is entitled to deny evolution and a long age of the universe as a personal opinion, and argue for these on scientific grounds, but he is not free to condemn those who accept them as contrary to the Magisterium or Tradition when according to the Magisterium they are permitted opinions, as long as certain caveats regarding evolution are maintained.  To do so, especially without the necessary scientific background to properly weigh scientific claims, smacks of pride and self-will.

Moreover, to make ridiculous scientific claims with brash self-confidence invites the ridicule of unbelievers (irrisio infidelium) more well-educated in scientific matters, according to St. Augustine.  This is hindering the cause of the Gospel, not advancing it as this type of person seems to think.

[Daniel]

I just listened to this while driving to and from church today.  It's really good.  (Last year I actually saw him in-person presenting a longer version of this same material, but I didn't know who he was at the time.)

but he is not free to condemn those who accept them as contrary to the Magisterium or Tradition when according to the Magisterium they are permitted opinions, as long as certain caveats regarding evolution are maintained.

His point is, the Magisterium never granted Catholics permission to accept or to promote evolution.  According to him, permission was only given for studying the evidence for and against evolution, not for taking any position on it.  And the permission was only given to Catholic theologians, not to all Catholics.

[Quaremerepulisti]

I just listened to this while driving to and from church today.  It's really good. 

I'm sure it's got most of the Creationist PRATTs.   

His point is, the Magisterium never granted Catholics permission to accept or to promote evolution.  According to him, permission was only given for studying the evidence for and against evolution, not for taking any position on it.  And the permission was only given to Catholic theologians, not to all Catholics.

So, then, the Magisterium never forbade Catholics from accepting evolution.  Thanks for clearing that up.

[Daniel]

I'm sure it's got most of the Creationist PRATTs.   

Yes, it has the stuff that you call "PRATTs", but I've never seen them refuted and I don't see how calling them "PRATTs" somehow means that they aren't legitimate points.  Do you have a good summary of refutations?

So, then, the Magisterium never forbade Catholics from accepting evolution.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Why does the Magisterium need to explicitly forbid Catholics from accepting evolution?  I'm pretty sure that the Magisterium teaches (in that same document) that Catholics are not to depart from traditional Catholic teaching.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Yes, it has the stuff that you call "PRATTs", but I've never seen them refuted and I don't see how calling them "PRATTs" somehow means that they aren't legitimate points.  Do you have a good summary of refutations?

The talkorigins site has a pretty good summary.  They aren't Christian, but they aren't virulently anti-religious either.  For radiometric dating, here is a good summary of isochrons:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

Imagining that vestigial organs are a "myth" just because they do in fact have some sort of function is prima facie ridiculous, analogous to a broken computer being used as a doorstop alleged as "proof" that the broken computer is not in fact a broken computer.

Why does the Magisterium need to explicitly forbid Catholics from accepting evolution?  I'm pretty sure that the Magisterium teaches (in that same document) that Catholics are not to depart from traditional Catholic teaching.

Because that's how the Church works.  We aren't free, on our own, to judge what is heresy and error and what is not.

35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

The clear import of this is that the Catholic faith does not oblige us to hold the origin of the human body (unlike the soul) was not taken from pre-existent and living matter - for otherwise, the teaching authority of the Church would in fact forbid such discussions - and such discussions were forbidden regarding polygenism, about which the children of the Church did not "enjoy such liberty".  The clear conclusion is that if the "conjectural opinion' about the origin of the human body were "directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God", then the demand for its recognition could "in no way be admitted" - which is completely incongruent with "research and discussions" being conducted.

Moreover, nothing whatsoever is said about evolution of lower animals, nor has anything ever been said.