https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2WVcNbDAD0&t=11s
Wherein Fr Ripperger discuses how freemasonry promoted Darwin and his philosophical suppositions in order to use evolution as a vehicle for social engineering
His arguments are extremely weak. The fact that evil people made use of evolution for their ends doesn't prove it wrong. Even many of his fellow Thomists accept evolution, at least some limited version of it. The claim that evolution is purely philosophical in origin and not based on any empirical evidence whatsoever is especially laughable.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 26, 2018, 08:25:01 PM
at least some limited version of it.
Evolution is, or it is not.
It is not tho.
What a coincidence, HR. I just happened myself to listen to this very wonderful talk last night.
The reason that so many modernists in and out of the Church have such a poor understanding of God as the ultimate context and sustainer of the natural world is that they were never properly educated in the very philosophy from which orthodox Catholic teaching proceeds. This is the key point of Fr. Ripperger's talk, as you know.
Creatures do not determine their own development. That's an absurdity and a contradiction on its face.
In addition, the marvels of creation can inspire only humility and awe in men receptive and perceptive enough to recognize the divine Engineer and Architect behind the integrated systems of each species, each habitat, and the combination of habitats. Not an accident, not spontaneous, not random, and certainly not caused by creatures themselves. If so, animals are gods, which is just another absurdity.
Amen Miriam, amen
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 27, 2018, 02:30:25 AM
What a coincidence, HR. I just happened myself to listen to this very wonderful talk last night.
The reason that so many modernists in and out of the Church have such a poor understanding of God as the ultimate context and sustainer of the natural world is that they were never properly educated in the very philosophy from which orthodox Catholic teaching proceeds. This is the key point of Fr. Ripperger's talk, as you know.
Creatures do not determine their own development. That's an absurdity and a contradiction on its face.
In addition, the marvels of creation can inspire only humility and awe in men receptive and perceptive enough to recognize the divine Engineer and Architect behind the integrated systems of each species, each habitat, and the combination of habitats. Not an accident, not spontaneous, not random, and certainly not caused by creatures themselves. If so, animals are gods, which is just another absurdity.
That's all fine. It has nothing whatsoever to do with theistic evolution though.
One of the problems with Fr. Ripperger's critique and many common critiques is working with an outmoded understanding of species. Evolutionary theory does not claim that at any point an animal gave birth to an offspring of a different species. People think that this is what is required for the development of new species. It is not however. The problem arises from thinking of species in such rigidly essentialist terms. Once we reject this underlying assumption however, much of Father's philosophical arguments fall apart.
Another common way of speaking, that unfortunately and surprisingly Fr. Ripperger seems to fall into, is regarding the nature of God's act of creation. God is the creative cause of everything that exists, without exception (and this includes all events with the possible exception of human and angelic choices, a topic for another time). This means that God cannot, strictly speaking, intervene in the course of natural history since he is already fully present. It is like asking whether or not an author can intervene in her story. The upshot of this is that theists who hold that evolution took place need not, and in fact, ought not, be committed to the idea that God intervenes from time to time in order to bring about changes in species. So to criticize this view is to attack a straw-man.
Two more points.
First, Aquinas does think , and Scripture seems to affirm, that animal death would have occurred even if man had not sinned. In fact, a straightforward reading of Scripture and the consensus of theologians is that even humans were naturally subject to bodily death but that immortality was a preternatural gift.
Second, the continued effort among certain traditionalists to critique evolution in spite of overwhelming scientific consensus is detrimental to the Faith. To paraphrase St. Augustine, if we speak foolishly about scientific matters which are within the scope of human reason, how much more will people not take us seriously when we speak about mysteries which are beyond the scope of human reason?
Quote from: TomD on November 27, 2018, 11:12:01 AM
One of the problems with Fr. Ripperger's critique and many common critiques is working with an outmoded understanding of species. Evolutionary theory does not claim that at any point an animal gave birth to an offspring of a different species. People think that this is what is required for the development of new species. It is not however. The problem arises from thinking of species in such rigidly essentialist terms. Once we reject this underlying assumption however, much of Father's philosophical arguments fall apart.
Another common way of speaking, that unfortunately and surprisingly Fr. Ripperger seems to fall into, is regarding the nature of God's act of creation. God is the creative cause of everything that exists, without exception (and this includes all events with the possible exception of human and angelic choices, a topic for another time). This means that God cannot, strictly speaking, intervene in the course of natural history since he is already fully present. It is like asking whether or not an author can intervene in her story. The upshot of this is that theists who hold that evolution took place need not, and in fact, ought not, be committed to the idea that God intervenes from time to time in order to bring about changes in species. So to criticize this view is to attack a straw-man.
Um... what?
Then how does Species A become Species B? At some point, even over time, there must be a demarcation point where Species A gives a biological, generational rise (read: birth) to Species B.
Quote from: Gardener on November 27, 2018, 06:32:01 PM
Um... what?
Then how does Species A become Species B? At some point, even over time, there must be a demarcation point where Species A gives a biological, generational rise (read: birth) to Species B.
You say "there must be a demarcation point where species A gives...rise to species B" But this is not true. This treats "species" like equivalence classes, the way Aristotle and common sense might use the term. But biology does not use "species" like this.
One way that biology treats "species" among animals that reproduce sexually is that two animals are of the same species when they can produce fertile offspring. But if two animals, A and A' can produce fertile offspring B and B', and B and A would be able to produce fertile offspring, it follows that B and A are of the same species. But now B and B' produce C and C'. It may very well be the case that C and C' are capable of producing fertile offspring with B but not with A. On this understanding of species, C is of the same species as B but not as A. A is also of the same species as B. That said, this definition of "species" is not perfect. But we have to remember that scientists use the term according to what is useful for classification, not in order to discover some metaphysical reality.
Now you may think "fine I am using "species" differently than biologists, but how I am using the term, it implies evolution is false." But we have to be careful not to equivocate. If you are using "species" in a way that implies evolution is false, then you would have to show that this use of the term actually describes reality rather than some hypothetical set of creatures. And in that case, you cannot merely stipulate that two organisms are of distinct species, as this would beg the question. Moreover, you cannot use the classification of biologists as evidence that two organisms in the alleged evolutionary chain are distinct species because the way you are using the term is different than biologists. Hence you would be equivocating, using the biologist's "species" to show two things are of a distinct species and then using your own "species" to generate an argument against evolution.
Quote from: TomD on November 27, 2018, 11:12:01 AM
One of the problems with Fr. Ripperger's critique and many common critiques is working with an outmoded understanding of species.
do tell.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 27, 2018, 08:03:21 PM
Quote from: TomD on November 27, 2018, 11:12:01 AM
One of the problems with Fr. Ripperger's critique and many common critiques is working with an outmoded understanding of species.
do tell.
See my comment above. But basically, they are working with a notion of species such that if parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise.
Quote from: TomD on November 27, 2018, 07:22:09 PM
One way that biology treats "species" among animals that reproduce sexually is that two animals are of the same species when they can produce fertile offspring. But if two animals, A and A' can produce fertile offspring B and B', and B and A would be able to produce fertile offspring, it follows that B and A are of the same species. But now B and B' produce C and C'. It may very well be the case that C and C' are capable of producing fertile offspring with B but not with A. On this understanding of species, C is of the same species as B but not as A. A is also of the same species as B. That said, this definition of "species" is not perfect. But we have to remember that scientists use the term according to what is useful for classification, not in order to discover some metaphysical reality.
What a load of old baffle-gab.
How about you provide us with some observed real-world examples of A and C not being able to reproduce.
Quote from: TomD on November 27, 2018, 08:25:21 PM
But basically, they are working with a notion of species such that if parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise.
By 'notion' I presume you mean that which we currently observe in nature?
Yes. Works for me as a definition
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 27, 2018, 08:30:36 PM
Quote from: TomD on November 27, 2018, 08:25:21 PM
But basically, they are working with a notion of species such that if parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise.
By 'notion' I presume you mean that which we currently observe in nature?
Yes. Works for me as a definition
Well I wasn't here giving a definition but the relevant entailment of the understanding of "species" that is common among critics of evolution and I think is implicit in Father Ripperger's presentation.
The problem is that many people use that entailment as a premise in an argument against evolution:
1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life
2) Evolutionary theory states that new species do arise from preexisting life.
3) Therefore, evolutionary theory entails parents do not always give rise to offspring of the same species
4) But a cause cannot give what it does not have to give, therefore it is impossible that parents give rise to offspring of a different species.
5) Consequently evolution is false
This argument however is problematic since (1) is working with an understanding of species that is different from what modern biologists are working with.
Quote from: TomD on November 27, 2018, 11:44:35 PM
This argument however is problematic since (1) is working with an understanding of species that is different from what modern biologists are working with.
The argument is only 'problematic' if one has already philosophically embedded oneself with one theory over another, and are closed to alternatives. And the operative word here is 'theory'
Also, the definition of species has changed over time and will likely continue to do so. It is a conveniently flexible idea that is often directionally bent to support a particular ideology.
In reality, observed nature proves Fr R's contention.
And many evolutionists promote a rather erroneous definition of species based on geography, not biology. An example I have often seen is a type of bird (for example) that becomes separated into two or more groups by mountains or island hopping. The fact they no longer interbreed, as result of geography, gets the new groups a separate species designation. This is an obviously desperate and absurd attempt to prove speciation under observation.
Quote
In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank, as well as a unit of biodiversity, but it has proven difficult to find a satisfactory definition [That proves speciation anyhow] Scientists and conservationists need a species definition which allows them to work, regardless of the theoretical difficulties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
So F R's definition is a working one, based on natural observation and philosophical considerations. Nothing more. Perfectly legitimate
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 28, 2018, 09:41:41 AM
Quote
In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank, as well as a unit of biodiversity, but it has proven difficult to find a satisfactory definition [That proves speciation anyhow] Scientists and conservationists need a species definition which allows them to work, regardless of the theoretical difficulties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
So F R's definition is a working one, based on natural observation and philosophical considerations. Nothing more. Perfectly legitimate
There is no problem using a working definition of species if the conclusion is conditional. For instance, if Father Ripperger concluded "If species is defined as X, then evolution cannot occur." But in order for Fr. R to show that evolution is false, he needs to prove the antecedent, it cannot merely be stipulated. But in order to prove the antecedent, he would have to show that the definition of species he is using actually describes some sort of reality, i.e. it describes the diversity of biological life.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 28, 2018, 09:07:37 AM
Quote from: TomD on November 27, 2018, 11:44:35 PM
This argument however is problematic since (1) is working with an understanding of species that is different from what modern biologists are working with.
The argument is only 'problematic' if one has already philosophically embedded oneself with one theory over another, and are closed to alternatives. And the operative word here is 'theory'
Also, the definition of species has changed over time and will likely continue to do so. It is a conveniently flexible idea that is often directionally bent to support a particular ideology.
In reality, observed nature proves Fr R's contention.
Father and many argues are using this kind of argument against evolution:
1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life
2) Evolutionary theory states that new species do arise from preexisting life.
3) Therefore, evolutionary theory entails parents do not always give rise to offspring of the same species
4) But a cause cannot give what it does not have to give, therefore it is impossible that parents give rise to offspring of a different species.
5) Consequently evolution is false
I think it is helpful if we disambiguate between two uses of the term "species" since there is equivocation going on. For this argument to work, the use of "species" in (1), (2), and (4) has to be the same. So regardless of which definition you think is "right," or even which is accepted in science, the important point is that the understanding must be
consistent throughout the argument otherwise its an equivocation.
Here is the problem: suppose Father is working with an outmoded (according to modern biology) definition of species but that he thinks it has philosophical support. Fine. Call it "species*." Now, on this definition species are like equivalence classes so (1) is true. And let's concede Father Ripperger is correct about (4) as well on philosophical grounds. The problem is that the following is (2) is not true using species*. Evolutionary theory
does not claim that "new
species* do arise from preexisting life." Rather, proponents of evolutionary theory are working with a different understanding of species, call it species**. And while "new
species** do arise from preexisting life" is true, it is an equivocation to say that species* = species**.
But now, suppose critics of evolution decide to use species** as their working definition. But if that is the case, then (1) is false. Since species** does not treat species like equivalence classes, it is entirely possible that the antecedent of (1) is true but its consequent is false.
Do you see the problem here?
Fr R wisely does not use any of the shifting scientific definitions (they all become outmoded in time) when he uses the word species. In his book, The Metaphysics of Evolution, he defines his use of species thusly:
The subdivision of a genus constituted by the specific difference; common nature or essence; counter-distinguished from genus
This fixed quality to Father's definition is the opposite of that used today, and certainly more satisfying and reliable in terms of what is observed.
Of course this baffle-gab surrounding the meaning of words is how modernists and evolutionary proponents keep the sands ever shifting to avoid the hard observable realities.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 28, 2018, 10:27:29 AM
Fr R wisely does not use any of the shifting scientific definitions (they all become outmoded in time) when he uses the word species. In his book, The Metaphysics of Evolution, he defines his use of species thusly:
The subdivision of a genus constituted by the specific difference; common nature or essence; counter-distinguished from genus
This fixed quality to Father's definition is the opposite of that used today, and certainly more satisfying and reliable in terms of what is observed.
Of course this baffle-gab surrounding the meaning of words is how modernists and evolutionary proponents keep the sands ever shifting to avoid the hard observable realities.
Okay but even if you think his definition is the 100% most useful and perfectly correct, etc. it
does not follow that his critique of evolution is valid. See my previous post. He still, in using this definition of species, is not speaking in the same language as modern science and therefore he commits the fallacy of equivocation in his argument against evolution.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 27, 2018, 08:28:33 PM
What a load of old baffle-gab.
How about you provide us with some observed real-world examples of A and C not being able to reproduce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Remember, though, that you are on the side of truth and intellectual honesty is optional. Never, ever admit your opponents have answered any of your objections but move the goalposts, as far the opposite end zone and into the locker room if necessary.
What is the support for this though:
Quote from: TomD4) But a cause cannot give what it does not have to give, therefore it is impossible that parents give rise to offspring of a different species.
Granted, Fr. R might be equivocating on the meaning of "species" but there is still an argument to be made if there is
some definition of "species" for which the following applies: there is more than one species alive today, all life descended from a single common ancestor (obviously only one species) as evolutionary theory has it, and parents cannot produce an offspring of a different species.
But clearly in the inanimate world chemical elements combine to produce different "species" - e.g. hydrogen has the potential to transform into water, mother isotopes have the potential to transform into daughters, etc. What is the argument that this is not the case in the animal world?
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 28, 2018, 01:53:05 PM
What is the support for this though:
Quote from: TomD4) But a cause cannot give what it does not have to give, therefore it is impossible that parents give rise to offspring of a different species.
Granted, Fr. R might be equivocating on the meaning of "species" but there is still an argument to be made if there is some definition of "species" for which the following applies: there is more than one species alive today, all life descended from a single common ancestor (obviously only one species) as evolutionary theory has it, and parents cannot produce an offspring of a different species.
But clearly in the inanimate world chemical elements combine to produce different "species" - e.g. hydrogen has the potential to transform into water, mother isotopes have the potential to transform into daughters, etc. What is the argument that this is not the case in the animal world?
I am not Father Ripperger so I am not sure what line of reasoning he would take to support premise (4). Perhaps it too is false and his critique of evolution is problematic from that philosophical angle as well. I just wanted to bring up that Fr. is working with an outmoded understanding of species, one different from what modern biology uses.
And if he or his defenders insisted that his definition of species was workable in spite of it being largely outmoded,
his critique of evolution still fails because it would still rest on an equivocation. I also don't agree that he has an argument if there is some definition of species that "there is more than one species alive today, all life descended from a single common ancestor (obviously only one species) as evolutionary theory has it, and parents cannot produce an offspring of a different species." Even if there is some such definition of species, it would have to be one that renders (1) and (4) true. Now, he and his defenders might argue that (4) is true based on some specific Aristotilean understanding of "species." But this does not mean it is true on
any understanding in which "there is more than one species alive today...etc."
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 28, 2018, 01:23:59 PM
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 27, 2018, 08:28:33 PM
What a load of old baffle-gab.
How about you provide us with some observed real-world examples of A and C not being able to reproduce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Remember, though, that you are on the side of truth and intellectual honesty is optional. Never, ever admit your opponents have answered any of your objections but move the goalposts, as far the opposite end zone and into the locker room if necessary.
Ring species as a notion, is pure supposition. What we are in fact dealing with are different kinds/species of similar animal. Nothing more. The fact that genetic material is shared is to be expected, but irrelevant. We,after all, share DNA with pumpkins and snails. As this wiki link itself states:
QuoteMany examples have been documented in nature. Debate exists concerning much of the research, with some authors citing evidence against their existence entirely
Ring Species are not a thing
There are no ring species
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-species/
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 29, 2018, 07:21:42 AM
There are no ring species
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-species/
I realize you are not replying to my comment with this post, but I still want to point out that regardless of any of this, Father Ripperger's critique of evolution cannot even get off the ground because it rests on an equivocation.
Quote from: TomD on November 29, 2018, 07:40:27 AM
Father Ripperger's critique of evolution cannot even get off the ground because it rests on an equivocation.
No, it doesn't
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 29, 2018, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: TomD on November 29, 2018, 07:40:27 AM
Father Ripperger's critique of evolution cannot even get off the ground because it rests on an equivocation.
No, it doesn't
You can't just say "no it doesn't." This is a mere assertion. I explained how he equivocates in previous comments, and you don't even address that charge. To simply deny it without addressing the issue is to practically concede the point.
Quote from: TomD on November 29, 2018, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 29, 2018, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: TomD on November 29, 2018, 07:40:27 AM
Father Ripperger's critique of evolution cannot even get off the ground because it rests on an equivocation.
No, it doesn't
You can't just say "no it doesn't."
"That which is gratuitously asserted, may be gratuitously denied."
Quote from: Maximilian on November 29, 2018, 09:08:04 PM
Quote from: TomD on November 29, 2018, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 29, 2018, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: TomD on November 29, 2018, 07:40:27 AM
Father Ripperger's critique of evolution cannot even get off the ground because it rests on an equivocation.
No, it doesn't
You can't just say "no it doesn't."
"That which is gratuitously asserted, may be gratuitously denied."
I really hate to be snarky like this on a Christian forum, but are you serious? Did you bother to read any of the posts. Because I explained in detail why this is an equivocation. So it was hardly a gratuitous assertion. If you disagree with my reasoning, fine. But anybody who even bothered to look at this debate can see there was no gratuitous assertion on my part.
Quote from: TomD on November 29, 2018, 09:21:33 PM
I really hate to be snarky like this on a Christian forum, but are you serious?
You "really hate to be snarky," but you know, someone's got to do it, so you roll up your sleeves and get down to it.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 29, 2018, 10:30:34 PM
Quote from: TomD on November 29, 2018, 09:21:33 PM
I really hate to be snarky like this on a Christian forum, but are you serious?
You "really hate to be snarky," but you know, someone's got to do it, so you roll up your sleeves and get down to it.
When it is warranted it is warranted. My argument from my posts regarding Father Ripperger's equivocation stands.
Quote from: TomD on November 28, 2018, 02:02:28 PM
I am not Father Ripperger so I am not sure what line of reasoning he would take to support premise (4). Perhaps it too is false and his critique of evolution is problematic from that philosophical angle as well. I just wanted to bring up that Fr. is working with an outmoded understanding of species, one different from what modern biology uses.
And if he or his defenders insisted that his definition of species was workable in spite of it being largely outmoded, his critique of evolution still fails because it would still rest on an equivocation.
I also don't agree that he has an argument if there is some definition of species that "there is more than one species alive today, all life descended from a single common ancestor (obviously only one species) as evolutionary theory has it, and parents cannot produce an offspring of a different species." Even if there is some such definition of species, it would have to be one that renders (1) and (4) true. Now, he and his defenders might argue that (4) is true based on some specific Aristotilean understanding of "species." But this does not mean it is true on any understanding in which "there is more than one species alive today...etc."
The actual difference between you and Father Ripperger is that his utterances, understandings, and premises are Catholic at their foundation, whereas yours clearly are not, no matter what your user identifier says here.
I do understand him and recognize his explanation of the order of the universe as traditionally Catholic, not modernistic Catholic. I listened to Part 2 as well. I think it's this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52678iaRarI
Accirding to TomD Fr Rippergers reasoning doesnt seem to hold water. Would be nice if anyone could come to his defence. If not, then he should work on his arguments a little more..
How should he work with the "new understanding of species"?
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 30, 2018, 02:13:52 AM
The actual difference between you and Father Ripperger is that his utterances, understandings, and premises are Catholic at their foundation, whereas yours clearly are not, no matter what your user identifier says here.
I do understand him and recognize his explanation of the order of the universe as traditionally Catholic, not modernistic Catholic. I listened to Part 2 as well. I think it's this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52678iaRarI
1. My "understandings, premises, etc" are not "Catholic at their foundation?" I have been arguing Father Ripperger commits the fallacy of equivocation. This is a matter of objective facts about his use of terms, it has
nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic philosophy.
2. Maybe you are simply referring to my comment in response to Quare regarding what I list as premise (4) of Father's argument. If that is the case, then there are two problems. First, it is a red herring since my problem with Father Ripperger does not have to do with whether or not he can give an argument for premise (4). As I said, I do not know whether or not that that premise is true but it wasn't the point of my argument.
Second, before you go implying that I should not use the tag "Catholic" on my profile, could you please point me to where the Church definitively taught (4) as a matter of faith? If you can't, then you should retract what you said. It is slanderous and it is also misleading to those who might come across this site and be interested in the faith. Slander and misleading people about the requirements of faith are hardly "Catholic at their foundation." No?
Quote from: Sempronius on November 30, 2018, 08:06:32 AM
Accirding to TomD Fr Rippergers reasoning doesnt seem to hold water. Would be nice if anyone could come to his defence. If not, then he should work on his arguments a little more..
How should he work with the "new understanding of species"?
The real issue though is not working with the "new understanding of species." See the problem is that regardless of what you think of any concept of species, Father Ripperger is using a different understanding than proponents of evolution. Therefore, to criticize evolution on
its terms by employing
his as the foundation of the argument, is precisely to commit the fallacy of equivocation. (I lay this out more explicitly in my previous comment where I number the premises of what I take his argument to be).
Tom, you seem unaware that evolution errs in so many spheres, not just the scientific. And F R's use of the term 'species' is essentially what most people understand it as being, despite the slippery, shifting, and ever changing definitions that science itself cannot seem to agree upon. You cannot be equivocal about something that refuses to define itself in any kind of settled sense.
Quote from: TomD on November 30, 2018, 08:59:59 AM
Quote from: Sempronius on November 30, 2018, 08:06:32 AM
Accirding to TomD Fr Rippergers reasoning doesnt seem to hold water. Would be nice if anyone could come to his defence. If not, then he should work on his arguments a little more..
How should he work with the "new understanding of species"?
The real issue though is not working with the "new understanding of species." See the problem is that regardless of what you think of any concept of species, Father Ripperger is using a different understanding than proponents of evolution. Therefore, to criticize evolution on its terms by employing his as the foundation of the argument, is precisely to commit the fallacy of equivocation. (I lay this out more explicitly in my previous comment where I number the premises of what I take his argument to be).
uh, how is he meant to disprove evolution after he accepts a definition of species that includes evolution
Evolution is nothing more than a philosophy of nature, wrapped precariously in vague, non-committal scientific jargon. Fr R has one philosophy of nature, Tom and Q have another. That's all she wrote.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 28, 2018, 01:23:59 PM
Never, ever admit your opponents have answered any of your objections
Still waiting for that to happen in any kind of verifiable and final sense. You see, what you and others of your ilk fail to understand is that science is not, and has never been, a relevant vehicle for determining the truth. It is a philosophical category error to believe so. I await your retraction and apology regarding the myth of ring species and hubristric claims to truth on this matter.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 30, 2018, 06:33:38 PM
Tom, you seem unaware that evolution errs in so many spheres, not just the scientific. And F R's use of the term 'species' is essentially what most people understand it as being, despite the slippery, shifting, and ever changing definitions that science itself cannot seem to agree upon. You cannot be equivocal about something that refuses to define itself in any kind of settled sense.
1. I do not agree that evolution errs in "so many spheres." Again, to simply state this without an argument is a mere assertion. Moreover, regardless of what spheres it errs in, I am not here to discuss every aspect of evolution. I gave a comment listing two problems with Father Ripperger's critique of evolution. My points stand even if evolution never happened.
2. A minor point regarding evolutionary biology: it doesn't matter if the definition of "species" is shifting, or not agreed upon, etc. You seem to think that proponents of one definition are trying to make some major metaphysical point. This is a serious misunderstanding of what science is even attempting. "Species" is being used as a useful classification tool to talk about what we observe in nature.
3. Regarding your sentence "F R's use of the term...cannot seem to agree upon." Notice: you seem to
admit that Father and evolution are using two different understandings of species. But this is
exactly why he is equivocating.
Rather than simply stomp your feet and
say he's not equivocating, you should
show why he isn't. On page 2, I wrote out what I take to be Father's argument against evolution, a valid argument with 4 premises. Then, I proceeded to explain how he equivocates. And I will say it again:
it does not matter if Father's understanding of "species" is better than modern biology. What matters, for if he is equivocating, is whether or not he is using
the same definition of species throughout all of his premises. I explain how he implicitly is using two different understandings of species in premises (1) &(4) and (2). By admitting evolution is working with a different understanding of species, you are basically conceding this point.
Quote from: Graham on November 30, 2018, 07:53:06 PM
Quote from: TomD on November 30, 2018, 08:59:59 AM
Quote from: Sempronius on November 30, 2018, 08:06:32 AM
Accirding to TomD Fr Rippergers reasoning doesnt seem to hold water. Would be nice if anyone could come to his defence. If not, then he should work on his arguments a little more..
How should he work with the "new understanding of species"?
The real issue though is not working with the "new understanding of species." See the problem is that regardless of what you think of any concept of species, Father Ripperger is using a different understanding than proponents of evolution. Therefore, to criticize evolution on its terms by employing his as the foundation of the argument, is precisely to commit the fallacy of equivocation. (I lay this out more explicitly in my previous comment where I number the premises of what I take his argument to be).
uh, how is he meant to disprove evolution after he accepts a definition of species that includes evolution
He just has to use the same definition of "species" throughout his argument, otherwise it is the definition of an equivocation fallacy.
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 08:48:44 AM
He just has to use the same definition
Same as what?
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 08:46:39 AM
My points stand even if evolution never happened.
Your points fall because there is no fixed usage of the word 'species' in science that satisfies all parties. Hence why Father does not use a purely scientific definition. None exists that is fixed or definite.
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 08:46:39 AM
3. Regarding your sentence "F R's use of the term...cannot seem to agree upon." Notice: you seem to admit that Father and evolution are using two different understandings of species. But this is exactly why he is equivocating.
Only if one believes truth lies in neither definition . At which point we are only playing semantic games.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 09:00:41 AM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 08:48:44 AM
He just has to use the same definition
Same as what?
The same definition in each of his premises. Otherwise, it is the fallacy of equivocation
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 09:08:28 AM
The same definition in each of his premises. Otherwise, it is the fallacy of equivocation
And you believe this to be the case why precisely?
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 09:05:18 AM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 08:46:39 AM
3. Regarding your sentence "F R's use of the term...cannot seem to agree upon." Notice: you seem to admit that Father and evolution are using two different understandings of species. But this is exactly why he is equivocating.
Only if one believes truth lies in neither definition . At which point we are only playing semantic games.
No that is not the case. Whether or not Father commits the fallacy of equivocation has nothing to do with whether or not any particular definition of "species" is
true. It only matters that his definition is
consistent across all of his premises. I have explained why it is not in my comment where I list his premises numbered 1-5.
I have to ask, do you know what the fallacy of equivocation is? Because for you to keep harping on which definition of "species" is better or correct, etc. suggests to me you are misunderstanding what I am saying. It doesn't matter which is correct. It matters that Father uses the same definition in each of his premises. This is something I argue he does not do. And you have not even tried to argue otherwise.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 09:10:04 AM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 09:08:28 AM
The same definition in each of his premises. Otherwise, it is the fallacy of equivocation
And you believe this to be the case why precisely?
Because otherwise, he commits a fallacy of equivocation by definition. Again, see my most recent comment, but do you know what the fallacy of equivocation is? The way this discussion is going leads me to believe you don't.
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 09:14:01 AM
Because otherwise, he commits a fallacy of equivocation by definition. Again, see my most recent comment, but do you know what the fallacy of equivocation is? The way this discussion is going leads me to believe you don't.
Show us where Father changes his definitions. Point this out in terms of minutes into the video, please and thank you.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 09:16:37 AM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 09:14:01 AM
Because otherwise, he commits a fallacy of equivocation by definition. Again, see my most recent comment, but do you know what the fallacy of equivocation is? The way this discussion is going leads me to believe you don't.
Show us where Father changes his definitions. Point this out in terms of minutes into the video, please and thank you.
You're creating a moving target rather than addressing any of my arguments. On page 2 of this thread, I gave a representation of what I take to be one of Father's criticisms of evolution (the one he gives after about minute 35).
That presentation is either an accurate representation of Father's argument or it is not. If it is, then we need not go searching in the video. I explained why he equivocates, and that is sufficient for this discussion. You seem completely unwilling to address that actual argument for some reason.
If on the other hand you think I have misrepresented Father's argument, could you explain what argument he is actually giving? Maybe I misunderstand him, but if that is the case, show me.
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 09:35:34 AM
You're creating a moving target rather than addressing any of my arguments.
Your arguments are based entirely on the claim that Father R changes his definitions. This is what equivocation entails. We can go no further until this is established as fact. Take your time. We will wait.
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 09:35:34 AM
If on the other hand you think I have misrepresented Father's argument, could you explain what argument he is actually giving? Maybe I misunderstand him, but if that is the case, show me.
Well, for starters, the video is about Freemasonry and its promotion of evolutionary theory as a vehicle for social change. You are entirety off topic on that score. The semantics around the word 'species' have no bearing on the topic in the video
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 09:40:11 AM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 09:35:34 AM
You're creating a moving target rather than addressing any of my arguments.
Your arguments are based entirely on the claim that Father R changes his definitions. This is what equivocation entails. We can go no further until this is established as fact. Take your time. We will wait.
Again, you are moving the target. First, just to get this out of the way, I know that the argument I am criticizing is not the main point of his talk. But why am I confined to discussing his main point? I am criticizing the argument Father gives towards the end because it is a common argument among opponents of evolution. Now that that is out of the way...
You seem to be unable to address any point I make. We can go no further until you actually engage in an argument...but, regardless of your selective quotation of my replies, I gave you, on page 2, a numbered representation of the argument I think Father Ripperger is making regarding evolution. In the same comment and in subsequent ones I explain how he changes his definition of "species" between premises (1)/(4) and premise (2). Then, you asked for where in the video. In my most recent comment I stated that the argument I am trying to represent is the one Fr. gives at around 37:00 and following.
You therefore have two options:
1) accept that I am accurately representing Father's argument in my comment on page 2.
or
2) Deny that I am.
If you think (1) is right, then stop dancing around this whole discussion and let's address the issue I have been trying to address this entirely thread: that argument is an equivocation. I have explained precisely why I am making that claim. If you disagree, show me how I am wrong.
If you think (2) is right, then show me how my construction of Father's argument on page 2 is a misrepresentation. Perhaps I have misunderstood him.
Again, we cannot proceed until you are actually willing to engage with one of these options. Take your time, we will wait.
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 10:03:34 AM
Again, you are moving the target.
Otherwise known as confirming the original claim. We must confirm the equivocation first and foremost. That, after the all is the sole basis of your 'argument' or whatever.
I cannot 'accept' an argument, Prima facie, that requires confirmation of the fact of equivocation. Obviously . If you cannot prove your claim then there is simply nothing to argue. We need at least 1 confirmed example of Father using widely divergent definitions to give credence to the claim of equivocation .
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 10:14:09 AM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 10:03:34 AM
Again, you are moving the target.
Otherwise known as confirming the original claim. We must confirm the equivocation first and foremost. That, after the all is the sole basis of your 'argument' or whatever.
I cannot 'accept' an argument, Prima facie, that requires confirmation of the fact of equivocation. Obviously . If you cannot prove your claim then there is simply nothing to argue.
You are selectively reading and quoting my responses. And you are unwilling to answer what I am saying. See my most recent comment. I explain why I think there is an equivocation (or at least refer back to previous comments where said explanation can be found and I explain
exactly what responses are available to you. Did you not see this comment? Did you choose to ignore it? We could proceed with this discussion if you would just address what I said
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 10:23:45 AM
You are selectively reading and quoting my responses.
Not at all. I am proving to you that I understand what it means to be equivocal. Now I need you to also prove that you understand the word by showing us, explicitly, where Father has equivocated . That's all. We are simply trying to establish that most fundamental fact needed to proceed.
Now, I understand that you are not satisfied with Father's definition, but that does not equal equivocation.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 10:23:45 AM
You are selectively reading and quoting my responses.
Not at all. I am proving to you that I understand what it means to be equivocal. Now I need you to also prove that you understand the word by showing us, explicitly, where Father has equivocated . That's all. We are simply trying to establish that most fundamental fact needed to proceed.
Again, why are you ignoring my comment? I explained exactly how and where I think the equivocation happens. And you are just ignoring this. Either deny that I am accurately representing Father's argument or show how my construction of the argument is not an equivocation.
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 10:36:18 AM
I explained exactly how and where I think the equivocation happens.
But you didn't
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 11:04:21 AM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 10:36:18 AM
I explained exactly how and where I think the equivocation happens.
But you didn't
You are
simply ignoring virtually everything I am saying in these comments. You can't just say "you didn't" when you won't even
bother to address the majority of what I am actually saying. So let me make this very clear once again:
At roughly 37:00 in the video, Father Ripperger gives a brief critique of evolution. It was this critique which prompted me to make my original comment because that critique is common among opponents of evolution.
On page 2 of this thread, comment #16 I give a construction on what I think is Father's argument here. Although I touch on it in each of my responses, I explain directly and explicitly why the argument is an equivocation in #21 on the same page. In further responses on this thread, I elaborate on and reaffirm precisely the claim I am making yet no one addresses the equivocation I am trying to point out.
Now, given this, there are only two options you can take (logically speaking). Either, (i) accept that my construction of Father's argument in 16 and 21 is an accurate representation of what he is in fact saying, or (ii) deny that I am accurately representing his critique. I make this exact point in my most recent comment and in reply #57 on the previous page. You are still ignoring this point.
If you take option (i), then fine. This entire morning's back and forth was irrelevant since we both agree that the construction of Father's argument in #16 and 21 is accurate. In that case, I stand by what I have been saying. That argument rests on an equivocation. If you disagree, then let's argue about it. Show me why my reasoning in #21 is faulty.
On the other hand, if you take option (ii), fine. Show me how my construction in #16 and 21 is an inaccurate representation of Father's argument. Then, if the accurate construction is agreed on, we can see if an equivocation remains.
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 10:03:34 AM
I stated that the argument I am trying to represent is the one Fr. gives at around 37:00 and following.
Father does not give a definition of species at 37 minutes or following. He is discussing the principal of continuity as it applies in nature, '
like begets like', are the words he uses. This is not a principle of categorization, which is the function of the word 'species'. This is a statement of objective reality based in philosophical principles. It transcends scientific linguistic tools related to categorization. These words are being used by Father in the context of a discussion surrounding theistic evolutionary proponents . Where is the equivocation?
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 11:18:54 AM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 10:03:34 AM
I stated that the argument I am trying to represent is the one Fr. gives at around 37:00 and following.
Father does not give a definition of species at 37 minutes or following. He is discussing the principal of continuity as it applies in nature, 'like begets like', are the words he uses. This is not a principle of categorization, which is the function of the word 'species'. This is a statement of objective reality based in philosophical principles. It transcends scientific linguistic tools related to categorization. These words are being used by Father in the context of a discussion surrounding theistic evolutionary proponents . Where is the equivocation?
1. I never said he gave a definition of species. I said his premises relied on a certain understanding of species that is different from the way that modern biology understands species. And this is why the concept of "species" employed in premise (1) and (4) of my rendition is different from that in (2), meaning, if my reconstruction of his argument is accurate, there is an equivocation
2. "like begets like" is the phrase he uses when he is discussing a criticism of evolution. I take it that his discussion surrounding this phrase in the video forms the basis of what I am listing as premise (1) and (4).
3. You ask "where is the equivocation?" So I will answer once again: I think that the construction I give in comments 16 and 21 is an accurate representation of what Father is trying to say at this point in the video (of course, he does not give a list of numbered premises, but I did to make the conversation about the equivocation easier). This reconstruction includes an equivocation, the equivocation which I explicitly explain in comment 21 on this thread (page 2). I have elaborated on this equivocation throughout in these comments but the body of my argument for where he is equivocating comes in reply #21. That is my answer to your question.
Now, you can either (i) deny that this representation includes an equivocation or (ii) deny that my construction in #16 and 21 corresponds to the actual criticism Father is making in the video. If (i), please engage in the actual argument I present in reply 21. If (ii) show me how my representation of Father's criticism is inaccurate. Where do I go wrong? What then
is Father trying to argue?
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 11:32:50 AM
1. I never said he gave a definition of species. I said his premises relied on a certain understanding of species that is different from the way that modern biology understands species.
But...biology has, itself, not settled on a firm and fixed definition of species. Science is entirety unsatisfied with the concept currently. Which of the several definitions, do you think Father is misrepresenting?
Quote from: TomD on November 27, 2018, 11:12:01 AM
One of the problems with Fr. Ripperger's critique and many common critiques is working with an outmoded understanding of species. Evolutionary theory does not claim that at any point an animal gave birth to an offspring of a different species. People think that this is what is required for the development of new species. It is not however. The problem arises from thinking of species in such rigidly essentialist terms. Once we reject this underlying assumption however, much of Father's philosophical arguments fall apart.
Another common way of speaking, that unfortunately and surprisingly Fr. Ripperger seems to fall into, is regarding the nature of God's act of creation. God is the creative cause of everything that exists, without exception (and this includes all events with the possible exception of human and angelic choices, a topic for another time). This means that God cannot, strictly speaking, intervene in the course of natural history since he is already fully present. It is like asking whether or not an author can intervene in her story. The upshot of this is that theists who hold that evolution took place need not, and in fact, ought not, be committed to the idea that God intervenes from time to time in order to bring about changes in species. So to criticize this view is to attack a straw-man.
Lets back things up.
A: Tell us what you believe IS required for the creation of a new species (we will ignore the current scientific unwillingness to commit to a fixed definition of the word for now)
B: What do you think it means for '
God to be fully present', and how does this prevent him intervening in the natural order of events?
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 11:40:35 AM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 11:32:50 AM
1. I never said he gave a definition of species. I said his premises relied on a certain understanding of species that is different from the way that modern biology understands species.
But...biology has, itself, not settled on a firm and fixed definition of species. Science is entirety unsatisfied with the concept currently. Which of the several definitions, do you think Father is misrepresenting?
But it doesn't matter in this context if biology has a "firm and fixed definition" of species. What matters is that the various ways in which biology uses the term (not one definition but a variety of related concepts) do not encompass how Father Ripperger uses the term. I do not want to go back into a conversation about which understanding is superior or whether or not it is a problem for evolution that it doesn't rely on one particular definition of species. We covered that ground. I claim it is irrelevant. What matters is these two understandings are different and thus make Father's argument (the one I construct in comments 16 and 21) rest on an equivocation.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 11:50:18 AM
Quote from: TomD on November 27, 2018, 11:12:01 AM
One of the problems with Fr. Ripperger's critique and many common critiques is working with an outmoded understanding of species. Evolutionary theory does not claim that at any point an animal gave birth to an offspring of a different species. People think that this is what is required for the development of new species. It is not however. The problem arises from thinking of species in such rigidly essentialist terms. Once we reject this underlying assumption however, much of Father's philosophical arguments fall apart.
Another common way of speaking, that unfortunately and surprisingly Fr. Ripperger seems to fall into, is regarding the nature of God's act of creation. God is the creative cause of everything that exists, without exception (and this includes all events with the possible exception of human and angelic choices, a topic for another time). This means that God cannot, strictly speaking, intervene in the course of natural history since he is already fully present. It is like asking whether or not an author can intervene in her story. The upshot of this is that theists who hold that evolution took place need not, and in fact, ought not, be committed to the idea that God intervenes from time to time in order to bring about changes in species. So to criticize this view is to attack a straw-man.
Lets back things up.
A: Tell us what you believe IS required for the creation of a new species (we will ignore the current scientific unwillingness to commit to a fixed definition of the word for now)
B: What do you think it means for 'God to be fully present', and how does this prevent him intervening in the natural order of events?
But you see, this again moves the target. I think Father equivocates. I explain why in comment 21. You seem to disagree, which is why I presented to you the dilemma in response 57, 63, and 65. In order to proceed, we have to establish where our disagreement actually lies, this is why I made those comments. To reiterate: either you think my construction of Father's argument in numbers 16 and 21 is accurate or you do not. If you think it is, then my argument in 21 for why he equivocates remains. Address that. If you think it is not accurate, then explain why it isn't an accurate construction and we can go from there. You are avoiding this point.
My answer to (A) is irrelevant. Whether it be correct or incorrect, has no bearing on whether or not Father Ripperger's criticism of evolution rests on an equivocation.
My answer to (B) is also irrelevant even more so. For my answer to (B) has nothing to do with what we have been discussing since page 1 of this thread, viz. what I take to be Father's criticism as I laid it out in comment 16. I think he equivocates. But I think he equivocates when discussing species, not when discussing God's causality. That criticism is completely distinct and one that we have not addressed this entire thread. I would be happy to have a conversation about that. But I want to just point out that it would be abandoning the current conversation about his equivocation and starting a new conversation entirely. Do you see that?
Your entire argument is based around conflicting notions of species. Let me quote you:
QuoteEvolutionary theory does not claim that "new species* do arise from preexisting life." Rather, proponents of evolutionary theory are working with a different understanding of species, call it species**. And while "new species** do arise from preexisting life" is true, it is an equivocation to say that species* = species**.
But now, suppose critics of evolution decide to use species** as their working definition. But if that is the case, then (1) is false. Since species** does not treat species like equivalence classes, it is entirely possible that the antecedent of (1) is true but its consequent is false.
Do you see the problem here?
Specially, this is the line that matters
Quoteproponents of evolutionary theory are working with a different understanding of species
Let's have it then. What is this 'different understanding' . It is after all, pivotal to your claims of equivocation and all that is subsequently implied.
QuoteThe problem arises from thinking of species in such rigidly essentialist terms
Great, lets have the 'non-rigid' version, so we can be clear on what it is we are actually arguing.
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 12:11:25 PM
For my answer to (B) has nothing to do with what we have been discussing since page 1 of this thread, viz. what I take to be Father's criticism as I laid it out in comment 16.
Your concussion in comment 16 is as follows:
QuoteThis argument however is problematic since (1) is working with an understanding of species that is different from what modern biologists are working with.
OKey Doke. Let's unpack/define this different biological understanding. Only then we can begin to see your point. Simply saying that providing us with such a definition is irrelevant, and that we simply need to take your word for it, prima facie, is not good enough. You might be making it all up after all. You claim Father's understanding is 'outmoded'. We now need to be told precisely why. Feel free to get as technical as you need to.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 12:19:45 PM
Your entire argument is based around conflicting notions of species. Let me quote you:
QuoteEvolutionary theory does not claim that "new species* do arise from preexisting life." Rather, proponents of evolutionary theory are working with a different understanding of species, call it species**. And while "new species** do arise from preexisting life" is true, it is an equivocation to say that species* = species**.
But now, suppose critics of evolution decide to use species** as their working definition. But if that is the case, then (1) is false. Since species** does not treat species like equivalence classes, it is entirely possible that the antecedent of (1) is true but its consequent is false.
Do you see the problem here?
Specially, this is the line that matters Quoteproponents of evolutionary theory are working with a different understanding of species
Let's have it then. What is this 'different understanding' . It is after all, pivotal to your claims of equivocation and all that is subsequently implied.
QuoteThe problem arises from thinking of species in such rigidly essentialist terms
Great, lets have the 'non-rigid' version, so we can be clear on what it is we are actually arguing.
1. What actually matters is not the particular definition of species used by modern biologists. There is not one definition. Rather, there are a group of related concepts that are more or less useful for classifying the diversity of biological life. To insist on one particular definition is to beg the question against proponents of evolution.
2. The broad concept of species used by biologists is not what is at issue. On
no definition or any concept employed in modern biology is (1), from my construction in no. 16 and 21, true. The reason is that, despite not having one particular
definition of "species," modern biology does reject a concept of "species" which treats them like equivalence classes. However, in order for (1) to be true, a concept in which "species" are equivalence classes must be the case. Now you may say then "so much for how modern biology is using the term, Father Ripperger's use of "species" is good enough for me and it
does render (1) true." Fine. But this is why there is danger for equivocation, because using Father's definition, (2) is not true.
3. If you
insist on me giving a definition, I will give the same one I gave in response number 11, except I will just quote from Wikipedia to make it easy: "largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction."
Now, I introduce this definition with a few caveats. First of all, it isn't a perfect definition. But one misunderstanding is that biologists are looking for some kind of metaphysical truth by employing a particular definition of species. They evaluate the definition more on its usefulness for classification. So to try and say that it fails to capture some ontological reality is to criticize it on its failure to do something it isn't designed to do to begin with.
Second, the problems with this definition are limited to particularity circumstances. Thus as a working definition it functions fine in many cases, especially in the animal kingdom. This is why I said "among animals" in paragraph 2 of comment 11. Not that this is the only suitable one for animals or that it is unsuitable for non-animals. I only restricted the discussion in this way because the restriction thus avoids some of the weeds that complicate the usefulness of this definition. Moreover, some of the problems with this definition are not based in biology but in the usefulness of determining whether or not two organisms or two distinct fossils are part of the same species. But this issue is not with the definition per se in biology but its applicability to certain problems (that do not really concern us here).
Third, even if this definition is not perfectly useful in biology, it does capture in large part what biologists are getting at when they say "species." It thus functions reasonably well in many contexts. Moreover, even the other definitions used for "species" in contemporary biology overlap with this one. So for our purposes, I think it will do.
Now, on this definition of species just given, (2) is true. But (1) is not (using the numbers of the original argument in comment no. 16 and 21). Therefore, Father Ripperger's argument falls apart if we want to use this definition throughout. We could do the same exercise with a variety of definitions used by biologists but this would be unnecessary.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 12:26:28 PM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 12:11:25 PM
For my answer to (B) has nothing to do with what we have been discussing since page 1 of this thread, viz. what I take to be Father's criticism as I laid it out in comment 16.
Your concussion in comment 16 is as follows:
QuoteThis argument however is problematic since (1) is working with an understanding of species that is different from what modern biologists are working with.
OKey Doke. Let's unpack/define this different biological understanding. Only then we can begin to see your point. Simply saying that providing us with such a definition is irrelevant, and that we simply need to take your word for it, prima facie, is not good enough. You might be making it all up after all. You claim Father's understanding is 'outmoded'. We now need to be told precisely why. Feel free to get as technical as you need to.
Yes, that is what I have been doing. Father Ripperger is working with an understanding where species are treated like equivalence classes. Modern biology rejects this kind of use for the term. But the response you are quoting here has to do with (B), namely, my very first comment where I think Father Ripperger makes a theological error that has nothing to do with "species" or even evolution per se. I stand by that comment, and I am even willing to have that discussion too. I just wanted to point out that it is a distinct line of criticism than the one we have been talking about on this thread so far.
From TomD's reply nr 16:
1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life
This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 02:43:28 PM
From TomD's reply nr 16:
1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life
This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?
No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 02:48:18 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 02:43:28 PM
From TomD's reply nr 16:
1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life
This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?
No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.
Ok, so parents gives rise to offspring and those offsprings can sometimes evolve to different species?
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 03:06:25 PM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 02:48:18 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 02:43:28 PM
From TomD's reply nr 16:
1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life
This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?
No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.
Ok, so parents gives rise to offspring and those offsprings can sometimes evolve to different species?
Nope. Every offspring is of the same species as its parents. Every individual remains the same species throughout its entire life. But it doesn't follow then that no new species can arise. It's like this: A gives birth to B and B to C and C to D and D to E. A is the same species as B and B is the same as C and C is the same as D and D is the same species as E. However, E is not the same species as A. This is because gradual changes between generations over time eventually become so big that the organisms are no longer classified in the same species. This may seem counter intuitive because we tend to think of species as equivalence classes. If that were the case, then if A and B are the same species, and B and C, and C and D and D and E, then it follows that A and E are of the same species. However, modern biology does not treat species like equivalence classes.
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 03:06:25 PM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 02:48:18 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 02:43:28 PM
From TomD's reply nr 16:
1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life
This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?
No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.
Ok, so parents gives rise to offspring and those offsprings can sometimes evolve to different species?
Here is a helpful illustration to see what I am getting at:
Suppose I lined up a billion people from left to right. The first person had 1 dollar to his name, the second 2 dollars, the third 3, etc. The first person in the line is dirt poor. The last person is filthy rich, he's a billionaire. Moreover, there are no two people next to each other in this line such that the person on the left is poor and the person on the right is rich. But it does not follow that simply because person 1 is poor and person 2 is poor and person 3 is poor etc. that person 1 billion is poor.
A similar thing is going on with species. Imagine we lined up successive generations from left to right. The first organism in the line and the last would be of different species. But it does not follow that there are some two organisms in the line such that the organism to the left is of species A and the organism to the right is species B.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 07:18:45 AM
You see, what you and others of your ilk fail to understand is that science is not, and has never been, a relevant vehicle for determining the truth. It is a philosophical category error to believe so.
Then there is simply no common ground upon which to base a discussion. Your statement is at bottom irrational and it is impossible to have a rational discussion beginning with an irrational premise. The basic premises are these:
1. There are regularities in nature.
2. These regularities can be observed and classified (or modeled, if your prefer), and one can arrive at a very high probability one's model is correct given enough data, even if due to the problem of induction one cannot arrive at absolute certainty. These models, then, allow you to make accurate (enough) predictions.
3. These regularities are due to ontological things like substance and accident even if one cannot arrive at a one-to-one backwards correspondence.
Not only are these irrational to deny, all Christian apologetics is toast if you do. There's no "evidence" Jesus performed miracles or even existed. What you have in front you that claims to be the "Bible" may be completely unrelated to what was actually written down thousands of years ago. Even if He did rise from the dead or walk on water, that might not be a miracle; it's just one of those things that happens from time to time.
QuoteI await your retraction and apology regarding the myth of ring species and hubristric claims to truth on this matter.
Wait, what? I thought you just said science was not a relevant vehicle for determining the truth. How then can you claim to know the truth that ring species are a myth?
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 03:29:00 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 03:06:25 PM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 02:48:18 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 02:43:28 PM
From TomD's reply nr 16:
1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life
This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?
No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.
Ok, so parents gives rise to offspring and those offsprings can sometimes evolve to different species?
Here is a helpful illustration to see what I am getting at:
Suppose I lined up a billion people from left to right. The first person had 1 dollar to his name, the second 2 dollars, the third 3, etc. The first person in the line is dirt poor. The last person is filthy rich, he's a billionaire. Moreover, there are no two people next to each other in this line such that the person on the left is poor and the person on the right is rich. But it does not follow that simply because person 1 is poor and person 2 is poor and person 3 is poor etc. that person 1 billion is poor.
A similar thing is going on with species. Imagine we lined up successive generations from left to right. The first organism in the line and the last would be of different species. But it does not follow that there are some two organisms in the line such that the organism to the left is of species A and the organism to the right is species B.
Thats exactly how some sophists argued to make everything uncertain. John Locke spoke about them but cant remember where to find the passage..
The reasoning went like this:
When does a man become drunk? When he drinks one drop of alcohol?
-No
-Two drops?
-No
And so on.. eventually the person would have to say yes sometime and then the sophist would say
- So your saying that he's sober at the 956:th drop of alcohol but becomes drunk at 957?
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 04:04:40 PM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 03:29:00 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 03:06:25 PM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 02:48:18 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 02:43:28 PM
From TomD's reply nr 16:
1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life
This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?
No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.
Ok, so parents gives rise to offspring and those offsprings can sometimes evolve to different species?
Here is a helpful illustration to see what I am getting at:
Suppose I lined up a billion people from left to right. The first person had 1 dollar to his name, the second 2 dollars, the third 3, etc. The first person in the line is dirt poor. The last person is filthy rich, he's a billionaire. Moreover, there are no two people next to each other in this line such that the person on the left is poor and the person on the right is rich. But it does not follow that simply because person 1 is poor and person 2 is poor and person 3 is poor etc. that person 1 billion is poor.
A similar thing is going on with species. Imagine we lined up successive generations from left to right. The first organism in the line and the last would be of different species. But it does not follow that there are some two organisms in the line such that the organism to the left is of species A and the organism to the right is species B.
Thats exactly how some sophists argued to make everything uncertain. John Locke spoke about them but cant remember where to find the passage..
The reasoning went like this:
When does a man become drunk? When he drinks one drop of alcohol?
-No
-Two drops?
-No
And so on.. eventually the person would have to say yes sometime and then the sophist would say
- So your saying that he's sober at the 956:th drop of alcohol but becomes drunk at 957?
It doesn't make anything uncertain, it just shows that some words do not function to carve out ontological features of the world. Rather, they function for specific purposes. In the case of species, the word is meant as a useful classification tool in modern biology that is rooted in different biological features of organisms. What you say here is no argument against modern biology using the term in this way. Moreover, the majority of my posts here on this thread have been arguing again and again that regardless of your assessment of "species" as it is used in modern biology, Father Ripperger's argument against evolution rests on an equivocation of this term.
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 03:19:43 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 03:06:25 PM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 02:48:18 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on December 01, 2018, 02:43:28 PM
From TomD's reply nr 16:
1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life
This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?
No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.
Ok, so parents gives rise to offspring and those offsprings can sometimes evolve to different species?
Nope. Every offspring is of the same species as its parents. Every individual remains the same species throughout its entire life. But it doesn't follow then that no new species can arise. It's like this: A gives birth to B and B to C and C to D and D to E. A is the same species as B and B is the same as C and C is the same as D and D is the same species as E. However, E is not the same species as A. This is because gradual changes between generations over time eventually become so big that the organisms are no longer classified in the same species. This may seem counter intuitive because we tend to think of species as equivalence classes. If that were the case, then if A and B are the same species, and B and C, and C and D and D and E, then it follows that A and E are of the same species. However, modern biology does not treat species like equivalence classes.
These are lovely sentiments. Sadly empirical science does not support, or have data proving this kind of gradual change over time. In fact this gradualism is the outmoded view of things today, given the complete lack of transitional data. Hence we see ideas such as
punctuated equilibrium proposed as way to explain away the lack of data
So, I had a thought. It has been proposed that Father's views on evolution are fallacious as a result of his outmoded views on speciation. I do wonder what the arrival date of the new mode of thought was incidentally? Be useful info to have.
Anyway, thus far the major takeaway is this as far as I can determine: Evolution, as a philosophy of nature, cannot be critiqued due to the ever evolving and ever new modalities of thought that seem to pop up with some regularity when it comes to key definitions. All this does of course, speaks to the lack of a solid data for evolution as a theory. As it is built on nothing, it becomes very easy to redefine things that don't exist to begin with, 'species' being but one example.
There have been many accusation in this thread of goal-post shifting and changing targets etc, and yet, is not Evolution's constant definition changing not the biggest goal-post shift of all? It is a convenient way to slip around all the embarrassing lack of data or new (and real) scientific discoveries that make evolution an ever less likely proposition.
Just a thought
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 12:53:26 PM
Father Ripperger is working with an understanding where species are treated like equivalence classes. Modern biology rejects this kind of use for the term.
Modern biology may very well reject the idea of equivalent classes, but based on what exactly? what data or evidence is cause for this rejection? Or is this rejection simply an ideological position?
The realty is that since the dawn of recorded time, observation of the animal Kingdom supports Father R's definition and not the gradualist theoretical invention.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 01, 2018, 03:39:31 PM
Then there is simply no common ground upon which to base a discussion.
Good.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 04:32:33 PM
Anyway, thus far the major takeaway is this as far as I can determine: Evolution, as a philosophy of nature, cannot be critiqued due to the ever evolving and ever new modalities of thought that seem to pop up with some regularity when to comes to key definitions. All of this does of course, is speak to the lack of a solid data for evolution as a theory. As it is built on nothing, it becomes very easy to redefine things that don't exist to begin with, 'species' being but one example.
There have been many accusation in this thread of goal-post shifting and changing targets etc, and yet is not Evolution's constant definition changing not the biggest goal-post shift of all? It is a convenient way to slip around all the embarrassing lack of data or new (and real) scientific discoveries that make evolution an ever less likely occurrence.
Just a thought
1. Once again, you fail to address the arguments in this thread. My response #72 you haven't responded to. But this really was a response to your question regarding how modern biology uses evolution. The real issue is Father Ripperger's equivocation, something you have yet to address. In response 57, 63, and 65 I lay forth how to go about responding to this, and it seems that you have ignored these, or at least I am unclear as to your answer. I do not want to speak for you, but my interpretation of your responses is that you agree I accurately represent Father in no.16 and 21, but you disagree that this argument is an equivocation. Is this accurate? If so, then I would like you to show how it is not an equivocation, given that you
agree that Fr is using a different definition of "species" than modern biology.
2. "It becomes very easy to redefine things etc." This is extremely misguided. It isn't about "redefining" 'species' in order to draw philosophical conclusions at all. It is about coming up with a definition that is useful when it comes to classifying organisms we observe. You seem to be caught in this idea that when modern biologists define "species" it must be carving out some deep ontological division in nature that can be then used to draw serious metaphysical conclusions. That is not what is going on at all, as I explained in no. 72 and others but you seem to be unable to acknowledge.
3. "Isn't evolution's constant definition...the biggest goal-shift...etc." Again, yet another shift in targets. You still aren't addressing my actual argument. The problem with Father Ripperger is that he is equivocating on "species" in the argument as I understand him and explain in 16 and 21. If you think modern biology is misguided because of their use of the term "species," then fine. That is a problem for taxonomists I suppose. The issue is that Father Ripperger's argument depends on an equivocation. And this is true even if you don't like any number of the definitions used by modern biologists for "species." I have said this in about 10 different comments on this thread now and you seem to keep planting your feet and criticizing modern biology rather than responding to the charge of equivocation.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 04:41:13 PM
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 12:53:26 PM
Father Ripperger is working with an understanding where species are treated like equivalence classes. Modern biology rejects this kind of use for the term.
Modern biology may very well reject the idea of equivalent classes, but based on what exactly? what data or evidence is cause for this rejection? Or is this rejection simply an ideological position?
The realty is that since the dawn of recorded time, observation of the animal Kingdom supports Father R's definition and not the gradualist theoretical invention.
Have you not read these responses? I can only say this in so many ways: it doesn't matter, for the purpose of whether or not Father equivocates, whether or not you think his definition is more useful than modern biology's. It does not matter
why they reject an understanding of species that denies they are equivalence classes. What matters is that Father use a
consistent understanding of species throughout his argument. But I have argued he does not. And every single time you criticize modern biology's use of the term "species," you are affirming that (1) and (2) of Father's argument employs different understandings of the term. In other words, you are affirming that Father is equivocating. Which is precisely my point.
More than once you have confirmed the vague nature of, and unwillingness of science to settle on a definition for species, beyond some vagaries surrounding 'sciences' rejection of a fixed (rigid) definition for species. There is no basis for this rejection in empirical science as best as I can determine. It is pure ideology. This conversation has reached an apogee and an impasse; Father uses an erroneous definition of a term that refuses to be defined.
We are done
Quote from: TomD on December 01, 2018, 05:01:10 PM
\ Father's argument employs different understandings of the term. \
No, Father uses the the only definition that makes sense given the data. What is senseless is claiming that no real definition exists. It is pure slight of hand. If anyone is equivocating it is the non-committal evolutionist and his refusal/inability to define terms.
Oh...and evolution is dumb. Just so we are clear. That is my rigid definition, based on the data
Can we get past this?
Even YECs who adhere to a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark admit that new species (as biology defines the term) can arise - there simply wouldn't be enough room on the Ark for all extant species today. Instead, they say Noah took aboard two of each "kind" - and they then reproduced according to their "kind" but their kind could produce new species. It's only the impossibility of two of the same kind producing a different kind. Like, for instance, dogs and wolves or cats and tigers.
So I don't see Fr. R's argument going anywhere - anyone could argue in response that whole animal kingdom is simply all the same "kind" and thus evolution is not a violation of "like begets like".
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 01, 2018, 05:16:16 PM
(as biology defines the term)
But does it though? It's sounding like it doesn't. Not in any sense that can be used empirically anyway.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 05:08:00 PM
More than once you have confirmed the vague nature of, and unwillingness of science to settle on a definition for species, beyond some vagaries surrounding 'sciences' rejection of a fixed (rigid) definition for species. There is no basis for this rejection in empirical science as best as I can determine. It is pure ideology. This conversation has reached an apogee and an impasse; Father uses an erroneous definition of a term that refuses to be defined.
We are done
More than once you have confirmed that you are simply unwilling to address the charge of equivocation. The charge of equivocation stands even if you think "evolution is dumb" and even if you think modern biology's collection of definitions for "species" are not at all useful. Biology today uses different definitions of species because there is debate over which is the most useful for classifying organisms. What these definitions have in common is that they all would be different from Father's understanding of "species." That is something you admit. And it is the very basis for my charge of equivocation. A charge which you are unwilling to address, essentially conceding that you cannot address it.
I am going to drink fine Bourbon and watch a movie now.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 05:21:49 PM
I am going to drink fine Bourbon and watch a movie now.
Fair enough, enjoy
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on December 01, 2018, 04:32:33 PM
Evolution, as a philosophy of nature, cannot be critiqued due to the ever evolving and ever new modalities of thought that seem to pop up with some regularity when it comes to key definitions.
Excellent summary.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on November 29, 2018, 07:21:42 AM
There are no ring species
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-species/
What Jerry Coyne is pointing out here, however, is that the salamanders on either end of the ring
are separate species, and that one evolved from the other. He simply doesn't think they're an example of true "ring species" because DNA modelling now shows that the salamanders do appear at certain parts to have gotten geographically isolated from one another, to the extent where the ring would've been broken. (This inconvenient finding also undercuts the allegation that evolution is a hook-nosed conspiracy, for why would Jerry Coyne, an atheist evolutionist Jew, be interested in crippling his own cause?)
Anyway, if DNA modelling is the basis for proof that there are no true extant ring species, it should also be accepted as the basis for proving that the biblical flood could not have occurred, since DNA modelling shows that the present genetic diversity of humans could not have arisen from a homogeneous population of only eight persons a mere five thousand years ago. The molecular clock would need tens of thousands of years to get from Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives to the current dispersal of Zulus, Scandinavians, Maori, Japanese, Aztecs, &c.
It appears that we are more similar than diverse in terms of our genetics, and the diversity of races today is a result of a loss of genetic material, spiraling out geographically from a smaller group of antecedents.
QuoteBoth teams' analyses confirm the genetic similarities that tie together the human family: the world's groups are far more similar to each other than different, for example, and most people have genetic ancestry tracing back to more than one continent. "A huge amount of our genomes are the same across the world
https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080221/full/news.2008.614.html
Correct. The differences between the races are only a small portion of the genome, but even that difference requires a lot more than five thousand years to account for the diversity. This is why DNA modelling puts Y-chromosomal Adam at about 200,000 years ago. Whereas in the creationist scheme, Noah would be the Y-chromosomal MRCA, and the diversity would've had to have come from the eight Semites on the ark, something viewed as simply not possible from the modelling.
So DNA-modelling is a double-edged sword if you want to use it to disprove true ring species, because it also disproves a global flood 5kya and a first pair 7kya (see your own source: How big was the human population bottleneck? Another staple of theology refuted (https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/how-big-was-the-human-population-bottleneck-not-anything-close-to-2/)).
I just watched the video, and I'm wondering about the principle of economy and the principle of integral goodness. Are either of these two principles legitimate?
The principle of economy just sounds like Ockham's razor, which is false. Sometimes there are multiple causes at work bringing about a single effect, even when it can be conceived that that effect could be brought about by just a single cause.
The principle of integral goodness, if I understand what he's saying, also sounds false. Because our intuition indicates that a defective thing is not entirely evil on account of its defect; rather, the defective thing is good insofar as it is a thing and evil insofar as it is defective.
edit - Or is he saying that God cannot imperfectly instantiate a thing? The thing must start out perfect, and then something else must come along later and take away the thing's perfection?
OP. Thanks for this. Great video. Father also has a book on the subject worth reading, https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Evolution-Fr-Chad-Ripperger/dp/3848216256
And St. Kolbe's centre has online articles from that work. http://kolbecenter.org/metaphysical-impossibility-human-evolution-chad-ripperger-catholic-creation/
Father's excellent point about how Freemasonry has promoted evolution to undermine Christianity is also worth considering. In another thread, we saw the Communists did the same. The fact is atheists, agnostics, anti-Christians love this evolution of theirs.
Why is that? And What is evolution, at its core? Is it perhaps a legitimate scientific theory, even if unproven or disproven? No, not at all. Evolution is fundamentally a heathen religion! Everything else - Almighty God Himself and the fact of His special creation - is unnecessary and superfluous at worst to the adherents of this pagan sect. The core dogma of evolution is that monkeys are the gods and creators who fathered and gave birth to us!
And so "theistic evolution" is like "theistic atheism" and "Christian evolution" is like Christian paganism - there is no such thing. Even if all who hold such an opinion are not yet aware of it, their opinion tends logically toward unbelief and error; atheists promote "theistic evolution" when they cannot directly make Christians atheists in one step. Evolution, in the macroevolutionary sense defined by Fr. R, of one species allegedly producing a substantially different species, is fundamentally an atheistic theory and Christians should reject it.
1. Btw, Tom,what you wrote earlier is an almost word for word violation of the law of transitivity (and even of plain logic). If A and B, C and D, and D and E are of the same species, it is logically IMPOSSIBLE that E be of a different species to A, as you claimed: " Every offspring is of the same species as its parents. Every individual remains the same species throughout its entire life. But it doesn't follow then that no new species can arise. It's like this: A gives birth to B and B to C and C to D and D to E. A is the same species as B and B is the same as C and C is the same as D and D is the same species as E. However, E is not the same species as A"
2. But why beat around fhe bush any longer, let's look at the concrete example of a species A allegedly being parent to a different species E. Let species E be human beings. What was species A? And what are our alleged sister species(Chimps, gorillas etc?) that also allegedly descended from this (mythical) missing common ancestor that curiously is still missing?
"There was once an animal that was an ancestor to both humans and apes. But what was it like?" http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes
If you won't read books written by Creation Scientists, I suggest Prof. Michael Denton's "Evolution: A theory in crisis" where he reviews the scientific evidence and shows just how bad the intermediate fossil issue is for Darwinism. There should have been scores more of intermediates.
3. Evolutionists have tried to lie to and deceive the scientific community that pretended "ape-men" existed in the past, and these have now been proven and are almost universally admitted to be (deliberate?) frauds.
"Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated.c
Since 1953, it has been universally acknowledged that Piltdown "man" was a hoax, yet Piltdown "man" was in textbooks for more than 40 years.d
Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakeye and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw.f Ramapithecus was just an ape.g [See Figure 13.]
The only remains of Nebraska "man" turned out to be a single toothh—of a pig. [See Figure 14.]
Forty years after he discovered Java "man," Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thigh bones of apes found in the same area.i"
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html
QuoteWhy is that? And What is evolution, at its core? Is it perhaps a legitimate scientific theory, even if unproven or disproven? No, not at all. Evolution is fundamentally a heathen religion! Everything else - Almighty God Himself and the fact of His special creation - is unnecessary and superfluous at worst to the adherents of this pagan sect.
Okay. So if evolution is really a heathen religion, someone should have told Pope Pius XII when he taught that Catholics may inquire into the theory in
Humani Generis. Moreover, someone should have told the authors of any number of the great theological manuals of the early 20th century, for instance Dr. Ludwig Ott, or the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia, that evolution was a "pagan sect" for these theologians explicitly teach it is compatible with Catholic doctrine. Likewise with John Henry Newman, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and many others.
And to be clear, are you suggesting that belief in evolution is a mortal sin?
QuoteThe core dogma of evolution is that monkeys are the gods and creators who fathered and gave birth to us!
This is frankly absurd. The idea that humans and modern day apes share a common ancestor dos not mean that "monkeys are gods and creators." For one, this
completely ignores what "creator" means according to traditional Catholic theology and philosophy. For if you are correct in describing evolution as teaching that our ancestors are our "gods and creators" then we might as well say our parents are our "gods and creators." Evolution is not the problem, rather, the fact that we weren't all specially created is the problem.
Also, you act as though there is something absurd to the idea that human bodies could have arisen from preexisting life. But the Book of Genesis of course teaches that our bodies arose from preexisting matter (albeit it implies the matter is non-living). Does this mean that Genesis teaches "dust" is our god and creator?
QuoteAnd so "theistic evolution" is like "theistic atheism" and "Christian evolution" is like Christian paganism - there is no such thing. Even if all who hold such an opinion are not yet aware of it, their opinion tends logically toward unbelief and error; atheists promote "theistic evolution" when they cannot directly make Christians atheists in one step.
I actually think special creation, particularly of the young earth variety leads to atheism. Militant atheists in fact are much more likely to promote young earth creationism as the face of Christianity in order to show how foolish Christian faith is. As Augustine says "Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books" (the whole quote is worth the read as it is relevant here. It can be found in
Literal meaning of Genesis 1:19:39.
Quote1. Btw, Tom,what you wrote earlier is an almost word for word violation of the law of transitivity (and even of plain logic). If A and B, C and D, and D and E are of the same species, it is logically IMPOSSIBLE that E be of a different species to A, as you claimed: " Every offspring is of the same species as its parents. Every individual remains the same species throughout its entire life. But it doesn't follow then that no new species can arise. It's like this: A gives birth to B and B to C and C to D and D to E. A is the same species as B and B is the same as C and C is the same as D and D is the same species as E. However, E is not the same species as A"
It would be a violation in a law of logic if you treat species like "equivalence classes" which is what I have been saying the whole time. Now if you simply
insist that I am violating logic, you are begging the question and tacitly assuming an understanding of species which is at odds with how modern biology treats species. And as I have said earlier on this thread, fine if you want to use "species" in your own way, and fine if you think that way is superior. But then you cannot criticize the claims biologists make in their terms by using logic based in the way you are defining your terms. That is equivocation.
Quote2. But why beat around fhe bush any longer, let's look at the concrete example of a species A allegedly being parent to a different species E. Let species E be human beings. What was species A? And what are our alleged sister species(Chimps, gorillas etc?) that also allegedly descended from this (mythical) missing common ancestor that curiously is still missing?
A google search will yield numerous results from fossils of alleged ancestors to modern humans, for instance,
Australopithecus. A google search will also yield results from fossils of many other species. You can challenge any individual fossil claim, but the fossil evidence when taken in totality comes out strongly against special creation (and the evidence against a young earth in particular is, I would say, as conclusive science can be on a topic. But this undermines the literal interpretation of Genesis in its own right).
Quoteif evolution is really a heathen religion
That would explain why a provincial council approved by Pope Pius IX censured it. "The Magisterium Teachings of Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X
Pius IX. The year after the publication of Darwin's evolution thesis, the Provincial Council of Cologne issued the following canon, which was approved by Pope Pius IX:
"Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state." [10] http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/cbutel/humanevo.html
The article above also produces much other theological proof that evolution can never be part of the deposit of faith. It is currently a tolerated opinion but it will be condemned by the Magisterium one day. How will you react if the Church were to dogmatically assure you that evolution is false? "Addendum
Rev. Father Brian Harrison, in an in-depth theological treatise, "Did Woman Evolve from Beasts?" (inter alia) shows that:
(a) as early as 3 February, 557, in an epistle to King Childebert I and later in an epistle, "Vas Electionis", addressed to the whole Church, Pope Pelagius I taught that Adam and Eve "were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of man" (see p. 8); and
(b) in 1312, the Council of Vienne not only affirmed the doctrine of the special creation of Eve from Adam's side but also taught that it was a profound and beautiful foreshadowing of the mystical foundation of the Church, the immaculate Spouse of the Church, whereby it prefigured the water and blood, symbols of the principal sacraments, that flowed from the side of Christ at Calvary. See pp.8/9. (Copies of this article, sections 1 and 2, can be accessed on the website of the Roman Theological Forum, rtforum org , "Living Tradition" Numbers 97 and 98.)
These traditional papal teachings based upon Divine Revelation, as they are, together with similar teachings of Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X (supra), surely affirm, without any shadow of doubt, that the creation of our first parents as described in Genesis, Chapter 2, is literally and historically true and therefore forms part of the deposit of faith. It follows then that this doctrine of creation can never be replaced by the "new doctrine" of an evolutionary creation."
Btw, St. Augustine and all the Fathers believed in special creation. He is speaking of advancing erroneous private opinions as if they were de fide.
That evolution leads to paganism is not just speculation, it has been observed in Christian society. A creation science book in the 1920s (that uncovered the Piltdown man fraud 3 decades before evolutionists caught up) warned of this, "So baneful has been the effect of teaching evolution as a proven hypothesis, that multitudes have been led into infidelity and atheism ... So pernicious is this doctrine of evolution that more than one-half of the professors who teach it and kindred subjects, are infidels and atheists and farther from God than the ignorant heathen"
It has proven prescient. See the other thread where this was discussed.
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=20429.msg450284#msg450284
God created man supernaturally from the earth. Evolutionists want to exclude the supernatural. They claim apes in natural reproduction gave rise to man.
Re: there is no possible definition of species wherein it would be true "species A and species B are the same, species B and species C are the same, but species A and species C are Not the same". None at all.
I recommend you read Prof. Denton on fossil record disproofs of evolution: a snippet -
QuoteThe overall picture of life on Earth today is so discontinuous, the gaps between the different types so obvious, that, as Steven Stanley reminds us in his recent book Macroevolution, if our knowledge of biology was restricted to those species presently existing on Earth, "we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis."1 Without intermediates or transitional forms to bridge the enormous gaps which separate existing species and groups of organisms, the concept of evolution could never be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis ...
Curiously, the problem is compounded by the fact that the earliest representatives of most of the major invertebrate phyla appear in the fossil record over a relatively short space of geological time, about six hundred million years ago in the Cambrian era. The strata lain down over the hundreds of millions of years before the Cambrian era, which might have contained the connecting links between the major phyla, are almost completely empty of animal fossils. If transitional types between the major phyla ever existed then it is in these pre-Cambrian strata that their fossils should be found ...
Quote from: Xavier on December 03, 2018, 10:01:16 AM
Quoteif evolution is really a heathen religion
That would explain why a provincial council approved by Pope Pius IX censured it. "The Magisterium Teachings of Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X
Pius IX. The year after the publication of Darwin?s evolution thesis, the Provincial Council of Cologne issued the following canon, which was approved by Pope Pius IX:
?Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state.? [10] http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/cbutel/humanevo.html
The article above also produces much other theological proof that evolution can never be part of the deposit of faith. It is currently a tolerated opinion but it will be condemned by the Magisterium one day. How will you react if the Church were to dogmatically assure you that evolution is false? "Addendum
Rev. Father Brian Harrison, in an in-depth theological treatise, ?Did Woman Evolve from Beasts?? (inter alia) shows that:
(a) as early as 3 February, 557, in an epistle to King Childebert I and later in an epistle, ?Vas Electionis?, addressed to the whole Church, Pope Pelagius I taught that Adam and Eve ?were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of man? (see p. 8); and
(b) in 1312, the Council of Vienne not only affirmed the doctrine of the special creation of Eve from Adam?s side but also taught that it was a profound and beautiful foreshadowing of the mystical foundation of the Church, the immaculate Spouse of the Church, whereby it prefigured the water and blood, symbols of the principal sacraments, that flowed from the side of Christ at Calvary. See pp.8/9. (Copies of this article, sections 1 and 2, can be accessed on the website of the Roman Theological Forum, rtforum org , ?Living Tradition? Numbers 97 and 98.)
These traditional papal teachings based upon Divine Revelation, as they are, together with similar teachings of Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X (supra), surely affirm, without any shadow of doubt, that the creation of our first parents as described in Genesis, Chapter 2, is literally and historically true and therefore forms part of the deposit of faith. It follows then that this doctrine of creation can never be replaced by the ?new doctrine? of an evolutionary creation."
Btw, St. Augustine and all the Fathers believed in special creation. He is speaking of advancing erroneous private opinions as if they were de fide.
That evolution leads to paganism is not just speculation, it has been observed in Christian society. A creation science book in the 1920s (that uncovered the Piltdown man fraud 3 decades before evolutionists caught up) warned of this, "So baneful has been the effect of teaching evolution as a proven hypothesis, that multitudes have been led into infidelity and atheism ... So pernicious is this doctrine of evolution that more than one-half of the professors who teach it and kindred subjects, are infidels and atheists and farther from God than the ignorant heathen"
It has proven prescient. See the other thread where this was discussed.
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=20429.msg450284#msg450284
God created man supernaturally from the earth. Evolutionists want to exclude the supernatural. They claim apes in natural reproduction gave rise to man.
Re: there is no possible definition of species wherein it would be true "species A and species B are the same, species B and species C are the same, but species A and species C are Not the same". None at all.
I recommend you read Prof. Denton on fossil record disproofs of evolution: a snippet - QuoteThe overall picture of life on Earth today is so discontinuous, the gaps between the different types so obvious, that, as Steven Stanley reminds us in his recent book Macroevolution, if our knowledge of biology was restricted to those species presently existing on Earth, "we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis."1 Without intermediates or transitional forms to bridge the enormous gaps which separate existing species and groups of organisms, the concept of evolution could never be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis ...
Curiously, the problem is compounded by the fact that the earliest representatives of most of the major invertebrate phyla appear in the fossil record over a relatively short space of geological time, about six hundred million years ago in the Cambrian era. The strata lain down over the hundreds of millions of years before the Cambrian era, which might have contained the connecting links between the major phyla, are almost completely empty of animal fossils. If transitional types between the major phyla ever existed then it is in these pre-Cambrian strata that their fossils should be found ...
So you only address some of my points and then you bring up some new ones. So I will paraphrase my original points and number them for clarity.
(1) In response to your suggestion that evolution is a "pagan sect" and a "heathen religion" I point out that there are many respectable authors who either believe evolution happened or at least teach that it is compatible with the Catholic faith. Three of these examples are Popes, one a saint, one a blessed, and two are authors of two of the most important theological works in the early 20th century. In the most authoritative statement on evolution by the Church, Pope Pius XII
explicitly permits inquiry into evolution, a fact that would be astonishing if you are correct in thinking evolution is a "pagan sect." You do not respond to this point, you only divert the conversation to different writings which attempt to show evolution is incompatible with the faith. I will address your points below.
(2) I ask: is evolution a mortal sin? You did not address this
(3) I point out that your comment on evolution entailing monkeys are "our god and creator" is absurd. For one, it completely misses the mark on Catholic theology regarding creation because it fails to distinguish between God's primary causality and creatures secondary causality. Moreover, it would result in the nonsensical conclusion that belief in our own parents would make them out to be "our god and creator." This point you do not address either.
(4) I state my disagreement regarding evolution leading to atheism and give a reason for it. I also reference Augustine who is arguing that ignorance of science, and then pontificating about these matters, does incredible damage to the faith. I mention this because I think it is special creation, specifically of the young earth variety, that is most harmful to the faith.
You do respond to this. You quote a work from the 1920s which argues that teaching evolution as more than a hypothesis has led to atheism and, as far as I can tell from the quote you provide, its only evidence is the numbers of professors who teach it who are atheists. But this response is inadequate. First, it is from the 20s. Since whether or not evolution is responsible for atheism is a matter of sociology, a contemporary work would be much more suitable as it is more up to date in its data (since we have 100 years of changing beliefs since then) and in its methods. Second, an argument from authority here will not suffice. The work you quote is only as good as the evidence it provides. And the only bit of evidence it provides in the quote you give is very weak (I admittedly do not know if it attempts to give other evidence). Third, the book is not an unbiased research study on the effects of belief in evolution. Rather, it is a work, written from an anti evolution perspective. This does not mean its wrong, but the bias must be recognized. And finally, even if you are right in thinking that belief in evolution leads to atheism, it does not follow that this belief per se leads there. It is entirely possible that belief in evolution leads to irreligion because of how many Christians claim that special creationism of the faith rather than theological opinion.
I disagree with your take on Augustine being a creationist. But even so, the quote I provided was simply meant to point out that ignorance of science can be detrimental to the faith, and I was applying this to our discussion since you think that belief in evolution is detrimental to the faith. I think it may be the other way around for the reasons found in Augustine's quote.
(5) I affirm it would be no violation in the laws of logic. You say that there "is no possible definition" in which my scenario is true. This is not the case, see the definition of "species" I provided earlier in this thread. In comment 11 I explain how this definition would apply to the A-B-C-D-E scenario. What I describe there is certainly a possible definition of species and thus a counterexample to your claim. Now, you can, as others have, dispute the science of that scenario or correctly point out that even biology does not agree on the definition I provide in that comment. But those would be red herrings. What matters is that there is in fact a logically possible definition of species such that my original comment can be true. It is therefore no violation of logic.
(6) I point out there is in fact a fossil record. You provide a reference to the work of one scientist in response. But notice first, that at least in the quote you provide, he doesn't deny the existence of a fossil record. He just argues that it is inadequate for a variety of reasons. Second, there are many other respectable scientists who would disagree with his conclusions. So that is just one expert compared to others.
I will respond to the new points you raise in my next comment below.
(7) You reference various other magisterial texts that you think imply evolution is false. But first, even if you are right in giving these some authority, it does not follow that evolution is heretical or a "pagan sect" which you originally claimed. Second, the evidence you provide is rather weak in itself. And third, it stands against a more authoritative consensus of theologians, even before Vatican II, as well as the official teaching of Pope Pius XII.
Re: why I think the evidence is weak: you quote a local German council that was "approved" by the Pope. That would be similar to me quoting a USCCB that got Vatican approval. Fine, we should respectfully listen to it. But a local German council from 150 years ago that came before tons of theological and scientific research on this topic really doesn't hold much water.
The other evidence you site, from Father Harrison, is limited as well. Those quotes come well before evolution was even being addressed. And they teach that man was created from the earth, which everyone affirms. The question is whether or not the immediate precursor to man was inanimate dust or a living thing. The Church didn't address this before Darwin and to site documents that weren't even considering this question is of limited use in this regard. Moreover, some of what Father sites is a reference to Eve's special creation from the rib of Adam. Even if I were to admit that she was specially created, the theory of evolution in general, and even for humans in particular, remains largely in force.
(8) You ask how will I react if the Church dogmatically condemns evolution. Well I believe the teachings of the Church so I would accept this. But I am also certain that this will never happen since the evidence against young earth special creation (and even special creation at all) is very strong and I believe truth cannot contradict truth
(9) You say "God created man supernaturally from the earth. Evolutionists want to exclude the supernatural. They claim apes in natural reproduction gave rise to man." If by "evolutionists" you mean anyone who accepts the theory, then it is false to say we all want to exclude the supernatural. There are plenty of Christians who believe in the supernatural but who also accept evolution.
Tom and Xavier: just FYI, for appearance's sake, there is an option under the reply window labeled "Attachments and other options." When clicked on, one of the options will be "Don't use smileys." If you check that box, your text won't get auto-formatted to a sunglasses smiley when you type "(8)" or "(see page 8)." On this forum's software, any time an 8 gets followed by a right parenthesis, the sunglasses smiley is auto-activated. It happens most unfortunately when people are citing scripture "(Romans 3:8)." You may, of course, not care. Personally I find that the sudden appearance of a sunglasses smiley where a number 8 ought to be intrudes on the flow of a post.
Why is six afraid of seven? Because seven 8) nine.