Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger

[Habitual_Ritual]

[Habitual_Ritual]

Wherein Fr Ripperger discuses how freemasonry promoted Darwin and his philosophical suppositions in order to use evolution as a vehicle for social engineering

[Quaremerepulisti]

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. 

[Habitual_Ritual]

His arguments are extremely weak. 

facts are not arguments

[Habitual_Ritual]

at least some limited version of it.   

Evolution is, or it is not.


It is not tho.

[Miriam_M]

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. 

[Habitual_Ritual]

Amen Miriam, amen

[Quaremerepulisti]

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.

[TomD]

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.

[TomD]

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?

[Gardener]

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.

[TomD]

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.

[Habitual_Ritual]

One of the problems with Fr. Ripperger's critique and many common critiques is working with an outmoded understanding of species.

do tell.

[TomD]

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.

[Habitual_Ritual]

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.