Evolution and all that

Last updated on: December 31, 2014 at 2:28 pm by Mark Shea

Evolution and all that 2014-12-31T14:28:05-07:00 Mark Shea

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A reader asks:

Do you think the case against evolution is sound? Im very interested in this debate but the science is a bit over my head. Would love to get your reaction.

I tend to think the work of the Catholic creationists is fairly crankish and represents an attempt to graft Evangelical obsessions on to the Church. The Church has no issues with evolution per se, only with attempts to turn it into a mask for atheistic materialism. Heck, the Pope even hosted a conference a couple of years ago on evolution. Although there is a lot of base stealing and crap science masquerading as evolutionary theory (see, for instance, the internecine squabbles among evolutionists about “just so” stories and so forth), there is also, as JPII pointed out, an awful lot of converging and convincing lines of evidence from all sorts of disciplines, while the arguments against the basic theory of descent from common ancestors and genetic modifications over time have always struck me as eerily similar to the sort of random heckling you get from anti-catholics against the faith.

What I mean is this: Opponents of evolution point to this weakness and that problem, just as anti-Catholics tend to point to proof texts and scandals, but they never put anything in place of the apparent weakness and many times the “weakness” turns out to have a rather reasonable explanation. So, for instance, you find dinosaurs turning up with feathers in the fossil record who look an awful lot like, you know, birds. The answer of creationists is to nitpick about the fact that these obviously transitional creatures were incapable of flight and so this can’t be evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Etc. It reminds me of arguments by anti-Catholics who nitpick about the fact that a couple of figures from the patristic era questioned the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, so therefore we must ignore the solid and obvious fact that these are obvious exceptions who prove the rule. There’s a sort of opposition to common sense driving it that I find so prima facie impossible to overcome.

So, on the whole, I think the effort to disprove evolution is doomed and often very wrong headed.

On the other hand, I think the instinct which recognizes an anti-God agenda is sound. I mean, come on. Read P.Z. Myers and his toadies. The trick is to argue smarter, not harder. One way to do that is to stop relying on God of the Gaps arguments like “I can’t explain how this paramecium got a flagellum, so God must have done it.” The problem with this is that, when somebody comes up with an explanation, people think the existence of God has been disproven. Instead of arguing for the existence of God from apparent exceptions to the rules of nature, Thomas took the much wiser course of arguing for the existence of God by asking “Why are there rules of nature?” or, more briefly, “Why is there anything?”

The main problem with evolutionary theory as mask for atheism is that it resolutely refuses to think deeply. It falls for Objection 2 in Thomas’ demonstration of the existence of God:

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.

Or, in non-Thomistic language, “Everything seems to work fine without God, so there’s no God.”

What this line of thinking always does is take for granted the existence of nature. So, for instance, as Mike Flynn was tearing his hair out about the other day:

Basically, Siegel’s argument is:

Arguments for God as cause of the universe rest on the assumption that something can’t come from nothing. But given the laws of physics, it turns out that something can come from nothing.

This flunks Logic 101. Read that again: "Given the laws of physics, something can come from nothing." Given the laws of physics, which means you have to start with something, namely the laws of physics.

He goes on to say:

[I]n many ways, getting something when you have nothing is unavoidable! … For example, take a box and empty it, so that all you’ve got is some totally empty space, like [a picture of a black square] above. An ideal, perfect, empty vacuum. Now, what’s in that box?

It would seem simple to point out that you don’t have nothing; you have an empty box. A black square (which he uses for illustration) is not nothing; it is a black square. And even the vacuum that he imagines left in the box is not nothing; it is a vacuum.

Conclusion: Dr. Siegel doesn’t know nothing.

In the same way, atheistic evolutionists constantly steal bases by saying things like “Given the laws of time, space, matter and energy, we can confidently assert that life accidently arose and developed without any need of a Creator.” Given by whom? Why is there anything? Why does it behave as it does? Often the explanation to such elementary questions is “Shut up” from atheistic materialists. Thomas, however, does not shut up and answers Objection 2:

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

And that self-necessary first principle is what everybody calls “God”.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 2, 2011

Hey Western Washington!

Next Post

March 2, 2011 Sedevacantist Singles

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 September 2006 June 2006 July 2005 April 2005 May 2002 April 2002 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz