Help with Evolution

[PinoyMonk]

Hey all,
 
  I've got a friend who is just CONVINCED that evolution is superior to  creationism and that science has far more proof for evolution than for  "intelligent design."  I've shared with him quite a bit of the  material from CatholicApologetics.info, and his argument is summarized  as follows:
 
  It takes centuries for any changes to be made.  Yes, changes are  made VERY slowly, and this is why we don't see anything unless we  analyze microscopic organisms.  Larger entities cannot show  changes so well.  For example, ears are impossible to prove.   They don't have big enough bones to show up in the fossil record.
 
  etc.etc.etc.
 
 
  It goes on and on and on...and 'tis rather obnoxious really.  I'll  provide a link of his in a second.  Perhaps you could all:
 
  A.  Pray for him.
 
  B.  Help me find some good material!
 
  http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/Sci_Ed/GeneralBiology/evolution/faq-misconceptions.html
 
  Thanks!
 
  Pinoy Monk
 

[Deogratias]

First get one thing straight.  There is no proof for evolution, none.

 

[Jadesfire20]

It takes centuries for any changes to be made.  Yes, changes are made VERY slowly, and this is why we don't see  anything unless we analyze microscopic organisms. Larger entities  cannot show changes so well. For example, ears are impossible to prove.  They don't have big enough bones to show up in the fossil record.

 
  I hate it when people sing the praises of the religion of evolutionism  when they dont even understand evolutionary biology. The above  statement from Pinoy's friend is ,scientifically speaking, pure  nonsense. Ears wouldnt show up in the fossil record because a) the  outer ear has no bones and b) the bones of the inner ear are believed  to be derived from the bones that support the gill arches in fish. So  they wouldnt appear in the fossil record with a big label saying "EAR  BONES", they would look like gill bones.  Sheesh

[miss_fluffy]

A particular point that I find most convincing, from what I have  learned in my medical science courses is regarding chromosomes.  A  bacterium only has one chromosome, humans have 23 pairs, different  animals have different numbers of chromosomes.  Chromosomes are  made up of DNA.  Now, DNA is only able to replicate itself.   There has never been any scientific observation that even suggests how  a mutation would cause this chromosomal number to change.  Even  when there are mutations (ie Down Syndrome children have an extra  chromosome) the mutation always has detrimental effects and the genes  are not passed on.  The vast majority of birth-defects that  involve a change in the number of chromosomes leads to sterility.   So if  two parents of the same species mate, the chromosome number  always remains the same, unless the egg or sperm is defective, but they  still give birth to a human, that human has many challenges, and  usually cannot reproduce.  How can the number of  chromosomes  "jump" from one to 46(23 pairs) given this scenario?  Where are  all these extra chromosomes coming from when mutations always lead to  disease?
 
  I don't know this might be a little more complex than I was hoping, but  I've been amazed how studying science has brought me closer to God.
 

[miss_fluffy]

There is a site which I am reluctant to share because it shares alot of  "by faith alone" protestant nonsense. But it has a fun layout, and many  clearly stated, scientifically sound arguments: www.dinosaursinthebible.com
   
  This book contains alot of scientific arguments, the unreliability of  carbon dating, fossil evidence, etc. It seems to be designed with  Homeschooling in mind. I believe it's also from a Protestant source but  it focuses more on science than scripture: Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation by Dennis R. Petersen
   
  Robert Sungenis is the only Catholic source I know of and his stuff is  rather long and tedious. I also think that when debating with a  non-believer it's not helpful the way Sungenis uses so much scripture  as evidence, of course, he's debating modern Catholics not scientists.  His most thorough and scientific piece on the subject can be found here.  The scientific angle is much more convincing, and there is absolutely  no science that undoubtedly upholds evolution, and plenty of science  that backs up the bible.
   
 Does anyone else know of any  Catholic apologetics in this area? Or have they all dissipated in the  wake of JPII infamous statement?

[Deogratias]

another interesting protestant source is www.doesgodexist.org. 

 

you know that b&w pic in science books showing the moth on the tree?  the scientists glued them to the tree to make their point.

 

theres one particular drawing that was published showing the evolution of man, like it shows a monkey, an ape, an ape standing up, and then a man.  The 'critical' ape that was just before the man was based on 1 bone, thats it.  The whole image is the artists rendition.

 

Catholics are sometimes criticized for blindly believing what they're told. But if its on tv or in a mag its pretty credible.

 

"Monkey see monkey do," <---thats the strongest evidence of mans evolution i think.

 

 

[kjvail]

One of the great works for refuting the idealogy of evolutionism is Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. On the point your friend was making:

But this notion of something smooth and slow, like the ascent of a slope, is a great part of the illusion.  It is an illogicality as well as an illusion; for slowness has really nothing to do with the question.  An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one.  The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail, would not be any more soothing. It might be rather more creepy and uncanny.  The medieval wizard may have flown through the air from the top of a tower; but to see an old gentleman walking through the air, in a leisurely and lounging manner, would still seem to call for some explanation. Yet there runs through all the rationalistic treatment of history this curious and confused idea that difficulty is avoided, or even mystery eliminated, by dwelling on mere delay or on something dilatory in the processes of things. There will be something to be said upon particular examples elsewhere; the question here is the false atmosphere of facility and ease given by the mere suggestion of going slow; the sort of comfort that might be given to a nervous old woman travelling for the first time in a motor-car.
 Mr. H. G. Wells has confessed to being a prophet; and in this matter he was a prophet at his own expense.  It is curious that his first fairy-tale was a complete answer to his last book of history. The Time Machine destroyed in advance all comfortable conclusions founded on the mere relativity of time.  In that sublime nightmare the hero saw trees shoot up like green rockets, and vegetation spread visibly like a green conflagration, or the sun shoot across the sky from east to west with the swiftness of a meteor. Yet in his sense these things were quite as natural when they went swiftly; and in our sense they are quite as supernatural when they go slowly.  The ultimate question is why they go at all; and anybody who really understands that question will know that it always has been and always will be a religious question; or at any rate a philosophical or metaphysical question. And most certainly he will not think the question answered by some substitution of gradual for abrupt change; or, in other words by a merely relative question of the same story being spun out or rattled rapidly through, as can be done with any story at a cinema by turning a handle.

[miss_fluffy]

From www.doesgodexist.org - Why I left Atheism
 
 

         The next question was that if I ever became a believer in God,  which of all the religious organizations claiming to be Christianity  would be the correct one. I recognized that I did not want to be a  part of all these traditional religious bodies that taught the error that I  had been taught and had believed in my early years, so I started  visiting the various religious organizations in southern Indiana at  that time. I visited almost every religious organization that I could  get into, to try and see what they taught, to see if they followed the  Bible and if they understood what the Bible had to say or if they  followed men's theologies. My experience was that as I went from  one to another, each of them taught something that was not in the  Bible. They honored some men above other men, they taught that  unreligious writings were equivalent to the Bible and they did not  follow the Bible literally and verbally. I had had enough of religious  confusion and error. I did not want any more of that sort of thing,  so I continued looking. In a real sense, I guess you could say I am  still looking  I am still trying to find that true Church. I did find the  religious group that seemed to me to follow the Bible very closely.  In Bloomington, there was a group of people who met on the comer  of 4th and Lincoln St. They were called the Church of Christ.  These people still did not totally follow what I understood to be the  biblical system. My challenge today to young people who are  Christians would be to do a job of totally restoring New Testament  Christianity. This group did have the doctrine of Christianity pretty  well restored as I understood it.

 
  I find it very sad that upon researching Catholicism (probably modern  Catholicism) this seeker rejected it.  Especially since lately, as  I have been given a New American Catholic Bible, I have found that the  footnotes deny the authority of the bible all over the place.
 
  This statement makes me very, very sad! 
 
  Thank you for the link Deogratis... I think this site might be helpful  in my quest to share information with my atheist and highly  philosophical family members.
 
 
 
 

[Credo]

....as I have been given a New American Catholic Bible, I have found that the footnotes deny the authority of the bible all over the place.

 

      Yes, I am not the only one to notice it! Read what what was written for the reason of the destruction of Sodom. Well don't you know, it was for the inhospitable treatment the angels received at the door of Lot! Too bad the NO was not around to implement the ministry of hospitality, shucks.

[introibo]

One thing to remember - there is such a thing as microevolution, which is perfectly compatible with the belief that God created the world.  That is, animals within a species can change.  Thus over the ages, giraffes might have gotten taller as those with longer necks pass down those genes and survive better...etc.  

There are so many holes in the evolutionary theory.  And how could something evolve an eye?  A good book, by the way, is "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.

And if evolution makes for better and better organisms which have evolved to best fit their environment, ask your friend how the hummingbird evolved.  Terribly inefficient creature in its design!  

Protestants, by the way are years ahead of Catholics on this stuff..it's only been recently that finally Catholics like Sungenis and Gerald Keene are getting into the act on this stuff.  

There's a good protestant group called Answers in Genesis - probably findable on Google.  They discuss the dinosaur issue a lot, too.

Christina