The Catholic Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Everlasting Man
The Everlasting Man (Oct 2019)
>
4. Evolution
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
John
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Oct 01, 2019 03:39AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
1. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a fact: These are things and not theories; and compared with them evolution and the atom and even the solar system are merely theories.
I fully agree. Although some scientists assert that "evolution is a fact, not a theory," this is clearly false. Although evolution is a theory supported by many many facts (taken from comparative anatomy, embryology, paleontology, biogeography, genetics and molecular biology), it is still a theory, as Chesterton pointed. It can be the most supported theory in science (although perhaps physicists would quarrel with this assertion), but it is still a theory.
2. He accepts biological evolution as the way that best explains the transformation of species in the history of life, but he signals two especial critical points in this history: the beginning of life, and the beginning of man. According to the Catholic orthodoxy of his time, he says that The matter here is one of history and not of philosophy so that it need only be noted that no philosopher denies that a mystery still attaches to the two great transitions: the origin of the universe itself and the origin of the principle of life itself. Most philosophers have the enlightenment to add that a third mystery attaches to the origin of man himself. In other words, a third bridge was built across a third abyss of the unthinkable when there came into the world what we call reason and what we call will. Man is not merely an evolution but rather a revolution. Therefore, Chesterton believed in a direct action of God at the origin of life and at the origin of man.
I agree that those two critical points (excluding the origin of the universe, as previous to the history of life) must still be explained. Catholic orthodoxy, which has moved away from dualism à la Descartes, without renouncing dualism (but interpreting the word à la Eccles or à la Teilhard de Chardin) would accept today that God made the world in such a way that as soon as it was ready for life (or for man) they came to exist, but as "critical points," similar to the physical critical point when water is heated and changes from liquid to vapor. This is not, of course, Chesterton position, for he died before these ideas were formulated.
I have used these ideas in my novel Jacob's ladder, which was read by the club a few years ago. Perhaps some of you remember the discussion in the ladder's second echelon.
Mod
1. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a fact: These are things and not theories; ..."
I think evolution can be considered a failed theory. The Theory of Evolution itself has evolved to a modern theory that posits mutations in DNA giving rise to new or improved species. But there have been a series of books out lately pointing out some serious problems with the theory.
1. The odds are impossible. There are an immense number of potential amino acid sequences that could be created by random mutation of DNA sequences, but a relatively small number of such sequences that could form a stable protein fold. The odds against a successful mutation turn out to be so great as to be essentially zero.
2. No evidence of a successful mutation ever. The kinds of mutations that would create a new species have to affect "strategic genes," those that do their job early in the growth process and affect how other genes do their job. Every known mutation of strategic genes appears to be fatal.
3. The Cambrian Explosion. The Theory of Evolution posits a series of changes gradually accumulating until you have a new species, and this occurring gradually over time, each species branching into new species. This should look something like a genealogical table - but there was during the Cambrian period a veritable explosion of new creatures, most of whom have no apparent ancestor in the fossil record.
All of this is addressed in a fascinating article in a recent edition of the Claremont Review of Books: https://www.claremont.org/crb/article...
The Theory of Evolution was a theory that intended to explain the appearance of design in the world around us without appeal to a creator. It was a beautiful theory but it turns out to be fatally flawed, not just in its inability to address the gaps that Manuel notes, but in its fundamental premise. It needs more monkeys. (I will have to leave the explanation of that comment to later.)
Mod
It depends on what you call the "theory of evolution". This theory also evolves (:-) and later versions are more adapted to current data than older versions. You can find a summary of its changes and outstanding problems in this post in my blog: http://populscience.blogspot.com/2015...
You say: "a modern theory that posits mutations in DNA giving rise to new or improved species". This is being confirmed just now. Look at this news published today: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/g....
Answers to your points:
1. You say: "The odds are impossible... The odds against a successful mutation turn out to be so great as to be essentially zero."
The last sentence is clearly exaggerated. If you take into account the redundancy of the genetic code, and the large number of genes in a genome, many of them interconnected and compensating one another, the odds in favor of a successful mutation turn out to be not so bad. This is also confirmed by the success of genetic algorithms, a field in computer science where I have worked a lot, where successful mutations are happening all the time.
2. "No evidence of a successful mutation ever." This is debatable. It depends on what you mean by a successful mutation. There are many examples of mutations that most biologists would consider successful.
3. About the Cambrian explosion: http://populscience.blogspot.com/2015.... In the other post in my blog mentioned above, it speaks about Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium, which deals with situations such as the Cambrian explosion. In this context, the paper you contributed gives erroneous information, such as "Those missing pre-Cambrian organisms have still not turned up." This is actually untrue. Ediacaran animal fossils are well-known since long ago, and they were previous to the Cambrian explosion. See this article as an example: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/c...
Mod
http://arantxa.ii.uam.es/~alfonsec/do...
Mod
It depends on what you call the "theory of evolution". This theory also evolves (:-) and later versions are more adapted to c..."
It will take me a while to read your references.
I have only finished Chapter 1, and so far Chesterton is not denying or accepting evolution, but only expressing the limits of evolution to explain the singularity of man. I agree with him.Many atheists have from the start wielded evolution as a reason against God's existence, despite the fact that no scientific discovery can prove or disprove God's existence, which is something outside of the reach of the scientific method. Of course God can create a universe that evolves if He wishes to, as He can create one that does not evolve.
Unfortunately, many religious people have swallowed the fallacy of the atheists, and are now writing articles against evolution, often without a sound scientific basis, with the only goal of defending their belief in God. This is as misguided as the atheists' attempt to use science to disprove God, and has the added consequence that young people leave the faith when they learn the science and realize that the "scientific basis" of such arguments was wrong.
As for the comment that the "odds are impossible", many constants of physics are so fine tuned that any life, including our own, would be impossible if their had been just a tiny bit different. Yet here we are, against impossible odds.
In his chapter, The Antiquity of Civilization, Chesterton writes"There would be nothing inconsistent or confounding about the discovery that those unknown ages were full of republics collapsing under monarchies and rising again as republics, empires expanding and finding colonies and then losing colonies."
I could not help thinking of Plato's Republic, which I studied in grad school, and was overwhelmed by Socrates' insight into the political process and its natural progression, or, evolution if you can call it that. Socrates looks forward rather than backward, predicting how the governments of societies move from one type of -ocracy into another, all the way to envisioning our own age, describing with uncanny accuracy, a political system dominated by lawyers. I would think Chesterton would have been familiar with Plato and Socrates, was he?
In the latest references to evolution and the missing link towards the end of the book, I still get the impression that Chesterton has nothing against the theory of evolution and accepted the scientific discoveries of his time. What he is strongly criticizing is the use that some atheists make of evolution to argue that man is just an animal, something which falls out of the scope of science.
Mod
I agree.
Madeleine wrote: "I would think Chesterton would have been familiar with Plato and Socrates, was he?"Pretty basic education in his day.
