Philosophy disproves Evolution

[WHEELER 10]

(This is a response in our group that Philosophy is not a science and that creationism is not scientific, has no merit and no value.)

 

This is in regards to what the job of Philosophy is. The following quotes are taken from Introduction of Philosophy by Jacques Maritain. This book is used in quite a few Roman Catholic seminaries around the world. I read this first in Rome.

 

Pg 60. Philosophy is not a wisdom of conduct or practical life that consists in acting well. It is a wisdom whose nature consists essentially in knowing.

 

Ibid. Philosophy , therefore is a science.

 

Ibid That is to say, the rule of philosophy, its criterion of truth, is the evidence of its object.

 

Pg 61. Philosophy therefore is concerned with everything, is a universal science.

 

Pg 67 for one truth cannot contradict another. (Parmenides principle of non-contradiction)

 

Ibid A science, however or rather a scientist, may happen to make a mistake in its own domain. In such a case the science in question is no doubt competent to judge and correct itself, but it is obvious that a superior science has also the right to judge and correct it, if the mistake should contradict one of its own results and thus come under its jurisdiction. But philosophy, and especially philosophy in the highest sense, that is metaphysics, is the sovereign science. Therefore, it is competent to judge every other human science, rejecting as false every scientific hypothesis which contradicts its own results.

 

Pg 68 Moreover, since the laws of one science are subordinate to the laws of a superior science, it clearly follows that it is the office of the superior science to govern the inferior. But since the principles of philosophy (the first philosophy or metaphysics) are the absolutely first principles of all human knowledge, they possess an authority over the principles of all other human sciences, which are in a certain sense dependent upon them. That is to say, philosophy (the first philosophy or metaphysics) governs the other sciences.

 

Aristotle disproves evolution in his book of Metaphysics. It is this Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy that is taught in all Roman Catholic Seminaries.

 

Philosophy says, Like produces Like. Evolution says dirt, which is dead produced life. How can something dead produce something living?

 

Philosophy says things are defined by their Act and Potentiality. Evolution says that humans descended from apes. Apes do not have the potentiality to produce humans.

 

Philosophy says all living things have souls. There are three different souls corresponding to the three types of living things, plants, animals, and humans. Evolution says Animals souls produced humans souls.

 

Philosophy says Form comes first. The chicken comes before the egg. The egg is the reproduction of the form. Evolution says the egg came first. If the egg is a reproduction , how can it exist before the thing (form) it reproduces?

 

Philosophy says Chance produces nothing. Evolution is all based on chance.

 

Philosophy says Intelligence produces order, organization. Evolution says, organization (organisms; which all life is) is produced by chance. Organization is not come about by chance.

 

Philosophy debunks evolution and Philosophy supports Creationism.

 

No Church Father upheld evolution. Evolution was proposed by the ancient Greek philosophers Epicurus and Democritus. (The Church teaches Aristotelian-Thomist Philosophy because of its eternal truths). Darwin did not invent evolution.

 

It is dangerous to wholly disdain the literal meaningparticularly of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth. Methodius c.290

 

[Celsus] does his utmost to reduce the human race to a still lower position and to bring them to the level of the irrational animals. Origen c. 248

 

How did that little seed of generation draw together the many atoms that were to constitute Epicurus?How did it frame and adapt the many members and parts?For of all these things, there is not one that is either idle or useless. Not even the smallest of them--such as the hair and nails. They all have their function to performWas Epicurus made, as they say, by the irrational multitude of atoms? No, the conjunction of atoms could not mold even an image of clay!And if even these representations and models cannot be made without the aid of wisdom, how can the genuine and original patterns of these copies have come into existence spontaneously? Dionysius of Alexandria c. 262

 

It is more believable that matter was made by God (because He is All-Powerful) than to believe that the world was not made by God. For nothing can be made without mind, intelligence, and design. Lactantius c304-313).

 

Justin the Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Methodius, Lactantius, and Arnobius are Church Fathers who dismissed evolution theory.

(A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, David W. Bercot, Editor, Hendrickson Publishers. L998 pg 179f and 264f)

 

Spontaneous Generation I thought was disproved in the 18th Century. Evolution is just this, Spontaneous Generation a billion years ago.

 

Evolution is the foundation of Socialism. Maos two favorite books were by the evolutionists Darwin and Huxley. Evolution was the chief tool used to brainwash communisms masses into scientific atheism.

Nazism openly proclaimed its dependence on Darwin. Evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith wrote: The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. The 20th century is the blood stained century of evolution.

 

Socialist and progressive thought is centered around the evolution of mankind. Christianity and the Scriptures do not teach this. We teach the fallen nature of mankind and mankind is returned to its original state through salvation in Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

Go away please!

[WHEELER 10]

Why because truth is dirupting your world?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Wheeler, what my esteemed colleague is trying to say (and correct me if I am wrong Ed) is that its very tiring wading through masses of quotes and philosphical positions and then not know what message you are trying to impart.

 

An axiom used during the Vaudeville days went along the lines of "You have to know your Audience" this was later changed a bit with the advice offered to the redoubtable Professor Henry Hill, late of River City, Iowa, who was told "You gotta know your territory".

 

No doubt you are proud of your posts and wish to impart your positions to us, but as pretty as your pearls look, this is one swine who has no idea what you are talking about and by the comments following your posts, many other posters feel the same way.

 

Could you spend less time quoting the work of others and let us know your own personal view?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[evmori 11]

No. Because your posts in these forums are nothing more than you pushing your agenda. And you view of the truth is very skewed. And you in no way could disrupt my world.

BTW, there is a spell checker available in these forums.

 

OGE, you snuck in while I was typing! You are 100% correct!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[firstpusk 10]

Philosophy says, Like produces Like. Evolution says dirt, which is dead produced life. How can something dead produce something living?

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Note that the definition of evolutionsays nothing about dead dirt producing life or the origin of life for that matter. Instead, evolution addresses the development and diversity of life over the history of the planet.

Speciation happens. Read about instances of obseved speciation at:

If you want the story that talks about life coming from dead dirt, try the Bible - Genesis 2:7

 

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

As for the Catholic Church, I suggest that you read the statement by Pope John Paul II

Evolution says that humans descended from apes.

Evolution indicates that apes and man share a common ancestor. This is confirmed by morphology, genetics, the fossil record, biochemistry and behavior.

Apes do not have the potentiality to produce humans.

Since in terms of taxonomy, humans ARE apes, the statement is more than a little silly.

Evolution says Animals souls produced humans souls.

Evolution does not address the quetion of the soul. It is a perfectly valid question for theology or philosophy, but not for science. It is not testable or objectively observable, hence not addressed by science. Talk with your minister, priest or rabbi about it.

Aristotle disproves evolution in his book of Metaphysics. It is this Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy that is taught in all Roman Catholic Seminaries.

Read the statements from the Pope. I dont think he agrees with your assessment of evolution. I receivedmy undergraduatefrom a Catholic university, funny I was taught evolution and Thomist philosophy.

Philosophy says Form comes first. The chicken comes before the egg. The egg is the reproduction of the form. Evolution says the egg came first. If the egg is a reproduction , how can it exist before the thing (form) it reproduces?

And placentas came before humans, big whoop. Eggs are and have been used by a myriad of species as a means of reproduction. Obviously, chickens share a common ancestor with amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals and yes, even humans. The egg is the form use to pass on genes by the species utilizing sexual reproduction.

Evolution is all based on chance.

Mutations are random. Natural Selection is not. Those individuals that are best adapted to their environment survive to reproduce. Those that are not will not have their genes passed on to the next generation.

No Church Father upheld evolution.

All of the church fathers you site did not have the benefit of the science and the evidence you do. They have an excuse for denying the truth of the Theory of Evolution, you dont. Augustine did not support preaching ignorance as the basis of scripture and faith. He scolded the likes of you in the early days of the church.

 

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? 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. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. The Literal Meaning of Genesis St. Augustine, 390 AD

Spontaneous Generation I thought was disproved in the 18th Century. Evolution is just this, Spontaneous Generation a billion years ago.

Evolution is not spontaneous generation. I gave the definition of evolution earlier in this post.

The foundation of Socialism and Nazism come more from Mathus and Nietche respectively. Accepting evolution does not deny the importance religion, the Bible or the fallen nature of man. Religious faith is a separate issue. (This message has been edited by firstpusk)(This message has been edited by firstpusk)(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Wheeler, there are many philosophies. "Philosophy" indeed exists, but it is a discipline, a means of arriving at answers, not an answer itself. And what you are talking about is really religion (which I realize some consider a type of philosophy) and specifically YOUR religion. Religion, by itself, can prove or disprove nothing, it is a matter of faith, belief and opinion. Science, on the other hand, deals with facts.

 

Oh and by the way, before you quote Aristotle's scientific "proofs," do you also believe that the Sun goes around the Earth? That is what Aristotle believed. Aristotle and those other guys you like to quote, Plato and Socrates, were pretty smart guys, and some of the things they said can still assist us, but they didn't know everything.

[Twocubdad 665]

Wheeler; I think your post overlooks a very significant point of view. Please consider the following:

 

"Gradually it has become clear to me what every great phlosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir." Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 1886

 

"American democracy and the American Economy were sucessful not bcause of individualism or communitarianism alone but because of the interaction of these two opposing tendencies." Francis Fukuyama, Trust, 1995

 

"The chessboard is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the uniferse, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature. The player on the other side is hidden from us. We know that his play is always fair, just, and patient. But also we know, to our cost, the he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance." T.H. Huxley, A Liberal Education, 1870

 

"If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask: Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning the quantity of number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding , 1748.

 

An interesting point of view, no?

 

[WHEELER 10]

Wheeler, there are many philosophies. "Philosophy" indeed exists, but it is a discipline, a means of arriving at answers, not an answer itself. And what you are talking about is really religion (which I realize some consider a type of philosophy) and specifically YOUR religion. Religion, by itself, can prove or disprove nothing, it is a matter of faith, belief and opinion. Science, on the other hand, deals with facts.

Philosophy is not a Religion.  Philosophy deals with facts.  Was Aristotle or Plato Christians?  What religion did they practice?  Yet with using Aristotelian philosophy I can completely refute evolution theory.  It has nothing to do with religion.

Socrates is a man.  All men die.  Socrates will die.  This is a fact.  This is knowledge.  But I arrived at this through a  sylogism.  A syllogism is a part of Logic and logic a part of philosophy.  Is the sylogism a religion?  Is logic a religion?  Is common sense a religion?

Does physical science answer the question What is love?  Does love exist if it can't be proved scientifically?  Can you measure justice?  Can you weigh courage?  If from what I gather that you are implying is that they don't exist?  Love, Courage, justice, mental thought, are all metaphysical.  Physical science does not deal with the metaphysical.  Philosophy does. 

Oh and by the way, before you quote Aristotle's scientific "proofs," do you also believe that the Sun goes around the Earth? That is what Aristotle believed. Aristotle and those other guys you like to quote, Plato and Socrates, were pretty smart guys, and some of the things they said can still assist us, but they didn't know everything.

It is funny that the whole time his works were lost to the Western world, nobody ever duplicated his work.  Copercunicus and Newton jumped off with their reading of Aristotle.   Aristotle wasn't perfect but a lot of what he said is still good for today.  Truth is timeless.

[firstpusk 10]

"Yet with using Aristotelian philosophy I can completely refute evolution theory. It has nothing to do with religion."

Perhaps this is possible, but you would have to figure out what actually is evolution. Your initial post on this subject indicates that you currently lack this understanding. In order to properly apply the Aristotelian method one must correctly categorize the problem. I pointed to a few of the problems in your intitial post. You don't seem to really have an interest in actually learning about evolution. Instead you seek to improperly apply the method of Aristotle to a straw man of your own making.

You said that truth is timeless. That might be, but I am not sure exactly what you were trying to say. The one thing I do know is that our understanding of the world DOES change.

In your initial post on this thread you said that philosophy says that like produces like. In a way, that is true. My sons and daughter have much in common with me in terms of trait and temperment. Yet they are different each is unique. The difference in individuals within a species is the basis for the power of evolution to produce change. Take a look at this link, I think it can help you to understand the notion I am talking about. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/species.html

[Sturgen 10]

Was Aristotle or Plato Christians?

How ignorant must you be? Christianity is one of many religions, not religion itself, there is no way of determining either of these mens religious beliefs because they are dead, and whether you choose to believe it or not, not all knowledge is contained in books.

 

Socrates is a man. All men die. Socrates will die. This is a fact. This is knowledge. But I arrived at this through a syllogism. A syllogism is a part of Logic and logic a part of philosophy. Is the syllogism a religion? Is logic a religion? Is common sense a religion?

I can equally say Socrates is a man. I want Socrates to be dead. Socrates is dead. How ridiculous is that. Logic and philosophy can be used to support a theory, or even innovate one, but they cannot prove a theory, ever. It takes science, observation, analysis. Days, years, even centuries of work to come to a consensus

 

It is funny that the whole time his works were lost to the Western world, nobody ever duplicated his work.

Not really, I would tend to think it wasnt duplicated because it was false.

 

Does physical science answer the question What is love? Does love exist if it can't be proved scientifically?

Actually it does, I have neither the time nor energy to look it up now, but both sexual and emotional love have been defined through science. The rough and tough definition being chemical signals sent through the body to the brain designed to encourage survival of a species. Philosophy has said the world was flat, the earth was the center of all, man is not able to fly, hundreds, if not thousands of things that science has proven wrong. Simply because science has yet to prove something does not mean it never will. A few years ago cancer or a heart attack meant certain death, now both are commonly survived by millions of individuals.

 

Wheeler, your profile only mentions only three or so years of formal education, as I am sure you are aware Socrates believed firmly in the importance of a sage, or other instructor to guide the students to intelligent thought through questioning. As a follower of his, almost religiously it seems, should you not instead of reading books be listening to a wise sage, allowing him or her to guide you to true knowledge.

 

[WHEELER 10]

there is no way of determining either of these mens religious beliefs because they are dead,

When one looks at nature, one sees order.  Order presupposes Intelligence.  Intelligence exists in something.  That something is mind. 

This is credited to the pre-socratic Philosopher Anaxagoras.  The pre-socratic philosophers were trying to find the "arche" of reality; some said earth, others water, still others fire, some said aire. But Aristotle credits Anaxagoras with the right answer.  Socrates was accused of impiety.  Socrates was a monotheist.  In his trial, Socrates mentions Anaxagoras and his writings.  Socrates downplayed the gods of myth.  Anaxagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were all monotheists.

Aristotle said that God is not only pure mind and spirit but also the prime mover from whence all change comes from.  They had no concept of ex-nihilo but this God did order the universe.

[WHEELER 10]

To Firstpusk

 

I understand differentiation. I read about the alleles in Scientific America. I understand how species get developed.

 

When people speak of evolution, they mean land animals crawled out of the sea. And sea animals mysteriously formed out the mud of the earth and the bottom of some lagoon?

 

Nothing you said in your first post said where life came from.

 

Where did the first species come from? Where did the first cell come from?

 

I understand that one can make 50,000 different species of bacteria from a single bacteria form. But after 50,000 changes, the bacteria is still a SINGLE cell life form. It didn't change into a two cell living organism. So how do you suppose, one cell grew into a mamoth whale?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OK, Wheeler, it's your turn: Where do YOU think the whales came from? And more to the point, where did the human race come from? From a common ancestor with chimpanzees? From just being plunked down here, fully developed as human beings, one of each species, by God? Some other theory? Or what?

[Fat Old Guy 11]

A mammoth whale? Is that the one with the long nose and the tusks?