A Few Questions (About Evolution)

[edwest2]

I stand by every word I wrote.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

I stand by every word I wrote.

Which is your right, Ed. But if you actually knew what evolutionary theory says, you’d be more effective fighting it.

Or maybe not. If you understood it, you might find it wasn’t a threat to your faith after all.

BTW, I really would like to see where textbooks say what you think they do. If you have an example I can check, I would be very grateful.

 

[Orogeny]

Which textbook said that, Ed? Give me a checkable lead. I review biology textbooks from time to time, and I’ve never seen that one.

Good luck with this one. Ed loves to refer to biology text books but he is never able to give a reference to a book that actually exists.

Peace

Tim

 

[Donald45]

This is textbook evolution that is being commented on.

What textbook(s) are you referring to? In any case, if the phrase “absolutely unguided” were indeed used in a science textbook, it would certainly be a debatable point, since science cannot properly say whether or not evolution is guided by any supernatural agent. Thus, for a science text to state that evolution were supernaturally “guided” would be equally unscientific and inappropriate.

I don’t think you are making the very necessary connection between science and theology.

I don’t think you’re making the very necessary distinction between science and theology.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[steveandersen]

Did life evolve from common ancestors?

Consider, except for dinosaurs in their large, lizard-like, non-feathered forms and a few other cases, ALL of our common ancestors are still with us, from microbes to more complex life forms.

none of our common ancestors are still with us

…There is some evidence for evolution

“some”?

but it was not random as described in textbooks.

Evolution is not a truely random process
while there are some random elements to it, there are deterministic constraints.

 

[Donald45]

Nonsense. The average person in an average conversation does not pause and put on their science hat to discuss science, and then pause again, while putting on their religion hat, to discuss religion.

Perhaps not, but the thinking person certainly distinguishes theological statements from scientific ones. This is where Dawkins makes his mistake: he tends to slip theological statements into his commentary on science as though the two----his scientific comments and his theological opinions----were the same. Of course, they’re not the same. Instead, Dawkins should qualify his theological opinions with, “Now, this is only my personal philosophy, but…,” or some other such indicator that he’s about to depart from science into the realm of theological speculation. To make theological statements in the name of science is what the Church objects to, as we all should. (Of course, stating as science that God guided evolution would fall into the very same error.)

My position is the Church’s position: science that violates Church teaching is violating Church teaching.

You’ve misstated the Church’s position. Rather, the Church objects to non-scientific statements in the name of science. The Church isn’t objecting to “science” in any sense, but to non-scientific (theological) claims being passed off as “science.” The Church is insisting that theological statements be properly distinguished from scientific statements, and that they not be confused with one another.

You can keep them separate if you want but I’m not.

This is not the Church’s position (read the last sentence immediately above). Your blending of science and theology actually departs from the Church’s stated position.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Nonsense. The average person in an average conversation does not pause and put on their science hat to discuss science, and then pause again, while putting on their religion hat, to discuss religion.
**Nonsense to what? You’re refusal to quote or refer to whom you are addressing makes it impossible Ed. You do this deliberately so that you can point your finger at ‘us’ yet not be accused of being rude to anyone in particular. I don’t change my hat when I go from talking about cooking to the latest football scores either. what is the point. You’ve cited the the proof that you are wrong. **

My position is the Church’s position: science that violates Church teaching is violating Church teaching. Period. You can keep them separate if you want but I’m not.

**It would help us immensely if you could tell us what you define as church teaching at this point. you continue to state the obvious to which no one disagrees. you are an arguer without an argument it seems. **
Ed

 

[Sideline]

Thanks for explaining your position in detail. Obviously, we don’t agree on several points, but I appreciate you going through it, so that I, and others, can get a better idea of where we disagree. And at least I think I can respond to stuff you’ve said without talking past you.

Consider, except for dinosaurs in their large, lizard-like, non-feathered forms and a few other cases, ALL of our common ancestors are still with us, from microbes to more complex life forms. I contend that the reason for this is the gravity, atmosphere and composition of planet earth. If some evolution occurred, and there is evidence for some, they were guided into their current niches.

I don’t have a problem with guided evolution. I don’t see a need for God to tinker, but I’m not a Christian. Whether a person believes that God loaded the dice in the beginning or adjusted as time went on doesn’t concern me in the least. The only thing that really bothers me is when people distort or confuse facts to suit their ideologies. We all do it, but to me this is something to be avoided, not encouraged.

When you talk about “gravity, atmosphere and composition of planet earth” do you mean that it is the reason for the diversity of life, or your contention that “(almost) ALL of our common ancestors are still with us”?

I have to challenge you on the science of the claim about our ancestors. Are you claiming that the microbes that exist today are the same species as those that existed billions of years ago?
There are many identified extinct species in the fossil record, and frankly, it is impossible to determine how many species have ceased to exist. Not every species is all that considerate about dying in an ideal environment for fossilization.

You know, I think I forgot to ask, how old do you think the Earth is?

There is some evidence for evolution but it was not random as described in textbooks. It appears mutations, genetic drift and environmental pressures were not sufficient to cause the large scale changes noted. Again, guidance was required.

You are free to believe that guidance was required, and indeed if Catholics thought that God was absent from creation it would be… odd. Even I think there was some providence to life being the way it is. But I have to ask why you think that Evolution is an insufficient explanation scientifically?

The concept of life not arising spontaneously from non-living organic material is well established.

It’s statements like these that cause problems. It is true that the concept of life arising from non-life is not well established, but to say it is established that it did not happen isn’t correct.

I have read the various theories for abiogenesis and none are convincing. One just simply moves the question to non-terrestrial sources. No experiment has been done that conclusively shows life arising from some mix of chemicals.

It’s true. We can not prove how life arrived from non-life on the planet Earth. We don’t understand the process as well. Even if we develop a fully formed cell from non-organic chemicals it would only prove that it could have happened that way, not that it had to happen that way.

But the fact is that there was an Earth before there was life on it. Life appeared somehow. It either got here from somewhere else, was specially created, or developed here. I’m a fan of the “developed here” hypothesis. It seems like you lean to the “God did it” hypothesis. If God did it, it kind of begs the question of how he did it. Which brings us back to the problem of figuring out how it could have been done.

Life appears to be designed, and developed in an open, non-laboratory environment that was dynamic.

I appreciate you saying that life appears to be designed. I have no problems with how you perceive the world being. I just don’t like people saying that it is a fact unless they can prove it.

Threats were not limited to predators, but also disease, accident related injury, weather related damage to sources of food and water (drought), plus some evidence of catastrophic changes in some areas due to flood, volcanic activity or even comets. Evolution appears to be limited.

I agree with everything you said about threats, but I’m not sure what you mean by, “Evolution appears to be limited.”

Catholics have been told by Pope Benedict that there is some evidence for evolution.

There certainly is some, yes.

To be continued…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Perhaps not, but the thinking person certainly distinguishes theological statements from scientific ones. This is where Dawkins makes his mistake: he tends to slip theological statements into his commentary on science as though the two----his scientific comments and his theological opinions----were the same. Of course, they’re not the same. Instead, Dawkins should qualify his theological opinions with, “Now, this is only my personal philosophy, but…,” or some other such indicator that he’s about to depart from science into the realm of theological speculation. To make theological statements in the name of science is what the Church objects to, as we all should. (Of course, stating as science that God guided evolution would fall into the very same error.)

You’ve misstated the Church’s position. Rather, the Church objects to non-scientific statements in the name of science. The Church isn’t objecting to “science” in any sense, but to non-scientific (theological) claims being passed off as “science.” The Church is insisting that theological statements be properly distinguished from scientific statements, and that they not be confused with one another.

This is not the Church’s position (read the last sentence immediately above). Your blending of science and theology actually departs from the Church’s stated position.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

actually Ed is a good deal like Dawkins. Both like to ascribe an incorrect connection between science and theology. Both obviously know better, yet both persist in trying to mis-inform the public to further their personal philisophical goals. The fact that their goals are in opposition is all the more amusing.

 

[Sideline]

When evolution, as described in textbooks, tells the reader that the theory is the best explanation of how we got here in purely mechanistic terms, Catholics need to be aware of several things. One, a purely mechanistic explanation is incompatible with Church Teaching (see Human Persons Created in the Image of God).

Not being Catholic anymore, I’m not going to comment on Church Teaching.

Second, that this mechanistic analysis reduces man to a biological mechanism that is driven by its genes. Our only purpose is to reproduce successfully. Our genes are all. They create the brain which creates the mind. Aside from easily confirmed sensory (name removed by moderator)uts, all other thoughts are illusory. Already, offshoots of this thinking has led to a belief that a gene has been discovered for altruism and one for hedonism. Another offshoot thought suggests that religion was invented by primitive men to cope with their environment, and to insure survival only from the standpoint of reproducing successfully; no other reason (like, you know, divine revelation).

That’s a whole whack load of assumptions you’ve got there.

Biology doesn’t discuss purposes. You can infer purpose from it, as Dawkins does, but Biology doesn’t tell you how to live your life.

It’s true that some scientists will say that people are just chemicals. Some will say that God is an illusion. And some will say that the science proves it. Why would a Catholic agree with them? To me, it seems absurd to try and bend the science, or reject the science, because of the people who practice it.

People are biological organisms. We are affected by our physical forms. If I tinker with your brain, your personality will change. If we adjust the amount of hormone in your system it will affect your desire to have sex. Kind of just happens.

And yes, your genes have an effect too. Some people are born happier than other people. Some people are smarter. Some people more interested in philosophy and some are more interested in gardening. Genes probably affect it, but they aren’t everything. No one who has ever spent time around identical twins thinks that they are the same person. They are more similar than non-twins, but genes aren’t everything.

You seem to have a problem with the idea that we are nothing but our genes, but then you agree that it goes part and parcel with science. Why not just reject the atheists philosophical add ons, and accept the observable facts?

 

[Sideline]

actually Ed is a good deal like Dawkins. Both like to ascribe an incorrect connection between science and theology. Both obviously know better, yet both persist in trying to mis-inform the public to further their personal philisophical goals. The fact that their goals are in opposition is all the more amusing.

I was just thinking that!

They are both saying that Evolution implies Atheism, essentially. To be fair, Ed is only claiming that of a purely mechanical rendering of Evolution (I think), but yeah really quite similar stances.

 

[Sideline]

Wow, this is turning into a lengthy process. Oh well, I was the one who asked you so many questions in one post.
:whacky:

Catholics should not believe in the purely mechanistic because we have been told by divine revelation, and recently, by Pope Benedict, that each of us is wanted and each of us is loved. We are in communion (or not) with the person of God.

But you don’t really believe that is the same as scientific analysis? Science is the how, that is the why.

It seems like it would better suit your purpose to be saying, as many people here are, “Yeah, Evolution tells us how our bodies developed, and how species diverged. But as Catholics we need to remember that we are not accidents. We are wanted and loved! Evolution doesn’t tell you who you are, the Church does that.”

Catholics should believe in a God guided form of development. The answer, as provided by the Church: “Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided.” Italics in original - Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69.

I don’t see any Catholic, at least here, who don’t.

Unfortunately, whatever merit was contained in the original proposal for Intelligent Design has been swept away partly by politics, and by other criticisms. Catholics should study evolution as presented in the textbooks along with the fact that God participated in His creation.

Don’t they?

Evolution, as presented in textbooks, is complete in itself and with no supernatural intervention of any kind being required, and does lead to mechanistic, atheistic thinking.

Most people believe in God. Most people in the past few decades have been taught Evolution. Religion is on the rise in North America. It doesn’t really follow that Evolution is keeping them from religion. Actually, the danger seems to be that science is being rejected. Personally, I think that is very sad. Science and rationality seem to be good things to me. I’m very sorry to see it being rejected on such a mass scale.

If you believe the danger is the other way around, go ahead. It’s your right. It doesn’t seem to line up with the facts, but it is your right.

 

[edwest2]

Ah yes, the facts. Well, as a Catholic, I accept a lot of things as facts that can’t, in most cases, be proven by science.

You (sideline) are simply repeating the same rhetoric I’ve seen everywhere else on the internet where this subject discussed. In all cases, there is rewording but the arguments are quite old. I can go back 30 years: “Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.” That’s all it boils down to.

I have studied Church documents that quite clearly tell me what is in line with Church teaching and what is not. This is Catholic Answers, not Secular Answers. I don’t reject science but view it only from a Catholic perspective. The combination of scientific information and the Church aligning it with Biblically revealed truth is the only way I’m going to view it.

You may say, and actually believe, that this is somehow against science or indicates a loss of interest in science. Far from it. I’m not going to post a list of what I read but I’m keeping track of developments. … but I can hear the rhetorical answer now: “If only I understood, then I would believe.” There are many people here who deny the worldview implications of the textbook version of evolution; the highly negative worldview implications.

To my fellow Catholics. As Pope Benedict has stated, there is some evidence for evolution but intimately tied to that is God’s divine providence. Don’t forget that.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Donald45]

Ah yes, the facts. Well, as a Catholic, I accept a lot of things as facts that can’t, in most cases, be proven by science.

These would be theological facts, as opposed to the facts of science.

I have studied Church documents that quite clearly tell me what is in line with Church teaching…

Church teaching (theology), not scientific theory.

…the textbook version of evolution…

Please give an example of one such textbook.

To my fellow Catholics. As Pope Benedict has stated, there is some evidence for evolution but intimately tied to that is God’s divine providence. Don’t forget that.

No, we certainly will not forget the Pope’s theological affirmation of divine providence.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[edwest2]

Hi Don,

You seem to want to live in two different worlds instead of one. I live in a world where the word of the Church about such subjects as evolution puts it in the right context. By itself, as in textbooks, it is meaningless and used to encourage meaninglessness.

The stone the builders rejected has been made the head of the corner.

The following is a factual statement and not theology, but the necessary Catholic view on a claimed evolutionary theory. My views are integrated.

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided.”

Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69.

I believe this statement for both the theological and linked scientific components. Do you understand?

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided.”

Sounds good. You do realize that evolutionary theory does not say that it is unguided, don’t you? In fact, the immediate cause, natural selection, guides it.

But for a Christian, that is merely because God created it so.

 

[edwest2]

The mutations are unguided, the selection is, supposedly, guided. That, at least, only according to the textbooks.

God’s hand is evident from the Christian perspective.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Thanks guys but I do not understand this in this manner. My understanding is the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were real and did not have biological parents.

It teaches the former, but not the latter.

Second I think this is the same reason many on the forum appear to oppose evolution. I think it is a communication issue because the church teaches evolution occurs after creation and is not a substitute for creation.

According to God, the origin of life came after creation, so evolution certainly would have. God says that He created the Heaven and the Earth, and the Earth then brought forth living things.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Notice that even though the Earth brought forth living things, God says that using nature to make things is also God making them.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The mutations are unguided, the selection is, supposedly, guided. That, at least, only according to the textbooks.

That’s a little like saying a high-performing salesman is just lucky that he happened to find people who wanted to buy.

In reality, a random process plus a non-random process is a non-random process.

God did a pretty good job after all.

 

[edwest2]

I tried an experiment. I split myself into two separate beings:

Theology Ed
and
Science Ed

Science Ed only dealt with observable things, proven facts, testable things. He didn’t think about the supernatural at all.

Theology Ed only thought about God and miracles and supernatural things.

Well, one day, Theology Ed began thinking about scientific things, and Science Ed began thinking about supernatural things. This got Science Ed into trouble on Catholic Answers forum as well as Theology Ed.

They have both merged back into one being, Ed.

I’m sticking with the Church’s view that science, by itself, only provides part of the answer.

God bless,
Ed