R
rossum
Guest
Then MRSA is a lie, Roundup resistant weeds are a lie and all mosquitoes are killed by DDT.
You are not living in the real world I’m afraid.
rossum
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
You are not living in the real world I’m afraid.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I am not aware of any such organism having been found. Do you have a reference to quote?It appears that such complex organisms do exist.
You need to be aware that Professor Behe’s idea of Irreducible Complexity does not meet Darwin’s criterion. While IC does forbid direct evolution, it does not prevent indirect evolution.
rossum
J
JM3
Guest
I can agree with this. What I find disturbing are scientists, or non-scientists, who teach it as a fact and not a provisional theory.All scientific theories lack proof, because all scientific theories are open to revision or replacement.
Newton’s theory of gravity lacked proof, and when new data was found showing problems with it, scientists replaced it with Einstein’s General Relativity. That in its turn has no proof, and will itself be replaced at some time in the future, probably by a theory of Quantum Gravity.
All scientific theories are provisional and are “the best answer we have so far”. No more than that.
Mathematics has proof, science does not. Since scientists have not yet discovered everything, we can have no final theories. We may yet find a black swan that disproves the “All swans are white” theory.
rossum
J
JM3
Guest
The article I linked to in post 17 quotes Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250. I have not read it myself and is why I said “It appears”.I am not aware of any such organism having been found. Do you have a reference to quote?
You need to be aware that Professor Behe’s idea of Irreducible Complexity does not meet Darwin’s criterion. While IC does forbid direct evolution, it does not prevent indirect evolution.
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
This is a current theological and scientific approach to the existence of Adam and Eve.
Bonnette, Dennis. “Monogenism and Polygenism.” New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2012-2013: Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. Robert L. Fastiggi. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2013. 1013-1016. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 20 June 2013.
Bonnette, Dennis. “Monogenism and Polygenism.” New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2012-2013: Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. Robert L. Fastiggi. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2013. 1013-1016. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 20 June 2013.
R
rossum
Guest
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Similar to gravity:I can agree with this. What I find disturbing are scientists, or non-scientists, who teach it as a fact and not a provisional theory.
- Gravity-as-fact: things fall down.
- Gravity-as-theory: things fall down because…
For evolution, we have:
- Evolution-as-fact: populations change their genetic makeup over time.
- Evolution-as-theory: populations change their genetic makeup over time because…
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Denton’s work is not good in this area. Indeed, he has changed his views on a number of things, writing a second book: Nature’s Destiny (1998).The article I linked to in post 17 quotes Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250. I have not read it myself and is why I said “It appears”.
If his 1986 suggestions had worked, the Intelligent Design side would be hotly propmoting a list of species that could not have evolved. They are not, so none of Denton’s proposals must have worked out.
rossum
C
cjpayn2
Guest
Exactly!. Gravity can be viewed as a law and a theory. Just like you said, the law of gravity tells us that things fall down. The theory of gravity tries to explain WHY this happens.Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Similar to gravity:
The fact stays the same; the “because…” part may change.
- Gravity-as-fact: things fall down.
- Gravity-as-theory: things fall down because…
For evolution, we have:
As with gravity, the fact part stays the same while the theory part changes. It has changed a lot since Darwin, with the incorporation of Mendel’s work, Kimura’s neutral drift, the results from DNA sequencing and epigenetics among others.
- Evolution-as-fact: populations change their genetic makeup over time.
- Evolution-as-theory: populations change their genetic makeup over time because…
rossum
Also, rossum, I see that you mentioned FATHER Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, who also happens to be a Franciscan friar and religious man. If a priest can manage to work with theories and genetics, I wouldn’t see why we cannot do the same thing. I enjoy learning these things and yet my faith does not waver; I would say it increases it!
C
cjpayn2
Guest
I am getting tired of the skewed view that the Church and science are like oil and water, when that statement couldn’t be further from the truth. The media and biased information out there doesn’t help but I think it is important for all Catholics to explore the history of the Church when it comes to the sciences.
J
JM3
Guest
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Similar to gravity:
The fact stays the same; the “because…” part may change.
- Gravity-as-fact: things fall down.
- Gravity-as-theory: things fall down because…
For evolution, we have:
As with gravity, the fact part stays the same while the theory part changes. It has changed a lot since Darwin, with the incorporation of Mendel’s work, Kimura’s neutral drift, the results from DNA sequencing and epigenetics among others.
- Evolution-as-fact: populations change their genetic makeup over time.
- Evolution-as-theory: populations change their genetic makeup over time because…
rossum
The whole thing is rather irrelevant to me. It doesn’t matter to me how God created, only that God createdDenton’s work is not good in this area. Indeed, he has changed his views on a number of things, writing a second book: Nature’s Destiny (1998).
If his 1986 suggestions had worked, the Intelligent Design side would be hotly propmoting a list of species that could not have evolved. They are not, so none of Denton’s proposals must have worked out.
rossum
J
johnnyt3000
Guest
I honestly just find it to be very interesting.No, but my question to you would be, why do you believe in a theory that has no proof?
C
cjpayn2
Guest
I 100% agree with you! But for me I wouldn’t say it would be irrelevant, I just find it interesting. But I do know God is the one Who created all this. How He did exactly? I (and I am sure no one on this earth) will ever know that and that answer too is probably irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but none the less, it is still fun to learn how things are connected and the origins of things. I will never forget the fact that God is the one who created all of it. I like you (I assume) are more concerned with the relationship we have with God, which is the most important thing on this earth.The whole thing is rather irrelevant to me. It doesn’t matter to me how God created, only that God created
J
JM3
Guest
There is no problem investigating things that we find interesting. They may bring us closer to God or they may not. It is when they turn our minds against God that we must cut them loose. The problem is recognizing this point before it becomes too difficult to let them go.I honestly just find it to be very interesting.
J
johnnyt3000
Guest
How can one believe in a literal single set of parents and human evolution at the same time?No. You are required to hold that we all came from a single set of parents, but as for the basic principle that all life evolved from single celled organisms to the complex organisms we see today, that’s okay. I myself believe the theory of evolution to be true, but don’t see it at all to be at odds with my faith.
R
rossum
Guest
A human being is a human soul in a human body. Evolution only deals with the origin of the human body – the physical bit. Evolution does not deal with the origin of the soul.How can one believe in a literal single set of parents and human evolution at the same time?
- For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. (emphasis added)
A number of human animals (human bodies without human souls) evolved. God supplies souls to two, and only two, of them. All the initial pair’s descendants get souls from God; those not descended from them don’t get a soul.
rossum
J
johnnyt3000
Guest
Thank you, that makes a lot of senseA human being is a human soul in a human body. Evolution only deals with the origin of the human body – the physical bit. Evolution does not deal with the origin of the soul.
– Humani Generis
- For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. (emphasis added)
A number of human animals (human bodies without human souls) evolved. God supplies souls to two, and only two, of them. All the initial pair’s descendants get souls from God; those not descended from them don’t get a soul.
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
May I respectfully point out that “A human being is a human soul in a human body.” is similar to Cartesian extreme dualism which is not what is meant by the unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds. This very union becomes the single human nature, body and soul together. While we can study the body as originally coming from matter (biological evolution), we cannot separate the living human body from its spiritual principle, i.e., soul. (CCC, 364-365)A human being is a human soul in a human body. Evolution only deals with the origin of the human body – the physical bit. Evolution does not deal with the origin of the soul.
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. (emphasis added)
– Humani Generis
Thank you.
The trouble with today’s “theistic evolution” is that some, not all, Catholics, from what I read on CAF, are stuck in the 1940-50’s and have not caught up with the current variety of evolution theories.
This basically worked in the past century. Today, the emergence or epiphenomenon theory directly intersects with the Catholic doctrines on human nature. This evolution theory ties any kind of a spiritual-type experience to our physical anatomy. This material connection directly opposes the Catholic doctrine of soul as being created by God at conception.A number of human animals (human bodies without human souls) evolved. God supplies souls to two, and only two, of them. All the initial pair’s descendants get souls from God; those not descended from them don’t get a soul.
Therefore, there is a major problem for a “Catholic” theistic evolutionist because today’s general evolution theory contains a material outlook of the whole human person. Evolution’s “so-called soul” is considered as part of the anatomy, a possible function of the material brain. It is another part of the theory that our “conscience” evolved in “cultural” stages instead of being created by God. Our knowledge of right and wrong grew as our individual community slowly adopted principles which would benefit the members of the community–a form of relativism.
From Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
In other words, Catholicism is very clear that the spiritual soul is not material and therefore, it does not emerge or evolve from the material body.
E
edwest2
Guest
That is incorrect. God is God. Evolution is a concept that is lacking vital proofs and elements.Pax Christi!
God created evolution.
God bless.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Father Coyne’s comments about this subject are not credible.Of course not! It is great that you have studied more in depth on this subject. Faith and science CAN work in harmony. You can have both, they are not exclusive to each other, no matter what others will tell you. Also, I really enjoyed this conversation between Fr. George Coyne, who is head of the Vatican Observatory in Arizona ( I am not sure if he still holds that post today) and biologist and well renowned atheist Richard Dawkins. I really enjoyed the video adn the respect between the 2. Here is the video:
youtube.com/watch?v=zkS1B0huWX4
Also, the Church has had an ABUNDANT amount of scientists within Her own clergy and laity throughout the past 2000 years. Don’t let the ignorance of others persuade who that science and faith cannot be in harmony. I could provide you a great list of Catholic pioneers among physics, biology, astronomy and other sciences. Continue to learn as much as you can. God gave us knowledge to learn these things. He wants us to learn and grow in knowledge.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
The explanation is intelligent design.It is more than an opinion. A theory within science is not some subjective opinion that is just thrown out there. A theory holds great weight and is taken very seriously among scientists. It is studied upon exhaustively. In my opinion and what I have learned, there is not another provable explanation to explain to me the many, many, many variations we see among animal, plant and other species other than the theory of evolution (and more importantly natural adaptation).
Peace,
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.