Being a Theistic evolutionist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyt3000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abiogenesis is no thorn in anybody’s side. Evolution is only a theory about how life evolves from other life. ** It does not need to explain how the first life evolved **any more than it needs to explain the big bang. Those are topics that are simply outside of the scope of evolution.
For the simple reason that it can’t explain how life began. But you can hardly find an evolutionist who believes it began by Intelligent Design. 😃

So then, how did it begin if not by evolution and not by Intelligent Design?

Some kind of magic? 🤷
 
For the simple reason that it can’t explain how life began. But you can hardly find an evolutionist who believes it began by Intelligent Design. 😃

So then, how did it begin if not by evolution and not by Intelligent Design?

Some kind of magic? 🤷
You are attacking the theory by attacking the beliefs of some (not all) who subscribe to the theory. There are plenty of evolutionists who credit God with all creation. Most of them see evolution as the hand of God in action, not some sinister ungodly process. Just because that hand does not act according to your narrow script does not mean it is not God’s hand.
 
Note to LeafByNiggle. I agree with your evaluation in post 94. This time, everyone should be able to respond in some way to the following statement in bold. One does not have to be a theistic evolutionist in order to talk about *both *Catholic theology *and *natural science.

In the 21st century, the science of human evolution directly contradicts Catholic theology regarding Original Sin.

Therefore, I respectfully ask for an explanation as to how a Catholic can be a theistic evolutionist.

This means that a Catholic who wants to be a theistic evolutionist has to believe that the 21st century science of human evolution is factual information. It is not my intention to place Catholic theology on the level of a fairy tale. In order to avoid the problems of facts versus theories, the theistic evolutionist would have to believe that the theory of the 21st century science of human evolution is so compelling that it is probable that it is factual.

This means that one has to skip the general claims about “evolution” being compatible with Catholicism. One has to state the actual teaching in the 21st century science of human evolution which demonstrates Original Sin.

The reason I keep referring to the 21st century science of human evolution is that science, itself, has moved beyond the 1940-50’s. However, the intelligence of Pius XII did go beyond 1950 as he named the very source of the 2lst century opposition to Catholic theology. In the late 20th century, Blessed John Paul II warned about and expanded the dangers expressed by Pius XII.

The reason why I refer to “theistic evolutionist” is because that is the title of this thread. I am not asking “who” is a theistic evolutionist. I am asking for the beliefs (both Catholic and scientific) needed when it comes to accepting both the science of human evolution per se, and the doctrines on Original Sin.
 
For the simple reason that it can’t explain how life began.
Nor can Creationism, nor can Intelligent Design. Yes, this is a trick question and the obvious answer you first thought of is wrong. Ask yourself, “Is it possible for an omnipotent God to create the first living thing?” Psalm 42:2 applies here.
So then, how did it begin if not by evolution and not by Intelligent Design?
Abiogenesis.

rossum
 
You are attacking the theory by attacking the beliefs of some (not all) who subscribe to the theory. There are plenty of evolutionists who credit God with all creation. Most of them see evolution as the hand of God in action, not some sinister ungodly process. Just because that hand does not act according to your narrow script does not mean it is not God’s hand.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Sinister? Did I say the devil created life? :confused:🤷
 
That is not an answer. It is all pure speculation with no foundation in facts since nobody was there at the moment of abiogenesis to observe and report.

Intelligent Design is vastly more likely. If a thing looks like it was intelligently designed, it is reasonable to infer that it was intelligently designed, even without being there to observe and report.
 
All that is required for the basic mechanism of evolution to be true are three facts that, as far as I know, no one disputes:
  1. Organisms pass at least some of their traits to their offspring.
  2. However, offspring are generally not identical to either parent nor to any of their siblings.
  3. Sometimes, the difference in traits between siblings makes the difference between surviving to have offspring of one’s own, or at least having more offspring, and not doing so. On a population-wide scale, by rule 1, that means the survival-promoting trait is passed on preferentially.
Now, of course the argument isn’t really about heredity or even the differential survival value of different traits. The argument comes in when those principles are applied to explain the current diversity of species (including us humans) in the world. It’s true that that assertion doesn’t have the ironclad certainty of the basic mechanism itself. But it still has strong underpinnings. For example:
  1. All earthly organisms that we’ve studied use a similar chemical basis (DNA and/or RNA) to pass on their traits.
  2. Some species have more genetic similarity to each other than others do. (Granny mentioned humans and chimpanzees, which are extremely similar compared to, say, humans and fish.)
  3. Those similarities seem to track with time in a way that strongly suggests they are a matter of splitting off from shared ancestral populations at different times.
  4. Not all species are equally old, so there must be some mechanism for new species to come into existence. Combining that fact with 2 and 3, the development of new species by differentiation from ancestor species based on the mechanisms of hereditary change (see above) is the best explanation we’ve got right now.
Usagi
 
Nor can Creationism, nor can Intelligent Design. Yes, this is a trick question and the obvious answer you first thought of is wrong. Ask yourself, “Is it possible for an omnipotent God to create the first living thing?” Psalm 42:2 applies here.
If you take God as an eternally-existent living thing, obviously not. But while the term is applied to Him in Scripture, He’s not the sort of life we’re talking about here. It is certainly possible for God to have created the first biological life.

On the other hand, as I understand it, traditional Catholic teaching holds that plants and non-human animals are entirely material, including their vegetative and sensitive souls that make them different from rocks and each other. So even theologically, the step from non-life to life doesn’t require a special intervention by God the same way the step from non-sapient to sapient does.

Usagi
 
For the simple reason that it can’t explain how life began.
You are missing his point entirely. Evolution is about how populations of living things change over time. You have to have populations of living things before any version of evolution even comes into play.

Abiogenesis is a separate question. It’s not something that evolution “can’t explain” because evolution was never meant to explain that.

Usagi
 
grannymh asked for judgement about the following statement:
In the 21st century, the science of human evolution directly contradicts Catholic theology regarding Original Sin.
My answer: No.
Therefore, I respectfully ask for an explanation as to how a Catholic can be a theistic evolutionist.
In the absence of any demonstrable contradiction between the two, I would say it is just as possible for a Catholic to be left-handed. Sorry, if you were presenting a contradiction, I just didn’t understand it. If you are pointing out that some extensions of evolution are incompatible with Catholicism, then I would say yes. You keep referring to the “21st century” version of evolution, as if it has supplanted the previous forms of the theory. It has not. I do not consider those fringe scientists to be mainstream.
 
That is not an answer.
It is science, and it is the best answer we currently have. You did click the link and read the article I presume?
It is all pure speculation with no foundation in facts
False. There is experimental support for many parts of abiogenesis. Not for all of it, yet, but for parts. We have observed experimental support for the formation of lipid bilayers, purines, pyrimidines and amino acids in conditions like those of the early earth.
since nobody was there at the moment of abiogenesis to observe and report.
Bwahahaha! So, you think that because we have no observations or reports of the formation of the Sun that the Sun does not exist. Hmmm… Perhaps you need to lower your standards a bit. Where are the observations and reports of the birth of Judas Iscariot? No Judas, according to you, so no crucifixion because there was nobody to point out Jesus to the Romans.
Intelligent Design is vastly more likely.
So, where are your observations and reports of the genesis of the designer. You cannot have design without a designer, and you require observations and reports to accept the existence of anything. Your impossibly high standard of evidence destroys almost all attempts at knowledge, ID included.

Where is your evidence of the designer making purines? Abiogenesis can make purines. Where is your evidence of the designer making pyrimidines? Abiogenesis can make pyrimidines.
If a thing looks like it was intelligently designed, it is reasonable to infer that it was intelligently designed, even without being there to observe and report.
If a mirage looks like water then is it reasonable assume that what looks like water actually is water? Pull the other one please. The human brain can be fooled by appearances. You will need something a lot stronger than, “It sure looks designed to me.” Abiogenesis can provide you with a test-tube of purines. Where is a test-tube of purines from ID?

rossum
 
grannymh asked for judgement about the following statement:
In the 21st century, the science of human evolution directly contradicts Catholic theology regarding Original Sin.
My answer: No.

In the absence of any demonstrable contradiction between the two, I would say it is just as possible for a Catholic to be left-handed. Sorry, if you were presenting a contradiction, I just didn’t understand it. If you are pointing out that some extensions of evolution are incompatible with Catholicism, then I would say yes. You keep referring to the “21st century” version of evolution, as if it has supplanted the previous forms of the theory. It has not. I do not consider those fringe scientists to be mainstream.
To understand the “contradiction” to the Catholic doctrines on Original Sin,
Please think about “populations” found in post 107.
“Evolution is about how populations of living things change over time. You have to have populations of living things before any version of evolution even comes into play.”
​
Population in the Wikipedia article about the “Eve” theory also needs some thinking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago,[3][4][5] most likely in East Africa,[6] when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.
​
snip
One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time.[8][33] However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands.
​
Now, please go back to Original Sin doctrines.
Do they explain Adam as existing before or after anatomically modern humans were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species?
That question is for anyone who wants to jump in.

That question about the time period of Adam’s existence goes straight to the teachings on human nature. Catholicism does not describe Adam in a stage of development. He has a complete human nature, decomposing anatomy and rational spiritual soul. In addition, God gave Adam the gift of immortality so that he would not experience bodily death like the other species. Catholicism does not hint that Adam was a subhuman who needed developing into a real human.

Next, we ask - Did Adam come after an ancient human population of thousands or was he simply the only one in that ancient human population who received a spiritual soul which made him in the image of the Creator. “Evolution” research papers refer to populations before real humans and to populations of real humans. See Wikipedia example above.

“Evolution” researchers do not posit a population of one human which Adam, according to Catholic doctrines, was. If Adam came after a human population which disappeared in order to size down to one human male, that contradicts the Catholic teaching that all humankind is in Adam as “one body of one man”. Meaning that all humans descended from one man Adam and his spouse Eve. The words “retroactively to previous populations” do not appear in any doctrine on human origin.

Here is science of human evolution’s direct contradiction to Catholicism’s doctrines on transmission of the State of Original Sin, which specifies that the consequences of Adam’s choice will affect all humans. The fine print is that the Catholic Church defines a human person as descending from Adam and Eve.

In evolution’s proposed ancient human populations, a human person is either a biological descendant of the human person Adam and his spouse Eve or the human person is a biological descendant of two other members of the population.

In contradiction, Catholicism teaches there is no either this set of parents or that set of parents from the population. There is only one specific set of human parents, Adam and Eve, who, according to Catholic Church, are the founders of the human population.

Obviously, other living human members of “evolution’s” large population cannot crawl back into the womb of Eve in order to be defined as human according to Catholicism’s fine print above. Nor would it be possible for a population to commit Original Sin as defined by the Catholic Church.

Therefore, there is a contradiction between evolution’s breeding population which produced lots of modern human anatomies and the Catholic doctrine that there was only one set of first human parents whose descendants have the right to share in God’s life in eternal joy. And there is a** contradiction** between a population and one person, Adam, who committed Original Sin.
 
Note to LeafByNiggle. I agree with your evaluation in post 94. This time, everyone should be able to respond in some way to the following statement in bold. One does not have to be a theistic evolutionist in order to talk about *both *Catholic theology *and *natural science.

In the 21st century, the science of human evolution directly contradicts Catholic theology regarding Original Sin.

Therefore, I respectfully ask for an explanation as to how a Catholic can be a theistic evolutionist.

This means that a Catholic who wants to be a theistic evolutionist has to believe that the 21st century science of human evolution is factual information. It is not my intention to place Catholic theology on the level of a fairy tale. In order to avoid the problems of facts versus theories, the theistic evolutionist would have to believe that the theory of the 21st century science of human evolution is so compelling that it is probable that it is factual.

This means that one has to skip the general claims about “evolution” being compatible with Catholicism. One has to state the actual teaching in the 21st century science of human evolution which demonstrates Original Sin.

The reason I keep referring to the 21st century science of human evolution is that science, itself, has moved beyond the 1940-50’s. However, the intelligence of Pius XII did go beyond 1950 as he named the very source of the 2lst century opposition to Catholic theology. In the late 20th century, Blessed John Paul II warned about and expanded the dangers expressed by Pius XII.

The reason why I refer to “theistic evolutionist” is because that is the title of this thread. I am not asking “who” is a theistic evolutionist. I am asking for the beliefs (both Catholic and scientific) needed when it comes to accepting both the science of human evolution per se, and the doctrines on Original Sin.
Very well stated. As it stands, evolution, as presented in science textbooks, provides no scientific linkage between the supernatural and the claims of science. There is simply a self-contained mechanism that requires no Divine (name removed by moderator)ut whatsoever. The attempts to assert that such a linkage exists is not based on science at all. Man is flesh and spirit. Again, science, by definition, cannot identify a soul or study Original Sin.

Peace,
Ed
 
Abiogenesis is a separate question. It’s not something that evolution “can’t explain” because evolution was never meant to explain that.
I never said evolution was meant to explain abiogenesis. I said it can’t explain abiogenesis. Will you please read what I say instead of what you think I want to say? :mad:
 
False. There is **experimental support **for many parts of abiogenesis. Not for all of it, yet, but for parts. We have observed **experimental support **for the formation of lipid bilayers, purines, pyrimidines and amino acids in conditions like those of the early earth.
You never learned anything from the last time we debated this! 😦

When are you going to figure out that “experimental support” is the product of intelligent design?
 
I never said evolution was meant to explain abiogenesis. I said it can’t explain abiogenesis. Will you please read what I say instead of what you think I want to say? :mad:
If you did not intend to make the inability of evolution to explain abiogenesis a black mark against the theory of evolution, then why did you bring it up? It seems irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
 
Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago,[3][4][5] most likely in East Africa,[6] when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.
Are you concerned that “anatomically modern humans” must have been truly human in the Catholic sense? That assumption is not necessary. Those “anatomically modern humans” could very well have been precursors to Adam and Eve. There is no reason to think that the immediate precursors to Adam and Eve had to look drastically different than Adam and Eve. So, no contradiction so far.
One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time.[8][33] However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands.
Once you learn to unlink “being truly human” from “looking anatomically human”, there is no contradiction here either.
Now, please go back to Original Sin doctrines.
Do they explain Adam as existing before or after anatomically modern humans were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species?
It could be either way, still without any contradiction.
That question about the time period of Adam’s existence goes straight to the teachings on human nature. Catholicism does not describe Adam in a stage of development.
Catholicism makes no claim of any sort about the precise anatomical level of development of Adam, i.e. whether or not he had body hair to walked with perfectly modern posture. It is consistent with Church teaching to hold that Adam’s body was not quite as tall as modern man, who is, on average, taller than the average man was several hundred years ago. Facts about the finer points of bodily development are irrelevant to the Churches understanding on human nature. The Church does not say, Adam was 5 feet 10 inches tall, or anything like that.
In addition, God gave Adam the gift of immortality so that he would not experience bodily death like the other species.
…a gift which he promptly lost through disobedience. Are you expecting to see evidence in the fossil record of that latent and lost immortality? Still no contradiction.
Catholicism does not hint that Adam was a subhuman who needed developing into a real human.
…nor does evolution say that Adam was subhuman.
Next, we ask - Did Adam come after an ancient human population of thousands or was he simply the only one in that ancient human population who received a spiritual soul which made him in the image of the Creator. “Evolution” research papers refer to populations before real humans and to populations of real humans. See Wikipedia example above.
What research papers call “real humans” need not coincide with what God calls “real humans”. Why not have Adam be the one true man who also looks like all his pre-human contemporaries? That view is compatible with evolution and compatible with Church teaching.
“Evolution” researchers do not posit a population of one human which Adam, according to Catholic doctrines, was.
That’s because their definition of “truly human” is different from ours.
If Adam came after a human population which disappeared in order to size down to one human male, that contradicts the Catholic teaching that all humankind is in Adam as “one body of one man”. Meaning that all humans descended from one man Adam and his spouse Eve. The words “retroactively to previous populations” do not appear in any doctrine on human origin.
I don’t know what “retroactively to previous populations” means. I really don’t follow you here.
Here is science of human evolution’s direct contradiction to Catholicism’s doctrines on transmission of the State of Original Sin, which specifies that the consequences of Adam’s choice will affect all humans. The fine print is that the Catholic Church defines a human person as descending from Adam and Eve.
So, where’s the contradiction?
 
If you did not intend to make the inability of evolution to explain abiogenesis a black mark against the theory of evolution, then why did you bring it up? It seems irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Because evolutionists (many of them) seem to be seriously threatened by the notion that Intelligent Design sabotages evolution. Some Catholics take sides with the evolutionists against Intelligent Design, as if they too thought Intellgent Design was a way around evolution. Why do you think think the atheist evolutionist so vociferously oppose Intelligent Design? Ask Richard Dawkins.

But if there is any evidence that evolution is not the final explanation for life, it is abiogenesis. And abiogenesis is not evolution.
 
So, where’s the contradiction?
Yes, I’d like to ask you the same question.

Do you think there were not two first human beings who committed the first sin?

Is it your view that whatever your view is, it is supported by science?

I doubt it. You know nothing about the first human parents. You were not there.

All scientific conjecture about Adam and Eve is smoke and mirrors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top