A
adawgj
Guest
You definitely can believe in evolution. Especially if you plan on studying science.
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
The evolution model is important when the science one is studying is about bacteria and germs. The evolution model is useful when the science one is studying is about plants and porcupines.
When it comes to the science of human evolution, one needs to add Catholicism which goes beyond an evolving, rotting human anatomy.
R
rossum
Guest
This is standard for all science textbooks. A chemistry textbook does not provide any “scientific linkage” between the supernatural and the claims of chemistry. You will not find explicit links to the supernatural in a maths textbook either.
Textbooks cover their subject. A biology textbook does not contain lists of French irregular verbs either. The Bible does not contain a history of the American Revolution. Books, including textbooks, generally stick to their subjects.
Correct. So why are you complaining that science textbooks contain nothing about souls or Original Sin?
rossum
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If they feel this way, that is their mistake, and I am not going to worry about it. Evolution stands on its own without the support of those people.
Why would a Catholic want to oppose Intelligent Design? And if they did oppose Intelligent Design, and they thought Intelligent Design was a way around evolution, then they oppose a way around evolution, which doesn’t make sense.
No one in this thread is claiming that evolution is the final explanation for life. So I don’t know who you are arguing against.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Adam and Eve.
I don’t need science to support my belief in Adam and Eve. I have divine revelation, as handed down through the Church, for that. Why are you so desperate to get scientific confirmation of the truths of our faith? Can’t you just believe what has been revealed?
S
smichhertz
Guest
Hi grannymh,
Sorry I’m not a regular contributor to this particular thread, but I appreciate your responses and your patience in waiting for my replies!
I think they’re much more simply focusing on the biological science that they can answer. Therefore, one must accept the limitations of what science can teach us, and appreciate it for what it is.
In short, science is science. It’s man’s best guess at the “how” of the world around us. It in no way is meant to be taken at Gospel Truth. No one should allow it to replace their religious beliefs or override them.
Sorry I’m not a regular contributor to this particular thread, but I appreciate your responses and your patience in waiting for my replies!
That was how I always understood evolution. I’m not sure what the “ladder” concept is, so I assume that was introduced prior to my learning about it.
I think you might be overstepping here. Evolution teaches that all human anatomies are in the same species, genetically similar and are perhaps biologically equivalent (or roughly so), but that’s a leap from what Catholicism teaches about Original Sin. It sounds like you’re comparing apples and oranges. Remember, evolution is only concerned with the biological science, not the philosophical debate as the state of man’s relationship with God. So although you may hear overarching terms like “equality” in evolutionary science, it’s important to recognize that it’s within a biological context.
There may be a fair number of biologists who reject the possibility of Adam and Eve, but that doesn’t mean one can’t suggest that evolution was how God created Adam and Eve. Saying “I think biological evolution provides a good scientific explanation for how man was created” doesn’t contradict the possibility of Adam and Eve. It also doesn’t automatically subscribe oneself to the rest of the theories that other scientists may hold.
But is that really the realm of science? I feel like science has no place determining the spiritual value of man. God forbid the day comes when science feels it can speak with authority on the spiritual!
I think they’re much more simply focusing on the biological science that they can answer. Therefore, one must accept the limitations of what science can teach us, and appreciate it for what it is.In short, science is science. It’s man’s best guess at the “how” of the world around us. It in no way is meant to be taken at Gospel Truth. No one should allow it to replace their religious beliefs or override them.
G
grannymh
Guest
Take all your time. I am still :snowing:Hi grannymh,
Sorry I’m not a regular contributor to this particular thread, but I appreciate your responses and your patience in waiting for my replies!
That was how I always understood evolution. I’m not sure what the “ladder” concept is, so I assume that was introduced prior to my learning about it.
I think you might be overstepping here. Evolution teaches that all human anatomies are in the same species, genetically similar and are perhaps biologically equivalent (or roughly so), but that’s a leap from what Catholicism teaches about Original Sin. It sounds like you’re comparing apples and oranges. Remember, evolution is only concerned with the biological science, not the philosophical debate as the state of man’s relationship with God. So although you may hear overarching terms like “equality” in evolutionary science, it’s important to recognize that it’s within a biological context.
There may be a fair number of biologists who reject the possibility of Adam and Eve, but that doesn’t mean one can’t suggest that evolution was how God created Adam and Eve. Saying “I think biological evolution provides a good scientific explanation for how man was created” doesn’t contradict the possibility of Adam and Eve. It also doesn’t automatically subscribe oneself to the rest of the theories that other scientists may hold.
But is that really the realm of science? I feel like science has no place determining the spiritual value of man. God forbid the day comes when science feels it can speak with authority on the spiritual!
In short, science is science. It’s man’s best guess at the “how” of the world around us. It in no way is meant to be taken at Gospel Truth. No one should allow it to replace their religious beliefs or override them.
There is a lot of good discussion in your post. Most of which is going to stretch my brain.
the “ladder”.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07
Home page is evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
Another good link
tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html
I think the clue is that the ladder did not picture common ancestors. Common ancestors are populations which would produce different lineages of populations. The bottom right of the ladder link shows two common ancestors which divided and one line resulted in humankind.
From the home page, you should be able to find the diagram for the first sources of living organisms.
If not, check out the second link.
I remember something similar to that ladder in high school, but it was not in reference to evolution. It was more a difference between the capabilities of plants, etc. As for biology, I may be the only student in the school’s history who demanded that I be taught how to skin the rat before dissecting it. Saving the pelt was my way of honoring the beauty of the animal.
I wonder what you thought about post 111. Right now I am working on a post for this thread. After that I need to attend to my own survival. Time to grocery shop etc.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Let’s stop trading barbs. We are not at all on the same wave length. Good bye.
G
grannymh
Guest
Since you read natural science literature …
I am not thinking in terms of a “scientific linkage” or a “study of a spiritual soul”, I am remembering a study I posted years back which compared the math abilities of college students with that of a species of monkeys. Both groups did well. I am sure that there have been hundreds of similar kinds of studies especially when one is studying the intelligence of chimps, etc. What tickled me, and not one poster saw the humor, was the training given to both the college students and the monkeys so that they would know how to respond to the directions given in the experiment.
Looking at theistic evolution from my background, I would see what has been learned from the evolution model as a means to determine difference in kind. My favorite example is the theory of dinosaurs and birds. The difference in kind would be that when it comes to flying, birds cross great distances and humans land on the moon. The difference in kind in the math study would be the amount of time it took the college students to learn the drill and the amount of time the monkeys needed to learn the same drill.
Continuing with the idea of learning, example for survival. There is a species which learned how to uses twigs or sticks (tools) to get at their prey. Some species learned behavior patterns to fool or distract other animals away from their dinner. Sorry, the film clips are in my mind, but not the species’ names. The evolution model in paleoanthropology also follows “learning”, for example, hunting and gathering. The difference in kind between the human species and other species is the ability to learn and then creatively build on that learning.
The evolutionist would see that there are similarities in the genome of different species; yet, there is a huge difference in kind between human and animal species. Similar genomes are visible matter in time and space. This genetic similarity cannot account for the difference in kind when it comes to the rational abilities of human nature. Humans are capable of doing ordinary survival tasks differently. Shelter for example – the difference between a nest in a high tree and a penthouse in the business district. Ah, one says, the eagle is not physically able to construct a nest out of cement. True. But if evolution is the only explanation for human nature’s survival, what explains the creative ability to go beyond what is physically possible? I am picturing those tall cranes used in the construction of apartment buildings. And what explains the desire to scuba dive, for fun not food, where there is no air?
Regardless of one’s professed beliefs, humanity has always had an inherent sense of the spiritual. The evolutionist, looking at the facts of natural species, can certainly conclude that something immaterial (spiritual) is the cause for difference in kind between people and pets. I am not thinking of similar looks. A Catholic evolutionist would not keep her rational abilities in the material world; but would build on what was learned in the material world to discover the presence of an almighty immaterial (spiritual) source (God).
What I am getting at is that evolutionists should not limit their interests to a natural science enclosure. Too often, I see some, not all, Catholics choosing the authority of the material realm as the highest and only authority about human origin and nature. That is the serious temptation that Catholic evolutionists face.
Catholic evolutionists need to recognize the spiritual along with the material. And when there is a conflict, Divine Revelation trumps.
E
edwest2
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Regarding your last question, I never made that complaint in this thread. I am simply pointing out that any attempt to link the soul with human beings is beyond the boundary set by science.
Peace,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
I agree, science has boundaries, and the spiritual is beyond those boundaries. I asked the question because, earlier in the post I was responding to, you said:
Why are you criticising science textbooks for not presenting something that you and I both agree is beyond the boundaries of science? Any textbook should only present material relevant to its subject. Theology textbooks do not contain the detailed equations of fluid mechanics and science textbooks do not discuss the exact relationship between Vishnu and Krishna.
I am at a loss to understand why you are criticising science for staying within its boundaries.
rossum
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Intelligent Design is within the boundaries of science. Every scientists is likely at some point or another to conduct an intelligently designed experience, and so ought to be able to recognize intelligent design in abiogenesis, for example.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Yes, I have found too many Catholics eager to jump on the atheistic brand of evolutionism by refusing to acknowledge Intelligent Design of life. It’s as if they are so intimidated by the atheistic establishment in the scientific community that they are willing to collaborate with the idea that not only was life not intelligently designed, but the universe itself has no intelligent design. They think all is ultimately an epistimological and meaningless black hole.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The test tube of purines was the result of an intelligently deigned chain of events, concocted by an intelligent experimenter, thus it IS evidence of a “designer making purines” rather than evidence that purines can simply “come about.”
To hold that abiogenesis as a strictly random event that ended in purines follows from an experimenter designing them in a lab is a stretch of the imagination and not “evidence” unless one has a distinct bias in that direction.
The scientist clearly “intended” that purines come about because of a prior knowledge that purines are a key component to life. Blind chemical interactions simply “hitting upon” not just one (purines) but a large number of “key components” for life (a large array of functional proteins, DNA coding, RNA, replication) - as we have argued before - requires something more substantial as evidence than a mere insistence that a number of immense “search fields” could reasonably have been accessed and overcome numerous times by a process of mere random “hitting.”
The fact that organic constructs are composed of inorganic chemicals is undeniable, but the question that needs to be answered is whether the chemicals themselves have the organizational capacity to bring about life.
A house is built of those same inorganic chemicals (silica, carbon, iron, etc.), but the question is whether those chemicals would ever structurally order themselves into walls, floors and a roof. Given that organs, cellular tissue and even cells are organizationally far more complex and have a penchant for self-replication, I don’t think it is a non-sensical question to wonder whether such deeds far exceed the capacity of inorganic chemicals to accomplish.
Minimally, it should be an open question, not one resolved simply by pointing to a tightly controlled and clearly designed process of purine concoction from just the right chemicals under just the right conditions. I can form a brick by controlling the ingredients, the form, moisture and heat. All of which CAN be found naturally. The question is whether bricks of the kind and abundance required to construct a house (along with all the other components) will ever arise in nature and whether these would ever self-organize, structurally, into a house.
Certainly, living things are found in nature, but to presume that, therefore, they did so “spontaneously” and due strictly to blind forces is questionable, especially since humans have been fortuitously endowed (by the very process at issue) with the intentional capacity to question that version of the story by asking why it necessarily OUGHT to be believed.
There seems to be intentionality in the very fact that beings gifted with intentionality are the end products of the process itself. Why would intentionality be the result of a long process if the process itself was not intentional?
R
rossum
Guest
Correct. Both Forensic Science and Archaeology, among others, look for the presence or absence of intelligent design.
Not until the limits on what the proposed designer can do are known. If an Archaeologist finds an iron sword, then she knows that this dig is looking at an Iron Age site, not a Bronze Age or a Stone Age site. Only Iron Age designers had the capability of making an iron sword. Stone Age designers did not have that capability.
What are the capabilities of your proposed intelligent designer. Can it manipulate molecules? How does it manipulate molecules? What of the four forces does it useto do so? Where are your experiments showing the intelligent designer in action?
Science can recognise design by known entities, humans, bees, birds etc. It cannot recognise design by an unknown entity with unknown powers.
Tell us how your proposed designer moves molecules around and show us the experiments demonstrating this movement.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
So, if I make a model of God, then we can decide that because my model was designed then God must also be designed? Luckily for you, given my lack of model making skills, we have other models of God:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
By your argument, God was also designed by your proposed designer.
rossum
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Richard? Is that you?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Well, no. The issue of sufficiency needs to be raised, here. We only need to continue the ad nauseam argument until we arrive at a sufficient explanation. So, while you are correct that the explanation for abiogenesis only requires the explanation to be sufficient to explain abiogenesis (and random chance doesn’t) there is no need to continue the cycle of “who designed the designer” beyond the point where we arrive at a designer that sufficiently explains the cycle itself, which need not go on ad infinitum (or ad nauseam - pick your poison.)
I would opt for Aquinas’ ‘short cut.’ I.e., let’s just cut to the chase and define what sufficiency entails and simply agree that a sufficient explanation does not, ITSELF, further require another explanation, well… BECAUSE it SUFFICIENTLY explains itself and doesn’t need a more sufficient explanation. That is what “sufficient” means, correct?
E
edwest2
Guest
On what basis can anyone here, especially non-Catholics, invent a linkage between evolution and the soul or Original Sin? It is speculative fiction from a secular standpoint but it is an ongoing narrative here.
To put it another way, you cannot staple a science text to the Bible because, for some, adding any supernatural mechanism to evolution is without foundation. It’s not about textbooks, it’s about people’s perception of what human beings are. I am not pointing at just science, I am repeating the truth that the human being has two parts: flesh and soul/spirit. On what basis nonbelievers would connect the two is unexplained.
Peace,
Ed
- Status