Being a Theistic evolutionist?

[Usagi]

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

Nonbelievers don’t usually connect the two. No scientific theory is ever going to invoke God or the soul, because those notions are beyond the province of science. Indeed, any attempt to demonstrate our beliefs in spiritual things scientifically (as in the infamous attempts to measure the weight of the soul by weighing people just before and just after death) is doomed to lead down the wrong path, if not fail utterly. We don’t believe in any kind of “life energy” or “ectoplasm” that might someday be handled and measured. Spirit is a completely different category of existence.

On the other hand, we who believe in spiritual things are permitted also to take into account the findings of science, including those findings which strongly indicate that the diversity of living things in the world today developed by divergent evolution from common ancestors over titanic periods of time. But, of course, we still have to leave room for the notions of God, the soul, and Original Sin (if we are Christians), so we wind up constructing a hybrid called theistic evolution. It’s not the nonbelievers who are trying to connect scientific findings with divine revelation – it’s us. Some prefer to deny either revelation or the scientific findings, but some of us can’t do either of those in good conscience, so we try to make them fit together.

Usagi

 

[edwest2]

Nonbelievers don’t usually connect the two. No scientific theory is ever going to invoke God or the soul, because those notions are beyond the province of science. Indeed, any attempt to demonstrate our beliefs in spiritual things scientifically (as in the infamous attempts to measure the weight of the soul by weighing people just before and just after death) is doomed to lead down the wrong path, if not fail utterly. We don’t believe in any kind of “life energy” or “ectoplasm” that might someday be handled and measured. Spirit is a completely different category of existence.

On the other hand, we who believe in spiritual things are permitted also to take into account the findings of science, including those findings which strongly indicate that the diversity of living things in the world today developed by divergent evolution from common ancestors over titanic periods of time. But, of course, we still have to leave room for the notions of God, the soul, and Original Sin (if we are Christians), so we wind up constructing a hybrid called theistic evolution. It’s not the nonbelievers who are trying to connect scientific findings with divine revelation – it’s us. Some prefer to deny either revelation or the scientific findings, but some of us can’t do either of those in good conscience, so we try to make them fit together.

Usagi

The Church is on the fence with this issue.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Tell us how your proposed designer moves molecules around and show us the experiments demonstrating this movement.

No, that is not necessary to do. You don’t have to know how an atom bomb was conceived to know that brilliant (if unwise) physicists designed it.

And you cannot show how nature randomly moved those molecules around or conducted experiments demontrating those movements.

 

[rossum]

No, that is not necessary to do.

Yes it is. Any entity incapable of moving molecules cannot be the designer of life because assembling even a simple life-form requires moving molecules. You cannot live in an architect’s drawing of a house. The house actually has to be built in order to live in it. Building a house involves moving bricks. Building a simple bacterium involves moving molecules. You need to show that your proposed designer has the power to move molecules. Where are the ID lab experiments showing this?

You don’t have to know how an atom bomb was conceived to know that brilliant (if unwise) physicists designed it.

I have independent evidence, separate from the atom bomb itself, of the existence of brilliant physicists. Where is your evidence, separate from the existence of life, of the existence of your proposed designer. A non-existent designer cannot design anything.

And you cannot show how nature randomly moved those molecules around or conducted experiments demontrating those movements.

Yes we can, and have been doing so since the 1950s. Where are your ID experiments showing the ID designer moving molecules around?

rossum

 

[rossum]

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.

Agreed. So far, chemistry has proven to be a sufficient explanation. We still have a number of areas to explore further, but you are coming perilously close to a “Designer of the gaps” argument. There are indeed gaps in abiogenesis, but science is working to close those gaps. For example, the origin of pyrimidines was a gap until 2009. That gap was closed by Powner et al (2009). Closing that gap reduced the space allowed for any designer. How small do you want your designer to be?

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.)

We agree about random chance being insufficient. Abiogenesis is, so far, explained by chemistry, and chemistry is not random chance. Atoms do not combine randomly into molecules, they combine according to strict rules, like valency.

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?

I would opt for Nagarjuna’s short cut and deny the existence of all reified entities, such as your ‘sufficient being’. However, that probably belongs on another thread, being as it is a long way from Theistic evolution.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

So, to the OP, what is being a theistic evolutionist? I’m not trying to belabor the point, but it’s become obvious that some want to shut the door on the theistic part entirely. I agree only with the Church’s interpretation of this issue, while others are extremely anxious to remove a theistic addition from the equation. That is why so many threads on this topic exist.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

I would opt for Nagarjuna’s short cut and deny the existence of all reified entities, such as your ‘sufficient being’. However, that probably belongs on another thread, being as it is a long way from Theistic evolution.

rossum

Does his short cut include denying the existence of the “reified entity” that seeks explanation and defines what “explanatory sufficiency” is? Intelligibility presumes the existence of an inquirer into the question in such a way that it might be easy to overlook the fact that “reified entities” are precisely the entities posing the question to begin with.

It is an easy matter to dismiss “sufficient explanation” merely by dismissing the “reified entities” inquiring into explanation, thereby making any explanation unnecessary and superfluous except to those “reified entities” who see a need for sufficient explanations.

Sounds to me, that Nagarjuna’s short cut is to simply deny that he is a “reified entity” and, therefore, is quite content to deny that such a mode of existence even exists and, therefore, no requirement for any such explanation is needed.

In other words, I don’t need to see because I am an ear.

 

[adawgj]

Why?

Peace,
Ed

Well because many science majors have to take an evolution class and evolution is the most current scientific theory of the history of species.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course you can study evolution!
Evolution is FACT.
It doesn’t have to interfere with your religious beliefs.

To not study evolution would be like…to think the world is flat.
Please, please…study evolution!

.

Adaptive change is a fact. Theoretical explanations for why adaptive change occurs are not “facts.” They are conceptual constructs that try to make sense of it by identifying the causes. Those are subject to debate. Facts are not.

Gravity is a fact, but the theories that explain it are conceptual, not factual.

Using terms ambiguously doesn’t add clarity, it merely muddies the water.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Building a house involves moving bricks. Building a simple bacterium involves moving molecules. You need to show that your proposed designer has the power to move molecules. Where are the ID lab experiments showing this?

Again, you don’t have to show the architect building a house to know that the house had an architect! All you have to know is that the elements of the house were intelligently designed.

Your obsession with getting the Designer to demonstrate designing a universe and assemble the first life form is really becoming tiresome.

“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

So I’m in good company, no?

 

[edwest2]

Did anyone watch “How the Earth Made Man”? Pretty funny title.

Basically:

“How the Earth Made Man,” cleverly tries to project mankind as a product of evolution. Having failed with the Charles Darwin approach, they have now come up with a new approach about our beginnings. We are told how man evolved from a single celled organism in water to fish life in the ocean; from land dwelling rodents, to ape; from Neanderthal to human. This was the result of surviving many cataclysms. These near extinctions got recorded and encoding within us. 99.9 percent of it is found in every human being.

“All this information sound great if you have no religion and even if you had one, you would probably lose it! These initial findings concerning life in water already exist in the Qur’an. If you look up Islamic text you will find this statement: “The universe is within us”. In other words the whole creation is manifested in us. God created us and raise us above everything else. Every part of Him (God) to some degree is manifest in us and so too is our level of intelligence, which at times is put to intelligent use denying His existence.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Of course you can study evolution!
Evolution is FACT.
It doesn’t have to interfere with your religious beliefs.

To not study evolution would be like…to think the world is flat.
Please, please…study evolution!

.

From a member of the National Academy of Sciences:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Well because many science majors have to take an evolution class and evolution is the most current scientific theory of the history of species.

It has no practical value.

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Being a theistic evolutionist means…

Regular attendance at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
One cannot be a theistic anything without first being a practicing Catholic.

There are two truths which are needed as a foundation. 1. Belief in God as the Creator. and 2. Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. This will prepare one for the occasional devastating attack that “God is a deceiver.” We cannot lose sight that God is the ultimate authority when it comes to the science of human evolution.

The scientific (inductive) method is based on the principle that nature is the authority. Actually, this is proper because the realm of natural science is the material/physical universe. Be careful here. We cannot separate natural science from Catholicism for one simple reason. Within our own human nature, both the material world and the spiritual world are united. Upon physical anatomical conception, God immediately creates our spiritual soul so that our body, made of matter, becomes a living human person. We are not two natures united, but rather the union of the material and spiritual forms one single human nature. The unity of soul and body is so profound that God calls us to share in His own life, Sanctifying Grace. Again, be careful. Just because science cannot put our spiritual soul under the microscope, that does not mean that scientists cannot observe the spiritual. Remember that intellective rational tools and an active free will are ours because we are body and soul, matter and spirit.

As an introduction to theistic evolution, we need to understand Catholicism when it comes to our origin, nature, and ultimate purpose, and we need to understand, at least in principle, the science of human evolution as we find it in the 21st century.

Information source: CCC, 355-357; CCC, 362-366; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898.

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[rossum]

Again, you don’t have to show the architect building a house to know that the house had an architect! All you have to know is that the elements of the house were intelligently designed.

So, show us your design detection method. Show us the double-blind tests where you have tested your detector against known-designed objects and known not-designed objects. Mere claims of “it sure looks designed to me” don’t cut it. “That mirage sure looks like water to me.” Where are the scientific papers detailing the results of the tests of your proposed design detector?

Would you take an untested drug? I won’t accept an untested detector.

Your obsession with getting the Designer to demonstrate designing a universe and assemble the first life form is really becoming tiresome.

I say nothing about the universe. Since you are talking about the origin of life, then talking about the origin of life is relevant. What did your designer do? Is your proposed designer limited to acting only on pre-existing living organisms?

So I’m in good company, no?

Only if you’re Unitarian. Newton was not a Trinitarian.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It has no practical value.

Yes it does. Knowledge about evolution can be used to prevent pests evolving resistance to pesticides. Failure to follow the advice results in the evolution of resistance. See Evolution one-ups genetic modification:

By the turn of the millennium…scientists who study the evolution of insecticide resistance were warning of imminent problems. Any rootworm that could survive Bt exposures would have a wide-open field in which to reproduce; unless the crop was carefully managed, resistance would quickly emerge.

Key to effective management, said the scientists, were refuges set aside and planted with non-Bt corn. Within these fields, rootworms would remain susceptible to the Bt toxin. By mating with any Bt-resistant worms that chanced to evolve in neighboring fields, they’d prevent resistance from building up in the gene pool.

But the scientists’ own recommendations — an advisory panel convened in 2002 by the EPA suggested that a full 50 percent of each corn farmer’s fields be devoted to these non-Bt refuges — were resisted by seed companies and eventually the EPA itself, which set voluntary refuge guidelines at between 5 and 20 percent. Many farmers didn’t even follow those recommendations.

The advice was not followed and resistant rootworms evolved. Studying evolution does have practical value.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, show us your design detection method. Show us the double-blind tests where you have tested your detector against known-designed objects and known not-designed objects. Mere claims of “it sure looks designed to me” don’t cut it. “That mirage sure looks like water to me.” Where are the scientific papers detailing the results of the tests of your proposed design detector?

Gee, Golly, Whiz!

Now you are reduced to demanding proof that anything was designed?

So when you design a sentence, how do you prove that you designed it?

Do you use a design detector? Or do you use common sense and ask me to see the design in your sentence?

 

[rossum]

Now you are reduced to demanding proof that anything was designed?

Please read what I posted more carefully:

So, show us your design detection method. Show us the double-blind tests where you have tested your detector…

I am asking for evidence that your design detector actually works as advertised. A faulty detector cannot be relied on. where is your supporting evidence to show that your detector is not faulty?

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes it does. Knowledge about evolution can be used to prevent pests evolving resistance to pesticides. Failure to follow the advice results in the evolution of resistance. See Evolution one-ups genetic modification:…

rossum

If being scientific was the goal, what scientists would be doing is trying to understand how natural selection affects the existing genetic code to consistently bring about these kinds of resistance changes. What they wouldn’t do is insist the changes MUST be random as a foregone conclusion.

Random mutations would be considered one theoretical possibility, but the role the genetic code itself plays in the tendency towards improvement would be studied (along with other possible explanations) under the possibility that genetic code is much more adaptable and “open” by design or architecture to this kind of effect by natural selection. We would use this increased resistance evidence to try to understand why it occurs rather than assume, a priori, that it must be due to random mutation. Other possibilities would not be ridiculed, at least, not until they are definitively proven false. Perhaps, as an alternative theory, increased resistance is a designed feature built into the very structure of the code. Having a mindset that “it must be random mutation” and “can’t be designed” actually prevents scientists from doing unbiased research into how this occurs.

 

[edwest2]

Yes it does. Knowledge about evolution can be used to prevent pests evolving resistance to pesticides. Failure to follow the advice results in the evolution of resistance. See Evolution one-ups genetic modification:

By the turn of the millennium…scientists who study the evolution of insecticide resistance were warning of imminent problems. Any rootworm that could survive Bt exposures would have a wide-open field in which to reproduce; unless the crop was carefully managed, resistance would quickly emerge.

Key to effective management, said the scientists, were refuges set aside and planted with non-Bt corn. Within these fields, rootworms would remain susceptible to the Bt toxin. By mating with any Bt-resistant worms that chanced to evolve in neighboring fields, they’d prevent resistance from building up in the gene pool.

But the scientists’ own recommendations — an advisory panel convened in 2002 by the EPA suggested that a full 50 percent of each corn farmer’s fields be devoted to these non-Bt refuges — were resisted by seed companies and eventually the EPA itself, which set voluntary refuge guidelines at between 5 and 20 percent. Many farmers didn’t even follow those recommendations.

The advice was not followed and resistant rootworms evolved. Studying evolution does have practical value.

rossum

If a human being was exposed to a strong acid, he would not evolve any resistance. In the example you give, it’s obvious that some insects have built-in machinery that allows them to overcome exposure to certain chemicals. For example, drug discovery for humans is still trial and error. In some cases, the new drug will kill the target but also put the human being at serious risk for serious and life-threatening problems, so it is not approved.

Peace,
Ed