Catholics and Evolution

[Melchior]

I refuse to have any further dialogue with you. If you deny the theory of evolution, you deny reality. If anything is crumbling, it’s the absurd case for intelligent design. The theory of evolution is so thoroughly supported that’s it’s no longer necessary for anyone to defend it. It would be like defending the theory of a round earth against an assault from the flat earth society.

I consider all of your words completely worthless at this point (not that you’re worthless, just your thoughts on this matter; it’s not my intent to be uncharitable). I’d be willing to discuss this matter further with someone who accepts reality.

Also, I do not believe that I have rejected any Catholic teaching. If you can point out exactly where the Church infallibly defines that we are the literal descendants of two human beings (a scientific impossibility), please do.

Genesis is true. It uses figurative language (allegory) to describe a fundamental truth about humanity. It cannot be interpreted in a way which contradicts the equally absolute, undeniable, irrefutable, firmly-established truth of the theory of evolution.

Sorry, but you are kid who has been spoon fed something and refuse to think critically about it. You believe it because you were taught it was fact, not because you have examined the evidence yourself. The scourge of the age, not teaching critical thinking. You instead deny de fide Catholic teaching on Adam and Eve.

seriously read Darwin’s Black Box and become more well read on the subject and don’t just insult people who have been around longer than you because you refuse to do your homework. Evolutionary theory is about as fact based as string theory. It is a theory that people are still looking to validate.

You also obviously ignorant of scripture.
The overwhelming majority of Catholic theologians throughout the ages understood that Genesis was poetic and narrative and unanimously believed in the special creation of Adam and Eve. In fact if death enteretd the world before them, then the Fall did not happen at all and there is no reason to believe in Jesus.

You say God could not have created two people in a certain state of phsycial perfection to parent the human race. But you believe He did use a brutal, cruel guided chaos to create man? He spoke the universe into creation, conquered sin and death yet he cannot create the way he said he did? We simply don’t have all the fact on how he did it because we were not there. But to say it could not happen is pretty silly considering how you think it did happen requires a great deal of faith too.

Thankfully you are mistaken. Now try to show some respect to adults. Seriously.

 

[Dauphin]

Speciation takes as much faith as believing God created the Adam as Adam. Or that he spoke everything into existence.

Really? That’s news to me. New species (e.g. domestic sheep) that humans have created aren’t real? When I see a bunch of sheep in a field, am I being deceived by the devil?

The fact is that speciation has been proved utterly. You can do it yourself if you’d like. Try the following experiment:

 

[Dauphin]

Sorry, but you are kid who has been spoon fed something and refuse to think critically about it. You believe it because you were taught it was fact, not because you have examined the evidence yourself. The scourge of the age, not teaching critical thinking. You instead deny de fide Catholic teaching on Adam and Eve.

I do not. I suggest you take back what you’ve said. Accusing someone of heresy is quite a strong pronouncement, and it’s quite wrong in this case.

seriously read Darwin’s Black Box and become more well read on the subject and don’t just insult people who have been around longer than you because you refuse to do your homework. Evolutionary theory is about as fact based as string theory. It is a theory that people are still looking to validate.

There is a near-absolute scientific consensus about evolution. One doesn’t have to be a scientist to understand the insanity of rejecting something like evolution. You may as well reject gravity and heliocentrism and genetics. What field of science will people like you want to throw out next?

You also obviously ignorant of scripture.
The overwhelming majority of Catholic theologians throughout the ages understood that Genesis was poetic and narrative and unanimously believed in the special creation of Adam and Eve.

And I agree with them.

You say God could not have created two people in a certain state of phsycial perfection to parent the human race.

Nope. Check again.

But you believe He did use a brutal, cruel guided chaos to create man?

Nope. Keep trying, though.

He spoke the universe into creation, conquered sin and death yet he cannot create the way he said he did?

It’s not that he cannot, it’s that he did not create the way he supposedly ‘said’ he did.

We simply don’t have all the fact on how he did it because we were not there. But to say it could not happen is pretty silly considering how you think it did happen requires a great deal of faith too.

To say what could not happen, exactly? Creation? It would be pretty silly for me to say that God never created humanity.

Thankfully you are mistaken. Now try to show some respect to adults. Seriously.

It depends on which adults.

 

[eliasaph99]

“As several people on here have proposed, there are reconciliations with natural selection and Church teaching that do not require the only genetic contribution to have come from Adam and Eve.”

EXACTLY! That’s ALL. I. AM. SAYING! Adam and Eve CANNOT have been the only source of our genetic material. They could not have been our LITERAL, GENETIC, PARENTS!

**The third sentence does not follow from the first two. Here’s a scenario:

Billy and Julie get married and have kids.

Their kids get married and have kids.

And so on for thirty generations.

Now, we look at those kids in the thirtieth generation. What genetics do they all have in common?

Billy and Julie.

Billy and Julie are the parents of all of them, genetically and perhaps spiritually depending on how strong of a legacy they left.

No inbreeding has taken place, and yet the genetics of Billy and Julie are now present in all these children.

The same thing could have happened with Adam and Eve along with a simultaneous dying off of those who were not related to them. (In this understanding those unrelated may have been genetically human, but lacking a soul, thereby not being human beings as we understand it.)**

It seems we’ve reached a consensus. I would ask you to apologize for saying that I have a view contrary to the Church. Declaring me a heretic is childish and unproductive. I’m someone who’s genuinely trying to reconcile the truth of the Church with the truth of science. You seem to have a deliberate desire to misunderstand what I’m saying.

The Church definitively teaches that Adam and Eve are the parents of all mankind. You stated that you did not believe this to be so.

I never accused you of heresy. To be a heretic requires obstinate, consistent, and persistent denial of a known tenet of the faith in the face of correction. I don’t think an afternoon debate qualifies you as a heretic.

I’m glad that you’re genuinely trying to reconcile the Church with what you read about science. I think that you should begin from the premise that what the Church teaches is true and what science teaches is plausible and our best explanation.

 

[clmowry]

So you would take the position that one group of these fruit flies are no longer fruit flies?

Chuck

Really? That’s news to me. New species (e.g. domestic sheep) that humans have created aren’t real? When I see a bunch of sheep in a field, am I being deceived by the devil?

The fact is that speciation has been proved utterly. You can do it yourself if you’d like. Try the following experiment:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...00px-Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg.png

 

[Melchior]

Really? That’s news to me. New species (e.g. domestic sheep) that humans have created aren’t real? When I see a bunch of sheep in a field, am I being deceived by the devil?

The fact is that speciation has been proved utterly. You can do it yourself if you’d like. Try the following experiment:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...00px-Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg.png

Ironically, the breeding you are referring to has nothing to do with the macro-evolutiuon I am referring to. From what lower species did sheep evolve from through natural processes? In fact show me one living example of a transitional species that has ever been observed. Man interacting and modefying through actual science what is already there is not evolutionary speciation. You may as well say that coming up with anti-virals is speciation. As I said evolution happens within a species. Adaptation. Nothing you have produced here shows the leap from one species to another. You are referring to changes within a species and breeding experiments. You are confusing categories. You show me fruit flies and you show me adapted fruitflies. Same species.

More ironic is that when species do change they lose code then can never gain code. There is simply no evidence for it and in fact it is one of several achiles heels to evolution from one species to another or speciation.

 

[eliasaph99]

Hey Dauphin,

You seem to think that we are all misunderstanding you at every turn.

Could you lay out for us, in one post, your views on:

Who Adam and Eve were and how they came to be?

How it is that they are our parents, but not genetically?

What their role is in the history of mankind?

What is original sin, where did it come from and how is it passed on?

What is the soul? Is it brought into being by the egg and sperm or by God?

 

[Dauphin]

In fact show me one living example of a transitional species that has ever been observed.

Wow! There are absolutely tons of intermediate species. You want just one?

“So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals,and along the primate lines of descent that it is often difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.” - National Academy of Science, 1999.
The Rohocetus is an excellent example of an intermediate species. It’s an intermediate form between a whale and a land mammal:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/images/0919Whale.jpg

Read about it here:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0919_walkingwhale.html

(edit: I realize you wanted a living example, but why isn’t a fossil good enough?)

 

[Dauphin]

Hey Dauphin,

You seem to think that we are all misunderstanding you at every turn.

Could you lay out for us, in one post, your views on:

Who Adam and Eve were and how they came to be?

How it is that they are our parents, but not genetically?

What their role is in the history of mankind?

What is original sin, where did it come from and how is it passed on?

What is the soul? Is it brought into being by the egg and sperm or by God?

This isn’t an interview. Lay out your beliefs if you’d like. If they contradict science in any way, then they are incorrect.
The fact is that I don’t hold any belief except that what the Church teaches is true and what science teaches is also true. All I’m trying to do is reconcile these, and all I seem to get is some lunatic denial of the theory of evolution. I’m willing to be corrected if I say something untruthful, but I will not accept pseudo-science or junk science. I’ve been getting alot of it, and it’s very discouraging. If someone could point out where I’ve stated a mistruth, I’d be delighted (I believe the parent thing is already cleared up).

 

[Atemi]

The Rohocetus is an excellent example of an intermediate species. It’s and intermediate form between a whale and a land mammal:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/images/0919Whale.jpg

When and how do you suppose the blow-hole evolved?

Does this creature have half a working blow-hole?

 

[eliasaph99]

This isn’t an interview. Lay out your beliefs if you’d like. If they contradict science in any way, then they are incorrect.
The fact is that I don’t hold any belief except that what the Church teaches is true and what science teaches is also true. All I’m trying to do is reconcile these, and all I seem to get is some lunatic denial of the theory of evolution. I’m willing to be corrected if I say something untruthful, but I will not accept pseudo-science or junk science. I’ve been getting alot of it, and it’s very discouraging. If someone could point out where I’ve stated a mistruth, I’d be delighted (I believe the parent thing is already cleared up).

Can you define science?

 

[Dauphin]

When and how do you suppose the blow-hole evolved?

Does this creature have half a working blow-hole?

No. The blowhole would be working. It was specifically adapted over time so that the whale can easily breath when it surfaces for air.

 

[Dauphin]

Can you define science?

Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.

 

[eliasaph99]

Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.

OK. And if anything contradicts the best known and supported explanation we have, we should reject it as false?

 

[Dauphin]

OK. And if anything contradicts the best known and supported explanation we have, we should reject it as false?

No. If it is a genuine scientific theory, we should investigate it and test it.

If it is something untestable like creationism, then we can say clearly that it isn’t science. It’s religion. That does make it false, it just makes it unscientific.

When we get something like intelligent design, which is creationism dressed up to look like science, we have to tear off the scientific veneer and reveal that it’s really just a corrupted form of creationism. If you want to watch a Roman Catholic scientist discussing this issue rspectfully, watch this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Here’s a shorter one that gets to the point:

youtube.com/watch?v=uORi9DrjP_s&mode=related&search=

 

[eliasaph99]

No. If it is a genuine scientific theory, we should investigate it and test it.

If it is something untestable like creationism, then we can say clearly that it isn’t science. It’s religion. That does make it false, it just makes it unscientific.

When we get something like intelligent design, which is creationism dressed up to look like science, we have to tear off the scientific veneer and reveal that it’s really just a corrupted form of creationism. If you want to watch a Roman Catholic scientist discussing this issue rspectfully, watch this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

But you said before that if my beliefs contradict science in any way, then they are wrong.

Who’s science?

For example, I disagree with manmade global warming. Its not that I think that there isn’t climate change, just that man and his activities are not the primary motivator.

Is my belief false? Should I discard it?

 

[Dauphin]

But you said before that if my beliefs contradict science in any way, then they are wrong.

Who’s science?

For example, I disagree with manmade global warming. Its not that I think that there isn’t climate change, just that man and his activities are not the primary motivator.

Is my belief false? Should I discard it?

If you adhere to a religious belief which contradicts an accepted scientific truth, then I think that belief is incorrect. For example, if my religion mandated that the theory of gravity is false and that it’s actually the devil who’s trying to pull us down towards him, then my religion is incorrect. It’s trying to intrude into the realm of science where it doesn’t belong. Trying to mingle religion and science ultimately distorts them from their true roles and achieves nothing. Religious truth is much more important than scientific truth, but it’s also very different.

 

[eliasaph99]

If you adhere to a religious belief which contradicts an accepted scientific truth, then I think that belief is incorrect. For example, if my religion mandated that the theory of gravity is false and that it’s actually the devil who’s trying to pull us down towards him, then my religion is incorrect. It’s trying to intrude into the realm of science where it doesn’t belong. Trying to mingle religion and science ultimately distorts them from their true roles and achieves nothing. Religious truth is much more important than scientific truth, but it’s also very different.

I agree very closely with what you’ve written above.

The example that you’ve provided is a bit of a red herring, as no idea as preposterous as that has ever been seriously proposed and considered in academic circles.

I think that your first statement is a little strong, because many people would and have gone overboard with such an attitude and have jettisoned ideas which contained even the slightest appearance of contradiction. Frequently what is necessary is a reexamination of the current understanding of the religious truth. Has it been interpreted correctly? Does our new scientific knowledge shed new light on an idea? Is the contradiction only superficial and there are reasonable reconciliations?

All of these things should be considered.

I would further add to it the admonition that one must be very careful when reading scientific material and claims. People like to overstate their results and science journalists are not scientists. They write to entertain and like to make nice little articles next to glossy photos or artists renditions.

Most scientists will tell you that the way the media reports and portrays scientific findings is often as misleading as the way a fundamentalist preacher rants from the pulpit. Surety is overstated and suppositions are stated as fact.

Unfortunately, true scientific papers are often almost unreadable to those not in the field due to the level of jargon and specialized skills necessary.

Now, as to the discussion at hand. I consider myself reasonably well versed in evolutionary theory, although for the past few years I haven’t been able to read a wide range of material because I’m in school and it takes up all of my time.

Evolutionary theory is an extremely broad and unsure subject. From my reading in the field, I think that about the only thing which could be said with absolute certainty is that natural selection occurs and leads to speciation. Many scientists want to include in that statement the idea that non-living matter can spontaneously give rise to living matter. They want this idea to appear to have the same level of scientific support as the previous. But it does not.

Nothing has ever shown spontaneous generation to occur. Living chemicals do not spontaneously assemble from basic chemical compounds.

 

[Dauphin]

I agree with everything you’ve written! I realize I went overboard in some of my earlier statements, and was way too harsh. I apologize for my angry rhetoric.

 

[eliasaph99]

I agree with everything you’ve written! I realize I went overboard in some of my earlier statements, and was way too harsh. I apologize for my angry rhetoric.

Thanks for the apology.

I’m glad that we could come to understand eachother.