Creation or Evolution. What do you believe?

[Vindex_Urvogel]

MichaelTDoyle:

I don’t think most the Catholics here have “imagined persecution”. Your exasperation is understandable given your faith in evolution as fact and you confront a crowd who is curious and not yet committed to evolution by faith. Again Newtonian gravity got repealed, who knows what’s next? Personally I do not see evolution at odds with Catholicism. I see in this thread a lot of curious Catholics and some grumpy naturists who’ve been hangin with protestants a wee bit too long. Sorry tweaking noses gently here.

It is difficult to have faith in what is empirical reality; faith is belief without evidence in that which is without precedent. Where, for instance, does fossil data fall under the provenance of faith? Genetics? Biogeography? Comparative anatomy? Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

I dropped by your site to read the Bombadier beetle theory to satisfy my curiosity regarding spiders and spinarets. It read a bit like a flight of fancy–a well, this could have happened this way . . . This is so far from what I consider evidence that I think there is a lot of room for work in evolution. The current state of evolution claims are so very bold and of such large scope I have to wonder if there are not other mechanisms involved in the creation of complex structures that we have yet to discover.

By “my site” one can only assume you mean either IIDB or the EvoWiki, on neither of which have I written anything about the Bombardier Beetle, nor do I know anything of them but the vaguest generalities. If it is the EvoWiki you visited, I would strongly suggest going through the remaining materials and examining the free peer-reviewied journal articles cited off the resources toolbar.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Churchmouse]

Lance:

At least Packer fans evolved, Bear fans have not!

Well, at least to the level of a “cheesehead” But God wants all men to be Bear fans from the womb. Observe:

Num 11:12 Have I conceived all this people? Did I bring them forth, that You should say to me, ***Bear them in your bosom ** * like a nursing father carries the sucking child, to the land which You swore to their fathers?

…

Peace,
CM

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Vindex Urvogel:

It is difficult to have faith in what is empirical reality; faith is belief without evidence in that which is without precedent. Where, for instance, does fossil data fall under the provenance of faith? Genetics? Biogeography? Comparative anatomy? Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Vindex Urvogel

dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=faith

Basic definitions:
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.

That first one fits you to a T You refer to the second as if it were the only meaning of faith. You have a confident belief in evolution based on your interpretation of the evidence. Nothing wrong with that, but it is faith. I see the faith in evolution from the tone ad nauseum of your post as much as the substance. That’s fine, but don’t define faith solely as belief without evidence.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Vindex Urvogel:

By “my site” one can only assume you mean either IIDB or the EvoWiki, on neither of which have I written anything about the Bombardier Beetle, nor do I know anything of them but the vaguest generalities. If it is the EvoWiki you visited, I would strongly suggest going through the remaining materials and examining the free peer-reviewied journal articles cited off the resources toolbar.

Vindex Urvogel

I didn’t mean to imply ownership. You had some threads there. I can’t find the one on the beetle; I read some equally outright speculation on the spinnarets of spiders. Good fun. Like reading Harry Potter. Maybe they were cocoons and then poof they stretched into silk. What a bunch of possible hogwash. The next form would have to be an improvement for selection to to hold true and a “jump” from cocoons to an organ that spins silk is no logical progression proved. Science is not made by imagining the possible, but by demonstrating and reproducing the probable under quantifiable conditions.

But hey I’m sure Newton had faith in gravity too.

peace

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=faith

Basic definitions:
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.

That first one fits you to a T You refer to the second as if it were the only meaning of faith. You have a confident belief in evolution based on your interpretation of the evidence. Nothing wrong with that, but it is faith. I see the faith in evolution from the tone ad nauseum of your post as much as the substance. That’s fine, but don’t define faith solely as belief without evidence.

One does not believe in evolution or any other form of empirical reality, one either accepts it, or does not. For instance, one does not believe in gravitation, but rather accepts its reality on the basis of empirical data. Interestingly enough, Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language lists this as the primary definition of faith: “unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.” It goes on to list a number of similar definitions, none of which however, include “Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing”. Call me stodgy, but I shall take Webster’s over dictionary.com anyday.

In a tangential note, I find it interesting that the only real creationist responses on this thread have been in effect argumentum ad hominem in that the data advanced by myself and others has largely been ignored while our relative “faith” in evolution has been most stressed. For example, I have seen not single response to the data I offered refuting the claims that the fossil record is not compatible with evolution.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

MichaelTDoyle:

I didn’t mean to imply ownership. You had some threads there. I can’t find the one on the beetle; I read some equally outright speculation on the spinnarets of spiders. Good fun. Like reading Harry Potter. Maybe they were cocoons and then poof they stretched into silk. What a bunch of possible hogwash. The next form would have to be an improvement for selection to to hold true and a “jump” from cocoons to an organ that spins silk is no logical progression proved. Science is not made by imagining the possible, but by demonstrating and reproducing the probable under quantifiable conditions.

Which site is this? IIDB or the EvoWiki? I honestly haven’t the faintest clue which threads you are citing about entomology.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[TCB]

Oolon Colluphid:

Did the universe have a beginning?

But while this may be creation, it has nothing to do with evolution. Take it up with cosmologists! As far as I care, God could have started and overseen the big bang.

Cosmology is usually defined as the study of matter. Therefore, evolution would qualify at least as a subset of cosmology. Anyway, I appreciate your restrictions and will consider this question off the board for this conversation.
TCB

Did life evolve from none [sic] life?

Maybe, and we have reasons to think it did. But again, this is not evolution.

Your answer is somewhat contradictory but I accept the restriction.

TCB

The fact that both of these are ‘creation’, but not evolution, shows that it is not merely evolution which creationists seek to undermine – they are actually attacking all of science.

Don’t follow your reasoning here but let’s continue.

TCB

I should also point out that attacking science does not offer evidence for creation. If our scientific explanations were to be refuted (they’re not, but creationists think they are!), that would simply leave us with a ‘don’t know’ instead. Creation – even if vindicated – only offers a god-of-the-gaps explanation… which is not one most theists are happy with.

Do you consider these questions as attacks?
TCB

Did rational animals (man) evolve from none [sic] rational animals?

Please define rational!

Rationality is the ability to abstract, understand, judge and infer.
TCB

Is a chimpanzee that knows how to shape a stick to extract termites from a log not acting rationally and with foresight?

Expectation is not the same as foresight. Chimpanzees do not have the foresight of my little boys who all seemed to recognize by age 3 that a stick could be a sword.
TCB

Chimps can also deceive others: a subordinate chimp who knows where a piece of fruit is hidden can misdirect the dominant male until he can have it himself, unobserved. Is this not rational thought?

We may be more rational than other animals (though creationists give the lie to this ), but we’re not the only rational creatures.

Chimpanzees and other animals do possess a type of reasoning. Typically, the reasoning is either trail and error or instinctual. The reasoning is restricted to sense perception. Chimpanzees and other animals can be trained to differentiate between a square and triangle but they don’t understand anything about squares or triangles. Animals don’t recognize that a square contains two triangles or that the square has right angles. The reasoning of apes is similar to other animals and only differs in degree. The only reason that we even are aware of the difference is due to our training of chimps and other animals. On the other hand, the difference between apes and man seems almost infinite. The hands of chimps won’t build huts or castles. Chimps or any other animals will not leave art as advanced as the primitive drawings on cave walls since chimps don’t draw anything, even stick figures. Even though chimps share 99% of our genetic code, intellectually chimps are obviously closer to dogs.
TCB

So if we reduce the question for now to ‘did man evolve from an ape-like ancestor’, then the answer is clearly ‘yes’. And I will be happy to explain exactly why that is to anyone who disagrees .

I would like to read your explanation.
TCB

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Vindex Urvogel:

In a tangential note, I find it interesting that the only real creationist responses on this thread have been in effect argumentum ad hominem in that the data advanced by myself and others has largely been ignored while our relative “faith” in evolution has been most stressed. For example, I have seen not single response to the data I offered refuting the claims that the fossil record is not compatible with evolution.

I’d like to second this.

For the final time: I have no interest in worrying people or in testing their faith. My own disbelief in gods is only tangentially related to my interest in science, and I have tried to avoid theological discussions here.

Now then, can those who have arguments against evolution get on with offering those arguments? Please? If they have no arguments, then quit this creationist nonsense!

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

MichaelTDoyle:

I read some equally outright speculation on the spinnarets of spiders. Good fun. Like reading Harry Potter.

Did you see this then?

Curr Biol. 2002 Oct 1;12(19):1711-6.

Diverse adaptations of an ancestral gill: a common evolutionary origin for wings, breathing organs, and spinnerets.

Damen WG, Saridaki T, Averof M.

Changing conditions of life impose new requirements on the morphology and physiology of an organism. One of these changes is the evolutionary transition from aquatic to terrestrial life, leading to adaptations in locomotion, breathing, reproduction, and mechanisms for food capture. We have shown previously that insects’ wings most likely originated from one of the gills of ancestral aquatic arthropods during their transition to life on land. Here we investigate the fate of these ancestral gills during the evolution of another major arthropod group, the chelicerates. We examine the expression of two developmental genes, pdm/nubbin and apterous, that participate in the specification of insects’ wings and are expressed in particular crustacean epipods/gills. In the horseshoe crab, a primitively aquatic chelicerate, pdm/nubbin is specifically expressed in opisthosomal appendages that give rise to respiratory organs called book gills. In spiders (terrestrial chelicerates), pdm/nubbin and apterous are expressed in successive segmental primordia that give rise to book lungs, lateral tubular tracheae, and spinnerets, novel structures that are used by spiders to breathe on land and to spin their webs. Combined with morphological and palaeontological evidence, these observations suggest that fundamentally different new organs (wings, air-breathing organs, and spinnerets) evolved from the same ancestral structure (gills) in parallel instances of terrestrialization.

Annu Rev Entomol. 1997; 42:231-67.

Evolution of arthropod silks.

Craig CL

Silks belong to the class of molecules called structural proteins. The ability to produce silk proteins has evolved multiple times in the arthropods, and silk secreting glands have evolved via two different pathways. The comparative data and phylogenetic analyses in this review suggest that the silk-secreting systems of spiders and insects are homologous and linked to the crural gland (origin of systemic pathway to silk production) and cuticular secretions (origin of surficial pathway to silk production) of an onychophoran-like ancestor. The evolution of silk secreting organs via a surficial pathway is possible in adult and larval hexapods, regardless of their developmental mode. Silk secretion via a systemic pathway is possible in either adult or larval hexapods, but only larval insects have dedicated silk producing glands. Spiders, however, have evolved silk producing systems via both systemic pathway and surficial pathways, and a single individual retains both throughout its lifespan. Early in the evolution of spiders, silk glands were undifferentiated, suggesting that the number of silk secreting glands of any individual was related to the spider’s energetic need to produce large quantities of protein. However, the complex silk-producing systems that characterize the aerial web-building spiders and the diverse types of proteins they produce suggest that their silks reflect the diverse and increasing number of ways in which spiders use them. Because the muscular and innervated spinnerets and spigots of spiders allow them to control fiber functional properties, silk proteins represent an avenue through which animal behavior may directly affect the molecular properties of a protein.

In other words, the evolution of arthropod silks is not an impenetrable mystery. Silks may have started out as some sticky goo that was useful for some purpose or other, like covering eggs or covering oneself. Such goo could harden as it dries out, and the next step is some quick-drying goo that remains flexible: silk.

TTFN, Oolon

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

TCB:

Cosmology is usually defined as the study of matter. Therefore, evolution would qualify at least as a subset of cosmology.

Really? Well I suppose so, but barely. But it is not how the term is usually used. It normally means things like the origin of the universe, stars, planets and so on. Not life, which while dependent on the existence of the universe (obviously), is a specialised, different corner of it. Different because it has organised complexity, which stars do not. But okay…

Oolon: Maybe, and we have reasons to think [life evolved from non-life]. But again, this is not evolution.

TCB: Your answer is somewhat contradictory but I accept the restriction. No, you’ve lost me. In the same way that you cannot do chemistry without there being atoms, yet we can still do chemistry without knowing where atoms came from, we can study the course of life without knowing how it started. We know there are elements; we know there is life… now, what do they do? That there is life, we take for granted.

I don’t know how to make this clearer.

Oh I see, ‘evolved from non-life’. Okay, I misunderstood your original phrasing. Non-life became lively. We know not how, but there are several lines of research. But it could be God. Thus, given life, it went on to evolve.

Oolon: The fact that both of these are ‘creation’, but not evolution, shows that it is not merely evolution which creationists seek to undermine – they are actually attacking all of science.

TCB: Don’t follow your reasoning here but let’s continue. Sorry, I do tend to be overly brief when writing things for the hundredth time First time for you, of course

Creationists attribute the origin of the universe and the earth to God.

Creationists attribute the origin of life to God.

Creationists attribute the diversity and complexity of life to God.

But evolution deals only with the last point. So, creationists attack it. In doing so, they try to discredit geology, geophysics, and (obviously) biology.

It is cosmology (usual scientific sense) and astrophysics that deal with the origins of the universe. So, creationists attack them. (eg the speed of light formerly being faster.)

It is geology and geophysics that deals with the origin and structure of the earth.

It is bichemistry and chemistry that deal with the origin of life. So, creationists attack them.

This doesn’t leave much of science unscathed!

Do you consider these questions as attacks?

No.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

TCB:

Expectation is not the same as foresight. Chimpanzees do not have the foresight of my little boys who all seemed to recognize by age 3 that a stick could be a sword.

I would disagree. It is a matter of quantity, not of quality. Pretending something is something else is hardly a radical departure from realising that it can be something else. A stick is still a stick until it is put to non-stick use (slippery concept! ), as a plaything or tool by a mind.

Chimpanzees and other animals do possess a type of reasoning. Typically, the reasoning is either trail and error or instinctual. The reasoning is restricted to sense perception.

Wrong, I’m afraid.

http://members.aol.com/nonverbal3/deceive.htm

The ability to deceive is highly evolved in primates (see below, Nonhuman primates

). Our close animal relative, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), e.g., is gifted in the art of deception: 1. A young male, Dandy, withheld nonverbal cues of excitement to deceive other chimpanzees as to the location of hidden grapefruit, which Dandy subsequently consumed all by himself (Waal 1982). 2. A 9-year old male, Figan, withheld nonverbal food calls to conceal a bunch of bananas, which Figan subsequently consumed all by himself (Goodall 1986). 3. An adult male, Luit, pressed his lips together with his hand in an apparent attempt to hide the submissive fear grin he had given his rival, Nikki (Waal 1982). http://www.snprc.org/chimp/faq/chimp_history.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~origins/teach/A105/lectures/A105L12.html

How can we assess chimp intelligence?

· they make tools and use them to acquire foods, for social displays, etc

· they have sophisticated hunting strategies that require cooperation, and allow animals to achieve influence and rank by sharing meat

· they are highly status conscious and manipulative, capable of deception

· they are analytical and problem-solvers, clearly capable of insight and complex “cognitive performance” in both the wild and in captivity, and particularly adept at analyzing relative relationships

· language experiments have shown that chimps are creative, can learn to use symbols (and teach them to others) and understand aspects of human language including some relational syntax, concepts of number and numerical sequence

The hands of chimps won’t build huts or castles.

They can however construct leaf umbrellas. Which do the job. Forest-dwelling people don’t build huts or castles either.

I am not denigrating the human mind, merely pointing out that the rudiments of our abilities are found elsewhere among animals… and tellingly, most strongly among our closest relatives.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

I would like to read your explanation.

Heh. There are books on this, you know, and I have neither time nor inclination to write another one here!

Evidence for human-ape common ancestry:

Comparative anatomy. Sufficiently similar that Linnaeus put chimps in our genus.

Comparative genetics. Not just similarity, but the patterns of the similarity, such as the faulty vitamin C gene and chromosome 2’s telomeres. Also because the patterns of DNA are passed down generations.

Behaviour: as noted, numerous patterns of human behaviour are found in the other great apes.

Fossil record: earliest in Africa, where Darwin predicted and where the other great apes live (ie biogeography). Fossils (from earlier to later) show increasing encephalisation, bipedalism, reduction in canines and facial prognathism, increasingly human-like palate shape, and tool use from Homo habilis onwards (to summarise and leave out loads).

Note that just about all the fossils are as predicted by evolution, ie when evolution was becoming accepted, it was for other reasons than the (then undiscovered) fossils. Note the same point with genetics.

There’s plenty more, and I suggest getting hold of, eg, Tattersall & Schwartz’s Extinct Humans, Klein’s Human Career, Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, Larsen’s Human Origins: The Fossil Record, Wolpoff’s Paleoanthropology, Aiello & Dean’s Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy, Lewin’s Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction, or any other textbook on the subject. Not popularisations, but textbooks that deal with displaying the evidence. I have most of those, so I can look up anything I can’t remember off the top of my head (which is most of it ).

So. What are the specific problems?

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Incidentally, just what is it with this board’s software? No matter how carefully I format the posts (and I always do, carefully), I either get bloody great spaces between the paragraphs, or none. One return, two returns… it still screws up!

Annoying because it makes me look like the VBB-incompetent creationists we get at IIDB (and that’s not a jibe, it’s a demonstrable fact that over and over again, the posters who never get the hang of it are the creationists!)

Apologies for the interruption… and the formatting lunacy…

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Oolon Colluphid:

Incidentally, just what is it with this board’s software? No matter how carefully I format the posts (and I always do, carefully), I either get bloody great spaces between the paragraphs, or none. One return, two returns… it still screws up!

You might want to replace the WYSIWYG Interface with the Standard Editor or Basic Editor, Oolon. In “Edit Options” in the Profile. This is the only vBulletin 3 board I know that gives you the WYSIWYG Interface as default when you register.

Thanks again for taking over the thread.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Oolon Colluphid:

Did you see this then?

In other words, the evolution of arthropod silks is not an impenetrable mystery. Silks may have started out as some sticky goo that was useful for some purpose or other, like covering eggs or covering oneself. Such goo could harden as it dries out, and the next step is some quick-drying goo that remains flexible: silk.

TTFN, Oolon

Yes,I did and if you think this text of suppositions constitutes a proof of concept it’s no wonder many evolutionist-o-philes are dumbfounded when they get questioned as to their apparent faith in this theory. I read supposition, not evidence.

Could it have happened this way? Sure. All sorts of stuff could have happened. That’s not science. That’s conjecture.

mike

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Vindex Urvogel:

One does not believe in evolution or any other form of empirical reality, one either accepts it, or does not. For instance, one does not believe in gravitation, but rather accepts its reality on the basis of empirical data. Interestingly enough, Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language lists this as the primary definition of faith: “unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.” It goes on to list a number of similar definitions, none of which however, include “Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing”. Call me stodgy, but I shall take Webster’s over dictionary.com anyday.

Well, if you take only data sources that agree wiith your belief set no wonder your output seems to you irrefutable.

In a tangential note, I find it interesting that the only real creationist responses on this thread have been in effect argumentum ad hominem in that the data advanced by myself and others has largely been ignored while our relative “faith” in evolution has been most stressed. For example, I have seen not single response to the data I offered refuting the claims that the fossil record is not compatible with evolution.

Vindex Urvogel

It’s not ad hominem in that you and other faith evolutionists present the idea as indisputable fact in tone. Catholics are not by their Faith required to accept or reject evolution, so your deadpan earnestness and complete conviction strikes an odd note. Personally, I find evolution a solid theory, but I have to wonder why someone would take a non-utilitarian concept like evolution so dogmatically as to categorically deny the possibility of other effects creating or giving rise to species other than natural selection, e.g. manual genetic engineering.

Is belief in evolution going to save mankind? Will it even get you a cup of coffee?

Freewill is a part of my everyday experience. To believe that someone’s freewill had an impact on evolution in this vasty universe seems quite possible. To say that these designs of nature are the process of purely physical natural selection gives it more credit than its due. Love inspired by the beauty of the rose pales and dies put within your framework like a round peg in a square whole, unless you see the hint of a Maker. Natural selection may be a metaphor of God’s intent for Man to strive toward the source of Life.

peace

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

MichaelTDoyle:

Yes,I did and if you think this text of suppositions constitutes a proof of concept it’s no wonder many evolutionist-o-philes are dumbfounded when they get questioned as to their apparent faith in this theory. I read supposition, not evidence.

I’ll see if I can get at the full paper, rather than just the abstract. I suspect there’s rather more to it than is included in a summation of what the paper’s about.

Could it have happened this way? Sure.

There you go then. You had asked:

How do the more complex structures for specific purposes develop? The spinarets of a spider for example

…and I have given a possible answer. The implication of your post was that it could not have evolved, that it might be ‘irreducibly complex’, was it not? And apparently it is not. Sure, God may have done it instead. But in light of this plausible non-supernatural pathway, we have no need to invoke his help. Ockham’s Razor and all that. A god-of-the-gaps is unnecessary here.

All sorts of stuff could have happened. That’s not science. That’s conjecture.

It’s an area that is still somewhat mysterious, therefore it is a hypothesis. That is how science works.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

MichaelTDoyle:

It’s not ad hominem in that you and other faith evolutionists present the idea as indisputable fact in tone.

It is not indisputable. It has been disputed for a long time, and has seen off everything so far. And more to the point, my (and presumably Vindex’s) tone is due to the fact that creationist claims have already been refuted, hundreds of times. Evolution is not indisputable in general, but the specific disputes put forward by creationists are rather monotonous. Not indisputable, just not disputable via these arguments.

Catholics are not by their Faith required to accept or reject evolution, so your deadpan earnestness and complete conviction strikes an odd note.

We can have complete conviction against all the usual creationist arguments. If there are new ones, let’s see them!

And once again I point out that ‘normal’ Catholics are not my target. Scientific illiteracy and misinformation is.

Personally, I find evolution a solid theory, but I have to wonder why someone would take a non-utilitarian concept like evolution so dogmatically as to categorically deny the possibility of other effects creating or giving rise to species other than natural selection, e.g. manual genetic engineering.

God the tinkerer, eh? Okay, if you like. Makes one wonder why he didn’t fix our vitamin C synthesis gene though. I guess scurvy if you can’t get a decent diet is just one of life’s trials.

Is belief in evolution going to save mankind?

It might just come in handy for dealing with things like HIV and the next influenza pandemic.

To say that these designs of nature are the process of purely physical natural selection gives it more credit than its due.

To say that God created or tinkered with all the horrendously stupid designs in nature is to allow said god to be an idiot. That’s not a god I’d give house-room to.

Cheers, Oolon

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Good points, Oolon.

I’d only add that under Catholic theology we are living in a fallen world. Diseases like scurvy and trials of all sorts in creation are a result of Man’s turning from God.

Paradise and Eternal life are found with God; these defects in nature are what a Catholic would expect to find in this fallen world.

It’s when the rose moves us to higher emotions or we see valor in struggle in creation do we glimpse not the defect, but the heart of all creation striving toward the perfection that is God. Your own dissatisfaction with the “design” falls into this longing for perfection, this longing for God.

peace

more knowledgable Catholics can please correct me if I am in error.

Thanks!

 

[buffalo]

Are we now genetically superior to Adam and Eve?