Creation or Evolution

[PhilVaz]

Reggie << The creation-evolution threads go on because we have Catholics giving blind allegiance to Darwinism >>

Read the two books I listed. No theologian, philosopher, or churchmen in those two recent books denies, rejects, or questions the following:

(1) all life on earth is descended from the smallest first organism(s) about 3 billion years ago by descent with modification (Darwin’s “universal common descent”);

(2) that is, the evolutionary path (skipping a few) is invertebrates, to vertebrates, to fish, amphibs (tetrapods), reptiles, birds and mammals, and finally to man;

(3) human evolution is a part of that, therefore we (homo sapiens) too had common ancestors with the primates (apes, chimps, etc) several million years ago;

(4) natural selection and other natural causes plays a major part in that development, change, and evolution from that “first organism(s)” to us;

That’s the science I am talking about that is not disputed in those books. It is considered fact because of the scientific evidence. The whole debate centers on philosophy, not on the science. Darwin’s science is just fine, it is the philosophy that some read into it where there are problems.

Cardinal Schonborn is the sole author of Chance or Purpose?, while there are several authors for the papers submitted from the Pope’s “student circle” in Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI. Do not forget what Schonborn has already said about Darwin and his ideas:

“With this, his major work (Origin of Species), Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge.” (Cat Lec 10/2/2005)

In Chance or Purpose? the official German translation for Ignatius Press, the above became:

“There is no doubt that Darwin’s principal work was a stroke of genius, and it remains one of the truly great works in the history of ideas. With an incredible gift for observation, and a great deal of hard work and prodigious mental powers, he produced this seminal book, which is among the most influential works in the history of ideas. And he could see in advance that many areas of science would benefit from his research. We can in fact say, today, that the model of ‘evolution’ has become a universal key to understanding, and its use has spread to many areas of knowledge.” (from Chance or Purpose? by Schonborn, page 26)

Schonborn has also conceded we are all eventually “star stuff” or “children of the stars” (I’ve already quoted this in previous threads, see his section “Man – A Part of Nature” in Chance or Purpose? page 113ff) and he says we are not demeaned or insulted by this. He does not reject or deny the scientific evidence for evolution as many Catholics in here do. "Darwinism" as science the Popes and Cardinals and knowledgeable churchmen do not dispute. It is “evolutionism” (or "Darwinism" as atheistic philosophy or dysteleogical evolution) that is disputed, challenged, and rejected by Catholics.

Let me sum up those two books again, if you won’t read them: macroevolution ("common descent") is a fact and a well-confirmed, well-documented theory of science; we human beings are a part of that process; science has limits since it can’t tell us about meaning or purpose or Ultimate Cause (e.g. God); we can discern “design” through our reason; the real debate is philosophical not scientific. John Paul II is also quoted extensively by Cardinal Schonborn (and others) in Pope Benedict’s “student circle” book. JP2 agrees with what I just summarized.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Let me add what Reggie and Ed are quoting from in Communion and Stewardship refers to the PHILOSOPHICAL debate (how evolution can be supernaturally “guided,” about “divine providence”, about meaning, and purpose, and “design” and “the image of God”). The science I am talking about is found and confirmed in that same document and is fully accepted in paragraph 63, which refers to the earth being 4.5 billion years old, macroevolution as “virtually certain” and human evolution as a part of that.

“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.” (From the International Theological Commission, headed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, statement “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004)

That is the science that is accepted, and not disputed. So yes, the debate is about philosophy. The science above is fully accepted by the Vatican, her scientists, theologians, and philosophers, and all knowledgeable Catholics.

Phil P

 

[jman507]

Given our mission, the Creation and Evolution debate is rather insignificant. If you must pin me down as far as my opinion, tentatively I’ll say both, and not even in the generally accepted way.

 

[elts1956]

The creation-evolution threads go on because we have Catholics giving blind allegiance to Darwinism (theories of which are condemned by the Holy See).

The creation-evolution threads go on because we have Catholics giving blind allegiance to Darwinism (theories of which are condemned by the Holy See)./QUOTEso don’t look at me…I’m innocent of debate, so far.

 

[elts1956]

The creation-evolution threads go on because we have Catholics giving blind allegiance to Darwinism (theories of which are condemned by the Holy See).

Just my 2 cents,

**Creation ----- Evolution

God created** evolution - End of Story in so far as I need to know
Why do the specifics matter?

The devil (of dissention and division) is in the details.

Peace
James

This is an evasion of debate…and I think it is just WONDERFUL!!! Thanks.

 

[Nickkname]

Creation or evolution?

Ok, here’s the Church’s teaching on the matter:

*Humani Generis

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.*

In other words, so long as evolution dose not teach that the soul evolved from animals, it is okay to believe in evolution. Moreover, there is no conflict between evolution and creation. Creationism and evolution, maybe, have a conflict, but Catholics are not obligated to believe in creationism. In fact, what the Church teaches about creation is:

*The Catechism

337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205 permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."206*

In other words, the succession of six days is not to be taken literally. It’s symbolic. Biblically speaking, a “day” is a long period of time, so the most literal interpretation of six days of creation is that God took a long time in creating an orderly world - and this, rather than disproving evolution, actually supports it, since as we know it was billions of years until man actually appeared on earth.

 

[reggieM]

Creationism and evolution, maybe, have a conflict, but Catholics are not obligated to believe in creationism.

Catholics are not forbidden from believing in creationism. Nor are Catholics required to accept any evolutionary theory. Catholics *are *required to reject “several Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories” which deny divine providence and are incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

There is no evolutionary theory which is “just science”. They all have a philosophical component and foundation.

Beyond that, there is abundant evidence and reason to question and doubt the “facts” of evolution as well.

We see many news items stating that “scientists were surprised” that “what was previously believed” about evolution turned out to be false.

 

[reggieM]

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained … Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for **some theory of evolution **to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision … However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: ??? ] with **the introduction of the uniquely human factors **??? ]of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution." ??? ]

That is the science that is accepted, and not disputed. So yes, the debate is about philosophy. The science above is fully accepted by the Vatican, her scientists, theologians, and philosophers, and all knowledgeable Catholics.

Phil P

I think we see enough evidence in the paragraph that you quoted that it is, indeed, disputed.

 

[edwest2]

It is completely false to call this “philosophy” when, in fact, the Church can include science in its comprehensive answer to the question of human origins. It is only the atheist desire to attribute to only chance and necessity what has factually been stated by the Church as the work of God.

It is the atheist desire to focus only on the science while the Church adds other areas of reason that we still need (as mentioned by Pope Benedict). So the clear, comprehensive answer is: No evolution occurred without God’s direct involvement and arrangement.

The only “philosophical” aspect is the atheist rejection of the role of any ‘supernatural’ force in the creation of man. For them, it is ONLY science, nothing else. As Catholics, we should realize that. We need to understand that when human life is reduuced to a bag of chemicals without any other purpose than survival and reproduction, then we deny the God that made us. The atheist wants God out of public life and out of the thoughts of the people.

God bless,
Ed

 

[VociMike]

It is completely false to call this “philosophy” when, in fact, the Church can include science in its comprehensive answer to the question of human origins. It is only the atheist desire to attribute to only chance and necessity what has factually been stated by the Church as the work of God.

Right, but this is just another way of saying atheists don’t believe in God. Logically even an atheist would have to admit that, to a being who was omniscient and omnipotent, the very concept of chance has no meaning.

It is the atheist desire to focus only on the science while the Church adds other areas of reason that we still need (as mentioned by Pope Benedict). So the clear, comprehensive answer is: No evolution occurred without God’s direct involvement and arrangement.

Agreed. And then the question follows, what form did God’s direct involvement and arrangement take?

 

[Brian_Millar]

I want to thank everybody here for keeping this thread cival, it shows our true colors, I’m proud of all of you.

 

[beeliner]

1. Catholics are not forbidden from believing in creationism.
2. There is no evolutionary theory which is “just science”. They all have a philosophical component and foundation.
3. Beyond that, there is abundant evidence and reason to question and doubt the “facts” of evolution as well.
4. We see many news items stating that “scientists were surprised” that “what was previously believed” about evolution turned out to be false.

1. That is true. The real issue, though, is teaching ‘creationism’ as SCIENCE, as many so-called "Christian’ schools do. I can’t imagine any Catholic school teaching that. I attended Catholic schools for 11 years and we learned about God AND about science, with no conflict.
2. That species evolve is one of the most firmly established FACTS in contemporary science.

There are various THEORIES of exactly how such evolution occurs. No doubt some of them might be said to have a ‘philosophical component’ (a rather subjective phrase), but I’m not sure that they ‘all’ do!

1. Ah, but you are putting ‘facts’ in quotes because you mean theories. See 2. That species evolve is not in doubt by any reasonable standard of modern science.
2. Can you give links to two or three (you said that there were ‘many’) such items, from non-‘Creationist’ sources, of course?

Usually when such an item appears, it enhances rather than detracts from what was previously known. A good example is the age of the universe. As our telescopes improve, we are able to see farther and farther into space and therefore into time. While the age of 15 billion years, more or less, is still regarded as the best estimate, there is now at least some indication that the universe might be much older, perhaps 40 or 50 billion years. Quite a difference from the biblical 6000-10000 years taught not as religion but as science by the so-called ‘Creationists’!

 

[reggieM]

I can’t imagine any Catholic school teaching that. I attended Catholic schools for 11 years and we learned about God AND about science, with no conflict.

I attended Catholic schools for 17 years and we learned that there are, indeed, conflicts between evolutionary theory (I wouldn’t equate that with science) and the Catholic Faith.

1. That species evolve is one of the most firmly established FACTS in contemporary science

.

It’s really not a fact at all as you state it. The question of what a “species” is, is not even a matter of science itself. Where in nature does it say precisely what a species is? Where can any scientist prove (or give solid evidence) about how many “species” exist today? This is a philosophical construct. A species is a means of creating some kind of category which does not exist in nature itself.

There are various THEORIES of exactly how such evolution occurs. No doubt some of them might be said to have a ‘philosophical component’ (a rather subjective phrase), but I’m not sure that they ‘all’ do!

The concept of what a “theory” is requires a philosophical component and foundation. The meaning of the term “random”, or the term “to prove something” – all are philosophical concepts. The idea that “science cannot refer to the supernatural” is a philosophical structure which is not scientific in itself.

1. Ah, but you are putting ‘facts’ in quotes because you mean theories. See 2. That species evolve is not in doubt by any reasonable standard of modern science.

The term “reasonable standard” is not a question of science but of consensus and philosophy.

1. Can you give links to two or three (you said that there were ‘many’) such items, from non-‘Creationist’ sources, of course?

Certainly, I will be glad to do it. I’m not surprised that you haven’t seen any since they get no publicity from the Darwinist-majority.

Usually when such an item appears, it enhances rather than detracts from what was previously known.

Ok, but I’m talking mostly about matters that contradict and prove the existing notions to be wrong.

 

[elts1956]

1. That is true. The real issue, though, is teaching ‘creationism’ as SCIENCE, as many so-called "Christian’ schools do. I can’t imagine any Catholic school teaching that. I attended Catholic schools for 11 years and we learned about God AND about science, with no conflict.
2. That species evolve is one of the most firmly established FACTS in contemporary science.

There are various THEORIES of exactly how such evolution occurs. No doubt some of them might be said to have a ‘philosophical component’ (a rather subjective phrase), but I’m not sure that they ‘all’ do!

1. Ah, but you are putting ‘facts’ in quotes because you mean theories. See 2. That species evolve is not in doubt by any reasonable standard of modern science.
2. Can you give links to two or three (you said that there were ‘many’) such items, from non-‘Creationist’ sources, of course?

Usually when such an item appears, it enhances rather than detracts from what was previously known. A good example is the age of the universe. As our telescopes improve, we are able to see farther and farther into space and therefore into time. While the age of 15 billion years, more or less, is still regarded as the best estimate, there is now at least some indication that the universe might be much older, perhaps 40 or 50 billion years. Quite a difference from the biblical 6000-10000 years taught not as religion but as science by the so-called ‘Creationists’!

Hello, I have never known where the Creationists get their theory if it isn’t a verbatum translation of the Bible. Is it? ie, 7 days for creation etc. Thanks.

 

[historyb]

From Scripture, the Creeds etc

 

[reggieM]

1. Can you give links to two or three (you said that there were ‘many’) such items, from non-‘Creationist’ sources, of course?

Beeliner posed this challenge, as if it was difficult to find items matching what I said — "We see many news items stating that “scientists were surprised” that “what was previously believed” about evolution turned out to be false.

Apparently, you haven’t seen any of these, or you think that there are none and I’m going to get something fabricated from a “creationist source”.

I’ll start with this one, which is my favorite (of recent months – but new favorites are sure to arrive!!):

dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/26/peacock-feathers-females.html

Here’s a “non-creationist” source. The result is perfectly clear.

The determination throws a wrench in the long-held belief that male peacock feathers evolved in response to female mate choice.

Darwinsts had a “long-held” belief (pawned off on the trusting public as a “fact”) that male peacock feathers (one of the most prominent features of the animal kingdom) – evolved as a sex selection device.

Through testing …

Across the board, the researchers were unable to link the elaborateness of a peacock’s train with his mating success. In fact, Takahashi and her team found little train variance among males in the population they studied. They also couldn’t detect any link between a particular male’s fitness and his train.

So here we see the Darwinist fraud in all its glory.

It was claimed for a long time that peacock feathers evolved through one mechanism. Then actually testing proved that prediction wrong.

A failed prediction. A “fact” that wasn’t. A good reason to doubt what is being claimed.

 

[reggieM]

Here’s another one:

Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution

nytimes.com/2007/08/09/science/09fossil.html?_r=2&ref=world&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Scientists have discovered fossils in Africa that appear to show that two species of human-like creatures lived at the same time. This upends the previous scientific thinking that one of the species, homo habilis, evolved into the other, homo erectus, which evolved into homo sapien (modern man). This discovery means no more pictures in textbooks of an ape turning into a caveman turning into modern man.

Scientists who dated and analyzed the specimens — a 1.44-million-year-old Homo habilis and a 1.55-million-year-old Homo erectus found in 2000 — said their findings challenged the conventional view that these species evolved one after the other. Instead, they apparently lived side by side in eastern Africa for almost half a million years.

If this interpretation is correct, the early evolution of the genus Homo is left even more shrouded in mystery than before. It means that both habilis and erectus must have originated from a common ancestor between two million and three million years ago, a time when fossil hunters had drawn a virtual blank.

 

[elts1956]

Beeliner posed this challenge, as if it was difficult to find items matching what I said — "We see many news items stating that “scientists were surprised” that “what was previously believed” about evolution turned out to be false.

Apparently, you haven’t seen any of these, or you think that there are none and I’m going to get something fabricated from a “creationist source”.

I’ll start with this one, which is my favorite (of recent months – but new favorites are sure to arrive!!):

dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/26/peacock-feathers-females.html

Here’s a “non-creationist” source. The result is perfectly clear.

Darwinsts had a “long-held” belief (pawned off on the trusting public as a “fact”) that male peacock feathers (one of the most prominent features of the animal kingdom) – evolved as a sex selection device.

Through testing …

So here we see the Darwinist fraud in all its glory.

It was claimed for a long time that peacock feathers evolved through one mechanism. Then actually testing proved that prediction wrong.

A failed prediction. A “fact” that wasn’t. A good reason to doubt what is being claimed.

In addition to doubt, wary is a good term too. "Take it all with a grain of salt "as me mither used to say. A teaching Sister in one of my high school classes explained that one could accept evolution as long as one doesn’t also believe the sould evolves with the body. How a soul could evolve, is I suppose, another topic. That explanation was good enough for me at seventeen and is good enough for me now.

 

[reggieM]

Here’s another one. Supposedly bird features like webbed feet “evolved repeatedly” in separate species. That’s very convenient – accidental evolution of the same features in different species. This one is a classic “just so” story.

Study of Aquatic Bird Genes Reveals Surprising
Relationships and Evolutionary History

science.psu.edu/alert/Hedges7-2001.htm

A comprehensive analysis of the genes of aquatic birds has revealed a family tree dramatically different from traditional relationship groupings based on the birds’ body structure, according to a research report to be published in the 7 July 2001 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society and featured on the cover of that issue.

The most startling and unexpected finding of the study is that the closest living relative of the elegant flamingo, with its long legs built for wading, is not another long-legged species of wading bird but the squat grebe, with its short legs built for diving. The two species, whose genes surprisingly are more similar to each other’s than to those of any other bird, otherwise show no outward resemblance, according to Blair Hedges, an evolutionary biologist at Penn State.

Another surprising implication of the study is that physical features like long legs and webbed feet–traditionally used to group birds of a feather into different flocks on the bird family tree–did not appear just once during the history of bird evolution, as had been the hallmark assumption of the traditional classification system. Instead, the study suggests such structures evolved repeatedly in the history of different aquatic bird species. Because many of the species in the study are located on the “twigs” at the ends of a branch of the bird family tree–not farther back in time on its “trunk”–the study also suggests that **“evolutionary change in aquatic birds has proceeded at a faster pace than previously recognized,” **explains Marcel van Tuinen, a member of the Hedegs research team.

 

[beeliner]

Hello, I have never known where the Creationists get their theory if it isn’t a verbatum translation of the Bible. Is it? ie, 7 days for creation etc. Thanks.

Actually 6 days for creation, and that is exactly where they get it, completely ignoring these facts: (1) The following chapter (Gen 2, beginning in the middle of the fourth verse) gives a completely different account, with no mention of days, man (male) created very early in the process, even before the garden, animals created much later, then woman last of all - and (2) there is not the least evidence for either account being even slightly factual except that Genesis 1, if you consider the ‘days’ to be billions of years, is reasonably accurate in beginning with the elementary and gradually becoming more complex or advanced. Most ‘creationists’, though, insist that the ‘days’ were 24-hour days, even though the sun, which determines daytime, didn’t exist until the fourth day…and finally, (3) both accounts were based on pagan creation legends which may still be accessed in more-or-less their original form.