Creation vs Evolution

[rossum]

csr:

We don’t differ from our parents genetically

This is not strictly correct. Since the copying process by which DNA is duplicated is not 100% accurate we each have a few copying mistakes in our genomes so we do not always have identical copies of our parent’s genes.

IIRC we have an average of about 60 copying errors each. Since about 95% of the human genome is non-coding DNA, about 95% of the mistakes do not appear in the coding DNA that actually gets decoded into proteins. Hence we each have about three errors in our coding DNA.

Although many of these mistakes are errors in a single base pair, some of them are larger and can involve duplication or excision of a stretch of DNA containing many base pairs. For example Down Syndrome is caused by an extra copy of a whole chromosome, a single error involving a very large number of base pairs.

Overall we are genetically different from our parents, though for most of us the differences are very small.

[A]fter God rested, no new types of things were created.

For me question is not about new types of things being created, but about new species evolving. Do new species evolve? Yes, they have been observed to do so. Many Young Earth Creationists agree that new species have evolved since Noah’s flood, they define “types of things” at a level higher than species to preserve the Biblical statement you mention. Depending on how high a level you define “type of thing” at, you can go back a very long way indeed.

rossum

 

[marciadietrich]

ISABUS:

CAN’T YOU READ ENGLISH??? Pope John Paul II stated on October 22, 1996,"Fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis."
You can read about what he said on this website: conservation.catholic.org/ma…ned_with_qu.htm
*
*

I’m not sure how that even proves that the Pope personally believes in scientific type evolution himself let alone that all Catholics must accept evolution. Holy cow. Don’t know how you make that leap.

The Catechism says we have commonalities with Muslims, that they are part of God’s plan for redemption and the Pope personally has extended a hand of friendship to them … but that doesn’t mean the Pope is a Muslim or believes that Islam is where all, most or even much of where religious truth lies.

The statement he made seems to be making sure that Church will never have a Galileo-type incident to apologize for in the future. (Thus he mentions that, but he never disputes faith either in terms of Adam and Eve as first parents.) He says some nice things that are totally not binding on the faithful and may or may not be his personal leanings on the issue and in other writings and parts of the Catechism he seems to support traditional Church teachings that do contradict evolution. And where there is contradiction he and his predecesors have said we go with the faith first.

Mainstream scientists don’t accept the Christian/religious variants on evolutionary thought such as intelligent design - the Pope’s document says things contrary to scientific evolution such as we can’t accept that the mind is evolved and simply a phenomenon of our living matter - well that is pretty much what traditional evolution does believe and postulate. All that we are is a product of matter and evolution. So there are limits being set and the faith is not to be tampered with, which I see that happening as people try to resolve the conflicts between faith and what science does currently propose.

Evolution can’t be an article of faith ever, because it never has been a part of the deposit of revelation and has never been a constant teaching of the Church. At best it is something that we have freedom to accept within set limits:

In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).

We accept the faith, and then to the extent it doesn’t conflict we can accept what science says. In the end there should not be a conflict or truth of science and truth of faith … but there can and are some contradictions at least on the surface:

1. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry?

The Pope basically says this conflict only exists because science doesn’t measure the spiritual and that spiritual things are in the realm of philosophy … but there is a “leap” there found in faith that science can never perceive.

Marcia

 

[csr]

The PAS and PBC are not purveyors of binding documents. For example, Paul VI reduced the PBC in 1971: no longer comprised of Cardinals, it is now basically a think tank. These are advisory bodies whose documents are not de fide. The PAS has no creation scientists on it, which is rather odd, given that Holy Scripture plainly indicates creation. Not only are individual things created, but they behave according to their kind (having seed each one according to its kind *), not producing novel kinds. There is no reason to believe that created things behave according to the novel theories of evolutionism, and the literal meaning of Holy Scripture is primary. Exegesis should not “depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” *

As for genetics, there is variation within kind only. God did not say, Increase and mutate. * There is no harm to scientific inquiry in conforming our paradigms to revelation, and to fail to do so is to invite grave danger. Evolutionism has occasioned grave harm to society, as it is inquiry not guided by faith.

---

“These words of Scripture have more authority than the most exalted human intellect.” ST, I, Q 68, a 2.

 

[vz71]

Whatever happened to the scientific method?

Remember this? Observe, theorize, predict, test, observe, theorize, predict, test,…etc.

As far as I can tell, evolution is nothing more then theory.
We can make predictions, but these cannot be tested in any meaningful way.
Without these rather substantial parts (prediction and testing) then fact cannot be determined.

Z

.02 duly deposited.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

csr:

God did not say, Increase and mutate.

LOL!!! (Sorry couldn’t help it)

 

[ISABUS]

ENCYCLICAL LETTER FIDES ET RATIO OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON IN ROME,
AT SAINT PETER’S, ON 14 SEPTEMBER, THE FEAST OF THE TRIUMPH OF THE CROSS, IN THE YEAR 1998, THE TWENTIETH OF MY PONTIFICATE.

1. The search for truth, of course, is not always so transparent nor does it always produce such results. The natural limitation of reason and the inconstancy of the heart often obscure and distort a person’s search. Truth can also drown in a welter of other concerns. People can even run from the truth as soon as they glimpse it because they are afraid of its demands. Yet, for all that they may evade it, the truth still influences life. Life in fact can never be grounded upon doubt, uncertainty or deceit; such an existence would be threatened constantly by fear and anxiety. One may define the human being, therefore, as the one who seeks the truth.

(29) “[Galileo] declared explicitly that the two truths, of faith and of science, can never contradict each other, ‘Sacred Scripture and the natural world proceeding equally from the divine Word, the first as dictated by the Holy Spirit, the second as a very faithful executor of the commands of God’, as he wrote in his letter to Father Benedetto Castelli on 21 December 1613. The Second Vatican Council says the same thing, even adopting similar language in its teaching: ‘Methodical research, in all realms of knowledge, if it respects… moral norms, will never be genuinely opposed to faith: the reality of the world and of faith have their origin in the same God’ (Gaudium et Spes, 36). Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions”: John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (10 November 1979): Insegnamenti, II, 2 (1979), 1111-1112.

1. It may help, then, to turn briefly to the different modes of truth. Most of them depend upon immediate evidence or are confirmed by experimentation. This is the mode of truth proper to everyday life and to scientific research. At another level we find philosophical truth, attained by means of the speculative powers of the human intellect. Finally, there are religious truths which are to some degree grounded in philosophy, and which we find in the answers which the different religious traditions offer to the ultimate questions.

Finally, I cannot fail to address a word to scientists, whose research offers an ever greater knowledge of the universe as a whole and of the incredibly rich array of its component parts, animate and inanimate, with their complex atomic and molecular structures. So far has science come, especially in this century, that its achievements never cease to amaze us. In expressing my admiration and in offering encouragement to these brave pioneers of scientific research, to whom humanity owes so much of its current development . . .
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j.../hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
Peace.

 

[TheGarg]

hecd2:

This technique is known as argumentum ad baculum (or argument by threat).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

You seem to have an answer for everything, but my “threat”, as you call it, is just a simple fact. I suppose that is why it would be threating though. Either way, it is a heck of a gamble for someone to take.

Peace

 

[PhilVaz]

SocCath << With all due respect, please don’t tarnish Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mathematics, Physics, and all of science in attempting to establish credibility to the modern day farce we call evolution. >>

TRANSLATION: With all due respect, please don’t tarnish Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Mayr, Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Geology and all of science in attempting to establish credibility to the modern day farce we call modern science.

Okay NOW moderators, you can close this thread. And I won’t participate in another creation-evolution thread in here for at least a month.

Phil P

 

[SocaliCatholic]

PhilVaz:

SocCath << With all due respect, please don’t tarnish Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mathematics, Physics, and all of science in attempting to establish credibility to the modern day farce we call evolution. >>

TRANSLATION: With all due respect, please don’t tarnish Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Mayr, Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Geology and all of science in attempting to establish credibility to the modern day farce we call modern science.

Okay NOW moderators, you can close this thread. And I won’t participate in another creation-evolution thread in here for at least a month.

Phil P

LOL!!! Thanks Phil, for someone I disagree with thats the most I think I’ve ever laughed!!!

God Bless

 

[rarndt01]

Evolution is simply a denial of a solitary creator who we know as God. If evolution is true, then there was no God period. For everything came into being by ANOTHER method and not by design and purpose. The bible clearly says, “In the beginning GOD…”

You cannot be a Catholic CHRISTIAN and believe in evolution. I know within our church there are that DO deny creationism and embrace evolution. These are heretics and apostates to the faith.

 

[PhilVaz]

rarn << Evolution is simply a denial of a solitary creator who we know as God. If evolution is true, then there was no God period…You cannot be a Catholic CHRISTIAN and believe in evolution. >>

Come on man, don’t say that. To quote John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious.” It seems you are defining evolution as “atheism.” If that’s the case, then your statement is true. But evolution is not atheism. Evolution has been defined as simply “descent with modification” with natural selection being the major mechanism. This says nothing about the question whether God exists.

John Paul II wrote:

“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the [Pius XII Humani Generis] Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.” (Pope John Paul II, Statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996)

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1. Faith and science: “…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” [Vatican II GS 36:1]
2. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…

Translation: Evolution is probably true. Or is the Pope or the Catechism referring to the young-earth creationism of Ken Ham, Henry Morris, Duane Gish, or maybe the “intelligent design” of the Discovery Institute perhaps?

John Paul II cannot be a Catholic Christian nor can the authors of the Catechism according to you.

rarn << I know within our church there are that DO deny creationism and embrace evolution. These are heretics and apostates to the faith. >>

Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creationism is just fine. You’ll need to work out the theological problems you may have, since evolution appears quite true from the evidence of biology, geology, paleontology, etc. Learn just about everything you’ll ever need to know about evolutionary science here

TalkOrigins.org

Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth

The Complete Transcript and Audio of the Creation-Evolution Firing Line Debate

I would like to let this creation-evolution thread disappear but when someone adds a stupid comment I’ll have to respond.

Phil P

 

[HagiaSophia]

Catholic News Service published this article and while I had it posted in Misc. Section it seems to fit in with this ongoing discussion:

"A recent Vatican document analyzed evolution in the light of faith, stepping into an area that has long been a religious and scientific minefield.

The document, prepared by the International Theological Commission and made available in mid-September, examined man’s relationship with the created world.

"… Catholics have a responsibility to “locate” the scientific understanding of the universe within a Christian vision of creation…

First, it accepts as likely the prevailing tenets of evolutionary science: the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in a “big bang”; the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago; all living organisms on earth descended from a first organism; and man emerged some 40,000 years ago with the development of the larger, human brain.

Second, the document does not argue for a “divine design” in specific processes of evolution. While acknowledging that some experts do see a providential design in biological structures, it says such development might also be “contingent,” or dependant on chance."

“True contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence,” it said.

"In other words, God’s plan may have allowed for all kinds of variables to play out. Or, as the document put it, “any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so.”

VATICAN LETTER Sep-24-2004
Creative tension: omnipotence of God vs. dynamism of a universe
Catholic News Service

 

[HagiaSophia]

Catholic News Service published this article and while I had it posted in Misc. Section it seems to fit in with this ongoing discussio:

"A recent Vatican document analyzed evolution in the light of faith, stepping into an area that has long been a religious and scientific minefield.

The document, prepared by the International Theological Commission and made available in mid-September, examined man’s relationship with the created world.

"… Catholics have a responsibility to “locate” the scientific understanding of the universe within a Christian vision of creation…

First, it accepts as likely the prevailing tenets of evolutionary science: the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in a “big bang”; the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago; all living organisms on earth descended from a first organism; and man emerged some 40,000 years ago with the development of the larger, human brain.

Second, the document does not argue for a “divine design” in specific processes of evolution. While acknowledging that some experts do see a providential design in biological structures, it says such development might also be “contingent,” or dependant on chance."

“True contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence,” it said.

"In other words, God’s plan may have allowed for all kinds of variables to play out. Or, as the document put it, “any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so.”

VATICAN LETTER Sep-24-2004
Creative tension: omnipotence of God vs. dynamism of a universe
Catholic News Service

 

[jimmy]

ISABUS:

SocaliCatholic wrote: “No thanks. The burden of proof is on you.Everyone has read what you posted, and so far you’ve failed to show where Catholics are required to believe in the imaginative hypothesis of evolution.”

CAN’T YOU READ ENGLISH??? Pope John Paul II stated on October 22, 1996,"Fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis."
You can read about what he said on this website: conservation.catholic.org/ma…ned_with_qu.htm

**Social Catholic, it’s obvious you don’t want to believe in what the Pope has said about evolution. You’re a Catholic with a closed mind. A Catholic who doesn’t want to believe in the truth nor believe in the POPE. Amazing!!! **

The pope has said that it is a valid theory, but that is all. He never said we have to believe it happened.

 

[hecd2]

TheGarg:

hecd2:

This technique is known as argumentum ad baculum (or argument by threat).

You seem to have an answer for everything, but my “threat”, as you call it, is just a simple fact. I suppose that is why it would be threating though. Either way, it is a heck of a gamble for someone to take.

Peace

Aha! Pascal’s wager. Well, I reject Pascal’s wager.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Newman60]

Della:

Alec, maybe you can explain why evolution is taught in our schools as if it were indisputable fact, instead of a scientific theory? And why are we ordinary people supposed to just swallow whole whatever any scientist says no matter the fact that s/he has no expertise in religion or philosophy any more than any other ordinary person? And tell us there is no bias in the scientific community against organized religion.

I explained why I cannot accept evolution alone as a viable explanation for who and what humans are. Perhaps you can answer them with your favorite theory of evolution?

Della,
I agree with your question of why an unproven theory is taught in our schools as if it is established scientific fact. It most certainly is not! Any honest scientist would agree that it is an unproven theory. Those of us who hold that view are not to be ridiculed by Philvaz or any others simply because we take a reasonable position in disagreement with an unproven theory. After this long and after so many advances in science one wonders why that theory has not yet been proven. Creation science seems to be doing wonderfully well despite the bigoted roadblocks.
I would ask which is easier to believe: a Creator and a created world or pure chance and some ridiculous theory like the “big Bang”? I look at my hand my eye and my body in general and I see a marvelous creator not an accident. An accident or pure chance is not even logical. It defies the mathematical odds.
Newman60

I would also ask where the matter or energy came from to create the big bang or how the first particle of matter came into existence? There always has to be a cause.
It is actually much easier to believe in a Creator than to have to try to accept the theory du jour.

 

[TheGarg]

hecd2:

Aha! Pascal’s wager. Well, I reject Pascal’s wager.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thats kinda like saying “I reject death, i will not accept tha fact that im gonna die!”, well, I got news for ya’, That day comes for everyone.

As I’ve heard it said before, “even if you don’t choose, you’ve made a choice” ,

See, the “wager” does not require your acceptance, you do not have a choice as to wether you want to participate ,

hehehe

not-alec

 

[Orogeny]

Newman60:

Della,
I agree with your question of why an unproven theory is taught in our schools as if it is established scientific fact. It most certainly is not! Any honest scientist would agree that it is an unproven theory. Those of us who hold that view are not to be ridiculed by Philvaz or any others simply because we take a reasonable position in disagreement with an unproven theory. After this long and after so many advances in science one wonders why that theory has not yet been proven. Creation science seems to be doing wonderfully well despite the bigoted roadblocks.
I would ask which is easier to believe: a Creator and a created world or pure chance and some ridiculous theory like the “big Bang”? I look at my hand my eye and my body in general and I see a marvelous creator not an accident. An accident or pure chance is not even logical. It defies the mathematical odds.
Newman60

I would also ask where the matter or energy came from to create the big bang or how the first particle of matter came into existence? There always has to be a cause.
It is actually much easier to believe in a Creator than to have to try to accept the theory du jour.

I don’t mind if you don’t accept the science behind the theory of evolution, but you do yourself and others no great service by making statements such as this. You don’t have to be ridiculed by anyone just because you choose to believe in a literal creation as told in Genesis, but don’t try to argue it using science when you don’t understand science.

Point #1: The word “theory” in science does not have the same meaning as it does in the general vernacular. Do some research and you will see why evolution is a scientific fact (it has been observed) and a theory (how is it happening).

Point #2: Science doesn’t “prove” anything. That’s not how science works.

Point #3: The Big Bang (and for that matter, the origin of life) has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[hecd2]

TheGarg:

Thats kinda like saying “I reject death, i will not accept tha fact that im gonna die!”, well, I got news for ya’, That day comes for everyone.

As I’ve heard it said before, “even if you don’t choose, you’ve made a choice” ,

See, the “wager” does not require your acceptance, you do not have a choice as to wether you want to participate ,

hehehe

not-alec

The two things are not at all equivalent. Death will come to us all - that is certain. Whereas Pascal’s wager is a sophisticated way of justifying superstition and mumbo-jumbo.

Here’s my wager: if God exists, he will frown on those who believed in Him only because, on the balance of risk, it seemed the safest thing to do - ie Pascal wagerers. And He will accept those people of good will to their fellow humans, those people who bear love and caring for others, whether or not in good faith they came to a belief in His existence.

Of course the ‘if’ is a big IF.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[TheGarg]

hecd2:

The two things are not at all equivalent. Death will come to us all - that is certain. Whereas Pascal’s wager is a sophisticated way of justifying superstition and mumbo-jumbo.

Here’s my wager: if God exists, he will frown on those who believed in Him only because, on the balance of risk, it seemed the safest thing to do - ie Pascal wagerers. And He will accept those people of good will to their fellow humans, those people who bear love and caring for others, whether or not in good faith they came to a belief in His existence.

Of course the ‘if’ is a big IF.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

You have completely missed the point…,

First off…

Pascal’s wager is irrelevant, if it is used to prove or justify “mumbo jumbo”, for it is not the existence of God that my statements suggests, but rather whether I am wrong or you are wrong.

I merely stated the consequences of both situations, and I’ll repeat them for your benefit.

1. Your right, and we all take a dirt nap when we die (atheist view, (if your an atheist, I really don’t know))
2. I’m right, and atheists run the risk of burning in hell (not for me to say really).

Lastly, I would think twice before “gambling” (since you are taking a chance) my soul on my good works.

Those instances in scripture are good for people who have never heard of Jesus, and his teachings, but for someone with whom the “Good New” of Jesus has been shared, the burden is heavier.

Now your only option is to accept or deny Jesus…makes you wish you were a pygmy down in New Guinea if you’re an Atheist, then you would have a reason for Not Knowing God, instead of Choosing to reject him…

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

ps, I myself believe that evolution was a process created by God, who knows that things change: D