creationism and evolution

[wanerious]

buffalo:

Except scripture continuously refers to the first man and the first woman. Not second, not third, but first. Allegory? Myth? I don’t think so.

I don’t have a problem with it. Allegory is probably too weak a term, but “myth” is entirely appropriate. It’s too bad that the word “myth” is so watered down these days. It represents a powerful synthesis of cultural truths that, for many cultures, is simultaneously held as “truth” and “story” at the same time. I (unfortunately) don’t think we have a cultural myth in anywhere near the way that people did thousands of years ago. It’s kind of too bad that we’re such literal and unimaginative beings. We close ourselves off from vitally important truths.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Einstein made the speed of light a constant to fit his theory. His theory was invalid if the speed of light was a variable. He backed into it and we have held it ever since.

I’m not a physicist (but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express ), but I believe that general relativity has been tested pretty vigorously and has passed the tests with flying colors (except on the subatomic level where quantum physics kicks in).

Besides, Einstein didn’t make the speed of light anything. He only made an observation and used that in his hypothesis.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

I don’t have a problem with it. Allegory is probably too weak a term, but “myth” is entirely appropriate. It’s too bad that the word “myth” is so watered down these days. It represents a powerful synthesis of cultural truths that, for many cultures, is simultaneously held as “truth” and “story” at the same time. I (unfortunately) don’t think we have a cultural myth in anywhere near the way that people did thousands of years ago. It’s kind of too bad that we’re such literal and unimaginative beings. We close ourselves off from vitally important truths.

Right. the usage of myth long ago affirms a historical event a literal truth.

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

Einstein made the speed of light a constant to fit his theory. His theory was invalid if the speed of light was a variable. He backed into it and we have held it ever since.

No, the constancy of the speed of light was derived as far back as Maxwell’s synthesis. It is a necessary consequence of electromagnetism. Einstein was the first to take seriously the idea that there was no ether, and the first to derive the physical consequences of a finite light speed. He did not “back into it”, and we have held it ever since because there is absolutely no evidence that it does not hold.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

No, the constancy of the speed of light was derived as far back as Maxwell’s synthesis. It is a necessary consequence of electromagnetism. Einstein was the first to take seriously the idea that there was no ether, and the first to derive the physical consequences of a finite light speed. He did not “back into it”, and we have held it ever since because there is absolutely no evidence that it does not hold.

Nope. He admitted it. I will try to find the source.

 

[wanerious]

gladtobe:

If the Pope finds nothing wrong with the theory of evolution, that is a very bad decision on his part.Evolution has no room for a personal creator or that we as human souls are made in his image. There is NO GOD in evolution at all. I really hope the Pope stands against evolution altogether.

Fortunately, the Pope and the Vatican scientists seem to understand evolutionary theory better than you do, so they are taking the reasonable course of action. The lesson of arguing against good science is one the Church learned from its history.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

buffalo:

Assuming the change is linear.

I guess we could say that just by coincidence, the apparent value from 12 billion years ago and today are the same within 0.001%, but it’s been fluctuating wildly in the intervening years. Maybe it went way up, and is on it’s way back down. Perhaps we could model it as a sine wave, or maybe even a Bessel function of the first kind.

However, when there are only two data points (I mean here the value from 12 billion years ago and the value today), the only thing you can actually fit is a straight line. Without intervening data, anything else that you may suggest would be just a conjecture.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

Well, again, that is a somewhat more literal reading than I take. The chronology you point out is, to me, a nice dramatic or literary effect. It is a very powerful spiritual lesson couched as an entertaining dramatic play. The lessons we tend to learn best are those communicated through stories. Certainly God knows that.

What is this powerful spiritual lesson you describe? It says God created woman because, having created adam and breathed life into his nostrils, God saw that it was not right for Adam to be alone with none like himself. So God created woman. What lesson do you get from that story if not that God created woman to be the helper of Adam (the first man with a soul…in your theory)?

If the lesson is in fact that God created woman to be the helper of Adam, then it is a matter of simple logic that the creation of woman followed, chronologically, the creation of and the breath of life in Adam. Which begs the question, how did hominoids come about prior to God’s creation of woman?

wanerious:

…but that’s one of the best parts. By singling out Adam to name the animals, we are given a somewhat higher dais to stand on. Naming objects was a singularly powerful action to primal peoples, so this stewardship was a great gift to be given. It is important that they felt prohibited from naming God, so there is a clear heirarchy established between God, Man, and His Creation. Naming women was perfectly appropriate back in the day, but perhaps in modern times we shouldn’t take so seriously that position.

Okay, I agree that naming had significance (in fact that is one of my arguments in providing evidence that Peter was the first Pope)but you didn’t address my question: All of God’s creation, at least the major groups, from things that slither, to winged birds, to swimming things, to beasts of the field, to cattle, to wild animals, are all mentioned at least once.

Yet you would have me believe that something as signifcant as the exitence of a soulless human race with whom Adam and Eve’s descendents would mate, would be a group so insignificant to the purposes of the book of Genesis that it simply wasn’t mentioned? That is beyond my ability to accept, wanerious. I cannot comprehend what you are suggesting.

wanerious:

As was well pointed out, often individual characters in the Old Testament are meant to represent regions and/or tribes. This is a common Jewish understanding, and they wrote the thing, after all. Also, we should be open to possible spiritual truths that emerge if we interpret the stories as not mere history, but as an important work of divinely inspired drama meant to illustrate our right relationship with God

C’mon wanerious. Both the word “mankind” and the phrase “the man” are used within a few verses of each other. Mankind obviously refers to a group, tribe, race, generation, or other plural reference. But when the phrase “the man” is used right after that, how can you conclude that this also refers a plural sense of mankind? That is not a reasonable interpretation. It defies logic.

BTW, as has been the case in other threads, I continue to enjoy the fact that you and I can have a thoughtful, respectful dialogue even though we have such differing views.

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

I didn’t conclude that at all, Orogeny. In fact I think buffalo’s post was the result of my assertion that scientists cannot possibly know without the possibility of error, that decay rates have remained constant throughout time…which I still maintain.

Buffalo has posted that before. It may have been in response to your post, but it is not the first time he has made that claim.

You can argue against any theory produced that could threaten the theory of evolution, Orogeny, but in the end the best evolutionists can do is say the opposing arguments are not credible.

You say the best scientists can do is say that opposing arguments are not credible. Quite frankly, I don’t find that statement credible. You have been refered to several places where the science does rebut some of your arguements. Have you read those links? Do you disagree with the science? If so, please present your scientific arguments. Or will you just continue taking the position that science can’t possibly be right?

Do you really believe that general relativity was developed to protect evolution? Do you really think that geochemists that have worked their entire careers developing different dating methods do so to protect evolution?

You cannot rule out the possibility that scientists may overlook unknowns, as has happened throughout history.

Nor can you rule out the possiblitity that science is right.

By the way, I don’t rule out the possibility that any scientific theory may be wrong, but I expect the evidence for such a possiblitity to meet scientific standards and scrutiny. An argument based on incredulity isn’t going to do it.

If evolutionists would like to reduce the number of creationists’ opposing claims in these threads, my suggestion would be for evolutionists to present evolution as the* theory* that it is. But for some reason, evolutionists insist on proposing their theory as if it were unquestionably true, which invokes a like reaction from creationists.

I don’t feel the need to reduce anyone’s claims in this or any other thread, Chris. I don’t care if you don’t accept evolution, geology, physics, chemistry or any other subject. It is not necessary for your salvation that you accept these things. However, if you want to change what is taught in science classes, come up with some science and not theology.

Peace

Tim

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

Right. the usage of myth long ago affirms a historical event a literal truth.

That’s not what I said. In Greek mythology, for example, there were many events and stories that ultimately illustrated the cultural milieu of the people. Ancient Greeks simultaneously held their stories to be truth and fiction at the same time. Many, while holding to the “truth” of the mythology, did not believe that they were historical facts. It was simply beside the point.

 

[buffalo]

Bobby Jim:

I guess we could say that just by coincidence, the apparent value from 12 billion years ago and today are the same within 0.001%, but it’s been fluctuating wildly in the intervening years. Maybe it went way up, and is on it’s way back down. Perhaps we could model it as a sine wave, or maybe even a Bessel function of the first kind.

However, when there are only two data points (I mean here the value from 12 billion years ago and the value today), the only thing you can actually fit is a straight line. Without intervening data, anything else that you may suggest would be just a conjecture.

having only two data points is a major weakness.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

That’s not what I said. In Greek mythology, for example, there were many events and stories that ultimately illustrated the cultural milieu of the people. Ancient Greeks simultaneously held their stories to be truth and fiction at the same time. Many, while holding to the “truth” of the mythology, did not believe that they were historical facts. It was simply beside the point.

The senses of Scripture

**115 **According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

**116 **The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

**117 **The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86 **118 **A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

What is this powerful spiritual lesson you describe? It says God created woman because, having created adam and breathed life into his nostrils, God saw that it was not right for Adam to be alone with none like himself. So God created woman. What lesson do you get from that story if not that God created woman to be the helper of Adam (the first man with a soul…in your theory)?

We do not achieve fullness of being alone. We need to exist and thrive in community, and that God created woman out of man tells us that we ought to believe that a binding and joining relationship with women is a path to this fulfillment. That she was formed out of an already ensouled man is a more powerful statement of our ultimate connection than if He had formed her out of dust and breathed spirit into her also.

If the lesson is in fact that God created woman to be the helper of Adam, then it is a matter of simple logic that the creation of woman followed, chronologically, the creation of and the breath of life in Adam. Which begs the question, how did hominoids come about prior to God’s creation of woman?

This literalism and application of simple logic saddens me. The existence of hominids is no more surprising than the existence of mammoths or turtles.

Okay, I agree that naming had significance (in fact that is one of my arguments in providing evidence that Peter was the first Pope)but you didn’t address my question: All of God’s creation, at least the major groups, from things that slither, to winged birds, to swimming things, to beasts of the field, to cattle, to wild animals, are all mentioned at least once.

Yet you would have me believe that something as signifcant as the exitence of a soulless human race with whom Adam and Eve’s descendents would mate, would be a group so insignificant to the purposes of the book of Genesis that it simply wasn’t mentioned? That is beyond my ability to accept, wanerious. I cannot comprehend what you are suggesting.

The story is meant to illustrate the relationship between God, Man, and Creation. The concept that, at some point, there were men more like animals than full persons is simply not the point of the story, nor would it have been likely understood by the primal people for whom this was an important oral tradition.

C’mon wanerious. Both the word “mankind” and the phrase “the man” are used within a few verses of each other. Mankind obviously refers to a group, tribe, race, generation, or other plural reference. But when the phrase “the man” is used right after that, how can you conclude that this also refers a plural sense of mankind? That is not a reasonable interpretation. It defies logic.

I agree, and I’ll say again that I’m not invoking logic. It is a rude heckler in our drama. “Man” is an effective literary device, and these ancient Jews (not to mention God Himself) were excellent storytellers.

BTW, as has been the case in other threads, I continue to enjoy the fact that you and I can have a thoughtful, respectful dialogue even though we have such differing views.

I feel the same — it is as it should be. This is one of the better threads.

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

having only two data points is a major weakness.

Well, I think that was just a simplifying example. We have data points from distant galaxies occupying a fairly smooth continuum from 3 million years ago to 13 billion years ago. We have light emitted by stars in our galaxy and satellite galaxies from 8 minutes ago to about 200,000 years ago, so there are actually billions of data points.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

Well, I think that was just a simplifying example. We have data points from distant galaxies occupying a fairly smooth continuum from 3 million years ago to 13 billion years ago. We have light emitted by stars in our galaxy and satellite galaxies from 8 minutes ago to about 200,000 years ago, so there are actually billions of data points.

Are you able to tell with certainty what the speed was of the light you observe now was when it left the star?

 

[Chris_W]

I sense our dialogue deteriorating Orogeny. Let me clarify a few things:

Orogeny:

You say the best scientists can do is say that opposing arguments are not credible. Quite frankly, I don’t find that statement credible. You have been refered to several places where the science does rebut some of your arguements. Have you read those links? Do you disagree with the science? If so, please present your scientific arguments. Or will you just continue taking the position that science can’t possibly be right?

I do read many links, Orogeny, though not all, as I have a life outside of this forum and many people post too many links. I do not recall saying science can’t possibly be right (at least not recently ). I hope I have been pretty clear that my objection to the theory is not a scientific one. It is a theological objection.

When I said the best scientists can do is say an opposing arguement is not credible, the process of doing that would obviously be to provide evidences they think refutes the claim. Isn’t that what you do, Orogeny? And I would guess you think you do it effectively. The point is, you cannot say that the theories you support are true without question, you can merely provide the evidence you believe suports your theory and refutes another. That’s all. These are theories we are taking about.

Orogeny:

Do you really believe that general relativity was developed to protect evolution? Do you really think that geochemists that have worked their entire careers developing different dating methods do so to protect evolution?

I have mixed emotions about that question. Do I think that is the only reason? No. But do I think scientists seek to produce the results that they want? Absolutely.

Orogeny:

Nor can you rule out the possiblitity that science is right.

Depends on the science. My objection to evolution is that I see it conflicting with Christianity (as wanerious and I are discussing). If in fact it does conflict, then the theory of evolution is wrong, Orogeny, regardless of how much evidence you or anyone else has to support the theory.

Orogeny:

By the way, I don’t rule out the possibility that any scientific theory may be wrong, but I expect the evidence for such a possiblitity to meet scientific standards and scrutiny. An argument based on incredulity isn’t going to do it.

I am glad to hear you don’t rule out the possibility that the theory of evolution may be wrong. I don’t think I’ve heard you say that before.

As far as your expectation and standards for evidence in rejecting evolution, I disagree with your requirement. If evolution contradicts Catholicism, we are totally justified in rejecting evolution without supplying one single shred of scientific evidence to proove the case!

Orogeny:

I don’t feel the need to reduce anyone’s claims in this or any other thread, Chris. I don’t care if you don’t accept evolution, geology, physics, chemistry or any other subject. It is not necessary for your salvation that you accept these things. However, if you want to change what is taught in science classes, come up with some science and not theology.

Is it unscientific to call the Theory of Evolution a theory? What I want, as I said in an earlier post, is for evolution to be presented for what it is…a theory. It is not fact. As you pointed out, it could be wrong.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Chris W:

That was helpful. Thank you. I am guilty of mixing the two in a confusion of ideas.

I had not heard the term polygenetic evolution, but that concept makes it a little more palatable I guess. Is that a popular notion in evolutionist circles? If it is more commonly accepted than monogenetic evolution, then that would seem to create a larger gap between abiogenesis and evolution, which would be comforting as well.

Hi,

What occurs within evolutionist circles doesn’t concern me as much as what occurs within Darwinist circles; because it is the non-teleology and materialism espoused by the adherents of Darwinism (Communists, Marxists, Liberals, Behaviourists, Atheists, and a lot of Philosophers) which I find myself frequently arguing against defending the view of the Church, and not so much evolution per se.

Its nice to sit quietly and listen to a very loud Theory of Evolution rant/debate taking place, and when it comes your way, as a (Roman) Catholic, you just calmly tell these guys that the Vatican does not take umbrage at the theory of evolution, and then destroy their entire argument based on anti-Darwinism.

The New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia) has wonderful definitions on Teleology which gives ammunition to argue against all the heretics who dare disparage the Catholic Church!

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

I sense our dialogue deteriorating Orogeny. Let me clarify a few things:

I’m sorry you feel that way. I don’t.

I do read many links, Orogeny, though not all, as I have a life outside of this forum and many people post too many links. I do not recall saying science can’t possibly be right (at least not recently ). I hope I have been pretty clear that my objection to the theory is not a scientific one. It is a theological objection.

Well, there in lies the problem. Theology should not determine what is taught in science class.

When I said the best scientists can do is say an opposing arguement is not credible, the process of doing that would obviously be to provide evidences they think refutes the claim. Isn’t that what you do, Orogeny? And I would guess you think you do it effectively. The point is, you cannot say that the theories you support are true without question, you can merely provide the evidence you believe suports your theory and refutes another. That’s all. These are theories we are taking about.

I understand what you meant. I am saying that I have not been claiming that the theories under discussion are true without question. You have been given links to places you can find either the evidence or a discussion for that topic. I have generally refrained from going into deep scientific discussions on this forum since this is a Catholic forum and not a science forum.

Depends on the science. My objection to evolution is that I see it conflicting with Christianity (as wanerious and I are discussing). If in fact it does conflict, then the theory of evolution is wrong, Orogeny, regardless of how much evidence you or anyone else has to support the theory.

Evolution does not conflict with Chrisianity. It may conflict with your specific belief, but not Christianity.

I am glad to hear you don’t rule out the possibility that the theory of evolution may be wrong. I don’t think I’ve heard you say that before.

Then I should have said it earlier. That is not just my position, though. I would suggest that most if not all scientists would agree with my position.

As far as your expectation and standards for evidence in rejecting evolution, I disagree with your requirement. If evolution contradicts Catholicism, we are totally justified in rejecting evolution without supplying one single shred of scientific evidence to proove the case!

Well, since it very definitely doesn’t contradict Catholicism, I guess you will need to provide scientific evidence.

Is it unscientific to call the Theory of Evolution a theory? What I want, as I said in an earlier post, is for evolution to be presented for what it is…a theory. It is not fact. As you pointed out, it could be wrong.

Once someone comes up with scientific evidence that it is wrong, we can teach that. Until then, the evidence is strong enough to teach evolution alone.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Evolution does not conflict with Chrisianity. It may conflict with your specific belief, but not Christianity.

Evolution does conflict in several ways. What is the definition of evolution that you are claiming does not conflict? Adaptation? Change? Darwinian? etc…

 

[rossum]

My my, this thread has moved on since last I looked. Sorry to move it back into the past, but I feel that Chris W’s question in post #85 needs an answer.
Chris W:

Or perhaps there are other unknowns, or things not realized by scientists yet.

You are of course correct, there are things that scientists do not yet know. However we cannot allow the possibility of unknowns to get in the way of the reality of what we do know. For example, when you make yourself a cup of coffee in the morning do you drink it or do you pour it into your car’s petrol tank? Possibly an unknown force has changed it into a new type of fuel. If we tried to live our lives this way then things would swiftly become impractical. Similarly with science. Unless there is actual evidence of something which the scientists have missed out then scientists will continue to use the facts and theories that have served them well in the past. That is why I asked if you had a mechanism to invalidate the work done to determine decay rates. As with your morning coffee, unless you have a reason to suspect that it has been changed then you work on the assumption that your coffee is just like coffee has always been. Science works in the same way, once something has been scientifically established then it is used until either something better is found or a reason is discovered not to use it any more.

For more on this subject see this webpage.

I am reminded of a story: If memory serves me right, I think it was one of the scientists involved with the design of the space shuttle that took Neil Armstrong to the moon. He described how the shuttle had these huge pods for landing gear because with all they knew about the age of the earth, gravitational pull of the moon, cosmic dust, etc, they had calculated that there would be many feet of cosmic dust on the moon. Of course, we all watched the 1.5 inches or so of dust kick up as Neil made that historic first step.

This sounds to me like a version of the old moon-dust argument. Remember that Apollo was not the first craft to land on the moon. Both the US and the Soviets had already landed a number of unmanned probes on the moon. You may remember Lunokhod, the Soviet moon-buggy, which went for a drive around the moon in 1970/71. By the time of the Apollo missions the general state of the lunar surface, including the amount of dust, was well known. The story is incorrect, and obviously so when you think about it. The source you got it from had forgotten, or ignored, all the pre-Apollo unmanned landings on the moon.

The moon-dust story was based on an early estimate of the amount of cosmic dust falling on the earth, which turned out to be too high. Answers in Genesis include it in their list of Arguments creationists should not use so it should not be given further currency.

rossum