Darwinism in schools?

[Baelor]

Buffalo, please answer the questions in asked in this post.

*]The first man was created by God. (De fide.)

Define “created.”

*] God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.

Is this at odds with evolutionary theory?

*] Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])

What does purified myths mean?

*] Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

There are two accounts of creation, so clearly this cannot be taken literally (and is still not infallible dogma as far as I am aware). How does this affect interpretations of genesis?

*] The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.

Is this an infallible teaching? Does this negate the possibility of Adam being created through evolution?

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, please answer the questions in asked in this post.
buffalo;9152227:

Define “created.”

Is this at odds with evolutionary theory?

What does purified myths mean?

There are two accounts of creation, so clearly this cannot be taken literally (and is still not infallible dogma as far as I am aware). How does this affect interpretations of genesis?

Is this an infallible teaching? Does this negate the possibility of Adam being created through evolution?

What is the issue with the two creation accounts?

 

[Baelor]

Buffalo, please answer the questions in asked in this post.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, please answer the questions in asked in this post.

Define “created.”

Is this at odds with evolutionary theory?

What does purified myths mean?

There are two accounts of creation, so clearly this cannot be taken literally (and is still not infallible dogma as far as I am aware). How does this affect interpretations of genesis?

Is this an infallible teaching? Does this negate the possibility of Adam being created through evolution?

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I

Introduction

The purpose of this essay is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular — not to say outrightly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

 

[Baelor]

Buffalo, please answer the questions in asked in this post.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, please answer the questions in asked in this post.

So dinosaurs were created out of thin air? And redwoods and humans too? It is not possible that they branched off from a parent species? I want to understand your beliefs.

The creation account states God created plants and animals etc… God created ex nihilo. God created the “kinds” at the beginning.

Assume that species did branch off from other species. What would adequate proof be for you to accept this?

The issue here is what is a species? It is man’s classification system, not God’s. As I posted before I believe genetics will be more accurate in defining kinds.

That is not an answer to the question I asked. By what criteria do you compare prior state to current state? What would make something more or less than or equal to 1 given your assignment thereof to the current state?

That has to be agreed upon. How do we measure? What do we measure? Let’s simplify. Let us take a 12"x12"x12" box that holds 1728 1" cube pieces of wood. We would consider the box size to be optimum for holding the cubes with little wasted space. Assign it a value of 1. Now let’s consider a box that is 12"x12"x15". We would consider that less than optimum. <1, a 15x15x15 box is even more less optimum etc. The optimum box size of 12x12x12 was engineered to lessen wasted space.

Evolution is not applicable only to early life. We can observe species becoming different species.

Source?

Evolution is clearly not in the realm of philosophy, because it employs the scientific method and is based on observable, empirical fact. This is the definition of a science.

Evolution is not meeting empirical standards. It is not predictable.

 

[Baelor]

The creation account states God created plants and animals etc… God created ex nihilo. God created the “kinds” at the beginning.

This implies that everything was created at the same time, at least given my reading of it. How do you reconcile this with the fact that different creatures/plants are of different ages (i.e., all life did not begin at the same time)? Also, what creatures did he create, and which evolved over time? Or has the number of species remained constant since the beginning?

The issue here is what is a species? It is man’s classification system, not God’s. As I posted before I believe genetics will be more accurate in defining kinds.

Let me rephrase. What proof would you need to accept the hypothesis that evolution occurs?

That has to be agreed upon. How do we measure? What do we measure? Let’s simplify. Let us take a 12"x12"x12" box that holds 1728 1" cube pieces of wood. We would consider the box size to be optimum for holding the cubes with little wasted space. Assign it a value of 1. Now let’s consider a box that is 12"x12"x15". We would consider that less than optimum. <1, a 15x15x15 box is even more less optimum etc. The optimum box size of 12x12x12 was engineered to lessen wasted space.

That is still not an answer to the question I asked. How would you determine if DNA or whatever is less than 1 or 1? Say that the current state is one. Describe to me what would make something from 200 m.y.a. .5, or .6, or .99, or 1, or 2, or 1000. How are you comparing them?

Source?

Wikipedia’s article on speciation is a good start, particularly for the references at the bottom (footnote 3 in particular).

Evolution is not meeting empirical standards. It is not predictable.

That is not the definition of empirical standards. Brownian motion is unpredictable, but that does not meant that we are unable to determine what it is or when it occurs in nature.

What is the issue with the two creation accounts?

Exactly what I said. Genesis is history. I agree, in a sense. But either event X occurred or mutually exclusive event Y occurred. If you tell me both are historical, I would rightly say, “Impossible.” Thus, how are we to interpret Genesis? On what level do we accept it as literal truth?

 

[Farsight001]

Sure, you don’t have to. I’m just making the case that even the New Testament refers to these people in the creation story. So, Jesus speaks of these people. The Epistoles speak of them. But, according to the logic of some on this thread, if you believe these people are real, God put these people into a symbolic story. In other words, the people may be real, but the surrounding enviorment and how they got there isn’t.

And what does that have to do with them being real? Do you think it’s impossible to refer to a mythological character for some reason?

 

[buffalo]

This implies that everything was created at the same time, at least given my reading of it. How do you reconcile this with the fact that different creatures/plants are of different ages (i.e., all life did not begin at the same time)? Also, what creatures did he create, and which evolved over time? Or has the number of species remained constant since the beginning?

Let me rephrase. What proof would you need to accept the hypothesis that evolution occurs?

That is still not an answer to the question I asked. How would you determine if DNA or whatever is less than 1 or 1? Say that the current state is one. Describe to me what would make something from 200 m.y.a. .5, or .6, or .99, or 1, or 2, or 1000. How are you comparing them?

Wikipedia’s article on speciation is a good start, particularly for the references at the bottom (footnote 3 in particular).

That is not the definition of empirical standards. Brownian motion is unpredictable, but that does not meant that we are unable to determine what it is or when it occurs in nature.

Exactly what I said. Genesis is history. I agree, in a sense. But either event X occurred or mutually exclusive event Y occurred. If you tell me both are historical, I would rightly say, “Impossible.” Thus, how are we to interpret Genesis? On what level do we accept it as literal truth?

There is a sequence to creation. Revelation tells us man was created last. However, it doesn’t have to be, God could have thought everything simultaneously.

I am thinking that the number of kinds was there at the beginning.

Which adapted over time? Most likely all of them.

Proof? Empirical, that is reproducible over and over in a lab a species changing into another one. A cat turning into a dog might be a good one. observable, repeatable and predictable.

To answer the optimization question one must know the purpose. But say we take a part of the DNA program and learn that over time it has developed a glitch in that it performs a function less efficiently. Let’s take the box example. The box packing algorythim calculates the best box to pack items in. Over time we note that the box size it is calculating is getting larger. We investigate the program and find that a piece of code has eroded.

 

[buffalo]

Exactly what I said. Genesis is history. I agree, in a sense. But either event X occurred or mutually exclusive event Y occurred. If you tell me both are historical, I would rightly say, “Impossible.” Thus, how are we to interpret Genesis? On what level do we accept it as literal truth?

What specific part of the two creations accounts presents you a problem?

 

[johnnyjones]

And what does that have to do with them being real? Do you think it’s impossible to refer to a mythological character for some reason?

The first man, ADAM, was made a living soul, the last ADAM was made a quikening spirit.
(1 Cor. 15:45) If you want to make Adam a mythological charactor, you should be able to see where that leads you. Who is the last Adam? For as in ADAM all die… (1Cor. 15:22)

No ADAM, no sin, no Jesus.

Catholics accept 1 Cor. 15: 22 & 45 as canon.

Jesus told parables at times. Luke 11:51 is not one of them. Was Zacharias as well as Abel fictitious?

 

[Baelor]

I am thinking that the number of kinds was there at the beginning.

Define “kind.” I assume this is synonymous with “species.”

Which adapted over time? Most likely all of them.

Define adaptation in distinction to evolution.

I know that you have been asked to define these terms, but I am really looking for a distinction between evolution and adaptation from you. What counts as evolution? The definition you provide must be able to be a metric I can apply to any living creature or plant.

Proof? Empirical, that is reproducible over and over in a lab a species changing into another one.

That is not a reasonable form of proof. The experiment is reproducible; the results are not, nor does any evolutionist claim they should be. That is not how science works.

Let me give you a brief analogy. A coin flip is random, yes? You are asking someone to flip a coin and come up with heads over and over again. This is possible but unlikely, and no one would claim to be able to do that because we accept the concept of randomness.

If someone puts forward a theory of evolution that somehow involves randomness, it is irrational on your part to require as a burden of proof that randomness not exist. It is the same as someone claiming that a coin flip will come up heads or tails and you insisting that in order to prove this, they must flip heads over and over again. What you are requiring is not related to what they are arguing.

So, let me rephrase: Assume that evolution involves some level of randomness. What would be sufficient proof for you?

A cat turning into a dog might be a good one. observable, repeatable and predictable.

The theory of evolution does not state that a cat turning into a dog is possible. The theory of evolution is not fully predictable, just like a coin toss is not predictable. If you understand science at a basic level, this will not pose a problem for you, but if you are not very good with scientific concepts, I understand your intellectual limitations without judgment.

To answer the optimization question one must know the purpose. But say we take a part of the DNA program and learn that over time it has developed a glitch in that it performs a function less efficiently. Let’s take the box example. The box packing algorythim calculates the best box to pack items in. Over time we note that the box size it is calculating is getting larger. We investigate the program and find that a piece of code has eroded.

Could you give me an example involving animals? How would you define their purpose?

What specific part of the two creations accounts presents you a problem?

No part. They are clearly mutually exclusive, so Genesis and genesis cannot be taken literally. That is my only point.

 

[rossum]

Your making the mistake of interpreting the bible literally at all times.

So, tell me, when do we interpret the Bible literally, and when do we interpret in metaphorically?

As a matter of fact your “disgrace to your religion” comment was way out of control several posts back.

You misquoted the link I gave. That was reprehensible, and I called you on it. “You shall not bear false witness”. Does that sound familiar?

rossum

 

[rossum]

The problem here is that that’s not what the word literal means, Ed. Literal means entirely as is, without metaphor, symbolism, or any other poetic literary technique. If the bible says “Jesus is the vine”, any interpretation other than concluding that Jesus was an actual chlorophyll-utilizing, CO2 producing, plant is a NON-literal interpretation.

Another problem is that we need to know the cultural context of the text, which is not always preserved. For example, in modern times, any story which starts, “Once upon a time…” is assumed to be fiction, without explicitly saying so. Out of that cultural context the assumption of fiction is lost.

Is the correct translation of “a red herring” to be “a pink fish” or would it be something else. The correct meaning of an ancient text can be difficult to determine when we no longer have the correct cultural context.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The creation account states God created plants and animals etc…

Indeed it does.

God created ex nihilo.

No He did not, and Genesis is explicit on this. I am surprised that so many Biblical literalists make this error.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Plants were not created ex nihilo, but were created indirectly from the earth.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Fish and birds were not created ex nihilo, but were created indirectly from the waters.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Animals were not created ex nihilo, but were created indirectly from the earth.

God did not create directly, but indirectly. Evolution can be seen as an indirect method of creation.

rossum

 

[BrJuniper]

Indeed it does.

No He did not, and Genesis is explicit on this. I am surprised that so many Biblical literalists make this error.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Plants were not created ex nihilo, but were created indirectly from the earth.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Fish and birds were not created ex nihilo, but were created indirectly from the waters.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Animals were not created ex nihilo, but were created indirectly from the earth.

God did not create directly, but indirectly. Evolution can be seen as an indirect method of creation.

rossum

Ok here is where methinks you went a bridge to far. All Darwinism is evolution but not all evolution is darwin. ex nihil is a tough one because for it to be completely accurate God must be nihil…not good. But to say that all that is ows its existence to Gods creative act and before that action there was only God…that’s cool. So I guess I do agree with you, except maybe the indirect part…ooops.

RCC Doctrine…There is no conflict between Creation and evolution

 

[johnnyjones]

So, tell me, when do we interpret the Bible literally, and when do we interpret in metaphorically?

You misquoted the link I gave. That was reprehensible, and I called you on it. “You shall not bear false witness”. Does that sound familiar?

rossum

Correct interpretation involves study. If 2000 years from now we read a story that says “it was raining cats and dogs”, we may need to know what they meant by that. The creation story in Genesis places people there who are later referenced in the New Testament. The NT accepts them as historical characters and you may as well. The surroundings and how they got there is what presents a problem for you. Real people in a symbolic setting?

See post 545.

 

[Baelor]

Real people in a symbolic setting?

There is nothing wrong with that. First, the writers of the OT did not meet Adam and Eve in person, which means that the level at which they can be said to be historical is debatable (i.e. are the names just placeholders for the prototypical humans, etc.?). Second, we have real people in symbolic settings all the time. Take George Washington and the cherry tree, or any other legend about anyone ever. Or the Trojan War heroes, for that matter.

 

[Farsight001]

There is a sequence to creation. Revelation tells us man was created last. However, it doesn’t have to be, God could have thought everything simultaneously.

I am thinking that the number of kinds was there at the beginning.

Which adapted over time? Most likely all of them.

Proof? Empirical, that is reproducible over and over in a lab a species changing into another one. A cat turning into a dog might be a good one. observable, repeatable and predictable.

To answer the optimization question one must know the purpose. But say we take a part of the DNA program and learn that over time it has developed a glitch in that it performs a function less efficiently. Let’s take the box example. The box packing algorythim calculates the best box to pack items in. Over time we note that the box size it is calculating is getting larger. We investigate the program and find that a piece of code has eroded.

“Kind” doesn’t even have an operational definition. How in the world can you claim that “the number of kinds was there at the beginning” when no one actually knows, precisely, what a “kind” is?

 

[Farsight001]

The first man, ADAM, was made a living soul, the last ADAM was made a quikening spirit.
(1 Cor. 15:45) If you want to make Adam a mythological charactor, you should be able to see where that leads you. Who is the last Adam? For as in ADAM all die… (1Cor. 15:22)

No ADAM, no sin, no Jesus.

Catholics accept 1 Cor. 15: 22 & 45 as canon.

Jesus told parables at times. Luke 11:51 is not one of them. Was Zacharias as well as Abel fictitious?

You didn’t answer the question. In fact, you made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to answer the question. Stop trying to divert the subject.