Difference between "atheistic evolution" and "christian evolution?"

[Rolltide]

Hmmm… perhaps the universe always existed. You should look up “cyclic model” on wikipedia for some background.

Neat article. I knew a little about the theory from when it was first proposed but this is in more depth. Ok, so rephrase statement for this theory to say, “How could a universe always have existed?” Therefore, there must be a God. Whether the universe was always here, or was created from nothing, both are impossible by human logic, and thus I believe that God is involved.

 

[Mersenne]

Hubriss,

Scientifically speaking, there aren’t any differences. The differences are philosophical: atheistic evolution states that these changes happened (and happen) by themselves while Christian evolution teaches that God guides the changes as He sees fit.

If you will permit me a little math, there are about 20 different amino acids that are used in proteins. The number of different proteins that are 100 amino acid “units” long is 20 to the 100 power (which I will abbreviate 20^100), or about 10^130. The chance of creating a specific chain of amino acids 100 units long is therefore about one in 10^130. I do not know how many individual proteins can self-replicate but I doubt that the number is very big.

The mass of the known universe (from a quick Google search) is about 3 times 10^55 grams, which translates into the equivalent of 2 times 10^79 proton weights. The universe is about 14 billion years old, which translates roughly into 4 times 10^17 seconds old. If a process were to create a different protein at random once every nanosecond for every proton in the universe, it would still have created only about 8 times 10^105 different proteins–in other words, only about one in every 10^24 of the possibilities.

Even if there are literally billions of self-replicating proteins, there hasn’t been enough time and space in the lifetime of the universe for one to have come together by itself. That is my first reason for rejecting atheistic evolution: it is hopelessly unlikely.

• Liberian

Your assuming that this magical process of yours has an equal chance of creating every protein possible. There’s no reason to assume that is necessarily true of the process that created life. The process may have been only able to create a small sub-section of all proteins possible, many of which could self-replicate. It very well have been the case that the process was only capable of creating self-replicating proteins. There are many phenomenon that spontaneously create complex patterns.

 

[simbagizmo]

Genesis 1 states on each day “evening and morning”. These are literal days. It also states God “made” not “evolved” each thing “each after their own kind”. From this thread, everyone thinks this account is fiction.

So let’s move on to Adam. According to the statements above, I am assuming that the prominant thought here is that God did not “create” Adam, but God set in motion a natural evolution from some cells into the human race. If this is true, then Genesis 2 also becomes a fictional story.

Here is my question, Is the whole story of Adam, as written in Genesis, fact or fiction?

Please stay with me on this thought process. And let’s try to keep this civil.

 

[rossum]

You might find the article Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers of interest as a Thomist perspective on how God interacts with the world and with evolution.

rossum

 

[PhilVaz]

sim << Genesis 1 states on each day “evening and morning”. These are literal days. >>

The sun which separates night from day was created on the fourth “day.” Hebrews 4 says God is still resting in the seventh “day.” These are not literal days according to the Bible. Your response?

sim << Here is my question, Is the whole story of Adam, as written in Genesis, fact or fiction? >>

The Church’s position is there was an Adam, there was a historical Fall, but the rest of the story contains clear symbolical or figurative language.

1. The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice.” [cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511] This grace of original holiness was “to share in…divine life.” [cf. Vatican II LG 2]
2. The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

sim << Please stay with me on this thought process. And let’s try to keep this civil. >>

You got it. And how old is the earth? 10000 years, 6000 years, 1000 years, 50 years?

The Church teaches the “six days” are symbolical of the human work week, with God “resting” on the seventh. God does not literally “rest” since God does not “get tired.” God did not literally “walk” in the garden. The snake or serpent did not literally “speak.” Or do you take everything in Genesis 1-3 literally?

1. 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. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.” [Vatican II LG 36] (see also paragraphs 339, 342, 345 which refer to the “six days”)
2. Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun. [footnote refers to St. Augustine, De Genesi adv Man 1, 2, 4: PL 34, 175]

From Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

“As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific…The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time. The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an anthropomorphism. God’s work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis – opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest.” (Ott, page 93, cf. Exod 20:8)

Makes sense to me. And for good measure:

Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on cosmology and Genesis over two decades ago:

“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “Cosmology and Fundamental Physics”)

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

But you have to admit, there are many atheists who use evolution as an argument against theism. Dawkins, etc.

That is true, but that doesn’t mean that the science is athiestic. Islamic terrorists are killing people in the name of religion. That doesn’t mean religion is about killing people.

Let’s be fair here. I’m skeptical of ID as well, and there ARE ID creationists. But there are plenty - and I mean plenty - of people who subscribe to the general concept of ID and who believe evolution occured, while differing on specifics. Just as there are people who believe in evolution, but don’t believe in ‘nothing but gradualism’.

ID was created (pun sort of intended ) as a way of getting creationism into the classroom. I subscribe to the idea of an intelligent designer. I, however, reject the pseudoscience of ID completely because it is just that - pseudoscience.

Peace

Tim

 

[Nullasalus]

That is true, but that doesn’t mean that the science is athiestic. Islamic terrorists are killing people in the name of religion. That doesn’t mean religion is about killing people.

Exactly. Again, I’m fine with evolution - at the same time, it’s being hijacked. I don’t thinkID/the Discovery Institute’s methods are the best way to combat it. However, I will say I think their intentions are in the right direction.

I would love to hear half as many attacks directed against atheists who co-opt evolutionary theory as I do against even misguided religious people who criticize it or attempt to combat the co-option.

ID was created (pun sort of intended ) as a way of getting creationism into the classroom. I subscribe to the idea of an intelligent designer. I, however, reject the pseudoscience of ID completely because it is just that - pseudoscience.

Creationism in the broadest sense of the term. We both know what mental image is conjured up with creationism - ‘6000 years ago, everything popped into existence ex nihilo’. Which is exactly why PZ Myers recently called Ken Miller a creationist. It’s a deceptive word when used against him, and it’s deceptive when used against many (Not all) ID proponents.

I don’t even think ID is pseudoscience, because there’s not much they’ve offered in the way of science. I eagerly await the day they shift strategy from trying to prove design scientifically (or assert that it can be done) to illustrating strong philosophical or otherwise evidence for design or intention in creation. THAT is desperately needed, and reference to science is required to fill that need.

 

[Hubriss]

Hubriss,

Scientifically speaking, there aren’t any differences. The differences are philosophical: atheistic evolution states that these changes happened (and happen) by themselves while Christian evolution teaches that God guides the changes as He sees fit.

If you will permit me a little math, there are about 20 different amino acids that are used in proteins. The number of different proteins that are 100 amino acid “units” long is 20 to the 100 power (which I will abbreviate 20^100), or about 10^130. The chance of creating a specific chain of amino acids 100 units long is therefore about one in 10^130. I do not know how many individual proteins can self-replicate but I doubt that the number is very big.

The mass of the known universe (from a quick Google search) is about 3 times 10^55 grams, which translates into the equivalent of 2 times 10^79 proton weights. The universe is about 14 billion years old, which translates roughly into 4 times 10^17 seconds old. If a process were to create a different protein at random once every nanosecond for every proton in the universe, it would still have created only about 8 times 10^105 different proteins–in other words, only about one in every 10^24 of the possibilities.

Even if there are literally billions of self-replicating proteins, there hasn’t been enough time and space in the lifetime of the universe for one to have come together by itself. That is my first reason for rejecting atheistic evolution: it is hopelessly unlikely.

• Liberian

Your concept of natural selection among other things is flawed. Sorry, don’t have time to explain it now and respond to you guys yet, got an essay to write, then a football game.

Some food for thought.
If a monkey sat at a computer and continuously typed on a keyboard randomly, it would take billions of year for it to produce a complete copy of the Bible, or maybe even nearly infinite right?
But what if the monkey typed all over a keyboard, but once it got a character right, it was locked in place, and all the wrong ones were ignored. Then the longest it may take might only be several years or so.

 

[Della]

Della << Darwin (and others since him) have never produced any “evidence” of evolution. They’ve only produced a theory (or theories) they believe fits what they’ve seen in nature. >>

BTW, it is impossible to get a theory without strong evidence. A theory explains the facts and evidence.

“In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a ‘guess’ or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested.” (from Wikipedia and PhilVaz vs. Sungenis page)

A common misconception about theory in science cleared up. You’re welcome.

Phil P

Because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I need to be educated, thank you very much. I see no need for the rolling eyes. I don’t happen to think that reading into what one sees in nature is “proof” of anything–it is only a theory–not a fact, which is what most deluded people who know no better seem to think it is (not you–and I mean that quite seriously and plainly).

 

[PhilVaz]

Della << it is only a theory–not a fact, which is what most deluded people who know no better seem to think it is (not you–and I mean that quite seriously and plainly >>

Theory is not “guess.” Theory is not “I think so.” Theory is “I know so.” Theory EXPLAINS facts. Theory is therefore HIGHER than fact.

OK now you’ve done it. I shall gradually evolve my rolling eyes to become furious with you anti-Darwinists…

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hmmm… perhaps the universe always existed. You should look up “cyclic model” on wikipedia for some background.

St. Thomas Aquinas considers that possibility in his short work On the Eternity of the World.​

He concludes that the decisive argument against the idea is what Scripture says on the matter; and that apart from the fact that its creation in time is a revealed truth, there is no decisive argument against the thesis that it is eternal.

He is admirably ready to consider ideas that many might reject out of hand - this open-mindedness & refusal to panic is one of the things that makes him so great a theologian & thinker. The difference from Fundamentalists, Christian or secular, is refreshing.

As for a cyclic universe - there are serious objections to the idea; for details, read just about any of the books of Father Stanley Jaki O.S.B. (if you haven’t). They’re densely written, but well worth the effort. He remarks that the Fathers did not think much of the idea - so it is not a new difficulty. ##

 

[Liberian]

Mersenne,

You are right that I’m assuming that the magical process has equal chances of creating all proteins, but until I have a reason to think otherwise it’s the best I can do. I also do not pretend to be doing more than providing some very liberal upper limits to things. Rather than falling short by twenty-four orders of magnitude, I daresay the process has fallen short by something more like sixty to eighty orders of magnitude.

If the process could have created self-replicating proteins on a regular basis, why haven’t we seen this happening in somebody’s lab? I will stand by my statement that atheistic evolution is hopelessly unlikely.

• Liberian

 

[Liberian]

Simbagizmo,

Hello and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums! I hope you have a blessed and fruitful time here.

I believe that the Church leaves us at liberty to regard much of Genesis 1-11 as being something besides literal history as modern historians would write it. We are required to believe that we are all descended from a single original pair of humans; this is the basis for the doctrine of original sin. I don’t think we are required to regard the “days” as literal twenty-four-hour periods.

Certainly Genesis 1 says that God “made” things (although in three cases it says “created”–a different verb), but it doesn’t give many details about the process He used.

Definitely let’s keep this civil.

• Liberian

 

[Della]

Della << it is only a theory–not a fact, which is what most deluded people who know no better seem to think it is (not you–and I mean that quite seriously and plainly >>

Theory is not “guess.” Theory is not “I think so.” Theory is “I know so.” Theory EXPLAINS facts. Theory is therefore HIGHER than fact.

I couldn’t disagree more! A theory does not explain facts–it only postulates an idea of what might be. Otherwise it would be a truth and not a theory. So, I stand unswayed by your shouting at me.

OK now you’ve done it. I shall gradually evolve my rolling eyes to become furious with you anti-Darwinists…

Phil P

Well, rolling your eyes and getting mad doesn’t persuade me, either. It only makes me think your argument (or rather the Darwinian explanation of things) a very weak one if you have to resort to such antics–out of frustration with my supposed “ignorance.” So frown away, it moves me not at all.

 

[becka01101]

I couldn’t disagree more! A theory does not explain facts–it only postulates an idea of what might be. Otherwise it would be a truth and not a theory. So, I stand unswayed by your shouting at me.

Well, rolling your eyes and getting mad doesn’t persuade me, either. It only makes me think your argument (or rather the Darwinian explanation of things) a very weak one if you have to resort to such antics–out of frustration with my supposed “ignorance.” So frown away, it moves me not at all.

I know I’m just jumping onto the end of this thread, but I have to disagree with your definition of theory. In general use, theory can mean idea, conjecture, or hypothesis. But in the scientific context, a theory is a set of proven facts, with confirmations and testable evidence.

 

[Della]

I know I’m just jumping onto the end of this thread, but I have to disagree with your definition of theory. In general use, theory can mean idea, conjecture, or hypothesis. But in the scientific context, a theory is a set of proven facts, with confirmations and testable evidence.

That’s fine, but I don’t see any proof of evolution–just ideas that sometimes seem to fit what is observable in nature. It doesn’t impress me as true, but as just one explanation of how things may have developed on this planet. Call me unorthodox or stubborn, but that’s how I see it.

 

[PhilVaz]

della << A theory does not explain facts–it only postulates an idea of what might be. Otherwise it would be a truth and not a theory. >>

Well this is the way I’ve heard it defined by Ken Miller: Theories explain and incorporate thousands of facts, observations, laws. Evolution has been directly observed, small scale. So in that sense it is a fact or truth. What is theory is how evolution works. I didn’t make up these definitions. The first definition of "theory" from www.Dictionary.com applies:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.

That is, theories explain facts. What you seem to mean by theory is evolution is a “hypothesis” or “conjecture.” But JPII said evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” So sorry.

“Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.”

What are the “facts” that macroevolution (universal common descent) explains? THESE.

Phil P

 

[becka01101]

That’s fine, but I don’t see any proof of evolution–just ideas that sometimes seem to fit what is observable in nature. It doesn’t impress me as true, but as just one explanation of how things may have developed on this planet. Call me unorthodox or stubborn, but that’s how I see it.

What proof are you looking for in particular?

I ask because most people know what they would consider reasonable proof, and that affects how you perceive what people offer up as proof.

 

[wjp984]

while this does not prove evloution, it certainly disproves creationism. When we look into space we can see 14 billion light years away and nothing further since that is the start of the Big Bang. How can you refute that?

 

[valient_Lucy]

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I love that quote. Gotta love Hamlet.