Dinosaurs and the Flood

[StudentMI]

So you’re also claiming to know better than St John Paul II?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Considering God created the universe out of nothing…

Yes, true. That would conflict with the idea “universe from nothing” as some atheistic scientists have proposed. So, a failure to reference God in that case would be false.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

So you’re also claiming to know better than St John Paul II?

There are a few things here.

1. St. John Paul II was established by God and given Divine Authority to rule the Church that Jesus founded, for that time.
2. The Pope’s authority in those matters is supreme, and all Catholics must submit to the teachings and writings, at the level of authority they are given.
3. You reference “knowing more than” the Saint, Pope. But our Catholic Faith is not about scholarship. It’s about the power given by God, for the truths of the Faith.

Now … we talk about evolution. But that’s a scientific theory. Do you think it is possible for someone to know more about the scientific theory of evolution than St. John Paul II did? If not, how did the Saint get that much knowledge about biology, chemistry and evolutionary processes?
If it is, indeed, possible that someone knows more about evolution than St. John Paul II did, then I could say that I just follow whoever that was - and then I could reference someone “who knows more than he did”.
Again, this is not a de fide question. How evolution supposedly happened, or even if it happened, is not de fide doctrine. We can accept or reject the science.
I am asking for the science of theistic evolution.
I have the science of atheistic evolution - it’s the mainstream science. St. John Paul II did not give us a theory. Nor did Pope Benedict XVI. No Popes gave us a theory of theistic evolution.
We’ve got the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin with an attempt.

 

[buffalo]

Here we see Pope Benedict XVI calling out the “science fiction”. His words not mine.

"The point just set forth constitutes for me the central point of a true dialogue between your “scientific” faith and the faith of Christians. All the rest is secondary by comparison. So you will allow me to be more concise with regard to evolution. First I would like to point out that no serious theologian will dispute that the entire “tree of life” is in a living internal relationship, which the word evolution fittingly describes. Likewise, no serious theologian will be of the opinion that God, the Creator, repeatedly at intermediate levels had to intervene almost manually in the process of development. In this sense, many attacks on theology regarding evolution are unfounded. However, it would be useful for the advancement of knowledge if those who represent the natural sciences would also show themselves more openly aware of the issues and if they would say more clearly what questions still remain open.

In this regard, I have always considered exemplary the work of Jacques Monod, who clearly recognizes that, ultimately, we do not know how new DNA full of meaning is formed time and time again. I contest your thesis on page 129 according to which the four typologies developed by Darwin would perfectly explain all that regards the evolution of plants and animals, including man. On the other hand, I would not omit the fact that in this field there is a lot of science fiction, I will speak of it elsewhere. Moreover, in his book Prinzip Menschlichkeit (Hamburg 2007), the medical scientist Joachim Bauer of Freiburg impressively illustrated the problems of social Darwinism; this too should not be passed over in silence.

The result of the “Longterm-evolution experiment” of which you speak on page 121 is by no means comprehensive. The attempted contraction of time in the final analysis is fictitious, and mutations achieved are of a modest scope. But most of all, man as the demiurge must constantly intervene with his contribution — precisely what evolution seeks to exclude. Furthermore, I find it very important that you still, even in your “religion,” recognize three “mysteries”: the question regarding the origin of the universe, that regarding the emergence of life and that regarding the origin of consciousness of the most highly developed living beings. Of course, also here you see man as one of the species of ape and thereby substantively cast doubt on the dignity of man; however, the emergence of consciousness remains an open question for you (page 182)"

 

[StudentMI]

To both buffalo and Bill.

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Message to the Pontifical Academy of Science on Evolution | EWTN

 

[buffalo]

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

No problem with the quote. Important point - it is a theory. Yes, there is ample evidence of micro-evolution. No one argues the adaptations we observe. As PBXVI points out and I point out - macro-evolution is the issue.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

From the very article you posted, StudentMI

As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.

That’s what I said. Standard evolutionary theory is incompatible with the truth. The papal document says it. “Spirt emerging from matter”. That’s evolution. The spirit of human life - rationality, immaterial moral conscience, the religious sense - evolution says these emerged from mutations and selection.
That idea is false - according to Church teaching given right here.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Read what he means by the “Ontological Leap”.

Evolution denies that.

 

[buffalo]

More Benedict XVI - “We must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.”

Note: Pope Benedict XVI became aware of the new findings that science was providing which reinforced his earlier writings.

I have never seen Saint Pope John Paul admit macro-evolution.

 

[StudentMI]

I’m bowing out of this thread. You guys aren’t interested in a discussion and one of you isn’t answering a question. See ya.

 

[buffalo]

Pope Benedict - "Jacques Monod, who rejects as unscientific every kind of faith in God and who thinks that the world originated out of an interplay of chance and necessity, tells in the very work in which he attempts summarily to portray and justify his view of the world that, after attending the lectures which afterward appeared in book form, François Mauriac is supposed to have said: “What this professor wants to afflict on us is far more unbelievable than what we poor Christians were ever expected to believe.”

 

[buffalo]

At this point something unexpected and important appears, which Monod calls the platonic side of the world. This means that there is not only becoming, whereby everything is in constant change, but also permanency – the eternal ideas that shine through reality and that are its enduring and formative principles. This permanency is so constituted that every organism reproduces its pattern – the project that it is. Every organism is, as Monod asserts, conservatively designed. In propagating itself it reproduces itself exactly. Accordingly Monod offers this formula: For modern biology evolution is not the specific property of living beings; their specific property is, rather, precisely that they are unchanging: they reproduce themselves; their project endures.

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.” Pope Benedict XVI

 

[Bill_B_NY]

“We must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.”

I read a great book recently that explained Modernism as being driven by the “fear of being ridiculed by scholars”. So, there’s a fear to express truths because they go against the scientific establishment.
Here the Pope says things that are of major concern:

the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error

The problem here, why would he say that? “Chance and error” - he’s warning about something. When we say that evolution is a random process and mutations are errors in the functional processes of DNA code - the response from evolutionists is “Evolution is not random!”
So is the Pope aiming at a non-existent target?
As I see it, no. Evolutionists like to squirm away from the charge of random outputs, but mutations are random and so is environmental conditions. We cannot even model what the environment on earth is for a single day. There are so many random factors.
The pope is saying that human beings cannot be the product of evolution.

The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before.

Great point! But please, give us the evidence (which exists in abundance), otherwise people will just ignore or misinterpret this, as they have done. Life points to Reason because there is evidence. Evolution does not point to a Designer, on the contrary, it is the Blind Watchmaker.

 

[TMC]

Yes, those theories do not talk about the creation of human beings, which is something directly caused by God. So, they do not need to reference God.

This is a distinction without a difference. Each of those scientific theories (and many others) speak to how Creation works, and how it came to be what we see today. The Christian view of God’s role in Creation does not stop with the moment of creation ab nihilo. None of those theories attempt to explain God or religion. None of them need to. None of them conflict with Christianity, properly understood.

 

[buffalo]

This is a distinction without a difference. Each of those scientific theories (and many others) speak to how Creation works, and how it came to be what we see today. The Christian view of God’s role in Creation does not stop with the moment of creation ab nihilo. None of those theories attempt to explain God or religion. None of them need to. None of them conflict with Christianity, properly understood.

Is evolution teleological?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

None of them need to.

Evolution needs to because it talks about the creation of human beings.
A scientific theory of gravity does not speak of something where God’s direct creation is necessary as an explanation.
We can explain how rain falls to earth from clouds without referencing God’s direct creation.
We cannot explain the origin of human beings without a reference to the direct creation of the human soul - the rationality, consciousness, moral awareness, free will and religious sense that separates man from animal.
Evolution claims to explain the emergence of human beings - but a human being cannot exist without God directly creating the rational soul.

 

[TMC]

Is evolution teleological?

I would say no. My understanding of teleogical theories is that they attempt to answer the question “why”. I don’t see evolution making any attempt to answer philosophical or theological issues.

 

[TMC]

All I can say is that I disagree with you for the reasons I already gave, and it seems the Church disagrees, also. The Church sees no conflict between evolution and faith.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

It’s really not limited to Monod. Evolutionists will attack Monod as if he is not a good example of an evolutionary theorist. But standard evolutionary theory follows what Monod says. Pope Benedict is saying that it is all wrong, but he just tied his critique to Monod. Dawkins says the same thing, as do even theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

The Church sees no conflict between evolution and faith.

It’s my belief that you are clinging to evolutionary theory for reasons other than what the science actually says.
For many Catholics, they do not want to be identified with fundamentalist Protestants. Perhaps they are converts from that religion so they oppose everything unique to them. Or they have met particularly ignorant fundamentalists, and believe that Catholicism cannot have anything to do with that kind of thinking.
So, the idea of opposing evolution is unthinkable and even repugnant to many Catholics, even though they haven’t studied the science.
There is a desire to go along with the scientific consensus - for understandable reasons.
The idea that evolution should be opposed is seen as “anti-science”.