EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[grannymh]

Hi guys. Just to add a new fold to the conversation. I had been serfing the web and found this quote from the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commision “”…the creation of all things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer." (from Acta apostolis sedis, 1 [1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission], pages 567-69,…) bringyou.to/apologetics/p100.htm

Does the Pontifical Biblical Commission have any weight on the issue?

Dear Montie Claunch,

Thanks for the interesting link. Did scan some of it and found it quite interesting. It is a private website with some interesting links…

Usually, Pontifical Commissions have the weight of highly intelligent individuals qualified to study a particular area in order to provide information and advice. Often Commissions review previous studies. Commissions do not issue formal dogmas of faith, though they have made suggestions as to wording, etc.

It looks like this particular commission was affirming previously taught truths. However, the danger with Genesis is that it is difficult for the ordinary reader to distinguish between what must be believed as actual and what could be a figure of speech. That is why we have the Catholic Church to be our guide.

The website did have information about how truths are, in a sense, classified. Since this is often a difficult issue to decipher, my suggestion is to check the Catechism regarding dogmas, Magisterium, etc.

For me personally, it was interesting to read comments from Theologian Ludwig Ott, author of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pertaining to evolution*.*

The bottom line is that these Commissions are very valuable and their reports are highly respected. While the Commissions often write about Church doctrines, they cannot, by themselves, issue new formal dogma.

Blessings,
granny

All humanity is loved by its Creator.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Like I said,empiricists tend to see creation like a cistern or a dead corpse .

If you think so, you don’t know any “empiricists.”

I am working on rotational dynamics of the Earth’s viscous interior,speciifcally differential rotation, and its geological consequences such as the evolution and motion of the fractured crust plus I get to explain why there is a 40km spherical deviation using the same rotational mechanism

Interesting. Let’s see your numbers. Or whatever it is you think constitutes evidence.

You simply cannot handle anything that requires intuitive intelligence.

Sounds like a testable claim. What do you think “intuitive intelligence” means?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on the way evolution “gets around” the SLOT:
Yep. The same way a flower growing from a seed gets around it, or a child growing into adulthood gets around it.

And here lies another evolutionary fraud. A flower growing from a seed relies on its inherent genetic formula,

Nevertheless, it, like evolution can produce greater complexity. The SLOT doesn’t rule out such decreases in entropy. In fact, Boltzmann, who worked out the mathematical basis of thermodynamics, was a Darwinian.

its ability to utilise nutrients in the ground and photosynthesis for its temporary life. A child is also programmed to mature using nutrients for its temporary life. Evolution must begin with a living thing that cannot have such mechanisms.

Really? Show us some evidence for that.

Direct creation is the only reasonable way arounf the second law.

I’m noticing the flowers in my garden aren’t “directly created.” Maybe it would help if you learned what the SLOT actually says?

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have yet to see evidence the Oriel is concerned about truth or consistency, rather than merely making noise to be heard.

I guess I’ll have to agree with you.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

No, that’s a tired, outdated Creationist metaphor that has already been exploded: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html

1. This claim is irrelevant to the theory of evolution itself, since evolution does not occur via assembly from individual parts, but rather via selective gradual modifications to existing structures. Order can and does result from such evolutionary processes.
2. Hoyle applied his analogy to abiogenesis, where it is more applicable. However, the general principle behind it is wrong. Order arises spontaneously from disorder all the time. The tornado itself is an example of order arising spontaneously. Something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously from raw chemicals, but there is no reason to believe that something as simple as a self-replicating molecule could not form thus. From there, evolution can produce more and more complexity.

Well, I would think that it would apply to a whole lot more. If I am not mistaken there are Millions of nucleotides and one wrong nucleotide causes sickle cell anmenia which kills the host. for it to jump the order for a fully functional organ without coming up with something else that kills it randomly seems a bit difficult.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

And my dear StAnastasia I think Dr. Fred Hoyle is somebody qualified enough to take seriously. And while it might be “Old” and “Tired”, a good point is a good point and should always be considered when comeing to a conclusion.

For those who don’t know, Fred Hoyle is an astronomer who looked into nucleotides and their effect on the orogin of life.
“Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?” According to his calculations, the likelihood of this happening is only one in 10 to the 40 000 power (1 followed by 40 000 zeros)."(“Hoyle on Evolution”, Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

And Dr. Behe has wrote of the difficulty of developing organs of any significance, the flaguleem, Eye, ect.

 

[PetersKeys]

vff

 

[The_Barbarian]

And my dear StAnastasia I think Dr. Fred Hoyle is somebody qualified enough to take seriously.

**There is a curious variant of the first possibility. Could the insects themselves be the intelligence much higher than our own? We are so conditioned to thinking that the intelligence of a species can be exemplified by an individual member that it is hard to assess a situation in which each individual might show little intelligence, but in which the combined aggregate of individuals might show much. Yet it is so in our own brains, where no individual neuron can be said to display intelligence but in which the aggregate of neurons constitutes exactly what we understand by intelligence.

The static nature of insect societies goes against this thinking. If an enormous intelligence inhabits the beehives of the world, we might expect more evidence of its presence. But this may again be to endow an opponent with our own restless characteristics. Perhaps concealment is an essential tactic. Perhaps the intelligence is static because it understands the dictum of sagacious lawyers: ‘When your case is going well, say nothing’.
**Hoyle & Wickramasinghe (1981, pp. 127- 128)

Er, yeah, Hoyle was an astronomer and a science fiction writer. As he got older, he more and more confused the two jobs. If you’re willing to seriously accept the idea that insects are smarter than we are…

For those who don’t know, Fred Hoyle is an astronomer who looked into nucleotides and their effect on the orogin of life.
“Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?”

Couldn’t. Not all at once. But the evidence shows that it happened a little at a time, with the most efficient molecules surviving, in an odd chemical version of natural selection.

This kind of chemical selection has been directly observed in the lab.

According to his calculations, the likelihood of this happening is only one in 10 to the 40 000 power (1 followed by 40 000 zeros)."(“Hoyle on Evolution”, Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Try this. Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it well, and then deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order. That order has a likelihood of 52! an astonishingly huge number. And yet it happens every time.

Consider the likelihood of your genome, given the genomes of your great, great grandparents. That’s even more unlikely than Hoyle’s number. And yet, here you are.

Does that suggest what’s wrong with Hoyle’s folly?

 

[rossum]

Well, I would think that it would apply to a whole lot more. If I am not mistaken there are Millions of nucleotides and one wrong nucleotide causes sickle cell anmenia which kills the host. for it to jump the order for a fully functional organ without coming up with something else that kills it randomly seems a bit difficult.

You are correct that there are millions of neucleotides, however there are only a small percentage of places where a single change can kill the individual - not unsurprisingly mutations in those places do not propagate.

Your example of the sickle-cell mutation (HbS) is not a good one. In malarial areas you are less likely to die if you have a single copy of the mutation because you are more resistant to malaria.

There are billions of ways to make a working human being. Police DNA profiling and paternity tests confirm that all of us (even identical twins) have our own unique DNA. Most changes to our DNA have no effect whatsoever - they are neutral. Even those changes which do result in a change to a protein may not have any effect. It has been calculated that there are 2.3 x 10[sup]93[/sup] different ways to make a working Cytochrome C (Yockey, 1992).

Evolution has a very large target to aim at, and it always starts from a position where the organism is able to reproduce. Under those conditions evolution is remarkably effective.

rossum

 

[rossum]

And my dear StAnastasia I think Dr. Fred Hoyle is somebody qualified enough to take seriously. And while it might be “Old” and “Tired”, a good point is a good point and should always be considered when comeing to a conclusion.

Professor Hoyle was an excellent astronomer and a good science fiction writer (I particularly recommend “The Black Cloud”). He was not a good biologist.

For those who don’t know, Fred Hoyle is an astronomer who looked into nucleotides and their effect on the orogin of life.
“Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?” According to his calculations, the likelihood of this happening is only one in 10 to the 40 000 power (1 followed by 40 000 zeros)."(“Hoyle on Evolution”, Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Unfortunately for Professor Hoyle’s thesis abiogenesis research has progressed since 1981. Since that time we have discovered that enzymes are not required by very simple life; the alternative is strings of RNA which both store information (like DNA) and have a chemical action (like enzymes). By using these ribozymes primitive life avoided the need for both DNA and enzymes, using ribozymes to perform both functions. The original system just used RNA, google “RNA world”, DNA and enzymes were added later as improvements.

And Dr. Behe has wrote of the difficulty of developing organs of any significance, the flaguleem, Eye, ect.

Dr Behe proposed an interesting concept which sparked a lot of interesting research, however it has been shown that an irreducibly complex system can evolve reasonably easily. Behe was correct in that an IC system cannot evolve directly, but there are many indirect routes also open to evolution and it is through such indirect routes that IC evolves. Dr Behe’s latest research (Behe and Snoke, 2004) shows that IC systems can evolve. The scientific argument is now about how easy or difficult it is for IC systems to evolve and whether they can do so in the time available. The general consensus is that they can. Behe’s own paper showed that a small (one billion) population of bacteria can evolve a simple IC system in 20,000 years using a restricted subset of evolutionary mechanisms.

rossum

 

[oriel16]

I guess I’ll have to agree with you.

The empiricists on the science forums are fine as they do not have any pretense about Christ and Christianity and consider Christians as subhuman maggots who cannot think for themselves.The point is that I have come across just about every empirical stunt there is when dealing with actual scientific matters so I am no stranger to how their cleverness often backfires just as Stanastasia opted for his silly maneuver.

Empiricism as an Arian strain in anti-scientifc and hopelessly adrift of religion,that empiricism is substituted for science and used to attack Christianity is nothing knew as the old commies somehow managed to convince themselves.They even had an amusing article,at least nowadays it looks funny,where the guy is dead serious in his anti-religion stance -

“Psychopolitical tests need not necessarily be in agreement, one to another, where they are available to the public. Various types of insanity should be characterized by difficult terms. The actual state should be made obscure, but by this verbiage it can be built into the court or investigating mind that a scientific approach exists and that it is too complex for him to understand. It is not to be imagined that a judge or a committee of investigation should inquire too deeply into the subject of insanity, since they, themselves, part of the indoctrinated masses, are already intimidated if the psychopolitical activity has caused itself to be well-documented in terms of horror in magazines”

geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics-pt2.html#anchor10

The empiricists understood long ago that once you have the machinary of the education system then it is easy to keep the cult cycle going,the fact that empiricism is an Arian strain therefore is reason enough to have a very detailed look at how science went from being a valuable facet within Christianity to be something like communism that attacks the faith of people and tries to promote human self-determination within the hollow shell of a strictly materialistic universe.

Many believe that it comes down to a difference between the natural and supernatural in determining science vs religion but empiricism is political and nature is supernatural in its own way therefore what exists,in terms of the ‘cause’ for evolution is the political vs the natural/supernatural

 

[oriel16]

Interesting. Let’s see your numbers. Or whatever it is you think constitutes evidence.

QUOTE]

No offence but I am working off rotational dynamics and specifically differential rotation in the viscous interior as the mechanism for the 40 Km planetary spherical deviation and for the evolution/motion of the fractured crust while you are working off a stationary Earth thermal ‘convection cell’ mechanism which requires no association with planetary shape or planetary rotational dynamics.You hardly expect me to descend down to a stationary Earth level to explain to you what can only be explained by the rotating viscous interior so the onus is on you to rise to the consequences of a rotating Earth.Copernicus did not try to prove geocentrists wrong,he showed what was the best solution and some of the geocentrists followed therefore the ‘measure by which you measure’…

The trouble is that I know you are blinkered and stuck in your ‘convection cell’ rut because that is what the empirical consensus does and the same goes for all the other investigative areas of nature I looked into.I do not care to convince empiricists of anything only their own stupidity and blinkered approach to creation is a particularly uninspiring Arian outlook for this is what you get when you deny the Trinity.

Because of the dominance of the very narrow empirical atmosphere,most of my work remains private yet sometimes I do see people almost break the bonds of empiricism and find themselves exploring nature and its beauty in different ways that the empiricist will just not get.

When I look at the evolution of natural forms,I do so against a background of the geometric forms themselves and not against this railroaded version of evolution that is intent in reducing life to a pool of chemicals.I have watched,via fossil evidence, and existing creatures how they develop natural efficiencies and beauty at the same time without even caring about the ‘cause’.The blinkered empiricist will not see the point of this different approach or pay it lip service and I picked the following site because the individual too did not want to frame it within a useless ‘law’ -

britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/fibslide/jbfibslide.htm

mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

No random struggle but something that has been there even before life existed on the planet and a reminder that even if the cause is beyond human comprehension it is understandable in the diversity of forms that display its efficiency and its beauty.

 

[rad314]

A thought for Ash Wednesday (or, indeed, any day).

“The source of all sorrow is the illusion that of ourselves we are anything but dust.” – Thomas Merton

 

[grannymh]

This is a “run it up the flag pole and see who salutes” type of post. It is a trial run regarding the possibility of a literal Adam.

Regardless of how Adam came to be, either by a special, individual, direct creation or by creation which developed (or evolved) over time to the point that God breathed in a soul and Adam was man-- the point is that Adam represents all the generations which would descend from him. This is key in uniting all human beings in their ultimate destiny which is union with God.

A discussion centers on the question-- Could our entire population have descended from Adam. Now If I’m put in the same classification as a slug because we are without shells and our mobility is slow moving from place to place, maybe a one-size fits all evolutionary theory might work. Thank heavens this is not reality, so, let’s move on.

To begin, one can observe that in nature, there are different possibilities for the same concept. Humans have a different generation length than a snail. There are different life spans from species to species. Intelligent capacities are different between a human and a chimp. Humans create a different kind of music than the night insects. The observable really is that the gap between humans and other creatures is greater than…I can’t begin to think of a comparison. What constitutes this gap is evidence which is conspicuous by its absence.

“Whoa!” says the reader. Science cannot examine what is not there. Science can and does do that because of a three word sentence: “The possibility exists.” This sentence has been around since curiosity reached lovingly out to nature and on to the vast universe. The possibility of the Orient’s riches had explorers stock extra supplies in their ships in case they sailed off the edge of the earth. Edison’s mind worked overtime on the idea of possibility. The possibility of Adam & Eve, being the parents of all humanity exists alongside the possibility of dinosaurs becoming birds or reptiles.

One way to look at Adam & Eve’s possibility of having the record for the most children is to look at evolutionary studies.
Here are two examples. Please note I am not qualified to vouch for their validity. However, they do serve as examples. Both quotes are taken out of context. The general subject matter pertains to 1. population bottlenecks which occur when a population’s size is reduced for at least one generation. 2. genetic drift. 3. founder effects.

First quote:
“One of the most important and controversial issues in population genetics is concerned with the relative importance of genetic drift and natural selection in determining evolutionary change.” (Harrison, G.A., Tanner, J.M., Pilbeam, D.R. and Baker, P.T. in Human Biology 3rd ed. Oxford University Press 1988 pp 214-215) www.evolution.berkeley.edu

“important and controversial” are the key words. Logically, possibilities cannot exist in closed, defined systems. There is no room for imaginative thought. Controversial should not be looked at in the combative mode but rather that there are more than one possibility on the table. The controversy concerns which possibility is correct or if none are correct or if all are related systemically so that all possibilities are correct or maybe there is another possibility which will shed needed light. The point is that the discussion is open ended. These same ideas regarding possibilities could easily be applied to discussion about our human ancestors. Adam would be considered important.

Second quote:
“If a population is finite in size (as all populations are) and if a given pair of parents have only a small number of offspring, then even in the absence of all selective forces, the frequency of a gene will not be exactly reproduced in the next generation because of sampling error.”(Suzuki, D.T., Griffiths, A.J.F., Miller, J.H. and Lewontin, R.C. in An Introduction to Genetic Analysis 4th ed. W.H. Freeman 1989 p.704) www.evolution.berkeley.edu

The word if is the top word in scientific language. It invites unlimited curiosity and imagination. This quote zeros in on a given pair of parents which are not Adam and Eve. In doing so, it illustrates two people directly responsible for genes of their descendents. There’s all kinds of fascinating reading about how genes are passed on and what genomes contain. Hope my memory has this right – I saw an illustration of a genome that had a section marked “junk” which I think means unknown or unused. I’ve also seen the percentage of uncomparable base pairs translated into amounts. My apology but this post is more like a draft or outline which I can fill in as needed. The impression I have of all this is that while a lot is known there is still a lot of unknown. Unknown is the foundation for possibilities.

Another way to analyze evolutionary studies is to look at the real numbers of what was studied, what kind of numerical measurements are used, the translation of percentages into actual amounts, etc. Questions can be asked if descriptions were complete including what was studied and what was excluded. Has the study been replicated? How much of the study is speculation? And so on. Personally, I like to take every study as an honest attempt to gain knowledge because I know that any attempt has the possibility of greatness.

It is my sincere hope, that the reader can see a possible possibility that Adam existed literally as a real person.

Blessings,
granny

All humanity exists because of a loving Creator.

 

[StAnastasia]

This is a “run it up the flag pole and see who salutes” type of post. It is a trial run regarding the possibility of a literal Adam.

Grannymh, I’m curious: what is the source of your obsession with a literal Adam?

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, I’m curious: what is the source of your obsession with a literal Adam?

StAnastasia

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
ISBN 1-57455-109-4

Paragraph 389 and others
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

Today is the beginning of Lent.

 

[StAnastasia]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 389 and others “The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

Thanks Grannymh!

 

[buffalo]

Grannymh, I’m curious: what is the source of your obsession with a literal Adam?

StAnastasia

How about the obsession of the entire Church for so long? Adam has been the constant teaching and belief of the Church. Why don’t you have the same obsession?

 

[StAnastasia]

How about the obsession of the entire Church for so long? Adam has been the constant teaching and belief of the Church. Why don’t you have the same obsession?

I am not theologically obsessed with the idea that “Adam” and “Eve” (not proper names in Genesis) were intended by the authors of Genesis to be interpreted literally as specific, individual human beings, breathed into life on the sixth day of the creation of the universe, only 6,000 years ago. “Adam” and “Eve” represent humanity as a whole, evolving from the radiating bush of life. That’s all I can say for now, but I will be discussing this and other issues at the Vatican conference next week, and will report back on what my fellow theologians are saying about it.

Best wishes,
StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

I am not theologically obsessed with the idea that “Adam” and “Eve” (not proper names in Genesis) were intended by the authors of Genesis to be interpreted literally as specific, individual human beings, breathed into life on the sixth day of the creation of the universe, only 6,000 years ago. “Adam” and “Eve” represent humanity as a whole, evolving from the radiating bush of life. That’s all I can say for now, but I will be discussing this and other issues at the Vatican conference next week, and will report back on what my fellow theologians are saying about it.

Best wishes,
StAnastasia

I will anxiously await your report. You do understand you are not in conformity to Catholicism at this point. Are you expecting them to revise the Catechism?

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

ll men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”