EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[rad314]

You sound like you know Father Hardon’s work. Since I only used him regarding the Eucharist and that was nine years ago, I would appreciate your thoughts.

I have no special knowledge of his work, but I’ve admired his catechism and his dictionary for almost 20 years. I heard him speak once, about 15 years ago, at an exposition and benediction. He seemed to be a very wise and holy man. He died about five or ten years ago, didn’t he?

Blessings to you, too.

 

[reggieM]

Let me see if I can help you to understand. But first, I need to understand exactly where you are coming from. Do you think that without God:

• we wouldn’t *know *what was moral and immoral, or
• we wouldn’t *care *what was moral or immoral, or
• the difference between morality and immorality would not exist?

I can understand your view well enough from the above answer. Materialist philosophy works only with the laws of nature (evolution) acting on material properties. “Freedom” or “the obligation” to do what is morally right does not exist since the laws of nature drive all of nature (from the emergence of the first cell to the evolution of apes). Some kind of moral norms can be imposed by the community or by a tyrant but these will have some kind of pragmatic purpose or end. A transcendent future state and a final judgement from a personal Creator does not exist so there are no consequences for immoral behavior beyond what the community might impose (although any individual can “get way with” violations of the moral laws).

Perhaps it brings obligations that are rooted in the evolutionary success of mutuality, co-operation and reciprocal altruism.

Again, these would not be “obligations” but merely evolutionary patterns determined for individuals. It seems that evolutionary success in the population co-exists with egotism, tyranny, slavery, and aggressive warfare so whatever “morality” results from the natural law would have to include such activities as being “moral”. Nazis, mafia, suicide-terrorists and nihilists of various stripes each have some kind of “moral code” but it’s directed at a purpose and each would have to be justified by evolutionary-philosophy, as I see it.

Help me here again - in your mind, what is the highest or ultimate reason for which we should do or shouldn’t do things?

If there was no God, I could imagine that “survival” or perhaps hedonism of some kind would be the ultimate reason for doing things. But ultimately, it’s the classic problem for atheism - namely, that death is the complete end for the individual person and whatever came before is meaningless.

Nietzsche, Sartre, Russell and Camus all viewed atheism that way.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, because you’re not convinced is a reason for the scientific community to doubt it? Isn’t that the argument from incredulity?

StAnastasia,

Do you believe God is able to perform any miracles? If so, can you name a few from the Bible? By miracle, I mean an event that has no natural explanation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Nietzsche, Sartre, Russell and Camus all viewed atheism that way.

Sartre? Camus? Good grief! I feel I’m back on campus watching an unofficial production of “Waiting for Godot” in an hole-the-wall bar. That coupled with my first introduction to evolution --which was when everyone and his brother were out digging, looking for the missing link, human not genetic–should make me an expert on this thread.

Seriously, I’m seeing more and more unintended consequences from fast-paced science such as lack of simple ethics and simple morality. I’m thinking that it is time for science, meant in general terminology, to take responsibility for its actions. Note–I used the word actions, not theory or scientific fact.

While I did hang out with philosophy and "honors’ students, most of us considered these students and teachers as living in an ivory tower. As far as I can tell, a lot of scientists have taken over the ivory tower facilities. We need to knock on this tower’s door, and tell the inhabitants that it is time for them to join the team.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.

 

[hecd2]

The more I read about genetics, the more I believe that God didn’t need to follow human genetic principles. He created from scratch. Thus, Eve and Adam were individuals created as a separate step before genetics kicked in.

If God did that, then He did a very peculiar thing. He created humans with a suite of broken genes that are shared in such a way with other primates that indicate either common ancestry, or deception on God’s part. He would also have had to create humans with endogenous retroviruses, tandem repreats, and processed and unprocessed pseudo genes shared with other primates shared so that the reinforce the dichotomy - either humans share a common ancstry with chimpanzees and other primates or God is a deceiver.

Let’s look at the broken genes. Everyone knows about GULO, the gene that is part of the vitamin C synthesis process that is broken in exactly the same way in apes and old world monkeys, but is functional across the rest of the animal kingdom (actually it is also broken in guinea pigs, but in a different way). Recently David Haussler et al published a paper reporting other genes that are generally functional in other organisms but are broken in humans. (One of these of course is GULO, but they found several others)

A particularly interesting one is Acyl3, a gene that is highly conserved and which is found in archaea, bacteria, fungi, worms, flies and mammals. Except that it is broken and non-functional in humans because a mutation has inserted a stop codon in the middle of the gene. The exact same mutation is present in chimps, but the gene is functional in gorilla, mouse, rhesus, rat, dog and other mammals. So unless, we say that God deliberately created humans and chimps with the same nonsense mutation in a highly conserved gene to deceive us, then we must conclude that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and that this gene was broken before the divergence of human chimp lineages but after the divergence of gorillas.

Here are some others:

Crygf: Broken in an identical way in human, chimp, gorilla, but not orangutan or other primates or mouse or dog

Nradd, Gsta4, Sult1d1, Pfpl: broken in an identical way in all apes but not other primates or mouse or dog

Gucy2d, Nepn, BC018465, Gm766: broken in an identical way in old world primates but not new world primates or mouse or dog

Go here: Zhu, Haussler et al, Comparative Genomics Search for Losses of Long-Established Genes on the Human Lineage, PLoS Computational Biology 3(12): e247 doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030247,
or go here

I don’t think it makes good sense to declare that “Eve and Adam were individuals created as a separate step before genetics kicked in”, (quite apart from the fact that genetics is as old as living things) unless you are also willing to conclude that God is deliberately deceptive.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think it makes good sense to declare that “Eve and Adam were individuals created as a separate step before genetics kicked in”, (quite apart from the fact that genetics is as old as living things) unless you are also willing to conclude that God is deliberately deceptive.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Dear Alec,

There is no inherent necessity or external evidence for me to conclude that God is deliberately deceptive.

On the other hand, I can imagine all kinds of reasons to conclude that God is wonderfully creative. In fact today, I can imagine all kinds of wonderful ideas about God because my soul is singing. Something very good, but personal, has happened which gives me hope…

Blessings,
granny

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia,Do you believe God is able to perform any miracles? If so, can you name a few from the Bible? By miracle, I mean an event that has no natural explanation.Peace,
Ed

The Resurrection.

 

[StAnastasia]

I don’t think it makes good sense to declare that “Eve and Adam were individuals created as a separate step before genetics kicked in”, (quite apart from the fact that genetics is as old as living things) unless you are also willing to conclude that God is deliberately deceptive.Alec

Thank you, Alec. I cannot believe that God is deceptive, so I accept the genetics. But since childhood I’ve accepted that God works through cosmic, physical, chemical, biological and psychological evolution. I’ve never sensed a contradiction here, but only fascinating challenges for our theological reflection.

For all, here’s a book recommendation: Denis Edwards, The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology.

StAnastasia

 

[rad314]

Your ideas in both #64 and # 298 are plausible!

‘Whoever has ears ought to hear.’

 

[StAnastasia]

‘Whoever has ears ought to hear.’

Indeed.

 

[buffalo]

Thank you, Alec. I cannot believe that God is deceptive, so I accept the genetics. But since childhood I’ve accepted that God works through cosmic, physical, chemical, biological and psychological evolution. I’ve never sensed a contradiction here, but only fascinating challenges for our theological reflection.

For all, here’s a book recommendation: Denis Edwards, The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology.

StAnastasia

Pride is the greatest sin. The God is deceptive argument is bogus. It assumes we can have complete knowledge and understanding of all we observe despite our human limitations.

I am content to let science search and slowly and surely see more clearly. To borrow from evolutionists - if you give it enough time it will happen.

 

[rad314]

Indeed.

I wonder whether you followed the link 2John1vs3 provided back in #19. I would be interested in your thoughts.

 

[grannymh]

The God is deceptive argument is bogus. It assumes we can have complete knowledge and understanding of all we observe despite our human limitations.

I am content to let science search and slowly and surely see more clearly. To borrow from evolutionists - if you give it enough time it will happen.

The God is deceptive argument is bogus because there is no natural rhyme or reason to it.

The choice between the idea that God is deceptive and genetics is not a “mutually exclusive or” nor is it really a choice.

Why, in this instance, is God picked on to be deceptive? Using the false assumption that we can have complete knowledge and understanding of all we observe despite our human limitations sounds plausible to me. Could it be that science in general is putting des cart before the horse?

Back before modern scientists were a twinkle in their daddy’s eye, there was a sense of mystery about the mechanics of life as well as the universe. Mystery was not considered superstition. Mystery meant that which is really there but cannot be easily seen nor readily understood. The ending of a good “whodunit” like the old “Murder She Wrote” TV series had
us wondering how we missed clues that were there all along, clues that were just being deceptive.

Has science in general lost its spirit of adventure?

Blessings,
granny

 

[buffalo]

Has science in general lost its spirit of adventure?

Blessings,
granny

Yes it has.

It has painted itself into a corner. Without a great paradigm shift it will not be able to get out. In the meantime the public mistrust of science and scientists grows.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The God is deceptive argument is bogus because there is no natural rhyme or reason to it.

The choice between the idea that God is deceptive and genetics is not a “mutually exclusive or” nor is it really a choice.

Of course. God isn’t deceptive. It’s just the false doctrine of creationism that leads people to think so.

Using the false assumption that we can have complete knowledge and understanding of all we observe despite our human limitations sounds plausible to me.

But not to science. It assumes that complete knowledge is beyond our grasp.

Could it be that science in general is putting des cart before the horse?

What do you think the cart is? The cart seems to be creationism, which should never be put before God.

Back before modern scientists were a twinkle in their daddy’s eye, there was a sense of mystery about the mechanics of life as well as the universe. Mystery was not considered superstition.

Back in the days when lighting was thought of as God’s attempts to kill His enemies. Yes. But it turns out that natural things always end up having natural explanations. He does most everything that way in this world.

Mystery meant that which is really there but cannot be easily seen nor readily understood.

The “invisible things clearly seen” in Romans. As scientists here point out, science can’t address those things. But it doesn’t mean science denies they exist.

Has science in general lost its spirit of adventure?

Given that recently it’s making unprecedented progress in understanding the universe, what do you think? What seems to outrage the creationists is that it has a spirit of adventure.

 

[StAnastasia]

I wonder whether you followed the link 2John1vs3 provided back in #19. I would be interested in your thoughts.

Can you please re-post it? I haven’t much research time at work, but I’d love to respond.

 

[Dchsknight]

I would like to put this thought forward. If the bible says we as human beings were created in the image of God, does that mean that while God can look like anything, that we while in the Image of God, look like God, IF that is so, then Evolution can not be truth no matter what science says, Because if We are created in the image of God, we are the only ones who were created in said way. Primates were not created in that image, so if we were created in the Image of God, How can we go from a creature, who was not created in the image of God, To a creature that was made in the image of God, when the bible says that all man were created in the Image of God, from the beginning? Let alone, if we did once look and act like Primates, then how can Original sin apply to us. we were after all just animals?

 

[StAnastasia]

Back before modern scientists were a twinkle in their daddy’s eye, there was a sense of mystery about the mechanics of life as well as the universe. Mystery was not considered superstition…Has science in general lost its spirit of adventure?Blessings,granny

Grannymh, not at all – science is still a great adventure. That’s what I find so fascinating about genetics, neuroscience, and cosmology: thy reveal more and more about the wonders of God’s creation! My students love to study and discuss these issues.

StAnastasia

 

[rad314]

Can you please re-post it? I haven’t much research time at work, but I’d love to respond.

Here’s the text of post #19:

The following “solution” to the evolution versus fundamentalist six days of creation debate originates with a rabbi from a consideration of Rosh Hashana as “the birthday of the world.”

If you understand the implications of relativity on the perception of time you’ll begin to appreciate how six days and fifteen billion years can be exactly the same thing (and all to the glory of God).

Try to stay with his argument, I’ve shown it to a few “scientists” (aka atheists) and none has tried to refute it.

This is not to say that God didn’t just do it in six of what we’re accustomed to calling days, and that we’ve got some endtime delusion that makes us believe the “evidence” of bones and stones instead of The Word. But for those who want it both ways or need billions and billions of years to get a handle on creation from nothing this is an appealing analysis:

geraldschroeder.com/age.html

 

[rad314]

I would like to put this thought forward. If the bible says we as human beings were created in the image of God . . .

Has it not occurred to you that ‘the image of God’ refers to our immortal souls?