EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[hecd2]

Before natural selection can go to work, the “random” mutations have to occur randomly.

You don’t know how the DNA changed from single cell creature to man, but your faith says that evolution did it somehow. Randomly.

Uh - I think the theory says that evolution works as follows - mutations which are random with respect to fitness occur in the genomes of all offspring; these mutations cause variations in the phenotypes. Some phenotypes are fitter than others, and the process of natural selection favours these phenotypes, resulting in rejection of many of the mutations from the population and fixing of a few. Over time this results in changes to the distribution of alleles in the population and a resulting shift in the phenotypes resulting in adaptive radiation and the emergence of new species.

Which 95% of this are you OK with? Which 5% of this do you have a problem with and why?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

So Mother Teresa never spoke out against pride? I believe she did.

So…

 

[hecd2]

I wasn’t referring to you personally, but the general body of neo-Darwinians on the forum. I have been called many bad things because I don’t accept that last few percent.

And yet you said:

For you, someone accepting only 95%, or probably 99% is obtuse, ignorant, lazy, and mendacious. How sad.

That seems to be referring specifically to me. Is it not? What right have you got to claim that I think that anyone who questions 5% or 1% of the Theory of Evolution are these things?

Creationists who are ignorant, lazy and mendacious do exist, and it is easier for them to accuse me of pride than actually learning about the subject themselves. But you have misrepresented me by claiming that I think that all those who do not accept 100% of the Theory of Evolution fall into these categories.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Arclight]

So…

You know, there’s no merit in being flat out stupid. Mother Theresa wouldn’t confuse ignorance with a spiritual gift.

 

[buffalo]

And yet you said:
That seems to be referring specifically to me. Is it not? What right have you got to claim that I think that anyone who questions 5% or 1% of the Theory of Evolution are these things?

Creationists who are ignorant, lazy and mendacious do exist, and it is easier for them to accuse me of pride than actually learning about the subject themselves. But you have misrepresented me by claiming that I think that all those who do not accept 100% of the Theory of Evolution fall into these categories.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Based on your last several posts I am happy to know that you hold those who have educated themselves in theology, history, and Catholicism in the highest regard.

 

[Discerner]

I was wondering if in all these pages of discussion anyone has brought up the idea that evolution seems to contradict the fact that the universe is in a fallen state because of original sin? If evolution is true then wouldn’t that mean death must have existed from the beginning?

Revelation teaches that suffering, death, disease, etc, came about as a result of original sin. It even teaches that the whole universe consequently fell and is now awaiting the Resurrection. How can the Church accept the theory of evolution which implies that God created death from the beginning?

 

[reggieM]

Darwin did not address the origin of life.

No, he did address the origin of life. Darwin, in his scientific text, proved that “life was breathed” into the first “primordial form”. He proved that because he said so, and evolutionists think that he is a genius – therefore it is 100% correct.

Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic
beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed. Origin of the Species, page 502

Now we might not have enough scientific evidence here to know who or what actually did the “breathing” but Mr. Darwin solves that problem elsewhere in the book where he gives the scientific proof of the origin of life again:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been **originally breathed by the Creator **into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Ok, that is good. Darwin here shows conclusively in the *Origin of the Species *that it was actually “the Creator” who did the “breathing”.

Thus, we know that God exists, since Darwin said so. Plus, we know the origin of life because it is explained right there in this science book. We know that “evolutionary theory has no flaws” so obviously this must be correct.

The only questions I had for StAnastasia were about some of the details surrounding the origin of life. I’m sure Darwin would have explained when, where and how frequently God breathed life into inanimate matter. I haven’t seen it in his book yet, but I’m sure all the scientific proof should be there – otherwise, why would he make an unfounded claim in the text?

So, it’s important to accept everything Darwin said because it’s all based on “evidence” and anybody who questions it is obviously wrong.

StAnastasia accepts the Word of Darwin, of course. In this case, the Bible happens to agree with Darwin’s Word, so this time the Bible is literally correct.

Of course, whenever the Bible disagrees with Darwin’s Word, the Bible is obviously just a “myth” as our theologian StAnastasia has proven to us so clearly.

 

[hecd2]

Revelation teaches that suffering, death, disease, etc, came about as a result of original sin. It even teaches that the whole universe consequently fell and is now awaiting the Resurrection. How can the Church accept the theory of evolution which implies that God created death from the beginning?

Because it’s true?

Alec

 

[reggieM]

I was wondering if in all these pages of discussion anyone has brought up the idea that evolution seems to contradict the fact that the universe is in a fallen state because of original sin? If evolution is true then wouldn’t that mean death must have existed from the beginning?

Revelation teaches that suffering, death, disease, etc, came about as a result of original sin. It even teaches that the whole universe consequently fell and is now awaiting the Resurrection. How can the Church accept the theory of evolution which implies that God created death from the beginning?

Excellent point. There are many good reasons why the theory of evolution should not be accepted and that is another one.

 

[ricmat]

And yet you said:
That seems to be referring specifically to me. Is it not? What right have you got to claim that I think that anyone who questions 5% or 1% of the Theory of Evolution are these things?

You are correct. I apologize. You were referring to someone else and I got confused.

Creationists who are ignorant, lazy and mendacious do exist,

Well I’m glad we got that cleared up.

and it is easier for them to accuse me of pride than actually learning about the subject themselves.

So someone who doesn’t understand evolution has no right to comment on pride? And knowledge of evolution gives one the privilege to be prideful?

Just a clarification here - I (and I presume others) are not talking about pride in the sense of “a job well done”, but in the theological sort of pride whereby we are tempted to put ones self above God (or to believe that one does not need God - as you believe), or to think ones self is better than others.

I continue to applaud you for your research into evolution and genetics. I admit that you know more about evolution than I do. But then Lord Kelvin knew more about aeronautics than the Wright Bros.

 

[reggieM]

The most prolific offender was “the one whose name will not be mentioned” as he is on most of our ignore lists

Yes, he has been on my ignore list for several months. I wouldn’t read his posts anyway, but with this method they don’t clutter up the thread.

(and who was recently suspended but reinstated apparently).

I was hoping that the suspension was going to be more permanent (for the sake of the people still reading his posts).

 

[reggieM]

The following pretty well sums it up (from the NJB).

That is a remarkable passage from the Book of Wisdom:

Wis 13:1 Yes, naturally stupid are all who are unaware of God, and who, from good things seen, have not been able to discover Him-who-is, or, by studying the works, have not recognised the Artificer.…
**Wis 13:9 if they are capable of acquiring enough knowledge to be able to investigate the world, how have they been so slow to find its Master? **

Simply amazing in it’s clarity. Thank you! (I’ll use that again).

 

[The_Barbarian]

No faith is involved in the theory of evolution. Evolution is not a random process.

He knows. He’s been reminded of this innumerable times.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding creationist need for “evidence” for God.
Maybe for you. I have no need to gather evidence for God. Do you understand why?

Mark 10:15 15 Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it.

You don’t need to prove Him; you merely need to accept Him in your heart and say to Him, “Abba.” He’ll be there for you.

Romans 8:15 For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Papa)

What I stated is the classic route to atheism.

I wouldn’t go that far, but creationism is often a potent atheist-maker.

 

[The_Barbarian]

But then Lord Kelvin knew more about aeronautics than the Wright Bros.

That’s the point. One of the things the Wright brothers discovered, was that the lift and drag tables published in physics books were wrong.

Kelvin hadn’t checked it personally, (his thing was heat) and so he was completely misled. The Wright brothers checked the data and so they knew something Kelvin did not.

Something about aeronautics.

 

[SedesDomi]

How can the Church accept the theory of evolution which implies that God created death from the beginning?

Understand “death” to mean “spiritual death”. God did not create spiritual death from the beginning.

 

[Orogeny]

Sources?

Check with Cassini. He can write pages about it.

Peace

Tim

 

[ricmat]

Uh - I think the theory says that evolution works as follows - mutations which are random with respect to fitness occur in the genomes of all offspring; these mutations cause variations in the phenotypes. Some phenotypes are fitter than others, and the process of natural selection favours these phenotypes, resulting in rejection of many of the mutations from the population and fixing of a few. Over time this results in changes to the distribution of alleles in the population and a resulting shift in the phenotypes resulting in adaptive radiation and the emergence of new species.

Which 95% of this are you OK with? Which 5% of this do you have a problem with and why?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Your description above is a level deeper than saying [random mutations + natural selection]. If you change the last sentence to read “emergence of something slightly different” then I believe you can actually substantiate it with observed data. And in any case it’s not the whole TOE.

But to be 100% accurate, the TOE must essentially prove (in my mind) an even deeper level - how DNA is modified over time to take very simple life and end up with very complex life.

But you have no DNA from that original “simple life”. You don’t even have any DNA from “Lucy” so far as I know. You can speculate about how “evolution did it somehow”, and try to work backwards from multiple existing successors, and you can say that “the laws of random mutations and natural selection don’t preclude complex life from evolving”, but without that DNA evidence, you can never be 100% sure that things actually happened that way.

I don’t recall if it was you or someone else who stated that science can’t actually prove anything, and in the case of the toe it just provides the best available explanation. OK - perhaps. But going from there to believing in it 100% seems to me to be a bit foolish. And unscientific as well. If you believe it is 100% true as it currently stands, then what opportunities will you ever see to make improvements to it?

Changing the subject now…

Out of curiosity, what would you do in the following (hopefully amusing and highly theoretical) situation. Let’s say the Budweiser Clydsdales have been killed off by some mysterious disease, and 2 teams have been assembled to develop a new species (using the term loosely) of big horses to pull beer wagons. The 2 teams are led by you, and Ricmat. We have been given the following directive - “You each have been given 1000 horses of random sizes, and you have 40 years to come up with the largest possible horses. Good luck and farewell. See you in 40 years.”

I would use an intelligently designed program of selective breeding to ensure that big horses mate with other big horses. (Note: I’m not in the selective breeding business so I know this is an oversimplification).

Would you turn the horses loose on the ranch, and depend on random mutations and natural selection to come up with the Clydesdale replacements? Why or why not?

 

[Orogeny]

But the subject is pride, and I’d listen to Mother Teresa rather than Stephen Hawking.

No, the subject is the result of the survey. A claim has been made that a higher percentage of educated people accept evolution than do uneducated people do because educated people suffer from pride.

Now, if you had to learn about evolution, would you rather learn from a very humble Mother Teresa or a prideful Ken Miller?

Peace

Tim

 

[Discerner]

Understand “death” to mean “spiritual death”. God did not create spiritual death from the beginning.

That is not how the Church understood it for nearly 2000 years. All the Church fathers, saints and doctors of the Church understand it in the literal sense. What makes us think that we are now somehow know better and can freely contradict them?