EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[grannymh]

It makes testable predictions, which can be verified or rejected. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Yes, I would like to learn about testable predictions of evolution which can be verified or rejected. Is there a list of these predictions which have been verified or rejected?

You’ve been misled about that. Would you like to learn about some objective ways to understand evolution?

 

[StAnastasia]

[Please help me to understand.
Are human beings part of the evolutionary universe? Was Jesus Christ a human being? Was Jesus Christ God? Please explain how the empirical science of evolution effectively helps us to understand the above questions. Or is it that human beings, including you, me, Jesus as “true man, true God” are not part of the universe you referred to?.

(1) Yes, humans are very much part of the evolutionary universe.

(2) Yes, Jesus the Christ is a human being; he is also divine.

(3) Humans are an integral part of the 3.5 billion year old branching bush of evolution. And herein lies the mystery and wonder of the Incarnation: “the word became flesh.” As Karl Rahner has noted, God has took hold of the evolutionary order by becoming incarnate in it. God has assumed the evolving Creation even closer to himself through the original creative word becoming flesh and dwelling among us.

StAnastasia
[/quote]

 

[ricmat]

As Karl Rahner has noted, God has took hold of the evolutionary order by becoming incarnate in it. God has assumed the evolving Creation even closer to himself through the original creative word becoming flesh and dwelling among us.

So God didn’t have evolution under control until he “took hold of it” via the incarnation?

Perhaps it is just a mis-perception on my part, but the language you use above seems to raise “the evolutionary order” to the level of being quasi-divine. This argument might be correct for humans in that we are children of God, and God has gifted us particularly. But isn’t it overstating it to say that about the entire “evolving Creation?”

 

[oriel16]

So God didn’t have evolution under control until he “took hold of it” via the incarnation?

Perhaps it is just a mis-perception on my part, but the language you use above seems to raise “the evolutionary order” to the level of being quasi-divine. This argument might be correct for humans in that we are children of God, and God has gifted us particularly. But isn’t it overstating it to say that about the entire “evolving Creation?”

You are trying to be sincere to a person who is just trying to sound Christian but betrays that he has no feeling for science or religion.The thing about empirical/Arian apologists is that they can make up whatever story they wish to appear reasonable, when pointed out that their reasoning is silly they simply walk away or try to bluff their way out.

Can you imagine that these distortions go on constantly for no good ends.You may think that your response would cause the guy to go back and look at what he actually believes but that is not the way they see things but I assure you neither Christ or Christianity is served regardless how much of the Christian language they adopt and throw around.

 

[grannymh]

Replies to StAnastasia

(1) Yes, humans are very much part of the evolutionary universe.

Is the evolutionary universe divided into two classifications?

I remember hearing that one classification would contain mountains, rivers, etc. The other classification would contain living animals that have to “work” in some way to maintain their existence. I am assuming plants would belong with rivers, etc.

Or is there another way of describing evolutionary universe?

(2) Yes, Jesus the Christ is a human being; he is also divine.

Arius, a Greek theologian, held that Jesus the Christ was the highest of created beings. Arianism has morphed to fit the times. I am old enough to have visited the Baha’i House of Worship for the North American Continent when it was under construction. The lower level was filled with explanation materials and enthusiastic promoters. My Dad and I listened attentively to Jesus’ place in a long line of equal divine messengers. Other groups also consider Jesus, the greatest prophet among prophets. Arianism has morphed into the genre of popular books which picture Jesus as the greatest motivator in history. Obviously, Catholics believe that Jesus the Christ is of the same substance and nature of God. Nonetheless, I like to be inclusive and respectful of others.

You said that “humans are very much part of the evolutionary universe.” Yet, there is talk about 10,000 human bottleneck being responsible for the population. I’m sure you can describe this in genomic terms. So where does the human Jesus fit? Which kind of divinity (Baha’i or Catholic) is part of His evolving nature?

(3) Humans are an integral part of the 3.5 billion year old branching bush of evolution. And herein lies the mystery and wonder of the Incarnation: “the word became flesh.” As Karl Rahner has noted, God has took hold of the evolutionary order by becoming incarnate in it. God has assumed the evolving Creation even closer to himself through the original creative word becoming flesh and dwelling among us.
StAnastasia

Since my original questions pertained to evolution, please explain your last statement above to fit in with the evolutionary universe.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[StAnastasia]

So God didn’t have evolution under control until he “took hold of it” via the incarnation?

Perhaps it is just a mis-perception on my part, but the language you use above seems to raise “the evolutionary order” to the level of being quasi-divine. This argument might be correct for humans in that we are children of God, and God has gifted us particularly. But isn’t it overstating it to say that about the entire “evolving Creation?”

(1) I don’t understand what you mean by God “having evolution under control.”

(3) No, the evolutionary order is not divine, because it is God’s creation, and God’s creation is not divine.

 

[StAnastasia]

(1) I don’t understand what you mean by God “having evolution under control.”

(3) No, the evolutionary order is not divine, because it is God’s creation, and God’s creation is not divine.

Sorry – I meant (2) but it came out as (3).

 

[StAnastasia]

Replies to StAnastasiaIs the evolutionary universe divided into two classifications?..Or is there another way of describing evolutionary universe?

Arius, a Greek theologian, held that Jesus the Christ was the highest of created beings. Arianism has morphed to fit the times.

You said that “humans are very much part of the evolutionary universe.” Yet, there is talk about 10,000 human bottleneck being responsible for the population. I’m sure you can describe this in genomic terms. So where does the human Jesus fit? Which kind of divinity (Baha’i or Catholic) is part of His evolving nature?

Grannymh,

(1) No, I don’t believe the evolving universe is divided into two “classifications.” There are stages, of course, which include the formation of quarks from the Big bang, the formation of hydrogen and helium in the early universe, the cooking of heavier elements in star cores through the process known as “nucleosynthesis,” the formation of nebulae from stellar supernovae, the development of stellar accretion discs into suns and planets, the cooling of some planets into biochemically rich environments, and the development of life on one of those thermally stable and biochemically rich planets.

(2) It would be a mistake to think of fourth century Alexandrian Arianism as “morphing” into the contemporary self-help movement. There have of course always been deniers of the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I don’t know of any organic links between the claims of Arius and the claims of later divinity deniers.

(3) Genetic bottlenecks are only one of numerous mechanisms operative in evolutoin. Cheetahs appear to have gone through such a bottleneck in the recent past, and to have suffered genetic constriction. There is nothing particularly remarkable about the human bottleneck, except that we survived it, and it led to modern humans.

Regards,
StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh,

(1) No, I don’t believe the evolving universe is divided into two “classifications.” There are stages, of course, which include the formation of quarks from the Big bang, the formation of hydrogen and helium in the early universe, the cooking of heavier elements in star cores through the process known as “nucleosynthesis,” the formation of nebulae from stellar supernovae, the development of stellar accretion discs into suns and planets, the cooling of some planets into biochemically rich environments, and the development of life on one of those thermally stable and biochemically rich planets.

(2) It would be a mistake to think of fourth century Alexandrian Arianism as “morphing” into the contemporary self-help movement. There have of course always been deniers of the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I don’t know of any organic links between the claims of Arius and the claims of later divinity deniers.

(3) Genetic bottlenecks are only one of numerous mechanisms operative in evolutoin. Cheetahs appear to have gone through such a bottleneck in the recent past, and to have suffered genetic constriction. There is nothing particularly remarkable about the human bottleneck, except that we survived it, and it led to modern humans.

Regards,
StAnastasia

Dear StAnastasia,

Regarding above three points.

1, What is the difference between a rock or mountain and a cheetah and a human being?

1. The mistake of not recognizing modern Arianism and similar in modern times belongs in the Philosophy forum. However, it was brought up here because divinity is a scientific conundrum
   missing a common ancestor so consequently it can’t share the discussion table with evolutionary theory.
2. Would you say that since genetic bottlenecks are only one of numerous mechanisms operative in evolution (as you said above), Adam & Eve could be the first parents of humankind without going through a bottleneck?

Blessings,
granny

All human beings were created for life beyond the limits of our universe.

 

[ricmat]

StA, you said this originally:

( As Karl Rahner has noted, God has took hold of the evolutionary order by becoming incarnate in it. God has assumed the evolving Creation even closer to himself through the original creative word becoming flesh and dwelling among us.

With regard to the bolded part above, I asked the question:

So God didn’t have evolution under control until he “took hold of it” via the incarnation?

Perhaps it is just a mis-perception on my part, but the language you use above seems to raise “the evolutionary order” to the level of being quasi-divine. This argument might be correct for humans in that we are children of God, and God has gifted us particularly. But isn’t it overstating it to say that about the entire “evolving Creation?”

And you responded to that:

(1) I don’t understand what you mean by God “having evolution under control.”

Taking hold of something, as above, usually means to “get something under control.”

(3) No, the evolutionary order is not divine, because it is God’s creation, and God’s creation is not divine.

Your statement above (Karl Rahner quote) “God has assumed the evolving Creation even closer to himself” seems to lean in the direction of making evolution God-like. In any case, I’m glad you don’t agree with that.

 

[StAnastasia]

Taking hold of something, as above, usually means to “get something under control.”

That’s not what I mean by it, and I don’t think it’s what Rahner meant. In Gregory of Nazianzen’s term, what is not assumed is not redeemed." If God took on (“assumed”) Jesus’ full humanity, God also took on the human genome with all its evolutionary history. In other words, God assumed the evolutionary order.

 

[ricmat]

That’s not what I mean by it, and I don’t think it’s what Rahner meant. In Gregory of Nazianzen’s term, what is not assumed is not redeemed." If God took on (“assumed”) Jesus’ full humanity, God also took on the human genome with all its evolutionary history. In other words, God assumed the evolutionary order.

Whether or not you know it, you’re making a strong case against evolution above. Jesus definitely took on human form, and redeemed humanity. But humans are different than the rest of creation, we have immaterial and immortal souls. We have free will and can decide to do good or evil. The rest of creation can not. Only humans can choose evil, only humans need redeemed.

By trying to tie redemption from humans, via evolution, back to (I suppose) apes, single cell creatures, or even individual atoms you elevate these things to child-of-God status, which is clearly not correct.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[grannymh]

That’s not what I mean by it, and I don’t think it’s what Rahner meant. In Gregory of Nazianzen’s term, what is not assumed is not redeemed." If God took on (“assumed”) Jesus’ full humanity, God also took on the human genome with all its evolutionary history. In other words, God assumed the evolutionary order.

StAnastasia and anyone else –

I have a couple of thought questions-- like the ones included in the old mathematics text books.

StAnastasia said: “If God took on (“assumed”) Jesus’ full humanity, God also took on the human genome with all its evolutionary history. In other words, God assumed the evolutionary order.” This would have to be through Mary, correct? What about the Immaculate Conception? Wasn’t this declared because normally Mary’s parents would have passed on “original sin”.

How is it known that Mary’s parents had “original sin”?
What is the evolutionary line of either Mary’s or her mother’s human genome?

I found Alec’s information about Mitochondrial Eve very interesting. The idea of a common (matrilineal) ancestor appeals to the granny in me in the romantic manner. Nonetheless, I expect a scientific explanation for this type of information.

Note: This is about the point where young people begin to lose their Catholic faith because they have not been grounded in the supernatural aspects of life.

Blessings,
granny

The God given nature of human beings goes beyond the realm of sensory experience.

 

[grannymh]

Special note to StAnastasia

Would you pretty please bring home the answers to all the questions about Eve & Adam on this thread and others?

We will miss you :sad_bye: Do take care of yourself.

Blessings …

 

[The_Barbarian]

Is there a list of these predictions which have been verified or rejected?

I don’t know of a list, but here’s a few:

1. At one time, there must have been dinosaurs with bird characteristics.
2. At one time, there must have been whales with functional legs.
3. There should be intermediate organisms between:
   a. Frogs and other amphibians
   b. Turtles and other reptiles
   c. Flowering and non-flowering plants
   (list goes on for a long time)
4. Bacteria should evolve resistance to antibiotics
5. Humans must have had a chromosome fusion at some point after they diverged from other hominids.
6. Dinosaurs should be more closely related to birds and mammals than to living reptiles.
7. Genetic similarities in organisms should fit the nested hierarchy of living things first noted by Linneaus.

How many more do you want?

Yes, I would like to know your objective ways to understand evolution.

See above. Plus, observed speciations, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and so on.

Also, I would like to know if these objective ways of evolution are set in stone.

Would you be offended, if I were to tell you that first I’d like to know if your beliefs were set in stone? I have to admit, I’m disappointed to see you write something like that.

Let’s leave that sort of thing elsewhere. Please.

Barbarian observes:
Given than no one can demonstrate design in nature,

Please tell me what you see when you look out your window.

Stars. The woods, and light glinting off the lake. No design, except for the car . If you were to take a Kung tribesman and ask him which of these were natural, and which were designed, he could tell you. Humans are good at that.

This is not a trick question. If I’ve misinterpreted your reference, please look out your window anyway. Spring is on its way.

I noticed the daffodils I planted last fall are up, and many of them are now in bud. They are designed, a little. Humans breed them to look different than their wild cousins, which were created.
Easy to design. Creation, that’s what God does.

Barbaian observes:
Keep in mind that Darwin’s discovery was that it wasn’t random.

If you say that Darwin’s discovery was that it (not sure which it you mean)

I mean that natural selection tends to produce greater fitness. If it was random, very little evolution would go on.

wasn’t random and there isn’t design, what is it whatever?

Just God, acting through nature, which is His creation. Once you accept that He’s doing it the right way, it’s not a problem.

Are the genomic studies which say that we have a possible 10,000 somethings going through a bottleneck which account for the diversity in current population a part of evolution?

You mean the lack of diversity? Probably so.

Are all the estimates of umpteen generations to fix genes(?),so that it is difficult to tell if there were any first parents, thus there would be no single first parents, a part of evolution?

No. It is impossible for science to say whether or not there were two people who were mates and also our last common ancestors. Why does it matter if science can’t do that? What’s wrong with the Church?

Is the development of our brain, which is based on cells learning this or that function, and thus is necessary to distinguish us from our dear primate relatives a part of evolution?

Of course. And yes, it is disturbing to some. Few of us like the fact that we are so close anatomically and behaviorily to our fellow primates.

Although you don’t want to bring religion into science, “design” is pretty well dead as a scientific theory for nature.

Yep. Like most people in science, I was interested in the idea. But then, it became clear that it was just an unorthodox religion, with an aversion to science. And that was it for most of us.

Since “design” is pretty well dead as a scientific theory for nature, what is the scientific theory for nature

Everything is a subject for which there is little to say. Other than the proposed GUTs (grand unification theories) which haven’t so far panned out, there is no “theory of everything.”

and are human beings part of nature?

Yep. Except for our souls, which are given immediately by God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So where and how does evolution acknowledge the way “God acts” as indicated in your sentence above?

It doesn’t. That was a religious belief I was expressing. It’s O.K. to be unscientific for some things.

Am I misinterpreting your sentence “Most of us here acknowledge evolution is the way He did it”?

I guess you are. It seems you are conflating science and religious belief.

What did He [God] do?

Created the world. Makes it work according to reliable rules so we can live in it.

Please explain.

He does most everything by natural means in this world.

Barbarian observes:
You’re too sensitive about science being empirical. It doesn’t mean there is no God. It just means that this is the most effective way for us to understand the universe.

Please help me to understand.
Are human beings part of the evolutionary universe?

Except for our souls.

Was Jesus Christ a human being? Was Jesus Christ God?

Of course.

Please explain how the empirical science of evolution effectively helps us to understand the above questions.

Can’t. That’s what the Church is for. You might as well look for God in a plumbing manual.

Or is it that human beings, including you, me, Jesus as “true man, true God” are not part of the universe you referred to?

Parts of us aren’t. As the Church says, it’s not unreasonable that our bodies evolved, but our souls come directly from God.

Regarding your sentence above. “It [empirical science] doesn’t mean there is no God.” It is my observation that evolution is claiming that there is no reason for God once the cell is formed.

How could you have been reading here, and think that? God made nature. It (like us) only exists because He remains intimately involved with it. Of course, science is unable to say one way or another. But scientists can. And many of us do.

Your response to my observation is?

You’ve got a lot of misconceptions to shed.

Most of us here acknowledge evolution is the way He [God] did it?

Looks to me that the above is lip service regarding God.

Acknowledging God is hardly “lip service.”

Once said, the whole bit about Adam and Eve needing redemption and by extension the need for Jesus Christ is trampled by evolution.

The Pope doesn’t think so. I’m inclined to agree with him. I’d be interested in your reasoning.

Please note: Forget posting about creationism and intelligent design. I do not consider myself a part of these movements.

Perhaps, if you didn’t use their arguments, people wouldn’t think so.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia said: “If God took on (“assumed”) Jesus’ full humanity, God also took on the human genome with all its evolutionary history. In other words, God assumed the evolutionary order.” This would have to be through Mary, correct?..How is it known that Mary’s parents had “original sin”? What is the evolutionary line of either Mary’s or her mother’s human genome? … Note: This is about the point where young people begin to lose their Catholic faith because they have not been grounded in the supernatural aspects of life.
e.

Grannymh, thanks for your good wishes, but I’m not gone yet! (I fly March 2nd). And I don’t know that I’ll come back full of answers, but I hope to be able to report that excellent discussions took place on sound epistemological foundations. A couple of points:

(1) Since Jesus’ humanity came naturally through Mary, her genome would have contained Homo sapiens’ full evolutionary history. The other half of Jesus’ genome would be a simulacrum – a male (presumably) Semitic genome complete with Y chromosome. This half of Jesus’ genome could have been simulated to reflect the genomic evolutionary history.

(2) It is not science that causes young people to lose their Catholic faith, but “creationism,” for when they find they have been hoodwinked into believing that religious faith means the rejection of modern science, they often unjustly reject religion.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Whether or not you know it, you’re making a strong case against evolution above. Jesus definitely took on human form, and redeemed humanity. …By trying to tie redemption from humans, via evolution, back to (I suppose) apes, single cell creatures, or even individual atoms you elevate these things to child-of-God status, which is clearly not correct…

Did God not assume human nature in Jesus? Was Jesus not fully human in all things but sin? If He was – which the Chalcedonian Definition declares – then his human genome contained the full evolutionary genetic heritage of our species, including the mitochondria that had eons ago invaded and to live symbiotically with the cells that became our earliest eukaryote ancestors. What a wonder is creation!

Anastasia

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, thanks for your good wishes, but I’m not gone yet! (I fly March 2nd). And I don’t know that I’ll come back full of answers, but I hope to be able to report that excellent discussions took place on sound epistemological foundations. A couple of points:

(1) Since Jesus’ humanity came naturally through Mary, her genome would have contained Homo sapiens’ full evolutionary history. The other half of Jesus’ genome would be a simulacrum – a male (presumably) Semitic genome complete with Y chromosome. This half of Jesus’ genome could have been simulated to reflect the genomic evolutionary history.

(2) It is not science that causes young people to lose their Catholic faith, but “creationism,” for when they find they have been hoodwinked into believing that religious faith means the rejection of modern science, they often unjustly reject religion.

StAnastasia

Save my good wishes and prayers for March

May I please ask you to read my posts more carefully especially
since it is never my intention to blame science per se for one’s loss of faith. However, I do find that scientism in its “ism” definition is part of the problem.

This is what I said:

Note: This is about the point where young people begin to lose their Catholic faith because they have not been grounded in the supernatural aspects of life.

The point was referring to one of the details of evolutionary theory. This point is not set in stone as far as I’m concerned. Now if you consider a detail as science being blamed than I can understand your bias. However, if you read my post, you will notice that I still don’t blame the point, unless you consider that pointing to it as a possible location is the same as blame. What I do see as blame worthy is a lack of education in the supernatural aspects of life. Of course you will say that the supernatural aspects of life are not necessarily connected with science. And I will answer “bingo!”

Blessings,
granny

All human life is lovingly created by Abba.

 

[The_Barbarian]

May I please ask you to read my posts more carefully especially
since it is never my intention to blame science per se for one’s loss of faith. However, I do find that scientism in its “ism” definition is part of the problem.

Science is opposed to scientism, in the same sense that the creation is contrary to creationism.

This is about the point where young people begin to lose their Catholic faith because they have not been grounded in the supernatural aspects of life.

Having been a student, and taught students of science for many years, I know that faith is most often lost when young people are taught creationism and later realize that it cannot be true. Assuming that creationism is part of Christian belief, they lose their faith in God. This is the real danger of ID/creationism.

The point was referring to one of the details of evolutionary theory. This point is not set in stone as far as I’m concerned. Now if you consider a detail as science being blamed than I can understand your bias. However, if you read my post, you will notice that I still don’t blame the point, unless you consider that pointing to it as a possible location is the same as blame. What I do see as blame worthy is a lack of education in the supernatural aspects of life.

Science can’t help with that. Neither can plumbing. The Church can do it, if you listen to the Church.