Evolution a Farce?

[anthony022071]

So Schoenborn asserts that Darwin got the science right, but maybe the religion wrong.

That’s what I think, too. In science, all that matters is that he got the science right, as Schoenborn and Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI wrote.

Schonborn does not say that Darwin got the science right. He thinks there is much to be criticized.

stephanscom.at/edw/katechesen/articles/2006/01/24/a10066
< Darwin wanted to show that no creative plan underlies “the origin of the species,” but that there is simply a genealogical tree of descent that reaches from the smallest beginnings up to man. Everything developed from the first seed. Though this view is extraordinarily fascinating and has become very popular, it remains questionable in many ways.

Karl Popper, the famous philosopher of science, said: “Neither Darwin nor any Darwinist has yet provided an adequate causal explanation, that is, a scientific explanation of the adaptive evolution of a single organism or organ. They have only shown that evolution is theoretically possible.” (Popper, Objective Knowledge: an Evolutionary Approach.) >

< The theory of evolution also speaks of a “movement upwards”: from the first single-cell creatures to the fish, the reptiles, the land animals, from the apes to human beings. Why does biological complexity increase over time? A biologist friend of mine used to tell me that it is far more likely according to Darwin’s theory that only viruses and bacteria should survive, being better equipped than higher creatures for the “struggle for existence.” >

 

[Orogeny]

Ok… and all science thas ever observed is that they reproduce bacteria… longer, shorter, darker, lighter, citrate digesting, nylon metabolising, broken bacteria, sick bacteria and funny looking bacteria.

We have not been around very long compared to bacteria. But at least you admit that you were wrong and that bacteria evolve.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

We have not been around very long compared to bacteria. But at least you admit that you were wrong and that bacteria evolve.

I think you’re admitting that bacteria do not evolve since “we have not been around very long” enough to actually observe the kind of radical and major changes proposed by evolutionary theory.

 

[cerad]

Not to be overly pedantic but the author of Bones of Contention name is Marvin L. Lubenow, not Lubnow.

Made a quick search looking for his papers published in scientific journals refuting evolution but didn’t find any.

 

[cerad]

There is no problem with Eve, either, since it is perfectly possible for God to give souls to a pair of pre-existing primates who then became fully human and produced all living humans.

This would the situation mentioned by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Except that it’s not quite what evolution indicates. The male ancestor of all living humans traces back to about 75,000 years ago. The female ancestor goes back about 200,000 thousand years. Now it’s possible that the female ancestor had only one mate but there is no evidence for or against it.

 

[Orogeny]

I think you’re admitting that bacteria do not evolve since “we have not been around very long” enough to actually observe the kind of radical and major changes proposed by evolutionary theory.

How in the world did you get that from my statement?

Peace

Tim

 

[Sideline]

Karl Popper, the famous philosopher of science, said: “Neither Darwin nor any Darwinist has yet provided an adequate causal explanation, that is, a scientific explanation of the adaptive evolution of a single organism or organ. They have only shown that evolution is theoretically possible.” (Popper, Objective Knowledge: an Evolutionary Approach.) >

This would be a much more damning criticism if he had not ***also ***said, “**I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation” **(Dialectica 32:344-346).

 

[cerad]

How in the world did you get that from my statement?

Peace

Tim

There simply is no single pair of humans from whom everyone currently alive descends. At least that’s what the evidence shows. Populations evolve not individuals.

 

[Orogeny]

There simply is no single pair of humans from whom everyone currently alive descends. At least that’s what the evidence shows. Populations evolve not individuals.

What does that have to do with my post?

Peace

Tim

 

[cerad]

What does that have to do with my post?

Peace

Tim

Oops. I was quoting Barbarian and not you. I think one of us got mixed up. Barbarian stated that all living people are descended from a single pair of en-souled humans. Bacteria is certainly a different topic.

 

[rossum]

There simply is no single pair of humans from whom everyone currently alive descends. At least that’s what the evidence shows. Populations evolve not individuals.

There is a possible scenario under which this is true.

Start with a population of unsouled upright apes, call then “huma” because they are not quite human yet. God puts a soul into two of them, Adam and Eve, (or puts a soul into one male, Adam, and clones a female, Eve, from him). Adding a soul does not change the original huma DNA at all. We now have a pair of humans, Adam and Eve, in a population of huma. Adam and Eve only mate with each other and have a number of children. The children need to find mates outside their immediate family so they mate with some of the huma. This is possible because their DNA is compatible with huma DNA. God gives a soul to all hybrid human/huma offspring so all the children with at least one human parent are also human, i.e. they have a soul. Because only the descendants of the initial pair mate with huma, all the children from such matings are descended from both members of that first pair since they will have both Adam and Eve as grandparents, great-grandparents etc.

Over time the number of humans increases and the number of huma declines until the huma are extinct.

In scientific terms we have a large interbreeding population, as shown by the current genetic diversity in humans. Theologically all humans are descended from that first pair.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

There is a possible scenario under which this is true.

Start with a population of unsouled upright apes, call then “huma” because they are not quite human yet. God puts a soul into two of them, Adam and Eve, (or puts a soul into one male, Adam, and clones a female, Eve, from him). Adding a soul does not change the original huma DNA at all. We now have a pair of humans, Adam and Eve, in a population of huma. Adam and Eve only mate with each other and have a number of children. The children need to find mates outside their immediate family so they mate with some of the huma. This is possible because their DNA is compatible with huma DNA. God gives a soul to all hybrid human/huma offspring so all the children with at least one human parent are also human, i.e. they have a soul. Because only the descendants of the initial pair mate with huma, all the children from such matings are descended from both members of that first pair since they will have both Adam and Eve as grandparents, great-grandparents etc.

Over time the number of humans increases and the number of huma declines until the huma are extinct.

In scientific terms we have a large interbreeding population, as shown by the current genetic diversity in humans. Theologically all humans are descended from that first pair.

rossum

That’s an interesting way to look at it. Thanks.

 

[redneck22]

Ok… and all science thas ever observed is that they reproduce bacteria… longer, shorter, darker, lighter, citrate digesting, nylon metabolising, broken bacteria, sick bacteria and funny looking bacteria.

We have not been around very long compared to bacteria. But at least you admit that you were wrong and that bacteria evolve.

Peace

Tim

Bacteria have “evovled” alright, but only into bacteria, right or wrong? Humans are evolving into humans, monkeys into monkeys, finches into finches, Wolves degenerate to chihuahuas and Great Danes.

Evolution is an equivocation and a farce.

 

[The_Catholic]

Bacteria have “evovled” alright, but only into bacteria, right or wrong? Humans are evolving into humans, monkeys into monkeys, finches into finches, Wolves degenerate to chihuahuas and Great Danes.

Evolution is an equivocation and a farce.

yawns

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nope - I hear “educated” Catholics spout this nonsense time and time again.

There are intersects that evolution has to explain.

1. Adam and Eve as our first parents.
2. Eve coming from Adam
3. Bodily immortality
4. preternatural gifts
5. infused knowledge
6. Body and soul created together

Just a few.

Evolution has no bearing on theology or metaphysics - it does not deal with the preternatural, so evolution has all the room for it you could ask for. Because T & M are also irrelevant to it, it can give them all their room too.​

Those six points are irrelevant to evolution - because although it could accommodate them, it never will, as they are irrelevant to evolution from their side. The “intersection” is unilateral, because evolution does not mix with theology or metaphysics. There is no one science which will accommodate all your six points onequal terms with theology & metaphysics. So no conflict arises.

In any case, most of those six points take for granted the historicity of Adam and Eve, and also the historical character of Genesis 1-3 - neither of those beliefs is well-founded, to put it mildly. One might as well debate about the historicity of “The Hobbit”

 

[buffalo]

Evolution has no bearing on theology or metaphysics - it does not deal with the preternatural, so evolution has all the room for it you could ask for. Because T & M are also irrelevant to it, it can give them all their room too.​

Those six points are irrelevant to evolution - because although it could accommodate them, it never will, as they are irrelevant to evolution from their side. The “intersection” is unilateral, because evolution does not mix with theology or metaphysics. There is no one science which will accommodate all your six points onequal terms with theology & metaphysics. So no conflict arises.

In any case, most of those six points take for granted the historicity of Adam and Eve, and also the historical character of Genesis 1-3 - neither of those beliefs is well-founded, to put it mildly. One might as well debate about the historicity of “The Hobbit”

Revelation is true and therefore cannot be unilateral. What is true is true all over. Now whether they can see it or not is quite a different story.

As I have previously posted time and time again - . There would be 1900 years and a lot of Pope and Fathers and Saints writings to be overturned. If this was the case Revelation would not be true and would have no protection of the Holy Spirit.

What you and others claim is that our constant interpretation of Revelation is not being protected by the Holy Spirit. I argue exactly the opposite as you well know. There are points that have not been reconciled.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

cyber << I was unaware that Darwin lost his faith later in life. That’s too bad. >>

Darwin was definitely not an orthodox Christian when he died. The facts are

(1) he uses the word “Creator” seven times in Origin of Species
(2) he uses the word “creation” dozens of times in Origin of Species
(3) his loss of Christian faith later in life is due to the problem of evil (the death of his daughter), not to science per se
(4) scientists, even Christian ones, knew the earth was old at least 100 years before Origin of Species was published, and they re-interpreted the Bible accordingly (i.e. local flood for Noah, etc)
(5) there are thousands of professional reputable scientists today who incorporate evolution into their Christian faith, one such group is the evangelical [American Scientific Affiliation (http://www.asa3.org/) and of course various Catholic members of the Pope-sponsored [Pontifical Academy of Sciences (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/), we also have statements and books from the Popes themselves affirming that evolution is true and backed up with lots of evidence.

Two books I need to finish on the whole history of this:

[Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders (http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Forgotten-Defenders-Evangelical-Evolutionary/dp/1573830933) by Livingstone (shorter book)
[The Post-Darwinian Controversies (http://www.amazon.com/Post-Darwinian-Controversies-Protestant-Struggle-1870-1900/dp/0521285178/) by Moore (thick book covers 1870-1900)

I also need to get a complete biography of Charles Darwin to get to the bottom of this. With full quotes and all. A nice article is [Charles Darwin and Intelligent Design (http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3Darwin.htm), to balance some of the quotes above.

EDIT: Let’s not forgot what Cardinal Schonborn has already said about Darwin:

"With this ‘Origin of Species’], his major work, Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge." ([Cat Lec for 10/2/2005 (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p91.htm), re-translated for his book Chance or Purpose)

Sorry to disappoint all you Darwin haters.

Phil P

If I were a buffalovian I would quote the opposition of:​

• the provincial Council of Cologne (1860)
• a letter of Pius IX from - IIRC - 1875
• the Encyclical Arcanum Dei Sapientia (1880)
  all of which seem to be on the side of buffalo & co. in denying that Catholics can hold evolutionary ideas

 

[buffalo]

If I were a buffalovian I would quote the opposition of:​

• the provincial Council of Cologne (1860)
• a letter of Pius IX from - IIRC - 1875
• the Encyclical Arcanum Dei Sapientia (1880)
  all of which seem to be on the side of buffalo & co. in denying that Catholics can hold evolutionary ideas

Thank you Bottle of Beer. I believe I covered all of these and many more.

What is clear is that Catholic teachings on the origins of man have a long legacy. No one can deny it. When all the posters on this board finally admit to the history we can move onto the next phase of the debate. Are we there yet?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Revelation is true and therefore cannot be unilateral. What is true is true all over.

You’ve missed my point ​

Now whether they can see it or not is quite a different story.

As I have previously posted time and time again - . There would be 1900 years and a lot of Pope and Fathers and Saints writings to be overturned. If this was the case Revelation would not be true and would have no protection of the Holy Spirit.

What you and others claim is that our constant interpretation of Revelation is not being protected by the Holy Spirit. I argue exactly the opposite as you well know. There are points that have not been reconciled.

OK:​

• 1. I don’t see a different problem here from that about religious liberty.
• 1. And I know of no one who has the claim you speak of
• 1. & even if it has been made, the conclusion does not follow.
     The traditional exegesis of Gen. 2-3 is quite simply fiction. Antiquity cannot accommodate the date implied for Adam, for a start. It is absurd to expect Catholics to accept space age physics for everyday purposes as valid, & to believe bronze age mythology to be history, for religious purposes. To live so schizophrenically is pernicious, especially as such Fundamentalism is not even what the Church teaches.

 

[The_Catholic]

You’ve missed my point ​

OK:​

• 1. I don’t see a different problem here from that about religious liberty.
• 1. And I know of no one who has the claim you speak of
• 1. & even if it has been made, the conclusion does not follow.
     The traditional exegesis of Gen. 2-3 is quite simply fiction. Antiquity cannot accommodate the date implied for Adam, for a start. It is absurd to expect Catholics to accept space age physics for everyday purposes as valid, & to believe bronze age mythology to be history, for religious purposes. To live so schizophrenically is pernicious, especially as such Fundamentalism is not even what the Church teaches.

It’s why atheists call us theists delusional and irrational, and compare christianity to the boogie man