Evolution and Original Sin

[edwest2]

reggie,

My primary concern is the heavy-handed promotion of evolution. If the facts and interpretations stand on their own, why the fuss?

I’m convinced it’s not about science but about spreading a directly connected worldview.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

reggie,

My primary concern is the heavy-handed promotion of evolution. If the facts and interpretations stand on their own, why the fuss?

I’m convinced it’s not about science but about spreading a directly connected worldview.

Peace,
Ed

Ed Sisson May 2006

 

[edwest2]

I am very interested in ideas, especially scientific ideas, and their effect on the general population. Currently, parts of American society accept some form of evolution and there are those who do not.

I have read the Dover tial transcript and it may have had relevance to those who eat, sleep and breathe politics but it was just another example of the manipulation I spoke of earlier. Politicians get up in the morning and think: “What will it take to get people interested in me? In electing me?” Answer: Take a hot political football and support it or not, depending on who your targeted voting group is.

Group A thinks evolution is false, so the candidate will have to make sure he is mostly consistent with his potential helpers, not just on this issue but on others that are important to them.

Group B thinks evolution is true. Repeat strategy for Group A above.

This is an issue that goes beyond politics which is just about people trying to get elected and mostly not caring about what they have to do or say to get in.

I avoid the current “intelligent design -stealth creationism-creationism debates because they are only political.” To me, it’s like saying:

Democrats are for Evolution.
Republicans are against Evolution.
Libertarians are for Intelligent Design.

Let’s put it in its proper perspective and forget Politics. The theory of evolution assigns to God no truly causal role in the creation of life in the universe. And if something like evolution did occur, it happened only due to divine providence, and not to non-existent, random and selective forces blindly going along and accidentally coming to human beings.

The link was interesting but I felt it was mostly about politics.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Again, you continue to assert this against what the Holy See has taught.

Some theories of evolution are in conflict with the Catholic Faith and cannot be accepted by Catholics.

No, you are wrong. Some theories (philosophical more than scientific) may be in conflict with Catholic teaching, but the fact of evolution is not. The Holy See, by it’s own statements, has clearly indicated that evolution is fact.

Peace

Tim

 

[tonyl]

Orogeny:

Evolution is true, whether you like it or not.

Again, you continue to assert this against what the Holy See has taught.

Some theories of evolution are in conflict with the Catholic Faith and cannot be accepted by Catholics.

That’s simply false. You are either deliberately misrepresenting the words of two Popes on this matter or you need to work on your reading comprehension skill.

 

[tonyl]

Thanks, Ed. Very good points and important for us all to reflect on and remember.

There is no “theory of evolution” that excludes a philosophical component. It’s a matter of interpretation of data – and in most cases, of supporting a world-view (one where God either doesn’t exist or has no discernable effect on the universe at all).

It’s a false philosophical foundation supporting weak or non-existent science.

Nice post-modern interpretation of Science there. While it may be true that all theories interpret data, They also make predictions about where to find additional data, what data we shouldn’t find, and must be consistent with the totality of the evidence. The scientific theory explaining evolution does this. However, your whole world view complaint is silly post modern garbage, and your claim about science being anti-god is demonstrably not true.

The theory of evolution is supported by the totality of the evidence. ID and Young earth creationism currently are not supported by the totality of the evidence.

 

[tonyl]

My primary concern is the heavy-handed promotion of evolution. If the facts and interpretations stand on their own, why the fuss?

I’m convinced it’s not about science but about spreading a directly connected worldview.

The only people being heavy handed are the ID and creationist proponents. Evolution does stand on it’s own, which is why there is no serious debate in the scientific literature. All of the available evidence supports it and no ID proponents have gotten around to testing their ideas. The debate exists solely in the political realm. It’s the purely political drive to force the unsupported ideas of creationism and ID into classrooms for the express purpose of sneaking protestant Christian teaching back into the schools.

 

[tonyl]

Let’s put it in its proper perspective and forget Politics. The theory of evolution assigns to God no truly causal role in the creation of life in the universe.

While it may not assign a role to God, neither does it remove that roll from God. Many religious scientists see evolution as the “how” for God’s creative process. The science of evolution does not, nor cannot, remove the causal role of God in creation, despite the claims of a few atheist scientists. It simply cannot talk about what it cannot test, detect, or measure in any discernible fashion.

And if something like evolution did occur, it happened only due to divine providence, and not to non-existent, random and selective forces blindly going along and accidentally coming to human beings.

How would random process coupled with selective forces be incompatible with divine providence? Especially for an omnipotent creator capable of foreseeing the results and capable of intervening with the processes at will?

 

[edwest2]

You’re joking, right? What self-proclaimed rational person out there would accept that? Politics aside and useless, meaningless rhetoric aside. You seem to think only of something you’ve heard on television: The goal is to bring God back into the schools by any means possible. That is not even close to being a Christian idea.

If you take the time to read Pope John Paul II’s statements and Pope Benedict’s statements, textbook evolution is not possible without God. Get it?

Post-modern? What kind of a nonsense word is that? What does it mean? After-modern? Give me a break.

The false debate between evolution and creation revolves around a militant atheist-bright-secular humanist-freethinker-leftist group of people who want to push God out of every sphere of public life. That is a fact. Actions are constantly being taken by the American Civil Liberties Union.

No. Evolution is not acceptable to the Church as written in the biology text. God must be part of the formula. That is why Pope Benedict wrote a book due to the fact that many scientists are saying the mechanisms of evolution negate a role for God.

Got it? The Pope was compelled to write a book due to many scientists saying the mechanisms of evolution negate a role for God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tonyl]

If you take the time to read Pope John Paul II’s statements and Pope Benedict’s statements, textbook evolution is not possible without God. Get it?

How is that inconsistent with anything I’ve said? Textbook evolution is not in conflict with God, or Catholicism, no matter how much you may want it to be.

Post-modern? What kind of a nonsense word is that? What does it mean? After-modern? Give me a break.

While postmodernism has a long history, it currently tends to represent a philosophy currently in style with many who belittle science (mainly new age types). The arguments they make against science, in general, are the same as the World-view type arguments you were making (science is only a way of looking at the world and no more valid than my new-age belief that claims exactly the opposite).

The false debate between evolution and creation revolves around a militant atheist-bright-secular humanist-freethinker-leftist group of people who want to push God out of every sphere of public life. That is a fact. Actions are constantly being taken by the American Civil Liberties Union.

That’s funny, over the past 20 years I’ve found far more Creationists attacking evolution than militant atheist-bright-secular humanist-freethinker-leftists pushing this debate. As to your comments about the ACLU, they are simply not true.The ACLU has repeatedly fought for the rights of religious people, including Catholics, to practice and express their faith publicly. They simply oppose the government sponsorship of religion.

No. Evolution is not acceptable to the Church as written in the biology text. God must be part of the formula. That is why Pope Benedict wrote a book due to the fact that many scientists are saying the mechanisms of evolution negate a role for God.

Your statements are simply not supported by the writings of the Popes. Nothing in the textbook version of evolution denies God. Furthermore, which book? I read, “In the Beginning…: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall,” it doesn’t support your claim. That book never really addresses the legitimacy of evolution. It does however use creation and evolution as a foundation for a series of homilies about who we are and our relationship with God. As for “Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo,” that just came out this month, and I haven’t had a chance to read it yet (and I suspect you have not either). However, it is not so much a book written by the pope as it is the proceedings of a meeting with former students held by the pope. I’ll add that it was one in a series of yearly conferences that he had with his former students and others. It wasn’t an emergency conference called to address some new menacing evil.

Got it? The Pope was compelled to write a book due to many scientists saying the mechanisms of evolution negate a role for God.

Really, the first book was a compilation of sermons given in the early 80’s, and the second a book detailing a yearly conference that he held, with that years topic being evolution and creation.

 

[ricmat]

Some theories of evolution are in conflict with the Catholic Faith and cannot be accepted by Catholics.

That’s simply false. You are either deliberately misrepresenting the words of two Popes on this matter or you need to work on your reading comprehension skill.

From the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - 2007, page 60.

“Christian faith does not required the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic…This debate is often fueled by…the use of theories of evolution to support a materialist and anti-religious interpretation of the world and humanity.”

Apparently the authors of the Catechism believe that there are theories of evolution that ARE strictly materialistic. And that such theories of evolution support an anti-religious interpretation of the world and humanity.

BTW tonyl, the comment to the poster above about “reading comprehension” was totally unnecessary.

 

[ricmat]

While it may not assign a role to God, neither does it remove that roll from God. Many religious scientists see evolution as the “how” for God’s creative process. The science of evolution does not, nor cannot, remove the causal role of God in creation, despite the claims of a few atheist scientists. It simply cannot talk about what it cannot test, detect, or measure in any discernible fashion.

The theory of evolution, limited to scientific facts, may not deny God (as it really can’t, of course). But it has been used as a springboard by atheists to further their ends. I’m glad that you actually admit to the fact that some atheist scientists are involved in such things. There are some hard core darwinists on this forum that won’t admit that.

How would random process coupled with selective forces be incompatible with divine providence?

IMO - it’s not necessarily incompatible.

To accomplish what actually happened (higher life forms including man), the selective forces you mention must also be non-random and be guided/directed/designed/etc. Leaping to a philosophical conclusion from the scientific facts, this means God. It is my understanding that the theory of evolution says that the “selective forces” are not directed, etc.

As an aside (not going to argue about this) I tend to think that the “process” is not actually totally random either.

Especially for an omnipotent creator capable of foreseeing the results and capable of intervening with the processes at will?

I won’t argue with you here. This is what I believe.

 

[tonyl]

From the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - 2007, page 60.

“Christian faith does not required the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic…This debate is often fueled by…the use of theories of evolution to support a materialist and anti-religious interpretation of the world and humanity.”

Apparently the authors of the Catechism believe that there are theories of evolution that ARE strictly materialistic. And that such theories of evolution support an anti-religious interpretation of the world and humanity.

But that’s not what the post I was responding to was saying. It was saying that the Holy See had said that Evolution is not true, which is not the case.

The fact that some non-scientific, philosophical expansions to the theory of evolution are inconsistent with the Catholic faith does not mean that the scientific theory of evolution has been rejected by the Church. In fact, the Popes’ writings affirm that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

 

[ricmat]

But that’s not what the post I was responding to was saying. It was saying that the Holy See had said that Evolution is not true, which is not the case.

The fact that some non-scientific, philosophical expansions to the theory of evolution are inconsistent with the Catholic faith does not mean that the scientific theory of evolution has been rejected by the Church. In fact, the Popes’ writings affirm that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

Sorry, I came late to this thread, and based on your post which I quoted in my previous post thought that you were making a different point.

If someone said that the scientific theory of evolution (as limited to scientific facts) has been rejected by the Church, I haven’t seen that (and now that I’m editing this post, it’s hard to go back more than 1 page). In terms of the scientific facts of evolution being true or not, the church cannot speak authoritatively to that since it’s not a matter of faith or morals.

But as some have pointed out, the theory of evolution has philosophical overtones which many use in an anti-religious fashion. And the Church does not support that (as I think you agree to above).

 

[tonyl]

To accomplish what actually happened (higher life forms including man), the selective forces you mention must also be non-random and be guided/directed/designed/etc.

No evolution supporter claims that selection is random. Selection is constrained by the local environment.

Leaping to a philosophical conclusion from the scientific facts, this means God. It is my understanding that the theory of evolution says that the “selective forces” are not directed, etc.

So, actually, our differences are rather slight. The philosophic leap, although not invalid, is beyond science.

As far as “selective forces”, scientists claims that the “selective forces” are directed, in much the same way that water in a river or a cloud is directed. The local environment constrains the water in the river to a specific path and the wind, gravity, etc. constrain the clouds. Direction need not require direct design nor continual direct intervention. However, this does not mean that God cannot effect such things, nor does it mean that he did not in the past.

Personally, I take the philosophical position that God set everything in motion and may have intervened in evolution, but I don’t claim that there is any science to support this, because I can devise no test that could determine what seemingly chance events were direct intervention and which seemingly chance events were random; Nor can I devise any scientific test to differentiate between the two options: 1)the universe was designed to allow us to exist in this specific form, (2) We exist in this form because of the features of our universe. While I find option 1 more compelling, that does not make it scientifically supported.

As an aside (not going to argue about this) I tend to think that the “process” is not actually totally random either.

I won’t argue with you here. I really only get drawn into these conversations when people make the stronger claims that the science of evolution is flawed, supported by fraud, inherently atheistic, etc.

 

[ricmat]

No evolution supporter claims that selection is random. Selection is constrained by the local environment.

This is where the philosophy of evolution meets the philosophy of cosmology. If one’s world view is that all of creation is an accident, or without purpose, or random, then they would also see the environment as random also. I’m not saying that this is what you believe.

So, actually, our differences are rather slight. The philosophic leap, although not invalid, is beyond science.

That’s why I called it a philosophical leap. IMO, science can get scientifically inclined people in range to make that final leap.

As far as “selective forces”, scientists claims that the “selective forces” are directed, in much the same way that water in a river or a cloud is directed. The local environment constrains the water in the river to a specific path and the wind, gravity, etc. constrain the clouds. Direction need not require direct design nor continual direct intervention. However, this does not mean that God cannot effect such things, nor does it mean that he did not in the past.

Obviously, God created the laws of nature, and those laws do “most of the work.” I think we basically agree here.

Personally, I take the philosophical position that God set everything in motion and may have intervened in evolution, but I don’t claim that there is any science to support this, because I can devise no test that could determine what seemingly chance events were direct intervention and which seemingly chance events were random; Nor can I devise any scientific test to differentiate between the two options: 1)the universe was designed to allow us to exist in this specific form, (2) We exist in this form because of the features of our universe. While I find option 1 more compelling, that does not make it scientifically supported.

Actually, we are much closer than I thought previously.

In terms of a test for chance vs. intervention - perhaps it is possible to come up with such a test, or not. I think it’s worth looking for.

But on the broader issues of your items 1 and 2 above (the anthropic principles)…we’ve both heard it said that Science can’t ever absolutely prove anything, but it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (I’'m paraphrasing…so I may not have remembered that correctly). There are some good books (maybe you’ve already read them) which talk to those points. One book is “A Meaningful World” and another is “The Privileged Planet”. These books, and others I’ve read lead me to believe that the first option is correct.

I won’t argue with you here. I really only get drawn into these conversations when people make the stronger claims that the science of evolution is flawed, supported by fraud, inherently atheistic, etc.

Personally, I identify myself as an IDer (and not one of creationists who hijacked the name). ID accepts the great volume of science (age of the earth, fossil record, etc.). I further believe that it is probable that God intervened in some of the details of evolution leading up to man. Not out of necessity, but out of love perhaps. And I certainly believe that creation as a whole was designed - in the sense of it’s a wonderful machine that works together, and if any parts were missing, it wouldn’t work. So it’s a really good design which demonstrates the glory and power of God.

 

[edwest2]

From the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - 2007, page 60.

“Christian faith does not required the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic…This debate is often fueled by…the use of theories of evolution to support a materialist and anti-religious interpretation of the world and humanity.”

Apparently the authors of the Catechism believe that there are theories of evolution that ARE strictly materialistic. And that such theories of evolution support an anti-religious interpretation of the world and humanity.

BTW tonyl, the comment to the poster above about “reading comprehension” was totally unnecessary.

I agree with this. And this is all I’m saying. To deny a militant atheistic program designed to attribute to nothing the appearance of man on this earth is wrong.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

No, you are wrong. Some theories (philosophical more than scientific) may be in conflict with Catholic teaching, but the fact of evolution is not. The Holy See, by it’s own statements, has clearly indicated that evolution is fact.

You appear to be reading in your own text to what the statement said. I’ll take a look at the quote again, taken directly from the Vatican website:

Human Persons Created in the Image of God

In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

I does not say “philosophical more than scientific” – but merely that there are “several theories of evolution” which are incompatible with the Catholic faith. The Pope cannot be read as giving a blanke approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of Neo-Darwinian provenance.

The point here is that it is incorrect to state that there is no conflict between evolution and the Catholic Faith or that whatever anyone means by the term “evolution” is “true”.

 

[reggieM]

I stated: “Some theories of evolution are in conflict with the Catholic Faith and cannot be accepted by Catholics”

You stated:

That’s simply false. You are either deliberately misrepresenting the words of two Popes on this matter or you need to work on your reading comprehension skill.

I merely quoted the text, found on the Vatican website:

Human Persons Created in the Image of God
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

Perhaps you think I’m “deliberately misrepresenting” what the Magisterium says when I say that some theories of evolution are “incompatible with the Catholic faith”. But I’m quoting directly from the text.

So it’s clear to me that your comment was not correct (even aside from the person insult).

 

[reggieM]

your claim about science being anti-god is demonstrably not true.

I don’t recall saying that “science is anti-god” – although I am anti-god myself since I believe in God and I reject all gods. But I would like you to point out where I said that “science is anti-god”. Failing that, you could just apologize and say that you made a mistake.

The theory of evolution is supported by the totality of the evidence.

You make it sound like there is no evidence that contradicts Darwinian theory. Is that your belief?