Evolution and Original Sin

[reggieM]

While postmodernism has a long history, it currently tends to represent a philosophy currently in style with many who belittle science

I think post-modernism is a philosophical reaction against modernism. Modernism was a reaction against traditionalism.

So I think you’re supporting plain-old modernism – or scientism. That is the world-view that was dominated by the belief that science could answer all mysteries of the universe and life itself.

Post-modernism reacts against that with the recognition of the human soul. Certainly, some of it comes from a new-age spirituality, but other parts come from environmentalism and the fears that people sense with encroaching (out of control) technology and science causing more problems than they solve.

You could be arguing for traditionalism - jumping back past modernism. But that brings a spritual world-view into the picture as well – with the science being subordinate to religion and faith. So I don’t think you’re taking that view.

But I agree with your assessment of the post-modernist critique and I think that is a very good insight.

 

[reggieM]

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.

You’re adding text to the Magisterial statement.

It merely says that there are several theories of evolution which are incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

You’ve added “philosophical expansions to the theory of evolution” – but the Holy See said that there are “several theories of evolution” which are incompatible with the Faith.

This means that it is not correct to say “evolution is true” as a sweeping statement. You might argue that “some theories of evolution are true” and I would agree with that myself. An evolutionary theory that stated that some species show minor changes in features over time would be “an evolutionary theory” which is true and can be validated.

That is a lot different than saying “evolution is true” and meaning that life emerged from non-living matter.

 

[tonyl]

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

No, the conversation went like this:

Evolution is true, whether you like it or not.

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

To which I replied:
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:

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.

But it does not support your claim that the Holy See claims that evolution is not true.

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

No it was quite correct, although I apologize for the insult.

 

[reggieM]

But it does not support your claim that the Holy See claims that evolution is not true.

If you mean that “all theories of evolution are true” by the statement “evolution is true” – then the Holy See has rejected that.

The problem is the sweeping claims made about “the theory of evolution”. The Vatican text pointed out that there are several theories of evolution which are incompatible with the Catholic Faith. That is a very important distinction which should not be covered-over.

 

[tonyl]

You’re adding text to the Magisterial statement.

It merely says that there are several theories of evolution which are incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

You’ve added “philosophical expansions to the theory of evolution” – but the Holy See said that there are “several theories of evolution” which are incompatible with the Faith.

And you’ve added the word “scientific” to the magesterium’s statement. The simple fact is that what you are railing against Are not the scientific theories of evolution.

This means that it is not correct to say “evolution is true” as a sweeping statement. You might argue that “some theories of evolution are true” and I would agree with that myself.

Really? All of this over some nit-picking semantics? How about this: Evolution is an observed fact, it is true. The scientific theories of evolution are supported by the available evidence. Most of the scientific community doesn’t care about the other “theories” of evolution.

An evolutionary theory that stated that some species show minor changes in features over time would be “an evolutionary theory” which is true and can be validated.

That is a lot different than saying “evolution is true” and meaning that life emerged from non-living matter.

The theory of evolution can explain major changes in features over time, including transitions between phyla, genus, and species, and the evidence is consistent with and supports this theory. That is true and it does not conflict with the statements you quoted. In fact, Pope John Paul II said, “It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.”

As far as life from non-living matter, that’s not part of the scientific theories that explain evolution.

 

[tonyl]

You’re adding text to the Magisterial statement.

It merely says that there are several theories of evolution which are incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

You’ve added “philosophical expansions to the theory of evolution” – but the Holy See said that there are “several theories of evolution” which are incompatible with the Faith.

Actually, after having just re-read Pope John Paul II’s address to the Pontifical academy of sciences, it seems to support my interpretation. He says:
“And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.” (emphasis mine)

 

[reggieM]

And you’ve added the word “scientific” to the magesterium’s statement. The simple fact is that what you are railing against Are not the scientific theories of evolution.

That’s your philosophical opinion and not a fact that can be proven scientifically.

Really? All of this over some nit-picking semantics?

Well, I notice the nit-picking semantics every time we hear Darwinists talk about the emergence of life from non-living materials. Suddenly, this “isn’t evolutionary theory”. We hear it also about how evolution is “not random” as well. Semantics are a big part of this. Claiming that “evolution is true” without defining what you mean by evolution is not adding clarity to the topic.

It goes beyond “nit-picking” when we realize that we are forbidden from accepting “some theories of evolution”. Those are incompatible with the Faith (having consequences for salvation).

So, the Catholic Faith permits believers to reject all theories of evolution. Additionally, we are required to reject some theories of evolution.

How about this: Evolution is an observed fact, it is true.

Yes, I agreed that some minor changes in species can be observed. But this you’re engaging in semantics here also if that is what you mean.

Most of the scientific community doesn’t care about the other “theories” of evolution.

Most of the scientific community doesn’t care about God’s Word either, in spite of the obvious consequences of that neglect.

As far as life from non-living matter, that’s not part of the scientific theories that explain evolution.

Again, that’s a philosophical opinion.

 

[reggieM]

"And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology." (emphasis mine)

Well, you did seem to suggest that there were only extensions on “the” theory of evolution. But there is no one theory, according to the papal text here.

There are different explanations advanced for the “mechanism” as well as the “various philosophies” on which it is based.

So the theories are based on philosohpical constructs.

It is not merely a question of “just science”.

The scientific community must rely on philosohpy to construct theories and interpret data.

You’ve done that yourself by stating that abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory. That’s your philosophical view and not a scientific fact.

 

[tonyl]

tonyl:

As far as life from non-living matter, that’s not part of the scientific theories that explain evolution.

Again, that’s a philosophical opinion.

No, it’s a statement of fact. Equivalent to the following statements:

1. The properties of and number of quarks is not part of the theory that explains ionic bonding.
2. The property of and number of quarks is not part of the current theories explaining the optical spectra emitted by atoms.
3. The theory explaining nuclear decay is not part of the theories of organic chemistry.
4. The mass of the neutrino is not part of classical electrodynamics.
5. The Big bang is not part of the theories describing biological evolution.

The scientific theories of evolution simply don’t handle life from non life, nor do they deal with the Big Bang (That’s handled by various fields of physics). Life from non-life a different field of science, sitting at the crossroads of chemistry and biology.

 

[tonyl]

You’ve done that yourself by stating that abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory. That’s your philosophical view and not a scientific fact.

So basically, you’re saying that what phenomena are explained by a theory, and what phenomena a theory attempts to explain is a purely philosophical question and has no relation to what the theory says or what it attempts to study? So should I go around claiming that the precession of Mercury is part of the theory of electromagnetism?

 

[Orogeny]

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.

Tony beat me to the post with the Pope’s actual statement. It is clear that he was discussing the philosophical rather than the scientific theories. He recognized the difference. That is exactly what I am arguing - there is a difference between the science of evolution and the philosophical extents that some would take the science to.

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”.

No, it is not incorrect if one sticks to the science. The Pope made that clear. How can some theory be correct or acceptable (I think you will admit that the Pope agreed that some theory or theories of evolution are acceptable) if there is not a fact being explained? How can a theory be acceptable if the thing it is explaining not true?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

To deny a militant atheistic program designed to attribute to nothing the appearance of man on this earth is wrong.

Really? You would support a militant atheistic program designed to attribute to nothing the appearance of man on this earth?

[Edited]

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

No, it’s a statement of fact. Equivalent to the following statements:

1. The properties of and number of quarks is not part of the theory that explains ionic bonding.
2. The property of and number of quarks is not part of the current theories explaining the optical spectra emitted by atoms.
3. The theory explaining nuclear decay is not part of the theories of organic chemistry.
4. The mass of the neutrino is not part of classical electrodynamics.
5. The Big bang is not part of the theories describing biological evolution.

The scientific theories of evolution simply don’t handle life from non life, nor do they deal with the Big Bang (That’s handled by various fields of physics). Life from non-life a different field of science, sitting at the crossroads of chemistry and biology.

You’re confusing the science with your philosohpical positions.

It is not a scientific fact that the theory of evolution does not include abiogenesis. That’s a philosophical construct.

Defining what is meant by the term “evolution” is a philosophical construct – not a fact of science.

Otherwise, you could prove scientifically what the word “evolution” means. If you think that is possible, I would like to see how it is done.

 

[reggieM]

No, it is not incorrect if one sticks to the science. The Pope made that clear. How can some theory be correct or acceptable (I think you will admit that the Pope agreed that some theory or theories of evolution are acceptable) if there is not a fact being explained? How can a theory be acceptable if the thing it is explaining not true?

Again, it is not possible for theories of evolution (of which there are multiple according to the Pope) to “stick to the science”.

The theories cannot exist without a philosophical construct that gives them form and meaning. The philosophy behind the theory of evolution is not science – it cannot be proved scientifically.

For example: Prove scientifically what the word “evolution” means.

(It can’t be done because the definition of the term is a philosophical matter, not scientific).

A theory can be acceptable if the thing it is describing is not true. One can have an acceptable theory that there is life on Mars. This doesn’t mean that there really is life on Mars, just that the theory explaining how it is possbile is acceptable.

 

[drpmjhess]

Really? You would support a militant atheistic program designed to attribute to nothing the appearance of man on this earth?Tim

What would such a program look like?

 

[Orogeny]

Again, it is not possible for theories of evolution (of which there are multiple according to the Pope) to “stick to the science”.

The theories cannot exist without a philosophical construct that gives them form and meaning. The philosophy behind the theory of evolution is not science – it cannot be proved scientifically.

Using your logic, there is no scientific theories of any kind that stick to the science.

For example: Prove scientifically what the word “evolution” means.

(It can’t be done because the definition of the term is a philosophical matter, not scientific).

Science doesn’t prove anything. Give me one example of proof from science about, say, gravity.

A theory can be acceptable if the thing it is describing is not true. One can have an acceptable theory that there is life on Mars. This doesn’t mean that there really is life on Mars, just that the theory explaining how it is possbile is acceptable.

Not a scientific theory if it doesn’t have evidence. A scientific theory is an explanation of observations, not a guess like you seem to think it is. If there were no evidence for evolution, there would be no scientific theory of evolution. The Vatican accepts *some *theories of evolution, so there must be evidence that they accept as valid. I guess I don’t understand why you disagree with the Vatican.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

What would such a program look like?

I don’t know, but I suspect that Ed assumes that I am part of it.

Peace

Tim

 

[ricmat]

The Vatican accepts *some *theories of evolution, so there must be evidence that they accept as valid.

The Church does not speak with authority on issues of the facts of science, but rather only on issues of faith and morals. The Vatican just said that it is OK to believe in aliens. That doesn’t mean that there is evidence that aliens exist. The acceptance just means that believing in aliens does not contract the faith and moral teachings of the church.

The Church has said that we may not accept theories of evolution that are strictly materialistic, as these contradict the faith and moral teachings of the Church.

 

[reggieM]

A scientific theory is an explanation of observations, not a guess like you seem to think it is. If there were no evidence for evolution, there would be no scientific theory of evolution.

Again, those are philosophical opinions attempting to structure an argument. What you said above is not science itself.

 

[reggieM]

Science doesn’t prove anything. Give me one example of proof from science about, say, gravity.

This is a very good example of the point. Depending on how you define the term “proof”, one can either prove something or not. The definition is your philosophical opinion about what the term “prove” means. There is no scientific test to determine whether your definition is scientifically correct or not, since you’re using a concept (what it means to “prove” something). It’s based on some kind of consensus or mutual agreement – but it’s not in the nature of reality to see that the term “to prove something” means one thing or another. In time, the term can become obsolete. At one time, evolutionists claimed that the Darwin process was “random”. Then later they said it was not “random”. Part of the change had to do with the definition of the term “random” itself. That’s the philosophical strucuture which is essential (can’t live without it) to science.

Logic itself is a philosophical foundation which is accepted in science. One could certainly dismiss logic in some cases in order to do science since there is no reason to assume that the entire universe can be understood by using logical formulae.