Evolution: Catholic High School

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You know Roger, I actually like Tim’s view (Orogeny) in WHAT to teach your class.

Clearly, you yourself are unsure and uncertain about the question of evolution so how can you comment on it?

Just be honest with YOURSELF first, and then with the students.

If you do not know, say so…but make them aware of the views that you have encountered from both sides and perhaps pass on how you ‘research’ things as a BASE for them and they are allowed, as Catholics, to modify and enlarge ‘your methods’ and develope their own.

The most important thing,to my mind, is that the premise is God First! As long as that Catholic doctrine is the anchor, there will be no fear to research and examine everything they learn in life…including Catholicism.

Never forget either, that you are an intelligent man and a teacher. Do not ‘allow’ those who question your intellect, to make you doubt yourself! You have noted that apparently it takes GREAT intellect to understand evolution or ‘science.’ Actually, it’s as simple as A B C when you understand how anything works!

You know that!..that’s why you’re a teacher!!

:cool:
 
I dont know why I didnt look up Sungenis earlier, but I found something hilarious.

“In early 2002, Robert Sungenis came under much criticism for publicly reviving the geocentric worldview.[8] This view is similar to the historic Tychonic worldview, which holds that the universe was created with earth at its center and stationary in space. Sungenis realizes that most scientists will not accept geocentric cosmology, but he claims in his book that, their own words prove that their aversion is more from their philosophical beliefs than their scientific proofs.[citation needed] In addition to claiming scientific viability for geocentrism, Sungenis bases his argument on the testimony of the early Church Fathers and medieval theologians; the traditional interpretation of Scripture supported by the Church, and the authoritative declarations of three popes of the seventeenth century, namely Paul V, Urban VIII, Alexander VII. Sungenis does not claim these decrees met the level defined in Vatican I required for papal infallibility, nor does he consider Catholics who reject geocentrism as dissidents, but nevertheless he maintains that the theological case for geocentrism is very strong.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis#Geocentrism_controversy

I got a sneaking suspicion he’s not the kind of fellow you’d want to be taking science lessions from. 😃
 
Isa << I got a sneaking suspicion he’s not the kind of fellow you’d want to be taking science lessions from. >>

Absolutely, we have a whole history of talking about him in here. Our resident physicist Alec (HECD2) had a couple of rounds with some Sungenis geocentrist followers (there’s one or two). Sungenis books of theology and apologetics are generally very good. His Not By Faith Alone is probably the best Catholic book on justification by faith you can find.

Why he chooses to deny modern physics (geocentrism), modern geology (young earth), modern biology (anti-evolution) is a mystery to me.

My debates with Sungenis here on theistic evolution, old earth, macroevolution

Phil P
 
No. That’s not how transitional fossils work. That’s not how evolution works. Transition does not occur between modern two species like that.

Yes, we are. That’s exactly what we’re talking about, only on a much much larger scale than you might imagine.

Not in between two modern species. Between a modern species and an ancient (no longer existing) species, yes.
Wanted to ask one thing about Ken Miller and Finding Darwin’s God. If I’m not mistaking, doesn’t he believe that God began the universe, and allowed chance to take over to give a more meaning for us being free and choosing God? Wouldn’t that mean chance and not God created the mountains, stars and all life?

Awesome book, but that was the impression I got when I read it.

Only curious.
 
Wanted to ask one thing about Ken Miller and Finding Darwin’s God. If I’m not mistaking, doesn’t he believe that God began the universe, and allowed chance to take over to give a more meaning for us being free and choosing God? Wouldn’t that mean chance and not God created the mountains, stars and all life?

Awesome book, but that was the impression I got when I read it.

Only curious.
Yeah… I’m still not completely clear on that myself, actually. 😛 I don’t think he’s very clear on what “chance” is, and how it’s related to Divine Providence. Don’t ask me why… I don’t think it’s that difficult, myself. But yes, I’ve noticed similar “blurry areas” – usually he nails the philosophical arguments right on the head, but sometimes he’s just a little bit lost… not fatally so, but enough to make me shake my head in confusion. (Unless perhaps his new book clears this up a bit? Probably not, but I don’t know for sure, because I don’t have it quite yet.) 🙂
 
Yeah… I’m still not completely clear on that myself, actually. 😛 I don’t think he’s very clear on what “chance” is, and how it’s related to Divine Providence. Don’t ask me why… I don’t think it’s that difficult, myself. But yes, I’ve noticed similar “blurry areas” – usually he nails the philosophical arguments right on the head, but sometimes he’s just a little bit lost… not fatally so, but enough to make me shake my head in confusion. (Unless perhaps his new book clears this up a bit? Probably not, but I don’t know for sure, because I don’t have it quite yet.) 🙂
What is his new book?
 
Another thread I was on regarded Miller. His point I think is:

"Take for example the evolution of our modern elephants (the African Elephant Loxodonta Africana, and the Indian Elephant Elphas Maximus) That God put His will on the Primelephas, the species our modern day elephants evolved from, and little by little, caused it to evolve into the elephants we know of today? This would go the same for every single organism of life. Does the Church believe God controled every single movement, pulled every single string, and is still doing that today as things continue to evolve?

This is the idea I normally get from the Church, but I disagree with it entirely. It sounds ridiculous to me. I’ve taken the belief that God created all energy and matter in the univerese, having His will set upon that, exploded it (the Big Bang) and some point during the explosion He released His will allowing His creation to flow a free course, where things freely evolved.

God, knowing everthing, knew eventually Mankind would come, and He wanted us to be with Him, to have an eternal soul as He has, so waited until we would be able to experience His Presence, He waited until we evolved an auditory processing to hear His voice, visual processing to see His face, and cognitive processing to make sense of His message. Even for Him speaking to us mysticaly, without words, man had to of evolved needcognitive functions to comprehend His meaning, and (name removed by moderator)ut from the brain’s emotional centers to fill us with rapture and awe. I mean, neurology makes it clear: there would be no other way for God to get into our heads except through the brain’s neural pathways.

And so once mankind evolved this, a process which He began then let go of in order that we would be tottaly free creatures to accept or reject His love, He appeared to us and gave us an eternal spirit…
When it comes to God and creation I think people desire to see a “stamped by Yahweh” sticker on overy piece of creation. Yet that’s not what we find, nor would it be what we would find since evolution is fact. And why? I truly believe because He desired to have creatures of total independance and freedom to give souls to, created in His image, and to choose to either love or reject Him.

What many anti-Evolutionists don’t seem to get, is that a strictly determined chain of events in which our emergence was preordained, would require a strictly determinant physical world. In such a place, all events would have predictable outcomes, and the furture would be open neither to chance nor independent human action. A world in which we would always evolve is also a world in which we would never be free, but puppets of God.

It is often said that a Darwinian universe is one in which the random collisions of particles govern all events and therefore the world is without meaning. I disagree. A world without meaning would be one in which a Deity pulled the string of every human puppet, and every material particle as well. In such a world, physical and biological events would be carefully controlled, evil and suffering could be minimized, and the outcome of historical processes strickly regulated. But freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution, and not by strings of Divine direction attached to every living creature.

These are ideas from Kenneth Miller, so I’m not alone…

Does God get involved in every single act of nature and creation? Well I suppose He could, but that would eradicate free will. When one who is close to the Lord, who also loves animals, drives to work and a puppy runs out in front of the car and gets killed, did God do that? I do not believe so, not at all. When a loved one dies in a car accident, is that God’s doing? Surely if /he was in control of EVERYTHING that would’nt of happened, oh unless of course He’s “testing” us. I’m not saying God does not intervene, I believe He does. But mostly these are random free acts of nature, because just as we are free, so is the universe, which in terms owes it’s existense to God, since He began it.

I know many disagree, but let’s go back to the elephants for example. So we are to believe that God was working His will on a small organism quite unlike the elephant today over 50 million years ago, that He evolved; over time He crafted scores of new species, His designs gradually drifting closer and closer to the modern elephant. Then, in the last few million years He constructed in rapid succession nearly a dozen semifinal drafts until Elphas Maximus finally came off His drawing table.

This goes the same for every single living organism on the planet, if God willingly brought them into existense, He took his time, created, and destroyed thousands of species until they were what they are today. And even now, He will destroy hundreds more as He willingly evolves them into other entities.

Don’t you see how RIDICULOUS this sounds? And saying “you can’t question God’s ways” does not apply, because God is logical and this type of process of life–if He’s purposely willing it is illogical.

God is the Creator, He gave us an eternal soul, and nature I also thinks reflects his mind, in many ways, but He wanted us to be free in order to choose Him freely."

peace
 
Geez guys- i’m 57 yrs old and learned about evolution in my Catholic HS.That’s over 40 yrs ago.Let’s get with the program people! Stop being brain washed by the Evangelical right and their Fundamentalization of catholic society. It’s infected tons of people- and they don’t know that they’ve have it!.Please stop this tragedy of dumbing down of faithful people! read your Bible with intelligence and get a good dose of"Dei Verbum" and “Divino Spiritu Afflante” into you!😛
 
Paragraph 63 summarizes the accepted scientific evidence for macroevolution and an ancient earth. It is not disputed at all.
The Vatican document is theological,and the intention is to affirm the traditional Catholic beliefs about man being made in the image of God. It was not intended to engage in a scientific debate. But the document does reject materialist theories and it affirms that God guides secondary causes. It also says that an unguided evolutionary process cannot exist. So the naturalistic belief in natural selection,and the naturalistic theory of evolution,are out of the question.
Paragraphs 68 and 69 puts the theistic spin on the science. I agree with these Catholic theologians and philosophers. The document was signed and endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004.
No,the document doesn’t put a theistic spin on the science. It puts a theistic interpretation on nature and natural causes.
God and divine providence can work through and with secondary, natural causes.
That’s true,but God and divine providence do not work in naturalistic theories of evolution.
Evolution and natural selection (i.e. “Darwinism”) is not a problem.
They are a problem for Catholic belief,because they are naturalistic theories which admit no divine providence.
Now what are you and Roger going to do with all the evidence for evolution? Ignore it?
The archeological evidence amounts to similarities between the bone structures of defunct species and the assumption that those species must have had a common ancestry for being similar in bone structure. Science uses the arbitrary taxonomic system to find out the descent of species;but descent is vertical and has to do with reproduction,not merely physical characteristics.

The biological evidence amounts to variation within a species,partial genetic isolation between sub-species,and hybrids which are sterile. No evidence for macro-evolution or common descent theory.
 
My objection will continue to be that “nature” is not an active force. It has no intelligence. Although I am strictly forbidden from mentioning the first organism that presumably all others came from (abiogenesis) in association with evolution, I can say that mutation can create a two headed cow or extra, although useless, legs, it can only work in an unguided way. It does not have any goal.

This lack of a goal clearly indicates that man could’ve been like a turtle or a bird if certain random mutations and natural selections had gone in different directions millions of years ago. Am I right?

Some years ago, due to their short lifespan, fruit flies were exposed to radiation to see how they might change. What happened? A lot of really messed up fruit flies, but the results showed that the radiation only reshuffled existing genetic material. None of them sprouted novel features, just messed up ones.

God bless,
Ed
 
Ok here is the question. What if, a student asks: How are we suppose to interpret Genesis in light of the science of evolution? Should we take it literally? Or do we take it symboliclly? Which one and why?
Did you read what I wrote?

You tell them “I am a religion teacher and it is not my place to tell you what theory of creation to accept. You have the freedom to investigate and to figure that out for yourself and you may change your mind as often as you like. We Catholics are free to interpret Genesis either way.”

They will really like the “intellectual freedom” aspect.

God bless you,
Paul
 
A bit off topic here maybe and sorry if it has been asked before, but i notice there is a lot of scientifics here so i wanna ask a stupid question… How are you gonna go about testing and falsifying evolution theory? Since it is the grown jewel of scientific theory I suppose it must have been probably tested with lots of good Academic sources written about how it has been tested again and again?
 
A bit off topic here maybe and sorry if it has been asked before, but i notice there is a lot of scientifics here so i wanna ask a stupid question… How are you gonna go about testing and falsifying evolution theory? Since it is the grown jewel of scientific theory I suppose it must have been probably tested with lots of good Academic sources written about how it has been tested again and again?
Que?🤷
 
Another thread I was on regarded Miller. His point I think is:

"Take for example the evolution of our modern elephants (the African Elephant Loxodonta Africana, and the Indian Elephant Elphas Maximus) That God put His will on the Primelephas, the species our modern day elephants evolved from, and little by little, caused it to evolve into the elephants we know of today? This would go the same for every single organism of life. Does the Church believe God controled every single movement, pulled every single string, and is still doing that today as things continue to evolve?

This is the idea I normally get from the Church, but I disagree with it entirely. It sounds ridiculous to me. I’ve taken the belief that God created all energy and matter in the univerese, having His will set upon that, exploded it (the Big Bang) and some point during the explosion He released His will allowing His creation to flow a free course, where things freely evolved.

God, knowing everthing, knew eventually Mankind would come, and He wanted us to be with Him, to have an eternal soul as He has, so waited until we would be able to experience His Presence, He waited until we evolved an auditory processing to hear His voice, visual processing to see His face, and cognitive processing to make sense of His message. Even for Him speaking to us mysticaly, without words, man had to of evolved needcognitive functions to comprehend His meaning, and (name removed by moderator)ut from the brain’s emotional centers to fill us with rapture and awe. I mean, neurology makes it clear: there would be no other way for God to get into our heads except through the brain’s neural pathways.

And so once mankind evolved this, a process which He began then let go of in order that we would be tottaly free creatures to accept or reject His love, He appeared to us and gave us an eternal spirit…
When it comes to God and creation I think people desire to see a “stamped by Yahweh” sticker on overy piece of creation. Yet that’s not what we find, nor would it be what we would find since evolution is fact. And why? I truly believe because He desired to have creatures of total independance and freedom to give souls to, created in His image, and to choose to either love or reject Him.

What many anti-Evolutionists don’t seem to get, is that a strictly determined chain of events in which our emergence was preordained, would require a strictly determinant physical world. In such a place, all events would have predictable outcomes, and the furture would be open neither to chance nor independent human action. A world in which we would always evolve is also a world in which we would never be free, but puppets of God.

It is often said that a Darwinian universe is one in which the random collisions of particles govern all events and therefore the world is without meaning. I disagree. A world without meaning would be one in which a Deity pulled the string of every human puppet, and every material particle as well. In such a world, physical and biological events would be carefully controlled, evil and suffering could be minimized, and the outcome of historical processes strickly regulated. But freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution, and not by strings of Divine direction attached to every living creature.

These are ideas from Kenneth Miller, so I’m not alone…

Does God get involved in every single act of nature and creation? Well I suppose He could, but that would eradicate free will. When one who is close to the Lord, who also loves animals, drives to work and a puppy runs out in front of the car and gets killed, did God do that? I do not believe so, not at all. When a loved one dies in a car accident, is that God’s doing? Surely if /he was in control of EVERYTHING that would’nt of happened, oh unless of course He’s “testing” us. I’m not saying God does not intervene, I believe He does. But mostly these are random free acts of nature, because just as we are free, so is the universe, which in terms owes it’s existense to God, since He began it.

I know many disagree, but let’s go back to the elephants for example. So we are to believe that God was working His will on a small organism quite unlike the elephant today over 50 million years ago, that He evolved; over time He crafted scores of new species, His designs gradually drifting closer and closer to the modern elephant. Then, in the last few million years He constructed in rapid succession nearly a dozen semifinal drafts until Elphas Maximus finally came off His drawing table.

This goes the same for every single living organism on the planet, if God willingly brought them into existense, He took his time, created, and destroyed thousands of species until they were what they are today. And even now, He will destroy hundreds more as He willingly evolves them into other entities.

Don’t you see how RIDICULOUS this sounds? And saying “you can’t question God’s ways” does not apply, because God is logical and this type of process of life–if He’s purposely willing it is illogical.

God is the Creator, He gave us an eternal soul, and nature I also thinks reflects his mind, in many ways, but He wanted us to be free in order to choose Him freely."

peace
**
I’ve got a thought for you, ‘Catholic’

Look heavenwards on a starry night sometime. Within the scope of your sight are probably a billion stars and their ‘star systems’ even if sight cannot reach them. Included ‘within’ that snapshot are the countless asteroids, moons, debri, dust, etc…etc.

Multiply that by, say, 13 billion, for argument’s sake, since our star system is minute and among several billion others that we do not know about.

Now, did you know that EVERY SINGLE celestial particle, planet down to gas form, in that ‘equation’ whether mobile or stationary, has HAD its existence, birth, form, size, weight, speed, direction, trajectory, collisions, results, ‘death’…already WEIGHED AND CALCULATED INTO “THE PLAN”!!! That’s every single, seen and unseen, particle! **

There are some who say, ‘no god can do that!’
Even some who ‘believe’ say, ‘not even God can do that!’…and so it is easier to theorize that those ‘collisions’ are random and by chance, just as ‘mutations’ in evolution are random and unguided.

I point these out because your examples above suggest an option between God ‘directing’ car accidents and no involvement at all.

Every human has free will, but every choice or decision HAS CONSEQUENCES because one is not isolated in a vacuum. Just as celestial collisions effects itself and surroundings, so does the choices one makes.

Every soul in existence, God is personally aware of its ‘life’! Every, last, monkey hair of them.

:cool:
 
What is his new book?
Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul

I’ll be picking it up for myself soon, hopefully… 🙂
…that God put His will on the Primelephas, the species our modern day elephants evolved from, and little by little, caused it to evolve into the elephants we know of today? This would go the same for every single organism of life.

Does the Church believe God controled every single movement, pulled every single string, and is still doing that today as things continue to evolve?
I’d definitely say yes. But “pulling the strings” is such a negative way to say it… God’s Divine Providence provides for every motion of every subatomic particle. And when you really get down to it, someone has to “pull the strings”, because everything needs a cause. Something cannot come from nothing. It all goes back to God’s Divine Providence in the end anyway.
I’ve taken the belief that God created all energy and matter in the univerese, having His will set upon that, exploded it (the Big Bang) and some point during the explosion He released His will allowing His creation to flow a free course, where things freely evolved.
What does it mean for physical energy/matter to be “free”? But moving on… does a “chance” event have a cause? If no, then you’re granting that something can come from nothing, which is a bad idea. But if yes, what’s it going to be? Maybe a deterministic universe… except that destroys free will, and modern science has essentially ruled it out anyway. Why not allow Divine Providence to be the ultimate cause behind everything? Why not let God choose to develop every aspect of the universe as He sees fit, being intimately involved with its development every step of the way? Why do want him to step back and exist part-time as the “watchmaker God” of the Deists?
God, knowing eveyrthing, knew eventually Mankind would come, and He wanted us to be with Him, to have an eternal soul as He has, so waited until we would be able to experience His Presence, He waited until we evolved an auditory processing to hear His voice, visual processing to see His face, and cognitive processing to make sense of His message.
It’s a little more than just knowing, though… God deliberately chose to create this universe as it is. He chose to create our bodies as they are… and He had to be intimately involved every step of the way. Creation can’t sustain, guide, and give purpose to itself… it, just like all creatures, is completely dependent on God at all times. It can’t not be.
And so once mankind evolved this, a process which He began then let go of in order that we would be totally free creatures to accept or reject His love, He appeared to us and gave us an eternal spirit…
That’s more or less where Ken Miller seems to lose me, yeah. I think the whole idea is just a little bit confused. How does God “let go” of the process? How can he? What’s there to “let go” of? The universe doesn’t have free will to make decisions on its own.
"Ken Miller:
What many anti-Evolutionists don’t seem to get, is that a strictly determined chain of events in which our emergence was preordained, would require a strictly determinant physical world. In such a place, all events would have predictable outcomes, and the furture would be open neither to chance nor independent human action. A world in which we would always evolve is also a world in which we would never be free, but puppets of God.
This part, I think, has a good point. Unpredictability needs to be somehow built-in to the physical world, so that we can actually exercise our free will. If our brain was a strictly deterministic organ, we’d be out of luck… God would have to break/undo his own laws of physics for us every time we went to make a choice.
Ken Miller:
It is often said that a Darwinian universe is one in which the random collisions of particles govern all events and therefore the world is without meaning. I disagree. A world without meaning would be one in which a Deity pulled the string of every human puppet, and every material particle as well.
I’m more of less agreed with him on the “pulled the string of every human puppet” part, but not at all on the “every material particle as well”. Why can’t Divine Providence give every material particle a purpose, and guide it toward a specific end? What’s the big problem? The next sentence?..
Ken Miller:
In such a world, physical and biological events would be carefully controlled, evil and suffering could be minimized, and the outcome of historical processes strictly regulated.
Except God is always omnipotent anyway, so those problems are never going to disappear, even if God could “free” creation from His guidance. I don’t see what Ken Miller thinks he’s solving here… even if you could “free” yourself from Divine Providence, nothing really changes. So what’s the point? People can complain about the existence of evil all the same if God is intimately involved or if He is just sitting back and doing nothing.
Does God get involved in every single act of nature and creation? Well I suppose He could, but that would eradicate free will.
Leave human freedom aside for now… and tell me, in all other cases, whose free will is being eradicated? Because the universe doesn’t have free will… so when we’re not involved, it’s either God in control, or nothing. And I don’t see why you’d ever have a reason to pick “nothing”, especially since it’s so opposed to Catholic teaching.
When one who is close to the Lord, who also loves animals, drives to work and a puppy runs out in front of the car and gets killed, did God do that? I do not believe so, not at all. When a loved one dies in a car accident, is that God’s doing?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=261039
Surely if he was in control of EVERYTHING that wouldn’t of happened, oh unless of course He’s “testing” us.
So your response if that He’s not in control of everything? Are you denying His omnipotence now, or not? Are you perhaps denying His omniscience? Because even if God didn’t choose for them to happen, He certainly knew, before He even created the universe, that these events would happen. And yet He chose to let it happen anyway. There’s no escaping the fact that God is completely in control. If He didn’t make it happen, He let it happen. There’s no easy way out. You simply have to learn to trust Divine Providence.
…because just as we are free, so is the universe…
We have free will. The universe doesn’t. That’s a HUGE difference in “level of freedom”, if you ask me.
I know many disagree, but let’s go back to the elephants for example.
Sure. Let’s do that…
So we are to believe that God was working His will on a small organism quite unlike the elephant today over 50 million years ago, that He evolved; over time He crafted scores of new species, His designs gradually drifting closer and closer to the modern elephant. Then, in the last few million years He constructed in rapid succession nearly a dozen semifinal drafts until Elphas Maximus finally came off His drawing table.
Ah yes, this sounds like Ken Miller’s argument again… but I’ll let you finish.
This goes the same for every single living organism on the planet, if God willingly brought them into existence, He took his time, created, and destroyed thousands of species until they were what they are today. And even now, He will destroy hundreds more as He willingly evolves them into other entities.

Don’t you see how RIDICULOUS this sounds?
Nope! 🙂 But honestly, no. Come on. Yes, thousands of species died. But each one of those species served its purpose. Each one was adapted to fill it’s own ecological niche, for however long it was supposed to. And no, not every variation of every species was meant to survive to today… some were meant to do no more than serve as food for the species that God chose to maintain. Some were meant to produce descendants that would provide us with the selection of animals that God has covered the earth with today.

The same thing happens with people… some die in the womb, some die in infancy, some live a long life and produce descendants. But they’re all people, they’re all infused with spiritual souls, and they all serve a purpose, even if we don’t know what it is right now. God’s Divine Providence is active at all times, everywhere, always providing for His creation. And unless you truly don’t trust that God has a plan, and always knows what is ultimately best for His creatures, I really don’t see the point in trying to run from it.
 
anthony << The Vatican document is theological, and the intention is to affirm the traditional Catholic beliefs about man being made in the image of God. It was not intended to engage in a scientific debate. >>

No problem with this. The document doesn’t engage in a scientific debate. It simply accepts the standard science with no argument (4.5 billion year old earth, common descent or macroevolution as “virtually certain”).

anthony << But the document does reject materialist theories and it affirms that God guides secondary causes. It also says that an unguided evolutionary process cannot exist. So the naturalistic belief in natural selection, and the naturalistic theory of evolution, are out of the question. >>

The first two sentences I have no problem with and agree with you. Your conclusion (that a “naturalistic” something is “out of the question”) assumes science (i.e. evolution) refers to a philosophical naturalism. It does not. Evolution by natural selection is a purely scientific theory. It says nothing for or against God. The theory can be summarized:

(1) Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.

(2) Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.

(3) Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by “budding”, that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.

(4) Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.

(5) Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation.

This is pure science. See the Talk Origins "What is Darwinism?" article. Points (4) and (5) are supplemented by modern theories of genetics, and such mechanisms as “punctuated equilibria”, etc.

anthony << No, the document doesn’t put a theistic spin on the science. It puts a theistic interpretation on nature and natural causes. >>

Same thing. Putting a theistic spin on the science = putting a theistic interpretation on nature and natural causes since science investigates nature and natural causes.

anthony << That’s true, but God and divine providence do not work in naturalistic theories of evolution. >>

You are again confusing science with philosophy, just as the atheist Richard Dawkins does, just as the theist Phillip E. Johnson does.

Science is a method for investigating nature. That is all. It does not speak to God.

When you say God does not work in “naturalistic theories” you are correct if you mean naturalism as a philosophy (i.e. philosophical naturalism). I.E. God cannot work in a theory that requires atheism or philosophical naturalism. Evolution does not require atheism or any such philosophical position. You are incorrect if you mean God cannot work in and through nature and natural causes. When I say evolution is a natural process, that is what I mean. And that is what I believe that Vatican document means. Do not confuse science (a method for investigating nature used by both Christian and atheist scientists) with an atheistic or “naturalistic” philosophy (a worldview that necessarily excludes God).

anthony << They are a problem for Catholic belief, because they are naturalistic theories which admit no divine providence. >>

They are not a problem for Catholic belief. Do not confuse science (the investigation of nature using natural means) with philosophical naturalism.

Evolution by natural selection is not atheism. Evolution by natural selection is not philosophical naturalism. Evolution by natural selection is simply a scientific theory on how we got here, and how we are related to all life. It does not speak to ultimate or divine causes. It is silent on those.

anthony << The biological evidence amounts to variation within a species, partial genetic isolation between sub-species, and hybrids which are sterile. No evidence for macro-evolution or common descent theory. >>

We are going to have to agree to disagree. The evidence for macroevolution or common descent is in my summary of Theobald’s full article.

Phil P
 
The archaeopteryx is a bird, not half-bird, half-dinosaur.
Under some definitions birds are dinosaurs, in that same way that horses are mammmals. Dinosaur is a large group of species, most of which died out a long time ago and some of which (the small flying ones) survived into the present.

As to archaeopteryx it is a classic transitional fossil, and shows the characteristics of such a fossil:
Code:
                    Feathers   Flight   Bony Tail   Teeth
                    --------   ------   ---------   -----
Early Dinosaurs      No         No       Yes         Yes
Feathered Dinos      Yes        No       Yes         Yes
Archaeopteryx        Yes        Yes      Yes         Yes
Early Birds          Yes        Yes      No          Yes
Modern Birds         Yes        Yes      No          No
Archaeopteryx is indeed classified as a bird - it had feathers and flew so it is a bird. Unlike any moderm bird it had a bony tail and teeth. Science has to define a boundary between birds and non-birds. Archaeopteryx is very very close to the boundary from the bird side. Just because Miami (modern birds) is a long way from Canada does not mean that Detroit (Archaeopteryx) is also a long way from Canada. If I pick the right place, I can find somewhere in the USA that is one inch or less from Canada.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top