Evolution chat...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am replying without respect to reading the links because I just don’t have the time…so if I argue anything that is redundant then please don’t strangle me over it.

Evolution, scientifically speaking, if we allow only the evidence and natural deduction of what it means, can really only establish a couple things, a) that nature changes, sometimes dramatically, and b) that nature is complex beyond comprehension.

Now, science establishes other principles like natural selection, spontaneous mutation, etc. as mechanics of the two aforementioned principles. Evidence suggests these mechanics, but the mechanics of nature have nothing to do with the existence of God anymore than water turning to ice due to a cold temperature can disprove the ‘uninvolvement’ of God. In other words, because life is shown to operate under the law of cause and effect does not reduce the reality of a First Cause or Necessary Mover (changer).

Evolutionists, both past and present, make an extremely fatal error that is so self-defeating it is beyond absurdity. They claim that life began and changes according to random forces. For science to claim, scientifically, that any mechanic or operation is ‘random’ only means that science does not presently know anything about it. Therefore, for science to say that life began ‘by accident’ or ‘by random forces’ only begs the question and answers nothing at all. It is much like looking up at the stars and claiming ‘there are no patterns…nothing holding them there - they must be a random smear of tiny lights. Therefore, the heavens can’t contain any God’.

Genesis aside, the theory of evolution, as presently understood, does nothing at all to religious faith. It may harm its extreme counterpart, Creation Science, but it certainly doesn’t harm our Faith in any way. That’s really what the Pope what saying as well…we have no need to fear science, but we should definitely be careful how much we trust ‘scientists’.
 
"I would agreee with trelow. There is no Proof that evolution has been proven. Infact, I believe that there is a LAW in thermodynamics that states that nothing can improve itself without help.

You cant put a knife on a table an come back 1000 years later and it is a knife. It would be returned to matter from which it was made.

What improvements have humans made to show that evolution is happening?"

This is a misconstruction of that Law of Thermodynamics (I think it might be the 2nd Law, but I could be wrong). It basically means that a spontaneous reaction will not decrease the entropy (or disorder) of a closed system. This applies to spontaneous chemical reactions and not to an organism adapting to its environment over time.

Secondly, an explaination of Laws and Theories is in order. Scientifically a Law describes a phenomenon and can generally (if not always) be boiled down into a mathmatical equation. A Theory explains a phenomenon. Thus both Evolution and Creationsim are both Theories, and will not become anything else.

The Catholic Church has stated that Evolution can coinciced with the Catholic Faith, as long as God is not removed from the process and that the individual still believes in the special creation of the soul. This page from Catholic Answers is particularly good at explaining it catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp.

Another discovery I came upon recently is that many Creationists are making the same mistake many individuals in the Catholic Church made in the declaration of the Copernican system as heresy. They forget/forgot that the Bible was never meant to teach natural science. Yes, evolution may seem to contradict the creation story in Genesis, but Heliocentrism seemed to contradict scripture at the time, and is perfectly accepted now.
 
Exporter said:
Orogeny,

This is the first thread on which I have seen a post by you. Is the accent in your name on the “rog” or the “gen” ?

The “rog”.
In every H.S. or Freshman Chemistry textbook I have seen, somewhere about the forth Chapter we see and Chapter Title, “ATOMIC THEORY”. I see you have made “a do” of Scientific Theory, Proof of a Scientific Theory , etc. Do you actually believe atoms exist?
Yes, I actually believe atoms exist.
Are you going to tell us that Evolution has been “proven”?
As close as any scientific theory can be proven.
Will you restrict “your” Evolution to certain Geological Ages?
I don’t have my own personal evolution.
I am curious in your bottom line. I asked 3 questions.
My bottom line in what? If you look in the Apologetics forum, I have posted on several of the evolution related threads. I have tried to make it clear there that I am a devout Catholic and a geologist, I believe God created everything and that the evidence supporting an old earth and biological evolution is so overwhelming that both must be true. Therefore, God created the earth a long time ago and created all life, including mankind, through evolution.

I hope I answered your questions (and didn’t misspell anything in the process).

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Buffalo << What about this - God “inserted” (created) man and women and stuck them in the timeline wherever He wanted. >>

That’s a possibility, and that can be reconciled with both the science and theology. I’ve seen you mention this before, nice idea. Here it is layed out in an article on Adam/Eve by the ASA3.org group

In Search of Historical Adam Part 1

In Search of Historical Adam Part 2

This guy (Dick Fischer) also has a book on the subject which looks promising (he respects science and a literal understanding of Adam/Eve both)

The Origins Solution

We can say we trace ourselves back to these two folks who had bodies and souls. The others (bodies, but no souls) would have died off. Sort of a compromise between monogenism and polygenism.

I’m picking up the John Haught book now Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution so all my problems and questions will soon be solved (maybe) 😛

Phil P
Phil,

This was an interesting read. Thanks. It follows very well what I propose as far as insertion goes and there being another explanation that should be considered.

A few things - he is proposing that there were civilized humans (or less than humans) before Adam, and that Adam was inserted after them. He also proposes that Mitochondrial Eve was Noah’s wife who was not in Adam’s line. Now it does allow for Eve to still come from Adam’s side, but why did Noah marry outside the Covenant line?. But all in all this needs to be further investigated, because it does seem to fit neatly.

Is this idea being further pursued? How did you find this?
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Buffalo << What about this - God “inserted” (created) man and women and stuck them in the timeline wherever He wanted. >>

That’s a possibility, and that can be reconciled with both the science and theology. I’ve seen you mention this before, nice idea. Here it is layed out in an article on Adam/Eve by the ASA3.org group

Genesis 1:26 reads, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image…’” To me that sounds like there already was a “man-like” creature on earth that God had created earlier, but then chose to re-make man in His image having an intellect, free will and an immortal soul, this “new” man being Adam. Does this make any sense?
 
The way I’ve always seen it is that evolution has been strictly for animals. The idea that human evolve in some way, doesn’t make much sense to me.

For example, *Homo erectus *could easily be evolved from apes and became extinct. Most monkeys and apes are tree-dwellers or can climb a tree if necessary. If H.E. couldn’t climb trees for some evolutionary reason, natural selection would choose the tree-monkeys over the others. Perhaps, after H.E. became extinct, monkeys and other apes that were tree-dwellers evolved again into larger land-dwelling apes such as gorillas. Then God added the Human, the one species that has not shown as much drastic evolution as any other species on earth.

My theory isnt supported by text books or anything, it’s just my opinion formulated on the basis that the book of genesis could’ve occurred anywhere between 6 days and 6 million years…
 
It is futile to try to compare the Genesis account with natural science…the Genesis writer was not interested in recording a chronological, natural history of the universe. Genesis is religious history that very dramatically and beautifully illustrates God’s love for man in covanental love, how we rejected it, how God from the beginning had a plan to redeem us, and how we became what we are spiritually. Many theologians have demonstrated this, including St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, Cardinal Ratzinger and of course Scott Haun.
 
I am basically a scientist and can’t reject evolution at all. The geologic and fossil record pretty clearly demonstrate that a few billion years ago, very simple life appeared in the primordial sea of goo, and with time more complex forms of life have arisen, culminating in modern-day man. Evolution is the theory by which this has happened, and it can only be a theory because that kind of change can’t be directly observed, but nothing else really makes much sense based on the evidence we have.

The religious quandary that this poses to me, though, relates to our supposed sanctity as human beings, when compared to all the other forms of life that exist now and have existed before. Are we here by happenstance or by design? What is a human, and at what point in natural history did man-like creatures start to develop self-awareness and a soul? Are Neanderthals in heaven? Did Jesus save them? What about Lucy and Australopithecus or whatever she was? Why did Jesus and the Word appear only 2000 years ago, when Homo sapiens as a species had been around for a lot longer than that, and human-like beings had been around for longer still? Shouldn’t pre-historic man have had the opportunity to believe in Christ and be saved?
 
sbcoral:

Man has always struggled with the universe…we cannot reconcile it. This is why science is so well established now, we are still looking for answers.
But as I stated before, the more we know about the mechanisms of nature needn’t reduce our faith in why we are here. The ancients knew the laws of physics…mostly by intuition of course, by they were still aware of basically the same ideas we have now. The universe ‘happened’ and it changed and is still changing. I don’t think any ancient could look at a monkey or even a cow and say that they had no relation to it at all…the ancients were actually adamant in the fact that we share in all things with the natural universe. Evolution just shows us this relationship and ‘harmony’ if you will, about ourselves in the universe.
We are not a ‘magical being’…something totally separate from the rest of the universe. God intended for us to be in harmony with creation, so allowing us to evolve to the point of being able to accept a special spirit apart from all other spirits, a soul, he gave us the moral and rational freedom to explore and experience existence.
Evolution still doesn’t dimish man’s fundamental questions of being - Where am I from? Where am I going? What may I hope for?
 
Buffalo << Is this idea being further pursued? How did you find this? >>

The guy (Dick Fischer) is an evangelical. The thing with evangelicals on the creation-evolution issue is that there is no magisterium for them so they can come up with any interpretation of Genesis they like that seems to fit both science and “Christian doctrine.” Catholics are more restricted in that sense, if they want to remain “orthodox.”

I found those articles originally searching Google, probably with terms like “When Did Adam Live” or “Adam Eve Genesis” etc. The ASA3.org section on creation-evolution is also quite good, mainly evangelicals who respect science and biblical doctrine both, although as I said they get to interpret it how they please. :o

Phil P
 
Hi,
I am a catholic and would have to disagree. The problem with alot of catholics is they don't take the time to really educate themselves enough to know that evolution is BS. You can not mix evolution with religion. Science itself does not prove or suggest evolution. I took anthropology and astronomy, which both my professors had bs answers to proving evolution for example the strata layers showing evolution by what is found on the bottom layers going up to the top and even the dating methods are flawed. Im being really vague, which I apologize, but it would be too long to go into details. The main point though, is that evolution is just a theory(bad one at that) and it should not be indoctrinated everywhere we go. The Pope is very smart in many areas, especially theology, but he needs to sharp up on his scientific knowledge. Protestants are not the only religion to not believe in evolution. For those that would like to know more about the flaws of evolution you should visit [www.drdino.com](http://www.drdino.com). I admit this isnt a catholic site by any means, but he makes very good points against evolution that many should think about. I too used to mix evolution and religion until I questioned how they dated fossils to get the dates they have, then one led to another that I found alot questionable.
 
40.png
UnknownCloud:
sbcoral:

Man has always struggled with the universe…we cannot reconcile it. This is why science is so well established now, we are still looking for answers.
But as I stated before, the more we know about the mechanisms of nature needn’t reduce our faith in why we are here. The ancients knew the laws of physics…mostly by intuition of course, by they were still aware of basically the same ideas we have now. The universe ‘happened’ and it changed and is still changing. I don’t think any ancient could look at a monkey or even a cow and say that they had no relation to it at all…the ancients were actually adamant in the fact that we share in all things with the natural universe. Evolution just shows us this relationship and ‘harmony’ if you will, about ourselves in the universe.
We are not a ‘magical being’…something totally separate from the rest of the universe. God intended for us to be in harmony with creation, so allowing us to evolve to the point of being able to accept a special spirit apart from all other spirits, a soul, he gave us the moral and rational freedom to explore and experience existence.
Evolution still doesn’t dimish man’s fundamental questions of being - Where am I from? Where am I going? What may I hope for?
But was there a magical moment in natural history when that special spirit - the soul - was given to us? Human evolution is a continuum across the millenia - there was never a specific moment when Homo sapiens specifically arose (it was gradual), and never a specific moment when self-awareness, empathy, higher cognitive skills, and whatever else distinguishes us from our forebears developed. In fact lots of animals have these things. What is it that makes us special? Or are we special? Are we more special than Neanderthals? Is 21st century man more special than 21st century BC man? Why did Jesus show up when he did in history?
 
40.png
alius123:
Hi,

I am a catholic and would have to disagree. The problem with alot of catholics is they don’t take the time to really educate themselves enough to know that evolution is BS.
What about those of us who are educated in the natural sciences? Maybe we just didn’t get educated enough!🙂

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
buffalo:
No, since he had no immortal soul.
That’s my point. When did the soul arise? Pre-historic man, 30,000 years ago or even more, was definitely Homo sapiens - our species, with all the same general abilities that we have now, just not the technology. Didn’t he have a soul? And Homo sapiens did not develop all of a sudden - it was a gradual process of differentiation from our forebears. If the soul is species-specific, when in that continuum did the soul appear?
 
just amazing how this discussion has evolved… :eek:
sorry… 😦

couldn’t help it… 👍

genetic i suppose… 😃
 
40.png
sbcoral:
That’s my point. When did the soul arise? Pre-historic man, 30,000 years ago or even more, was definitely Homo sapiens - our species, with all the same general abilities that we have now, just not the technology. Didn’t he have a soul? And Homo sapiens did not develop all of a sudden - it was a gradual process of differentiation from our forebears. If the soul is species-specific, when in that continuum did the soul appear?
All living things have a soul. The soul is what animates them. The immortal soul is what distinguishes us from the rest. The immortal soul arose with Adam.
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Buffalo << Is this idea being further pursued? How did you find this? >>

The guy (Dick Fischer) is an evangelical. The thing with evangelicals on the creation-evolution issue is that there is no magisterium for them so they can come up with any interpretation of Genesis they like that seems to fit both science and “Christian doctrine.” Catholics are more restricted in that sense, if they want to remain “orthodox.”

I found those articles originally searching Google, probably with terms like “When Did Adam Live” or “Adam Eve Genesis” etc. The ASA3.org section on creation-evolution is also quite good, mainly evangelicals who respect science and biblical doctrine both, although as I said they get to interpret it how they please. :o

Phil P
Would the insertion idea (without some of the other ideas he writes about)be compatible with Catholicism?
 
40.png
buffalo:
All living things have a soul. The soul is what animates them. The immortal soul is what distinguishes us from the rest. The immortal soul arose with Adam.
So, taking Adam and Eve as a creation myth and not actual fact, then when did the immortal soul arise? Or must we accept Adam and Eve as fact in order to believe in an immortal soul?

And do all living things really have a soul? Bugs? Plants? Fungi? Bacteria? Viruses?
 
40.png
sbcoral:
So, taking Adam and Eve as a creation myth and not actual fact, then when did the immortal soul arise? Or must we accept Adam and Eve as fact in order to believe in an immortal soul?

And do all living things really have a soul? Bugs? Plants? Fungi? Bacteria? Viruses?
A myth is not fiction. A myth is a story presented as historical.

The immortal soul began with Adam is he would be the first living being created to be able to know God.

CCC

[356](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/356.htm’)😉 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

[364](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/364.htm’)😉 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232
"Each for the other" - "A unity in two"

[371](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/371.htm’)😉
God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

[372](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/372.htm’)😉 Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”,245 they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."246 By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.247

[373](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/373.htm’)😉 In God’s plan man and woman have the vocation of “subduing” the earth248 as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination. God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator “who loves everything that exists”,249 to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them.

** IV. MAN IN PARADISE **

[374](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/374.htm’)😉 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

[375](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/375.htm’)😉 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top