Evolution! Did we come from monkeys?

[vern_humphrey]

ScottH:

Huge difference, Mr. Bilodeau- we can see a chair, but none of us has personally witnessed evolution.

That’s because a chair is an object and evolution is a process.

We can see the chair and from it infer the process of building it – even if we didn’t see it built.

We see present-day animals and plants, see the fossil remains of animals and earlier plants and deduce the process by which what was became what is.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

ScottH:

…none of us has personally witnessed evolution.

It is not reasonable to expect any individual to personally witness a process that may take longer than that person’s lifetime to show noticible results. Among many microorganisms with very short generational periods, evolution has been shown to occur within short time periods, else I wouldn’t need to get a different flu shot every year.

 

[jpusateri]

Joseph Bilodeau:

Then Benedict and you and I agree. Evolution is neither casual nor meaningless.

I just wanted to step in here with a pearl from the Pope. It is lost in the English translation, but the line:
Benedict XVI:

We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. … Each of us is willed,…

was spoken as
Benedict XVI:

Non siamo il prodotto casuale e senza senso dell’evoluzione. … Ciascuno di noi è voluto, …

I love the juxtaposition of not “evoluzione” with “è voluto”.

We are here, not by evolution, but by the will (of God).

Cool!

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

What is really fascinating that these same scientists that have devoted their lifetimes have only a few pieces of a puzzle that is a thousand pieces and can declare they know what the complete puzzle looks like. Fascinating indeed. Humility would also serve them well. To understand what they know is the tip of the iceberg of scientific discovery and virtually nothing about the supernatural.

Sure, anyone who attempts to speak with undeserved authority ought to be more humble, but natural phenomena are precisely the domain in which scientists have earned authority. Where reasonable, non-supernatural explanations are inferred based upon natural evidence, we ought to at least put forth the effort into learning what those explanations are before criticizing them. The supernatural is, by tautology, unscientific. Scientifically investigating the supernatural is not an avenue that is accessible to us, since scientists must assume that all natural phenomena have natural explanations.

 

[ScottH]

Joseph Bilodeau:

It is not reasonable to expect any individual to personally witness a process that may take longer than that person’s lifetime to show noticible results. Among many microorganisms with very short generational periods, evolution has been shown to occur within short time periods, else I wouldn’t need to get a different flu shot every year.

So, again- believing in what can’t be seen is a *faith. *There’s really no wiggle-room there.

If Mary is the second Eve- and perfect- like the first Eve was before the fall of Genesis 3, are Mary and Eve merely advanced, self aware higher ape ancestors?

I don’t think so.

Conversely- if what the Majesterum says is infallable and true regarding Eve- the perfect, first woman, coming form the side of Adam… then there was no “progression” to that perfect woman, she was made special.

And since she was the first woman, procreation as we know it would not have been possible between the suggested “lower ape” to “Higher Ape” to “Man” - since there were on females.

…unless of course lower apes were hermaphroditic and neither man nor woman as the “evolutionary ladder” started, and I don’t think we want to go there!

Plus- if Christ was the 2nd Adam, are we to think he was merely the 2nd flaweless ape ancestor?

I contend that evolution is not only a faith, it is a faith that causes severe theological problems if you advance its premise logically through completion.

 

[wanerious]

ScottH:

So its a “faith” unto itself then, is it not- or a guess? Admittedly- the data is very incomplete, yet surmises are made, and presented, and believed or not believed, yet known to be very incomplete.

You have successfully demonstrated a basic understanding of scientific methodology. Yes, this is how it works. As technology and time allow us a more complete data set, and a more precise investigation of the data we have, current scientific models and theories will be supplanted by newer ones more successful at predicting future discoveries.

Thats having a “faith” in something.

Now that’s just sophistry.

 

[wanerious]

ScottH:

Huge difference, Mr. Bilodeau- we can see a chair, but none of us has personally witnessed evolution.

To witness it for yourself, submit your tissue along with that of your mother or father (and probably some kind of money) to a DNA testing lab. They are capable of pointing out exactly where your genetic code differs from that of your ancestors.

 

[ScottH]

wanerious:

To witness it for yourself, submit your tissue along with that of your mother or father (and probably some kind of money) to a DNA testing lab. They are capable of pointing out exactly where your genetic code differs from that of your ancestors.

Bingo…
But guess what?

That’s not a new species. (Though my wife might argue that point once in a while )

 

[wanerious]

ScottH:

Bingo…
But guess what?

That’s not a new species. (Though my wife might argue that point once in a while )

Now we’re getting somewhere. So that we can avoid confusion, what do you define as a “species”? Or, more to the point, how should we distinguish between one organism and another in order to call them different species?

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

I believe this paper trumps that paper. Please read the very bottom of the document and note who approved it.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

(see paragraphs 62-70)

Peace

Tim

I quoted the parts you pointed to and added my own. I bolded some for empahsis. I don’t see any inconsistencies here.

From the link:

Modern physics has demonstrated that matter in its most elementary particles is purely potential and possesses no tendency toward organization. But the level of organization in the universe, which contains highly organized forms of living and non-living entities, implies the presence of some “information.” This line of reasoning suggests a partial analogy between the Aristotelian concept of substantial form and the modern scientific notion of “information.” Thus, for example, the DNA of the chromosomes contains the information necessary for matter to be organized according to what is typical of a certain species or individual. Analogically, the substantial form provides to prime matter the information it needs to be organized in a particular way. This analogy should be taken with due caution because metaphysical and spiritual concepts cannot be simply compared with material, biological data.

It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbationof 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. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.

“Man is the only creature on earth that God willed for his own sake” (24). Created in God’s image, human beings assume a place of responsible stewardship in the physical universe. Under the guidance of divine providence and acknowledging the sacred character of visible creation, the human race reshapes the natural order, and becomes an agent in the evolution of the universe itself. In exercising their stewardship of knowledge, theologians have the responsibility to locate modern scientific understandings within a Christian vision of the created universe.

 

[buffalo]

1. With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe.

In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is * both* contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.” While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.

from the bottom:
As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved *in forma specifica*, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication.

 

[Orogeny]

I agree with all the selected quotes you posted, including the items you bolded. Can you say the same about these?

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

from Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, International Theological Commission

In case anyone doesn’t know who endorsed this paper, here is the attribution at the end of the paper:

The theme of “man created in the image of God” was submitted for study to the International Theological Commission. The preparation of this study was entrusted to a subcommission whose members included: Very Rev. J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Most Reverend Jean-Louis Bruguès, Msgr. Anton Strukelj, Rev. Tanios Bou Mansour, O.L.M., Rev. Adolpe Gesché, Most Reverend Willem Jacobus Eijk, Rev. Fadel Sidarouss, S.J., and Rev. Shun ichi Takayanagi, S.J.

As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Once again, I completely agree with that paper. You and I have discussed this before. I expect that you know my position on the matter.

My question is, do you deny the following statement?

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Once again, I completely agree with that paper. You and I have discussed this before. I expect that you know my position on the matter.

My question is, do you deny the following statement?

Peace

Tim

In light of what we think we understand it is reasonable. However, it smacks of naturalism as great credit is given to science and its peer review process that by definition is limited. However, in the last year the it has been shown that the speed of light is slowing. Now, if proven this challenges our dating data.

And that has been my point consistently over time. We have been coming to certain conclusions that may not be supported over time.

I think it is a jump that because we are genetically related it assumes descendancy. We can simply share genetics because it’s the stuff of life.

So I ask you - do you deny this statement? In exercising their stewardship of knowledge, theologians have the responsibility to locate modern scientific understandings within a Christian vision of the created universe.

 

[ScottH]

wanerious:

Now we’re getting somewhere. So that we can avoid confusion, what do you define as a “species”? Or, more to the point, how should we distinguish between one organism and another in order to call them different species?

I’d go with “Biblical Kind”

A creature capable of mating with a creature of its opposite sex and creating progeny. That should define it clear enough.

Can apes and humans mate and create offspring?
No.

Can dogs and cats mate and create offspring?
No.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

In light of what we think we understand it is reasonable. However, it smacks of naturalism as great credit is given to science and its peer review process that by definition is limited. However, in the last year the it has been shown that the speed of light is slowing. Now, if proven this challenges our dating data.

So, you don’t really accept what the former Cardinal and now Pope wrote?

So I ask you - do you deny this statement? In exercising their stewardship of knowledge, theologians have the responsibility to locate modern scientific understandings within a Christian vision of the created universe.

Absolutely not! I have said this all along. God is the realm of theologians, not scientists! Do you agree?

Peace

Tim

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

buffalo:

…So I ask you - do you deny this statement? In exercising their stewardship of knowledge, theologians have the responsibility to locate modern scientific understandings within a Christian vision of the created universe.

I have no problem with it. A Christian vision of the created universe may certainly be an evolutionary vision.

 

[ScottH]

Joseph Bilodeau:

I have no problem with it. A Christian vision of the created universe may certainly be an evolutionary vision.

But what if science “proves” otherwise? Then what?

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

ScottH:

But what if science “proves” otherwise? Then what?

As the data change, the hypothesis is adjusted.

That’s exactly what all science does, including the science of biological evolutionary theory. The way some critics talk, you’d think they were under the impression that biologists believe that Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species from the dictation of an angel, or found it on a set of miraculous golden plates, or something like that, and that it has been handed down unchanged ever since. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Charles Darwin proposed his hypothesis based on a certain set of observations. Since his time, biologists, chemists, biochemists, geologists, paleontologists, and members of many other scientific disciplines have contributed to this body of data. As a result, Darwin’s hypothesis has been corrected and adjusted as newer data became available and as newer minds considered the problem. I would be most surprised should this process not continue in the future.

 

[Uranage]

I don’t think we evolved from primates but even if we did, the Christian faith does not rest on that question.