Evolution! Did we come from monkeys?

[trailblazer]

I see no real issue with evolution. Its natural and happens everyday. Exactly what is the origin of man and our actual evolution is still evolving. Science and religion are totally compatible. Religion says God is truth. Science is the search for truth.

Why do people make such a big deal about it…it certainly does not change my faith. Whether God took a day or millions of years…so what! God is God! He created us…in his image…good! Jesus Christ is God’s son and our messiah regardless of evolotion or the rotation of planets or the Big Bang!

See ya!

Bob

 

[Monarchy]

Huiou Theou:

That’s a non-sequeter.

That’s Non Sequitur

Your belief impinges on whether or not you can accept any argument based on ‘God’. Atheists do not accept ID indipendent of any “scientific method” argument.

If you’re claiming that it’s a valid scientific theory to be taught in school science calsses (which evolution is). Than science is the only Criteria to be used.

ID does not need to be “scientific method” in order for it to have something valid to say about a particular scientific theory.

Yes it does.

Darwanism as a theory must meet all objections (natural) to its domain.

Natural objections would be scientific. Science is the study of the natural.

ID raises a natural objection, and attributes the natural objection to God. It is the natural objection, not the attribution which must be met by Darwanistic theory.

ID raises a SUPERnatural objection, and is therfore unscientific.

 

[Donald45]

lahokamal:

i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor?you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Add the lack of transitional forms, invalid evolution mechanisms to this.

In reply to the title of the thread, I’d point out that Darwinian theory has never suggested that modern humans evolved “from monkeys.” Rather, it holds that both lower primates and humans had a common ancestor in the distant past of our natural history. So, the “man-from-monkeys” quip is simply a caricatured misrepresentation of Darwinism.

“How,” you ask, “can you build a theory without explaining the origin of the first living organism?” Evolutionary theory seeks to describe and explain the biological origination of species from already existing life forms. In fact, Darwin, in his Origin of Species, makes almost no mention of the ultimate beginning of life itself, although the following elegant passage is often cited:

“There is grandeur in this [evolutionary] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

The scientific discipline which seeks to answer questions of the material beginnings of life is referred to as Chemical Evolution. This was in no way the focus of Darwin’s Theory (Darwin’s field was Biological Evolution), nor is it necessary to it, any more than being able to explain the ultimate origin of numbers is required in order to formulate a mathematical equation.

The so-called lack of transitional forms, as well as the supposed inadequacy of suggested mechanisms, have been dealt with thoroughly and repeatedly in recent popular works on evolution, in texts written by both Christians and non-Christians. A few of the more accessible titles include:

Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God & Evolution (HarperCollins, 1999).
Robert T. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (MIT Press, 1999).
Karl Giberson, Worlds Apart: The Unholy War Between Religion & Science (Beacon Hill Press, 1993).
Keith B. Miller, Perspectives On An Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003).
Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution: And the Failure of Creationism (Freeman, 2000).
Tim M. Berra, Evolution & the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate (Stanford University Press, 1990).
Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (MIT Press, 1982).
Edward J. Larson, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (Random House, 2004).

God bless,
Donald

 

[PhilVaz]

Thank you, finally somebody reading and recommending the same books I am :clapping: hooray

<< "There is grandeur in this [evolutionary] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one… >>

Actually, this is the first edition published in 1859. In the second to the sixth and final edition (1872) of Origin of Species, this quote from Darwin reads thus:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter 14, last sentence)

Thought I’d point that out. Darwin makes at least seven references to a “divine Creator” in his Origin of Species.

See this article Charles Darwin and Intelligent Design by Denis Lamoureux, an “evolutionary creationist”

Phil P

 

[Donald45]

Hi, Phil ~

Yes, I’m familiar with the later editions of the Origin, though I did quote from the early printing. No doubt, Darwin had his beloved wife in mind as he revised the book over the years, as well as various friends who were theists, such as A.R. Wallace and Asa Gray.

I am always deeply moved upon reading the passage, and find myself turning to it often. Reading about biological evolution is, for me, akin to lectio divina (“sacred reading”). I cannot consider it without reflecting upon our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (John 1:3).

Thanks for the web reference. I look forward to reading the article.

Take care, and God bless.

Truly,
Donald

 

[jusher7281]

oo ooo ooo eeee eeeeee eee ahhh aahhhh ahhhahhh

 

[timothy2]

“Hitler used odd snippets from a lot of different philosophies, including both Darwinism and Christianity, to develop his own philosphy. I know he misunderstood Darwinism, I suspect he misunderstood Christianity as well.”

rossum

I think it would be pretty safe to say that this is a gross understatement… Especially, his understanding of christianity. But Hitler is actually a great example of what a person can become when Darwinism becomes his “god”.

MARANATHA

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

edrazz:

The several indisputable points include:

1. The doctrine of original sin.
2. Adam and Eve were real individuals - not characters in a mythical story.

To what does believing this commit us ?​

Must we believe that, because both those names are from Hebrew, Hebrew was therefore:

• the first of all languages
• spoken 10,000 years ago - or even more ?

I hope not

Does it mean any more than that there was a first human pair, who, in this Hebrew text, may conveniently be referred to as “Adam” & Eve" ? Or do we have to believe they were so named ?

It’s easy to make assertions about events in the remote past: but how do we know they took place ? It is extremely difficult to accept Genesis 3 as a blow-by-blow account of the first human sins, as writing does not occur before about 4000 BC at the earliest. But the human race is older than six thousand years, and Hebrew is not six thousand years old - it’s apparently a dialect of Canaanite. (The oldest Semitic language is not Hebrew, but Akkadian, which is first recorded from Mesopotamia in about 2600 or so.)

I can believe there was an early human sin which had the effects of the Fall - but to be asked to believe quite so many very specific details, is difficult. The author of Genesis 1 to 11 is not writing a script for a TV documentary , recording who said what to whom for what reason when and where. ##

1. Prior to Adam’s sin, man was in perfect harmony with the world around him.
2. The fall (ie. Genesis) was a real historic event that occurred at the beginning of history.

So what is the evidence for saying that ? Historical events can be shown to have happened by evidence that they did - so what is the archaeological, textual, inscriptional, or other evidence for the historical nature of the event known as the Fall ? What reason is there, to think that the text is more than a relatively recent tale, written down in Israel round about 1000 BC or so; and is a reliable account of a far earlier event ? Quoting the Magisterium is no good - unless the Magisterium has a hand-written confession by Adam: now that would be useful ​

1. As a result of Adam’s sin - death made its entrance into human history.
2. God can be known with certainty from the created order of the world. (ie. were not here as a result of time and chance).

Pope Pius XII’s encyclical - Humani Generis - is not a defense of evolution - but rather a warning from the pope about the false ideas eminating from the doctrine of evolution. The encyclical, is subtitled, “Some False Opinions Which Threaten To Undermine Catholic Doctrine.” This deals with the serious errors associated with marrying evolution and church doctrine. Some of these errors among Catholics include:

1. Minimization of the content of dogma.
2. The use of symbolic intrepretation of scripture that disconnects traditional concepts and terminology from dogma and theology.
3. Denial that God is that author of scripture.
4. Scripture is only infallible on faith and morals.
5. Contempt for traditional literal intrepretation of scripture.

That, or (better) profound amusement at the utter absurdity of some interpretations is sometimes called-for ​

A lousy interpretation is a lousy interpretation, whether it is recent or old; age is no guarantee of truth. If it’s tosh, it should be learned from, so as to help us guard against future mistakes - but it can’t be imposed for belief. If people want to believe that the skull of Adam was buried on Calvary - fair enough: Biblical studies and history are not distorted by believing it, because no historian in his right mind is going to mistake an unsupported but attractive legend for sober history. The trouble comes when either the scholars mistake insufficiently-criticised theories for facts; or, when the Magisterium mistakes unexamined but venerable traditions for Christ’s Gospel. The Fathers are useful - they are neither omniscient nor infallible nor the last word in theology; nor are their modern successors. ##

1. The denial that the world had a beginning.
2. Perversion of the doctrine of original sin.
3. The idea that any philosophy can be reconciled with Catholic doctrine.
4. Denial of natural theology - that God can be know from the created world around us.
5. The formation of the human body from existent and living matter must not be treated as fact. (ie. Evolution is a fact)
6. The denial of a single historic Adam in favor of polygenism - ie. multiple Adams.
7. The idea that the soul evolved.

If you’ve heard these errors at your local Catholic church - I wouldn’t be surprised. These errors all come from a belief in Evolution.

I’ve made no claim about St. Maximilian Kolbe determining Catholic doctrine - you’re the one that brought him up. I just explained why he the patron saint of the Kolbe Center.

So what? - you’re really missing the boat - if you don’t understand the importance of origins on worldview. If you have a false world view then the conclusions you derive from that view will likely be false as well. This is why Pope Pius IX wrote the encylical - to stop the spread of these false ideas. He understood the idea that these false ideas would undermine Catholic doctrine. Unfortunately - his warnings were not heeded - and we now have these false ideas widely disseminated.

 

[BibleReader]

Brad:

And this is more believable than the great flood?

So when you cannot substantiate a theory involving transitional fossils, you come up with another unsubstantiated theory and say, so there! That’s a very effective convincer. For school children perhaps.

Hi, Brad.

The great flood does not explain fossils. Where, on Earth, has flooding ever generated one (1) single fossil?

The Nemesis theory is actually fairly believable. It explains the 26 million year periodicity of the fossil layers, as well as the layer of iridium in each layer.

 

[BibleReader]

Brad:

And this is more believable than the great flood?

So when you cannot substantiate a theory involving transitional fossils, you come up with another unsubstantiated theory and say, so there! That’s a very effective convincer. For school children perhaps.

One more thing. It is so unfortunate that so many abuse the flood epic by spending 99% of their time arguing that it is historical.

I don’t think God cares whether it is historical.

The flood story is important because it teaches theology.

Do you know what theology the flood story teaches?

 

[leo123]

nature of the event known as the Fall ?

Simple. Jesus told us that lust is wrong, anger is wrong, pride is wrong, selfishness is wrong etc.

Do you believe that God created us with these qualities, if not then there must have been a fall at some point…if so what was the point of the redemption?

GB

 

[A2SciTeach]

There are actually 2 questions in one here.
First, did our physical bodies come from monkeys (primates, apes etc.)? Actually our physical bodies, made up of trillions of cells which all have our unique DNA, DNA unique to us as individuals, unless we have an identical twin, but also identifiable as human DNA. DNA is present in most living cells and is one of the major identifiers of whether or not life is present. This is basic biology. Check out the link for more information.
ucmp.berkeley.edu/alllife/threedomains.html

Second, did we come from monkeys on a spiritual level? First we have to ask, do monkeys have souls, do plants have souls, do bacteria, viruses and fungi have souls? And, are those souls like human souls - did God make all of the biological, organic, living creatures in His image. This question seems obvious and easy to answer, doesn’t it?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the creation of man in depth. Read Chapter 1, Article 1, Paragraph 6, I.II.III - “in the Image of God”, :Body and Soul but Truly One", Male and Female, He Created Them"

 

[Donald45]

Hitler is actually a great example of what a person can become when Darwinism becomes his “god”.

Certainly, no scientific principle should become one’s “god,” whether it’s the law of gravitation, the principles of motion and inertia, atomic theory, heliocentrism, or the theory of evolution. Hitler, however, had only the barest comprehension of Darwin’s ideas, drawing only upon what he perceived to be beneficial to the formation of his personal philosophical ideology. I’d hardly consider him a proper spokesman for evolution.

God bless,
Donald

 

[Steve_Andersen]

leo123:

Simple. Jesus told us that lust is wrong, anger is wrong, pride is wrong, selfishness is wrong etc.

Do you believe that God created us with these qualities,

Well, we’re here and we have these qualities so obviously we were created this way

And to be fair anger, jealousy, selfishness et al have there place in “the wild”
They must have been part of God’s tool kit to form us
Without them we would never had survived

But now that we are “civilized” or “enlightened” (for lack of better words) some of those great assets are now liabilities

Maybe that is how all this fits in together? The record indicates that something happened in the Neolithic period. A great flowering of creativity; is that when our souls showed up?

I don’t know.

leo123:

if not then there must have been a fall at some point…if so what was the point of the redemption?

GB

Ah…… the BIG QUESTION

Sorry, that one is out of my pay grade

It is a great stumbling block where all the things I know about the world don’t help

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

rossum:

If so then Hitler did not understand Darwin. The word “race” as used by Darwin in the TOoS is better understood as “species or subspecies”. The scientific vocabulary has changed a lot since 1859.

Hitler used odd snippets from a lot of different philosophies, including both Darwinism and Christianity, to develop his own philosphy. I know he misunderstood Darwinism, I suspect he misunderstood Christianity as well.

rossum

Hitler probably got his knowledge of Darwin from Ernst Haeckel - and see this too; and from Houston Stewart Chamberlain: toolan.com/hitler/surplus.html It is rather hard on Darwin to blame him for what other men made of his ideas. Hitler was many things - but he was not an intellectual.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

leo123:

Simple. Jesus told us that lust is wrong, anger is wrong, pride is wrong, selfishness is wrong etc.

Do you believe that God created us with these qualities, if not then there must have been a fall at some point…if so what was the point of the redemption?

GB

But none of what you mention is specifically historical evidence - being lustful may show that a person is intemperate and selfish: it’s no evidence that a particular event happened in history, at a particular time and place.​

 

[BibleReader]

Brad:

And this is more believable than the great flood?

So when you cannot substantiate a theory involving transitional fossils, you come up with another unsubstantiated theory and say, so there! That’s a very effective convincer. For school children perhaps.

Poor, poor Brad.

The Nemesis Theory is substantiated by two things: The existence of short term comets (whose existence requires a mechanism for dragging them out of the Oort Cloud) and the iridium layers topping-off each mass extinction in the fossil layers. It’s not unsubstantiated.

And, I repeat: Scientists on the Galapagos (sp?) Islands *watched *natural selection kill-off the bird varieties whose offspring did not develop adaptive changes, while it preserved the bird varieties whose offspring did develop what appeared to be randomly-occuring adaptive changes. Their’s a public television film carefully documenting, for all to see, how natural selection was caught “red handed” evolving animals on the Galapagos.

So, this, too, is not unsubstantiated.

 

[Rusty_Spady]

BTW we didn’t “come form monkeys”, monkeys and humans share common ancestry as proven by comparative anatomy, biochemistry, genetic studies, the fossil record, and our own eyes.

I agree so much with this. For the life of me I can’t understand how anyone can look closely at a gorilla in a pen in a zoo and doubt that we are related.

If we are made in God’s image then apes are made 99.999% in God’s image. Now why would God do that?

 

[Rusty_Spady]

I see no real issue with evolution. Its natural and happens everyday. Exactly what is the origin of man and our actual evolution is still evolving. Science and religion are totally compatible. Religion says God is truth. Science is the search for truth.

Why do people make such a big deal about it…it certainly does not change my faith. Whether God took a day or millions of years…so what! God is God! He created us…in his image…good! Jesus Christ is God’s son and our messiah regardless of evolotion or the rotation of planets or the Big Bang!

See ya!

Bob

The problem is that it directly challenges the bible; it starts to make it look like an old book of fables.

 

[Rolltide]

monkeys…i can’t help but laugh…LOL…LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL…maybe thats why i’m banana’s…LOL.hehhehehehehhe…well…okay…i’ll get serious…“let us make man in our own image and likeness”…LOL…if god is a monkey…then…we’re in trouble…

Ceasar

I hate to disagree with you because I genuinely enjoy your posts Caesar, but “in His own image” could refer to the fact that mankind has free will, just like God. We are the ONLY species with free will, so this would be a fairly significant theological statement to include in the Bible. And nowhere in the theory of Evolution does it say we came from monkeys. It DOES say that they both had a common ancestor at some point in the past.