Evolution In The Classroom

  • Thread starter Thread starter ctconnor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
Alright, where is the action of the theistic in ‘theistic evolution’? Please point it out.
Click to expand...
Well, I can only give you my personal philosophical thoughts on the matter. I might not be able to express myself adequately but I will try. For me the basic idea is that God creates through evolution. Now I’m not going to discuss which exact scientific studies are correct and which aren’t, mostly because I haven’t done a lot of detailed reading on the subject, but also because I trust that if the RCC had issues with certain scientific discoveries, they would let us know. I am aware of what Catholics are currently required to believe within the context of theistic evolution.

Now, with regards to God creating via natural selection, mutation, chance, etc., he is active in all of it all of the time. Just because we cannot measure it with science does not mean that he is not there. However, I believe that his influence is there is an abstract way that it is hard to describe but, again, I will try. Similarly to how I don’t believe that God directly causes a car crash or saves someone from a car crash, I don’t believe that God consciously dictates everything that occurs on an ongoing basis. Things happen because of Him but not necessarily as a direct result of His hand in the way that a human must act in order to make something happen. I like Teihard’s idea of the Omega Point, where humans and creation are headed towards a perfection that God has determined and therefore everything that happens is being molded by Him.

Another key point for some people, maybe not you, seems to be how the Problem of Evil relates to this. Some people dislike theistic evolution because they think that it devalues Original Sin, making it just a part of nature. Of course for me this is not a problem because I naturally gravitate to the Irenaean theodicy. 🙂 The Irenaean theodicy also helps to explain why scientific knowledge of God is so difficult.

I’m probably not doing a good job of explaining myself. 😦
edwest2 said:
Intelligent Design is not needed by me or anyone I’m aware of to “prove” God because God is affirmed as the Creator of heaven and earth at each Mass. That’s not the point of it. The point is to look at complex nanomachinery in the cell and recognize it as complex nanomachinery.
Click to expand...
How does science in general not try to understand the complexity of the cell? Perhaps the word nanomachinery is important in your sentence but I don’t know what you mean by that and how that might relate to ID.
 
edwest2 said:
Alright, where is the action of the theistic in ‘theistic evolution’? Please point it out.

Intelligent Design is not needed by me or anyone I’m aware of to “prove” God because God is affirmed as the Creator of heaven and earth at each Mass. That’s not the point of it. The point is to look at complex nanomachinery in the cell and recognize it as complex nanomachinery.

The desperate fear is that ID will gain scientific legitimacy and end up in the sacred classroom and it will ruin the country or something equally vague.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Theistic evolution is the belief that God influenced the process of evolution that led to the dawn of man, based on the belief that God “has a hand” in everything and knowledge of the evolutionary process.
 
tjm190 said:
Theistic evolution is the belief that God influenced the process of evolution that led to the dawn of man, based on the belief that God “has a hand” in everything and knowledge of the evolutionary process.
Click to expand...
Great definition! What I can never seem to understand is why opponents of TE have a problem with that basic idea. Perhaps we can get some light shed on this because, to be perfectly honest, I still can’t figure out why ID is better.

This is going to sound snotty but I don’t mean it that way: I haven’t seen a good explianation of why a good Catholic should belive ID instead of TE when the Church allows for both beliefs.
 
buffalo said:
DNA is beginning to reveal some basic building blocks will allow the kinds to be better known. In other words we will be finding certain DNA sequences that will be unique to cats, unique to snakes, unique to humans etc…Are you prepared to accept the results?
Click to expand...
Sure – If genetics can show that felines share genetic similarities, I’ll accept that. But that doesn’t mean anything regarding the biblical "kinds Noah supposedly brought on board the ark.

StAnastasia
 
tjm190 said:
Theistic evolution is the belief that God influenced the process of evolution that led to the dawn of man, based on the belief that God “has a hand” in everything and knowledge of the evolutionary process.
Click to expand...
Not all theistic evolutionists would agree, depending on how you mean “influenced.”
 
tjm190 said:
Theistic evolution is the belief that God influenced the process of evolution that led to the dawn of man, based on the belief that God “has a hand” in everything and knowledge of the evolutionary process.
Click to expand...
“God influenced the process of evolution”? How? And on what do you base your answer?

Peace,
Ed
 
carinapir said:
That’s interesting! What different levels or types of “influence” are there in TE?
Click to expand...
(1) Minute-by-minute influence at all levels (physical, chemical, geological, biological, psychological)

(2) Newtonian periodic adjustment of planetary orbits

(3) Intevention at strategic points, like nudgning of asteroids

(4) Influence on;y through instantiation of the initial constants

(5) Influence in human history, through individual humans beings

(6) Influence by means of the divine incarnation into the matter of the evolving universe

(7) Other influence
 
edwest2 said:
“God influenced the process of evolution”? How? And on what do you base your answer?
Click to expand...
Wait, so now you don’t believe that God influences the world? Wow!

Since we know that that’s not what you mean, why don’t you explain what you are getting at. 🙂
 
StAnastasia said:
(1) Minute-by-minute influence at all levels (physical, chemical, geological, biological, psychological)

(2) Newtonian periodic adjustment of planetary orbits

(3) Intevention at strategic points, like nudgning of asteroids

(4) Influence on;y through instantiation of the initial constants

(5) Influence in human history, through individual humans beings

(6) Influence by means of the divine incarnation into the matter of the evolving universe

(7) Other influence
Click to expand...
Thanks! That makes sense. I did find some other articles on-line that discuss different ideas of the exact nature of God’s involvement in evolution. They are philosophical differences that I suppose when one thinks about them probably create and solve perceived “problems” with creation.
 
edwest2 said:
“God influenced the process of evolution”? How? And on what do you base your answer?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
  1. God is omnipotent and is interested in our actions
  2. Observations strongly suggests speciation is accounted for by natural selection
  3. Given that God has the ability (omnipotence) and motive (interest in us), we would assume that God had some “stake” in evolution’s outcome and would assure His will was done.
Again, when you take both the beliefs in an omnipotent God and knowledge of evolution, it’s a simple conclusion.
 
tjm190 said:
  1. God is omnipotent and is interested in our actions
  2. Observations strongly suggests speciation is accounted for by natural selection
  3. Given that God has the ability (omnipotence) and motive (interest in us), we would assume that God had some “stake” in evolution’s outcome and would assure His will was done.
Again, when you take both the beliefs in an omnipotent God and knowledge of evolution, it’s a simple conclusion.
Click to expand...
Aside from point 2, it would appear that the only difference between theistic evolution and evolution is one word that can easily be disgarded. Just proclaiminng God is somehow interested does not explain anything.

I suspect those who believe in theistic evolution do not understand exactly what they’re agreeing to.

Peace,
Ed
 
carinapir said:
Thanks! That makes sense. I did find some other articles on-line that discuss different ideas of the exact nature of God’s involvement in evolution. They are philosophical differences that I suppose when one thinks about them probably create and solve perceived “problems” with creation.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are philosophical differences both (1) about the nature and scope of divine action in the world, and (2) about how extensively one permits modern science to place constraints on religious claims.
 
edwest2 said:
Aside from point 2, it would appear that the only difference between theistic evolution and evolution is one word that can easily be disgarded. Just proclaiminng God is somehow interested does not explain anything.

I suspect those who believe in theistic evolution do not understand exactly what they’re agreeing to.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I believe we can have a full understanding of the natural world’s operations without chalking things up to the supernatural if that’s what you’re getting at.
 
edwest2 said:
Aside from point 2, it would appear that the only difference between theistic evolution and evolution is one word that can easily be disgarded. Just proclaiminng God is somehow interested does not explain anything.

I suspect those who believe in theistic evolution do not understand exactly what they’re agreeing to.
Click to expand...
Okay, what is it that those who believe in theistic evolution are agreeing to? You have argued but never summarized your points. 🙂
 
brandymmiller said:
What do you think abortion is?
Click to expand...
Correct. Too many still fall for the blob of tissue story. In a similar way, living things only look designed, but, if someone says with a voice of authority, that must mean they are not designed, people tend to believe them.

In both cases, a point of view is published instead of what is observable. A human embryo, much less a three or four week fetus, is a human being, while living things show all the signs of being designed. Admitting either, and conveying that information to the public, would be good things.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Correct. Too many still fall for the blob of tissue story. In a similar way, living things only look designed, but, if someone says with a voice of authority, that must mean they are not designed, people tend to believe them.

In both cases, a point of view is published instead of what is observable. A human embryo, much less a three or four week fetus, is a human being, while living things show all the signs of being designed. Admitting either, and conveying that information to the public, would be good things.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Stalactites also appear to be carved, the moon appears to have a face, and the constellations appear to be art.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top