Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There’s a record of this somehow? What evidence? I truly want to know. The evidence is actually a set of assumptions, which people believe or they don’t.
I think you’re well aware of the evidence. 😉 And the assumptions are reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than swirling particles coming together in just the right way. You’re right though, we all choose what to believe. I’m open to just about anything, even the whirlwind, but I’m not going to turn my brain off when the evidence supports common ancestry, the Creation story is clearly poetic allegory, and the Church doesn’t teach otherwise.
 
Did he have a belly button?
Sure.

Now can you answer my question from the other thread? When we last spoke you claimed authoritatively that we didn’t evolve from other hominids. I asked how Adam came to be then and how you knew it but you never replied.
 
Thanks Ed. Maybe you can explain how anything I said contradicts what’s said here? You’ve done this to me several times now. If you want to exchange ideas please make a point in your own words. I won’t respond to links or prooftext without comments.
 
Here’s the deal. There are two sides here: the science only side and the science and things God actually did side.

The science only side rejects the idea that God/gods did anything. A slight variation on the theme has god winding up a toy called evolution that just happened to do whatever it wanted and that’s described in the Biology textbook. I don’t buy the connection. It’s an attempt to use the word God to pacify Christians. And that’s as far as that goes.

On the Catholic Church side, we do not believe there was anybody before Adam and Eve. Were there human-like creatures? Yes. Were they related to us? No. And if they were, like Neanderthals, they were human.

And that will be the problem until this thread passes 10K posts and 30K views.
 
Last edited:
There are two sides here: the science only side and the science and things God actually did side.
Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen anyone here make a strictly materialist argument. I sure haven’t. But you routinely respond to my posts as if I am. I’ll make it clear for you: I believe the Christian God is the Creator of Nature. Do I subscribe to peculiar beliefs grounded in whimsical interpretations of old poems? No. And there’s a lot of room for friendly discussion there.
It’s an attempt to use the word God to pacify Christians. And that’s as far as that goes.
Well… you’re just wrong there. Try to take in some ideas, Ed. There’s no Illuminati out to get you. 😉
On the Catholic Church side, we do not believe there was anybody before Adam and Eve. Were there human-like creatures? Yes. Were they related to us? No.
Do you speak authoritatively for the Church? I’ve yet to see a binding Church teaching that says Adam couldn’t have been the result of evolution. I think you might be superimposing your beliefs on the Church here.
And that will be the problem until this thread passes 10K posts and 30K views.
I don’t care how long it goes as long as it’s productive. I admit I was kindof glad when the other thread locked though. Certain folks seemed more interested in scoring points than honestly exchanging ideas. I was getting frustrated and felt it hurting my spirit to even continue. I’m not even sure I made a good decision coming back. It’s a safe bet no one here is completely right. But there are surely varying degrees of wrongness. 😉 And there’s plenty of room for friendly and edifying conversation in between.
 
40.png
Aloysium:
40.png
Wozza:
I have never said that if something couldn’t be explained then it must be supernatural.
That’s not what I read here.
To reiterate: That which CONTRADICTS what we know to be natural forces that act on reality is therefore outside what can be termed natural. And is therefore described as super natural.
The equation posted earlier covers all forces and particles that could possibly interact with physical reality. Anything that happens that is not covered by that equation is supernatural.
Then you don’t understand what was written.
It is proposed that an equation covers all the forces that could possibly interact with physical reality. Mathematics has significantly altered the world. It is not a physical force, but when we look around, especially what is right in front of us, this method of communication, we realize its impact. Clearly thought is a reality, as are feelings, perceptions and action. While a person is a physical entity, existence does not boil down to matter. These are all natural events, not covered by the equation.
 
And the assumptions are reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than swirling particles coming together in just the right way.
It is reasonable if one believes in evolution, that all this diversity, including our own existence happened by itself. It didn’t. It was designed and formed to be this way. That particles came together in just the right way is what we are told happened.
 
Last edited:
I’ve yet to see a binding Church teaching that says Adam couldn’t have been the result of evolution.
I’ve not as yet encountered a scientific explanation as to how Adam could have been the result of evolution. It is all supposition, randomness-of-the-gaps at mega-lottery odds, the psychological magically emanating from matter, the sort of ideas that any degree of skepticism scraps in a flash.
 
… in the absence of info, we don’t claim either ‘supernatural’ or ‘natural’ origin for the things that we don’t have scientific data on. 👍
As in natural selection as a scientific explanation of speciation?
… that’s a claim made without evidence.
True.

(No doubt we’ll be referred once again to the asexual marbled crayfish fallacy.)
 
I’ve not as yet encountered a scientific explanation as to how Adam could have been the result of evolution.
Start with an ape similar to a chimpanzee, but not actually a chimpanzee. It lived in a forest. Then around six million years ago the climate changed and the trees began to die back, leaving more savannah grasslands with isolated trees. Some of the apes remained in the forest, others moved out onto the savannah. Evolution adapted the apes who moved to better survive in the savannah, basically bipedalism. They were still good at climbing trees, but if a lion appeared they had to run to the nearest tree before they could climb it. In the jungle the nearest tree was a lot closer. The jungle apes were already adapted to the jungle environment, so did not change much.

That gives a bipedal ape, Australopithecus, living in the savannah. Over time the brain size of these apes increased. Australopithecus’ skull had a capacity of 350 to 600 cc, compared to a chimp at about 300 to 480 cc. The size increased further and about two million years ago a new genus evolved: Homo. Cranial capacity for an early Homo, Homo habilis was about 650 cc – larger than any Australopithecus.

New species evolved within the Homo genus. Homo erectus had a cranial capacity of 850 to 1,000 cc. The long term trend towards a larger brain was continuing. Erectus was the first species of Homo to move out of Africa. Some of the first erectus fossils found were in Java and China. Very primitive stone tools (Acheulean) and fire are commonly associated with erectus fossils.

From the widespread erectus population, different groups emerged, for example Homo neanderthalensis in Europe, Homo denisova in the Urals and Homo sapiens in Africa.

Palaeontologists cannot tell which of these various species had souls – souls do not fossilise and do not have a particular DNA sequence. Which specific pair were given souls by God cannot be determined. What can be said is that the single pair, or their offspring, interbred with their biologically compatible unsouled contemporaries to give the range of genetic variation we see in modern humans. God could then have given souls to such of their offspring as He wished. Any descendant of any of Adam and Eve’s children would necessarily be descended from Adam and Eve.

In this context the Pope talks about “true humans”, which I take to mean biological humans with human souls. A biologically compatible, but unsouled member of the same species would be able to physically interbreed, but would not be a “true” human, merely a biological human. Such a mating would be “open to life”, which appears important in Catholic doctrine. God has the power to give the new life a human soul.
 
As in natural selection as a scientific explanation of speciation?
Well, we have theories. And, as it goes, scientific theories are more or less reasonable, depending on the context. They represent the best thought of the day, and as such, are valuable. But, to look at a theory (which may be more tenuous or less tenuous, as it were) and to use it as ‘proof’ that there’s nothing supernatural going on…? Well, that smells like a ‘faith claim’ to me. It’s just a faith claim about science… 🤷‍♂️
 
I asked how Adam came to be then and how you knew it but you never replied.
We have been told through Revelation. Science is pending. I have confidence that science will be able to soon confirm. BTW, science, empirically does not rule it out.
 
40.png
o_mlly:
As in natural selection as a scientific explanation of speciation?
Well, we have theories. And, as it goes, scientific theories are more or less reasonable, depending on the context. They represent the best thought of the day, and as such, are valuable. But, to look at a theory (which may be more tenuous or less tenuous, as it were) and to use it as ‘proof’ that there’s nothing supernatural going on…? Well, that smells like a ‘faith claim’ to me. It’s just a faith claim about science… 🤷‍♂️
I’m glad that you put proof in scare quotes. And as I keep saying, constantly, there is nothing to stop anyone claiming any event as supernatural however it might conform with natural laws. Claim away as you will. But the very definition of supernatural means that it CANNOT have ocurred via natural means.
 
But the very definition of supernatural means that it CANNOT have ocurred via natural means.
Or else Loki/Trickster is being very sneaky and making it look like it was natural, but actually it wasn’t.
 
40.png
Wozza:
But the very definition of supernatural means that it CANNOT have ocurred via natural means.
Or else Loki/Trickster is being very sneaky and making it look like it was natural, but actually it wasn’t.
Q: How do we tell the difference between natural and supernatural.
A: We can’t. Everything could be supernatural.

Beats me why that wasn’t stated right from the start. Would have saved some time.
 
Well, we have theories . And, as it goes, scientific theories are more or less reasonable, depending on the context. They represent the best thought of the day, and as such, are valuable. But, to look at a theory (which may be more tenuous or less tenuous, as it were) and to use it as ‘proof’ that there’s nothing supernatural going on…? Well, that smells like a ‘faith claim’ to me. It’s just a faith claim about science… 🤷‍♂️
If there is no evidence then there is no science. In science, the null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise.

Abiogenesis as an explanation for life and natural selection as an explanation for macro evolution have no evidence in support. The null hypothesis controls: there is no relationship between non-life and life. There is no relationship between micro and macro evolution.

Therefore, the adjective “scientific” ought not be used as a descriptor and neither hypothesis belongs in a science class textbook. They both belong, as they are in this thread, in the Philosophy department. The rational basis for ID is as good as either.
 
Last edited:
Humani Generis rules out polygenism.
Humani Generis says:
  1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
An organism can be scientifically a member of the species Homo sapiens without possessing a human soul. As Humani Generis says, science is dealing purely with the physical body. Evolution explains the origin of the physical body from “pre-existent and living matter”. That reference to “living matter” is a reference to humanity’s non-human primate ancestors. Humani Generis explicitly allows Catholics to believe that human bodies evolved.

If you want all living humans to be descended from Adam and Eve, then pick Adam and Eve as one pair of parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc. of M-Eve or Y-Adam. God would have enough foreknowledge to pick the right couple.
 
Humani Generis allows no such thing and Humani Generis is referenced in Communion and Stewardship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top