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.
Ed, you are so frustrating to read. If you could quote the part of the document that you feels “allows no such thing” and expand on it, it would be immensely helpful to those trying to understand your objections. To just make blanket statements of No doesn’t help me understand Why it’s wrong.
Thanks.
 
Alright.

Humani Generis
  1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
Source: Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII

Communion and Stewardship
  1. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of 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.
Source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
 
Yes, I’ve read through this several times. Where are you seeing a denial of theories of evolution that allow for the concept of God? Science won’t include that discussion nor do they deny allowing God’s creative force to be discussed. That’s where philosophy and theology come in. I see no condemnation from this document for theistic evolution yet you seem to state it does? It does definitely rule out the atheistic philosophy and theology of evolution and requires the Catholic to use theistic evolutionary philosophy and theology but not the scientific theory by itself for biological evolution.

Just quoting church documents doesn’t help me see where YOU have problems. I just see you having problems understanding what the document DOES say compared to how I read it.
 
The Church has spoken clearly. I quote the documents to show this is not a personal opinion. Atheist science is incomplete. Only the Catholic Church has the complete truth.
 
Science isn’t atheist. It’s agnostic. Do you understand the difference?

And once again, yes, the document is declaring the atheist view wrong but not the agnostic view. To me, it’s stating that a Catholic CAN accept the biological evolution of man. It must also include the theological (not ruling out the science) views. You seem to be saying that all views of evolution must be ruled out as they are ALL atheist. This isn’t true in my reading. That’s why just quoting it is unhelpful.
 
Remember, the Church allows research and discussion into evolution. (noting there are several theories of evo)

And what has this research shown? Microevolution, yes. Macroevolution, no.

Science has not empirically proved molecules to man, and the research is clearly favoring design.

The Church is right once again.
 
When the research actually does show there to be no macro evolution I’ll listen. Until then, can you give me the mechanism that prevents macro from occurring? Where is the line in the sand, so to speak?
 
I don’t know how many times it needs to be done but “Finding Design in Nature” by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn will appear again. The Church recognizes design.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
When the research actually does show there to be no macro evolution I’ll listen. Until then, can you give me the mechanism that prevents macro from occurring? Where is the line in the sand, so to speak?
Click to expand...
Yes, mutations are breaking genes. Speciation is lineage splitting, every time we categorize a new species it is less than its parents with more mutations and loss of function.
 
buffalo said:
Yes, mutations are breaking genes.
Click to expand...
Breaking genes, making genes, changing genes, shortening genes, lengthening genes. Mutations are random, they don’t just work in one direction, they work in random directions.
Speciation is lineage splitting, every time we categorize a new species it is less than its parents with more mutations and loss of function.
Click to expand...
So, the land living ancestors of modern whales were better at living in water than modern whales because modern whales have suffered “loss of function” relative to their land living ancestors. Do you have any evidence to support this hypothesis?

Perhaps, whales have gained function to allow them to hold their breath longer so they can live in the sea?
 
Pattylt said:
When the research actually does show there to be no macro evolution I’ll listen.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe science works that way nor should it. The demonstrated proof of a negative and absence of evidence fallacies protect us from such backward conclusions as being scientific.
 
buffalo said:
every time we categorize a new species it is less than its parents with more mutations and loss of function.
Click to expand...
Um, ok but isn’t that macro evolution even if it lost some functions? I would expect any function it no longer needed would be an energy saving benefit? So yes, it loses some function that was not needed to survive current conditions. I no longer have my tail. Is that a loss?
 
A bee that stings you loses its life. They are still born with stingers. What is your point here?
 
@Pattylt

Is it your position that an organism at the species level can mutate and natural select its way to to genus then up to family then up to order then class etc, when we see the breaking of genes and natural selection is a conservative process?
 
Last edited:
I see no reason given time that the process of mutation and natural and sexual selection would have any problem macro evolving. Even though the majority of mutations are detrimental or neutral, enough beneficial mutations happen to progress into new species. Loss of functions can also be beneficial. Would land animals benefit from keeping their gills? Of course not. Any trait that uses energy to maintain it but now is no longer beneficial is a waste.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
I’m glad that you put proof in scare quotes.
Click to expand...
I’m glad that you marginalized my post as being characterized by “scare quotes”. Let me help you understand how I used them: not to scare, but to point out that what some call proof isn’t actually proof at all, but simply a theory (whether well or poorly attested). Sorry if I put the word ‘proof’ in “scare italics”. I hope it isn’t too scary for you. 😉
Wozza said:
But the very definition of supernatural means that it CANNOT have ocurred via natural means.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you put the word ‘cannot’ in scare caps. 🤣

This is the point that I continue to reject. The definition of supernatural isn’t “it cannot have been natural”, but rather, merely, “it was not natural.” Subtle, yet critical, difference.
 
Last edited:
It looks like 415? I have trouble telling exactly what post is numbered what. I usually use the reply button within the comment. So, maybe I goofed. It was a reply to
buffalo said:
Is it your position that an organism at the species level can mutate and natural select its way to to genus then up to family then up to order then class etc, when we see the breaking of genes and natural selection is a conservative process?
Click to expand...
Edit to add…yes, it was 417
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top