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

[Aloysium]

the illusion of biological interdependency and connection

I see the illusion as being that all existence is not centred on Existence itself.

Anything but a biological tree of life in which we are only one branch.

Using that analogy, I would say that there is one true vine.

I guess that is just too much for you to fathom.

You have no idea what I cannot fathom.

we are something entirely alien being inserted into nature ,

We are creation itself, every aspect of the universe is in us. We were meant to attend to God’s garden, it having been corrupted by the angels who fell to earth.

the entire biological order would be a manufactured illusion

Evolution, the idea, is a manufactured illusion. I find that most people cannot distinguish the two.

 

[IWantGod]

You have no idea what I cannot fathom.

You have made it very clear.

 

[IWantGod]

Evolution, the idea, is a manufactured illusion. I find that most people cannot distinguish the two.

Perhaps it’s because they have no good reason to think that, and you think you do.

 

[IWantGod]

We are creation itself, every aspect of the universe is in us.

What new age theology is this?

 

[IWantGod]

I see the illusion as being that all existence is not centred on Existence itself.

I have no idea what you mean here.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

You have no idea what I cannot fathom.

You have made it very clear.

That you do not know what I cannot fathom is something you would make clear. What I was referring to has more to do is more with heavenly beings. Science is simple and our shared knowledge is readily available. The rest is personal and very difficult to communicate and understand.

 

[rossum]

I have made it very clear in numerous posts that I consider it a myth.

And I do not consider it so. From my point of view your approach contains entirely too much reification:

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

You are looking at a mirage and you think there is water behind it. There isn’t.

One should bear in mind that this has been disrupted by sin, the presence of dukkha, in Buddhist terms

Dukkha is not sin; the usual translation is “suffering” or sometimes “unsatisfactoriness”. Buddhism does not have an equivalent of sin. The closest it comes is ‘unwise action’ as opposed to ‘wise action’.

Random change and natural selection are inherent in this world as the faces of death. They by no means are creative forces.

Random change can be creative. I will agree that natural selection is not creative. It selects from the range of variations created by random mutations. A human computer programmer can easily set this up on a computer, see genetic algorithm. Anything a human programmer can do presumably your God can do as well.

These are based on specific assumptions as to how this works. It would not include what we have been told is that people at the beginning lived ten times longer than they do now in good health and able to procreate.

And you have the skeletal evidence to support this statement? Teeth can be a good measure of a fossil’s age at death. The Sumerian King list tells us of kings reigning for 30,000 years or more. Do you expect me to believe that merely because it was written in an old text?

 

[Aloysium]

post:470:

We are creation itself, every aspect of the universe is in us.

What new age theology is this?

Aren’t we made of time and space, light, and the interrelationship of the various forms of mass and charge that fill it?

What comes to mind is:

Romans8:18 - I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

If you can point out to a specific aspect rather than leaving it at some sort of vague accusation, it would not only be appreciated on my part, but hopefully it would lead to a deeper understanding of the subject at hand.

 

[Aloysium]

From my point of view your approach contains entirely too much reification

What I said above, would apply here, as I don’t know what you are talking about, knowing as I do the meaning of reification.

You are looking at a mirage and you think there is water behind it. There isn’t.

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying.

Dukkha is not sin; the usual translation is “suffering” or sometimes “unsatisfactoriness”. Buddhism does not have an equivalent of sin. The closest it comes is ‘unwise action’ as opposed to ‘wise action’.

I agree. Christianity, and Judaism before it, explain the origin of the “ignorance” that is the source of suffering.

And you have the skeletal evidence to support this statement? Teeth can be a good measure of a fossil’s age at death.

Recall:

people at the beginning lived ten times longer than they do now in good health and able to procreate.

There’s no way of knowing how long they lived if they did not manifest the decay that has apparnetly been accumulating over time within humanity. And, there was a reason for their living longer, which no longer applies. We have gone forth, multiplied and filled the earth.

The Sumerian King list tells us of kings reigning for 30,000 years or more. Do you expect me to believe that merely because it was written in an old text?

I’m not asking you to believe anything. I’m telling you what I believe. The why I believe it is because I believe Jesus Christ and the revelations of the Word shared among us through His Church.

 

[IWantGod]

Aren’t we made of time and space, light, and the interrelationship of the various forms of mass and charge that fill it?

What comes to mind is:

Your argument has the implication that we are made up of these things but we do not have a true developmental unity with these things. This is to say that our identity within the universe is manufactured. In other-words we have no true heritage with the universe, we are just wearing it’s cloths. Our physical forms are not a natural outgrowth of physical reality, but rather we have just been inserted into it.

I guess i just don’t see the point of it given the fact that our 13 billion year old universe is a history of one being giving rise to another, and thus physical history is in a sense a history of heritage insomuch as it is the history of forms giving to other forms - sharing it’s reality. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the universe is a family of beings that are all fundamentally unified by their processes, and that this is exactly what God intended to create.

The universe is an interdependecy of forms and that’s exactly how it grows.

If that’s a principle you start with as a creator, why not end with it?. What is the point otherwise.

Your attempts to envision creation as being something else is ad-hoc. It just looks like someone trying to force an outmoded theological interpretation on to something that has turned out to be entirely different to what we once thought it was; looking more like a fear of change rather than an honest intellectual attempt to understand, and at the same time giving a platform to atheists who enjoy nothing more than to knock down your straw-man of reality and Christianity for the sake of their own resolve.

 

[rossum]

I’m not asking you to believe anything. I’m telling you what I believe. The why I believe it is because I believe Jesus Christ and the revelations of the Word shared among us through His Church.

So, there is a Church document telling us that early Homo sapiens lived for about 1,000 years? I would need to see a reference please. Bear in mind that the Bible is not a science textbook, and lifetimes are well within the ambit of science. AIUI the Catholic does not insist on a literal interpretation of all the details in Genesis.

 

[buffalo]

lived for about 1,000 years?

Yes, several did. Not a problem for a human without the heavy genetic load that we have.

 

[Techno2000]

rossum:

lived for about 1,000 years?

Yes, several did. Not a problem for a human without the heavy genetic load that we have.

And, I would think God would also have to supernaturally sustain them.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Since some people here seem to confuse the Teleological Argument of Aquinas with Intelligent Design, and some seem to be confused as to how God could ultimately be said to be the cause and designer of random mutation in evolution, here is an excellent summary from Catholic Answers that was published over a decade ago.

Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design

This article explains not only why Thomists don’t support Intelligent Design, but also why Intelligent Design ultimately belittles God and detracts from His Majesty.

Peace and God bless!

 

[edwest211]

Opinion | Finding Design in Nature - The New York Times

 

[Ghosty1981]

I literaly just responded to someone when I said that I generally ignore those who post comments that capitalise words such as Divine and Act and Existence and Truth.

There is good reason to capitalize these words when engaging in theological discussions. The word divine literally has a different meaning from Divine, and act has a different meaning from Act; there is a vast gulf in meaning between the worldly and Divine meanings of these terms, and they are really only analogous to eachother. Some people might be imprecise with their usage of these words, but the capitalization of these words is not always merely an affect.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty1981]

You have already posted this article, and you’ve demonstrated that you don’t understand what the Cardinal is saying, as you’ve continuously confused Teleology (God’s design of nature) and Intelligent Design in these discussions. Please read the article I posted.

Peace and God bless

 

[Aloysium]

Your argument has the implication that we are made up of these things but we do not have a true developmental unity with these things.

That’s correct. In terms of a unity with the universe, we are composed of those relationships that exist between elements of its material foundations. To have a developmental unity would impy an association that is like our present self to our two-year-old self. We are one person transformed from conception as a fertilized egg to our dotage. We are not a transformation of the components of the universe, but a different kind of being than are atoms, single cells, plants and animals, although what they are, we are also, but more.

the fact that our 13 billion year old universe is a history of one being giving rise to another,

That’s a vision I don’t share. Mine is of new creation of being beginning with that of light, up the hierarchy until we get to we ourselves, who are aware of and can speculate on these matters.

 

[Gorgias]

I think I understood what he was trying to say. I usually merely state my position, to make clear where I stand, not necessarily to deny what the other person is saying.

I think that would be what is implied since they are. We share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees, 92% with a mouse, 44% with a fruitfly, so I’d say at a molecular level we are very much the same as all other living forms, created to be so by God.

OK, but… 98% / 92% / 44% doesn’t imply “each directly created by God”… right?

We are not animals; we just look like and may behave like them.

Interesting distinction. If what you’re trying to say is that we’re distinct from them in important ontological ways, I’d agree. But to say that we’re not animals – in a biological sense – doesn’t seem to be a workable claim.

I am presenting my vision of things, trying to explain as best I can, their basis.

Yep; understood. You’re on the “creation as being literally, scientifically presented in Genesis” side of things. The Church doesn’t say “you can’t hold that position”… but then again, the Church doesn’t weigh in on scientific propositions, right?

 

[edwest211]

Of course the Church weighs in on science.