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

[Pattylt]

Do you know what the word extrapolate means? Several areas of science deal with long periods of time.

 

[edwest211]

I’m sticking to the subject.

 

[buffalo]

That’s the exact thing atheists use against us to say God does not exist.

Not apples to apples. Science can only investigate the natural.

 

[buffalo]

I confess I was somewhat disturbed when I first read it as it uses very direct language.

A few decades ago I was more in your camp until I spent much time researching what the Church position was, and her constant teachings. Then I really researched the science aspects and found the lack of evidence for macro-evolution.

Because of the pressure mounted by science the Church became cautious. But that is only in the last 60 years or so.

 

[edwest211]

This is true.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Because of the pressure mounted by science the Church became cautious.

And buffalo knows better, of course. The Church is rightly cautious. She’s been careful throughout history to propogate truth, not error. Science has revealed things undreamed of just a couple of centuries ago. The Church is not about to commit to a position without certainty.

I’ll share something I’ve learned. Follow the truth wherever it leads. It won’t hurt you. If it destroys your beliefs then they were wrong to begin with. Your problem is that you’re not seeking truth; you’ve decided what it is. You’re exactly the kind of person who risks looking like a fool. If you want to be that person I can’t stop you, but you don’t get to claim the Church backs you because it doesn’t.

 

[thistle]

Not apples to apples. Science can only investigate the natural.

Concept is the same. If it can’t be proven then it’s not true.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Then PBC 1909 stands.

Not your understanding of it, not according to paragraph 36 of Humani Generis which explicitly states that discussion, in both biology and theology, of the evolution of the human body is permitted by the Church. This means that the special creation of man and woman is not an article of Faith beyond the creation of the rational soul (which I would argue is as much a matter of philosophical truth as it is an article of Faith), as your interpretation would have it.

Whatever disciplinary force the Biblical Commission’s statement had in 1909 (and they were indeed disciplinary and not a matter of Church doctrine) it was no longer in effect when Humani Generis was published.

Peace and God bless!

 

[rossum]

I am the one who has continually shown all those other mechanisms. Look up my posts from the past.

You mention some of them as if they are problems for evolution. They are not. They have been incorporated into the current theory.

They are all part of micro-evolution.

And also part of macro-evolution. Do I have to post the Marbled Crayfish paper yet again, or would you like the Tauber & Tauber paper on macroevolution in genus Chrysopa?

Macroevolution – the evolution of a new species – happens and is observed.

Macro–evolution molecules to man does not happen.

How do you know? Were you there?

Remember who said, “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” Water is made of molecules. The earth is made of molecules. Molecules to man is in your Bible.

 

[Aloysium]

We do know. God is alive, “living God” as the Psalm says. Or is your God a dead God, not a living God?

Given at least one living entity then abiogenesis has happened at least once.

I’ve argued about the semantics before, to no effect. To discuss a topic where the meanings of the terms are multiple and not agreed upon, is pointless. If we wish to consider what constitutes life, that would be a different matter, and in keeping with the OP.

 

[Aloysium]

Do you know what the word extrapolate means?

We extend what is known into the unknown, which remains unknown by science in the case of the creation of living forms. And, what we’ve done in this case is take the science into what is not science, but rather a mythos, and we’ve done so in the assumption that what exists now is what existed at the beginning of things. In the case of astrophysics, we’ve gone beyond the idea of a steady state universe, one which has always been as it is now. We take measurements such as the red shift of galaxies and the microwave background, among others and have determined a certain scenario as to how it developed and grew to its current form from nothing. Evolutionary Theories, as they are being described here, taught in schools and promoted in the media, remain at the steady state level.

 

[o_mlly]

… you’ll have to express why you think Aquinas would not accept theistic evolution if you’re going to claim that he probably wouldn’t. Please at least explain why you believe theistic evolution contradicts what he did indeed accept.

Like the word “species”, the phrase “theistic evolution” is somewhat elastic in its definitions. In deference to the OP, I focus on abiogenesis as integral to theistic evolution.

As said, Aquinas’ task was to synthesize faith and the science using reason. Aquinas, as a faithful theologian, accepted both Scripture and Tradition as transmitted by previous generations. As a scientist, he accepted as likely true the conclusions of the scientific community of his time. In melding the two as givens, the only variable Thomas allowed was reason – mental constructs following metaphysical principles to harmonize the two.

As the programmers tell us,“Garbage in, garbage out.” As already cited, the science of Aquinas’ times erroneously claimed life was produced by putrefaction. And, in the intervening 7 centuries, science today still has no evidence of life from non-life.

continued:

 

[o_mlly]

What about the Tradition? In answering Question 69, (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1069.htm) I read a perplexed mind attempting to bring into coherence the literal text of Gen 2:4-5 with the science of his day. Aquinas notes that Augustine, departing from all other Fathers, holds that the vegetation of the third day was causally created. Did Augustine get it wrong? And if so, was Thomas then reduced to creating a rationale which synthesized two errors – one in a faulty interpretation of Scripture and the other a known error in scientific observation? Yes, I think so.

Aquinas then repeats the Augustinian logic that necessitates investing the potential in inorganic matter to beget life as secondary causes in order to avoid violating a first principle of metaphysics:

The power of an activity or process can never exceed the power of the cause that produced and sustains it . Processes, on this account, unfold. They do not introduce what was hitherto wholly nonexistent.

Only with this forced gymnastic-like rationale driven by erroneous science and erroneous exegesis do accidents receive the power to beget substantial forms.

Augustine, whose errors resulted from his lack of facility with the Greek language and a poor Latin translation of Genesis, admits his own perplexity:

You must also remember that it is written: The one who lives for ever created all things simultaneously (Sirach 18:1), and then ask yourself how things can be said to have been created simultaneously when their creation was spread over intervals of time, not just of hours but of days ( Lit. Mean. Gen. VII: 41(28)).

Augustine resolves the contradiction by giving precedence to his faulty interpretation of Sirach 18:1 over the literal translation of Genesis 2:4-5. Augustine’s incorrect translation and misapplication of the Greek word simul commits himself to an instantaneous, simultaneous creation.

For a fuller explanation of Augustine’s errors in his exegesis of Genesis 2:4-5, see:

St. Augustine Rediscovered: A Defense of the Literal Interpretation of St. Augustine’s Writings on the Sacred History of Genesis – Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

So, was Thomas a theistic evolutionist. Possibly, but only because he accepted Augustine’s erroneous exegesis and the claims of a faulty science. Would he be one today? No. The Augustinian rule for exegete’s remains true:

If, however, in the words of God or of any person performing the prophetic office something is said which taken literally is simply absurd, then undoubtedly it should be understood as being said figuratively in order to signify something more profound. That it was said, though, it is not lawful to doubt. ( Lit. Mean. Gen . XI, 2(1))

 

[buffalo]

Science has revealed things undreamed of just a couple of centuries ago.

Correct. It is a goof thing she did not pronounce macro darwinism as fact, since the last two decades have shown us so much more.

 

[buffalo]

I’ll share something I’ve learned. Follow the truth wherever it leads. It won’t hurt you. If it destroys your beliefs then they were wrong to begin with. Your problem is that you’re not seeking truth; you’ve decided what it is.

Totally wrong. It is the pursuit of truth that drives me wherever it leads. If macro-evolution was empirically proven I would accept it. It is philosophy.

Intelligent design is a better explanation for what we now know.

 

[buffalo]

Concept is the same. If it can’t be proven then it’s not true.

Category error.

 

[Bradskii]

Hobgoblin:

I’ll share something I’ve learned. Follow the truth wherever it leads. It won’t hurt you. If it destroys your beliefs then they were wrong to begin with. Your problem is that you’re not seeking truth; you’ve decided what it is.

If macro-evolution was empirically proven I would accept it.

And if Behe accepts it, you must be arguing against his position:

“Michael Behe takes a similar approach in The Edge of Evolution where he says evolution at the species level is feasible.”

“He allows that evolution at the genera, family, or order level could be possible…So if macroevolution includes evolution at the genera, family, or order level, Behe concludes that what some consider “macroevolution” might be possible.”

I’ll repeat that. At the order level. That’s three orders above species. Count 'em. Three! And you have constantly argued that new species represent macro evolution so cannot have happened via evolution.

He’s thrown you under the bus, Buffalo.

 

[Hobgoblin]

It is the pursuit of truth that drives me wherever it leads. If macro-evolution was empirically proven I would accept it.

Yet you’ve already ruled it out. You’ve stated definitively that it didn’t happen. Meanwhile you’ve adopted a belief that Adam was “specially created and inserted into the timeline”. Something that can never be empirically proven. Fascinating.

Intelligent design is a better explanation for what we now know.

You believe this. It’s not taught by the Church.

 

[Ghosty1981]

O_Mlly: Aquinas acceptance of abiogenesis and the generation of new species after the Six Days had absolutely nothing to do with Augustine’s exegesis, but rather the accepted science of his day.

Aquinas’ understanding of mules and earthworms had nothing to do with Augustine.

Peace and God bless!

 

[o_mlly]

O_Mlly: Aquinas acceptance of abiogenesis and the generation of new species after the Six Days had absolutely nothing to do with Augustine’s exegesis, but rather the accepted science of his day.

Kindly share with us the document in which Aquinas writes, as you claim, that “Aquinas acceptance of abiogenesis … had absolutely nothing to do with Augustine’s exegesis.”

You do know that in the Summa, Aquinas cites Augustine more 3,156 times. That’s six times for every question.