E
edwest211
Guest
Pope Benedict made it clear regarding human beings.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
Hobgoblin
Guest
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.Pope Benedict made it clear regarding human beings.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
I’m very sorry you feel that way, I certainly don’t. I have extraordinary value and amazement of the life and development from the tiniest bacterium (that can sometimes be so deadly to us) up to humanity itself in all our abilities, limitations and our minds. The older I get, the more I love to study all it!The end result is a devaluation of living beings, a lack of appreciation of the wonder that they are, from the bacterium upwards, and each organism from its conception to its adult form.
O
o_mlly
Guest
When one has no arguments, often they resort to ad hominems. Please resist that urge.This is literally abiogenesis. Thank you for demonstrating my point. Aquinas’ system accounts and allows for abiogenesis without any difficulty; he even made allowances for the abiogenesis of new species.
No, 1.73.1 does not literally or otherwise mean abiogenesis. You show above that you do not understand the difference between abiogensis and heterogenesis. The former is life from inorganic matter, the latter is life from organic matter. Putrefaction, the rotting of dead organic matter, would apply only to a heterogenesis process. Still in error, though. Fruit flies do not spontaneously fly out from the rotting banana peel.
Leaving aside the issue (but still disputing) that Augustine’s exegesis affected Thomas’ conclusions, if Thomas correctly understood putrefaction, then he would not have any sense experience upon which to build his argument that life can spontaneously generates from non-life.
Lacking a particular as a premise from which to induce the general would violate the Principle of Evidence resulting in an invalid inference.
No one questions Thomas’ reasoning methods, only his facts. Nor would Aquinas allow any contradictions in the answers given in the Summa. Therefore, once he constructed an argument based on almost unlimited potentiality in matter, for consistency he would adhere to its conclusions throughout the work.
T
thistle
Guest
Pope Benedict while still Cardinal Ratzinger:Pope Benedict made it clear regarding human beings.
“What response shall we make to this view [evolution]? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow, and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. … More reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: ‘creation or evolution’, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary - rather than mutually exclusive - realities.”
O
o_mlly
Guest
Our intrepid interlocutor, moving the thread to an examination of Aquinas’ thought on the matter, neglects to understand that the medieval theologian expresses his theology always, even if unconsciously, from his worldview.The only difference is that we have more knowledge of the “dust” that constitutes putrifaction and have added some nine digits to the timeline. … Life did not proceed from non-life temporally any more than it would do so ontologically.
We come to know the Creator and His plan through his created things. If our understanding of created things is flawed so will our understanding of the Creator. Aquinas believed in the perfect order of the cosmos, that the influence of the heavenly bodies affected the changes in the sublunary material world, putrefaction being only one such effect.
B
buffalo
Guest
as in created kinds?he even made allowances for the abiogenesis of new species.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is and observed. Universal common descent is not.What an incredible declaration! The former Pope says common descent is virtually certain. This is exactly what I’ve come to expect from Catholicism.
H
Hobgoblin
Guest
Ratzinger says all. What part of all isn’t universal?Universal common descent is not.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
Heterogenesis is life from a different form of life, such as the mule from the horse. Abiogenesis is life from non-living matter, and rotting materials are indeed non-living by definition. Even so, such generation (in Aristotle and later Aquinas’ understanding) does not require formerly living matter. From “On the Generation of Animals”, Book III, Section 11:You show above that you do not understand the difference between abiogensis and heterogenesis. The former is life from inorganic matter, the latter is life from organic matter. Putrefaction, the rotting of dead organic matter, would apply only to a heterogenesis process.
Again, you are simply wrong in your assertions.Animals and plants come into being in earth and in liquid because there is water in earth, and air in water, and in all air is vital heat so that in a sense all things are full of soul. Therefore living things form quickly whenever this air and vital heat are enclosed in anything. When they are so enclosed, the corporeal liquids being heated, there arises as it were a frothy bubble. Whether what is forming is to be more or less honourable in kind depends on the embracing of the psychical principle; this again depends on the medium in which the generation takes place and the material which is included. Now in the sea the earthy matter is present in large quantities, and consequently the testaceous animals are formed from a concretion of this kind, the earthy matter hardening round them and solidifying in the same manner as bones and horns (for these cannot be melted by fire), and the matter (or body) which contains the life being included within it.
And his system, both in philosophy and theology, explicitly allows for abiogenesis, the development of life from the powers of the non-living stars and non-living elemental matter.No one questions Thomas’ reasoning methods, only his facts. Nor would Aquinas allow any contradictions in the answers given in the Summa. Therefore, once he constructed an argument based on almost unlimited potentiality in matter, for consistency he would adhere to its conclusions throughout the work.
Peace and God bless!
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
The legitimacy of the science is irrelevant, it’s the fact that he as a Catholic thought it to be a legitimate possibility and did not see it as going against his beliefs that is very telling.He does cite the false science of his day writing that “ perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction” which is why I cited 1.73.1.
E
edwest211
Guest
Pope Benedict
In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Rationally synthesizing Aristotle’s works to Scripture and Tradition was the scholastic’‘s assignment. That is not the issue. The influence of Augustine on Aquinas’ teaching on abiogenesis is the issue.Even so, such generation (in Aristotle and later Aquinas’ understanding) does not require formerly living matter. … And his system, both in philosophy and theology, explicitly allows for abiogenesis, the development of life from the powers of the non-living stars and non-living elemental matter.
If Augustine never wrote affirming the errors of Greek science then your claim may have merit. But he most certainly did in both his works, The City of God and The Literal Meaning of Genesis.Aquinas acceptance of abiogenesis … had absolutely nothing to do with Augustine’s exegesis
Aquinas now confronted with the Greek science errors, Augustine’s affirmation of those science errors, Augustine’s exegetical error, and a literal Scripture reference contradicting all those errors …
… decides to follow Augustine. Not much chance for “absolutely nothing to do” here.… the Lord God made … [5] …every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew (Gen 2:5 DRB, emphasis mine).
The second issue in our exchange is to comment on why I think Aquinas would not today subscribe to abiogenisis. This is a matter of common sense, in my opinion. Since science in the intervening period applying sophisticated and determined methods to replicate what abiogeneis adherents claim nature does by random chance without success leaves little doubt in my mind. Further, the DNA science now shows that the gap between living matter and non-living matter is tremendous, beyond the gradual process imagined by Darwin and so unlikely as to be impossible. Relieved of the Greek science errors and Augustine’s exegetical error, I believe Thomas would agree.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Telling what?The legitimacy of the science is irrelevant, it’s the fact that he as a Catholic thought it to be a legitimate possibility and did not see it as going against his beliefs that is very telling.
E
edwest211
Guest
Benedict wrote it, I didn’t. Stop with the attitude.
B
Bradskii
Guest
But you quoted him. Meaning, one presumes, that you support what he said. Why else quote him? I am simply pointing out that what he said doesn’t make any sense.Benedict wrote it, I didn’t.
Theories are never complete. And they can’t, by definition, be proved.
I assume that you don’t want anyone taking what you quoted at face value when it is obviously wrong. I certainly don’t. So now we know. Please continue…
E
edwest211
Guest
I don’t agree with you at all. Pope Benedict? 100%.
B
Bradskii
Guest
You’re not disagreeing with me. I’m just pointing out your error in thinking that theories are ever complete and can be proved. You’re disagreeing with basic scientific concepts.I don’t agree with you at all. Pope Benedict? 100%.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
My error? Pope Benedict wrote that, not me.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
The influence of Augustine’s interpretation Genesis on Aquinas’ reasoning is only an issue because you are insisting, without demonstration, that Aquinas’ conclusions about abiogenesis are derived from Augustine and not Aristotle. I have shown where abiogenesis is found explicitly in the writings of Aristotle, and we know that Aquinas’ accepted the scientific observations of Aristotle with regards to the generation of life. The notion that Aquinas would have had a different interpretation of Aristotle if not for Augustine’s poor exegesis is unfounded, as you haven’t demonstrated in any way that Aquinas utilized Augustine as a lens for interpreting Aristotle.If Augustine never wrote affirming the errors of Greek science then your claim may have merit. But he most certainly did in both his works, The City of God and The Literal Meaning of Genesis .
Again, I will not engage on the subject of what some historical figure would believe if they were alive today; such hypotheses are both fundamentally untestable and useless for producing greater insight into the matter at hand. All we can truly say is whether or not a current idea fits into the beliefs actually expressed by a historical figure; in this case we can certainly see that Aquinas believed in abiogenesis, developed a system of reasoning that allowed for abiogenesis, and did not view abiogenesis as being in conflict with the Faith.The second issue in our exchange is to comment on why I think Aquinas would not today subscribe to abiogenisis. This is a matter of common sense, in my opinion. Since science in the intervening period applying sophisticated and determined methods to replicate what abiogeneis adherents claim nature does by random chance without success leaves little doubt in my mind. Further, the DNA science now shows that the gap between living matter and non-living matter is tremendous, beyond the gradual process imagined by Darwin and so unlikely as to be impossible. Relieved of the Greek science errors and Augustine’s exegetical error, I believe Thomas would agree.
My interest is primarily whether or not abiogenesis is consistent with the Catholic Faith, and secondarily (as means of demonstrating my primary concern) whether or not abiogenesis is consistent with Thomistic thinking. I know no more about what Aquinas would believe if he were alive today than I do about what music he would enjoy listening to; I can only compare what we know now with what he believed (and believed was consistent with the Faith) then.
As for your assertion that abiogenesis is impossible due to improbability, you are assuming the value of variables that you can’t possibly know. Indeed, you can’t even know what the variables are, let alone their value. Improbability is never the same as impossibility, especially when we don’t comprehend the system in question.
Peace and God bless!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.