Evolution: much ado about nothing

[PhilVaz]

I want to say to the first post by georgeaquinas, sums up the issue well. The reason there appears to be a conflict is the requirement of the Catholic to believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve who were originally bodily immortal.

========
As for dogma, under “Preternatural Gifts” in the Pocket Catholic Dictionary (by Rev. John Hardon, S.J.) we read: “They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title - infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.”​

The full article from a traditionalist Catholic publication Living Tradition is here: The Evolution of Original Sin

The talking snake, the nature of the Fall, the Garden of Eden (paradise), the nature of the Original Sin (eating an apple), etc can be allegorized to some extent. But the literal, historical Adam/Eve cannot (along with the creation of their immortal souls, which wouldn’t conflict with science since this is not “testable”).

The theological problem this has with evolution is (1) evolution works in populations, not in individuals, so there would be no two original people we descended from, and (2) there would be plenty of death before the Fall, so there would be no “bodily immortality” possible. The bodily death of animals and plants have been addressed in other threads, I don’t think there’s any conflict there. But there would be conflict with the bodily immortality of Adam/Eve, since “death passed to all men” because they sinned (Rom 5:12, etc).

One way to reconcile this was suggested in another thread, that the Garden of Eden was not on this planet, but was somewhere else in the universe where death did not reign. Interesting interpretation, maybe a stretch…

Catholic Answers on Adam/Eve and evolution issue

Catholic Answers says: “It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere myth. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.”

Also: “It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. The human race really did descend from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) rather than a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).”

There’s your theological conflict with science. Any recommendations of books dealing with this appreciated. I’ll check out the Ratzinger book if I can find it. Glenn Morton, former young-earth creationist also has a book here I hope to get dealing with “fossil man.”

Phil P

 

[georgeaquinas]

Edwin: I think you missed my point. I am not arguing whether or not evolution is sound. What I am arguing for is that an acceptance of evolution is compatible with the Catholic faith. I don’t think you have answered the question of whether or not you are saying that the magisterium of the Church is wrong.

By the way the Ratzinger book is available on amazon.com. It is a very good book (in my opinion, in case you haven’t noticed!).

Thank you all for not having this thread devolve (pun intended) into an argument about different evolutionary theories.

God bless all.

 

[Kent_Wendler]

I won’t transcribe the full post now, but consider this: Genesis says that God created Paradise, sometimes called Eden, in those first six days. It does not say that He created the world we now see in that time. That is only a (very) common assumption.

 

[Christian5]

Faith and science need not be against one another. Enough already with you young earthers! I’m glad they believe in God, but so many of their arguments are so childish. There is more than enough evidence that the earth is millions of years old, that evolution has taken place and is still taking place, and that (especialy) space is BILLIONS of years old. Many Catholics are evolution scientists and the church has no problem with studying science.

I could name 50 legendary scientists that made great discoveries, yet they all were Bible believing Christians. Their discoveries absoluetly never shook their faith. What is it going to take to get rid of the young earth beliefs? They pose such a stumbling block for unbelievers as they laugh at Christianity thinking it’s nothing more than a myth, and not realizing that there’s many scientific insights, and archeology evidence that gives great harmony toward the Bible. God does not need to be in a straight jacket where he can “only” do it one way. The universe is so finley tuned for life, the big bang itself is a mystery.

Praise the Lord for His works!

 

[PhilVaz]

<< What is it going to take to get rid of the young earth beliefs? >>

It will take folks to put down their Bibles for a few seconds and pick up The Gospel According to Dalrymple

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/AGE2.jpg

Or better Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Plus a little holy water and garlic can’t hurt, the young earth, anti-evolution pseudo-science sentiment is quite strong in this country

Phil P

 

[Les_Richardson]

georgeaquinas:

As to the second possible objection “evolution is untenable as science,” that is a matter for scientists to debate. It is clear that the first objection is false and thus any religious interest in the second objection vanishes.

Neat and tidy, I must admit.

But sometimes all that is required is patience.

If you recall the history of the theory of evolution in the public education system, or look back at an objective history of it, one thing is very clear.

The underlying motivation of most of the prime movers, not necessarily the scientists per se, was the removal of God from the schools. In other words, theory of evolution promotors set up in opposition to God as much as Christians fought back against that onslaught. The theory of evolution was only one piece in a larger campaign, but a significant one, because it purported to rid the enlightened world of the Creator. It was part of what emboldened people like Sartre to claim, “God is dead.” There was no desire on their part to seek a synthesis of creation and evolution.

I wouldn’t worry too much about condescension from the scientists. Within fifty years they will look down their noses at evolutionists as much as they do “young earthers” today, because in the scientific community, on the cutting edge right now, evolution is becoming “untenable as science.”

As to the age of the earth, methodologies are being reviewed and refined as we speak. Archeological discoveries too numerous to dismiss are casting serious doubts on the accuracy of established methodology. So we’ll have to wait and see. But as evolution is phased out much of the need for extended timelines(millions to billions of years) will vanish as well.

However God did it, we know the universe did not pre-date Him, (see Augustine) so one day we will be able ask Jesus Christ, the Logos, the Word that spoke Creation into existence. We will be able to ask Him how he did it. Personally, I’m looking forward to that.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Les Richardson:

I wouldn’t worry too much about condescension from the scientists. Within fifty years they will look down their noses at evolutionists as much as they do “young earthers” today, because in the scientific community, on the cutting edge right now, evolution is becoming “untenable as science.”

LOL! And still the tried and untrustworthy creationist claims roll in…

Thank you Les for yet another unsupported assertion on these boards. Now… I don’t suppose I could trouble you to support that claim, could I? I realise it’s too much to hope that you’ll explain why "evolution is becoming ‘untenable as science’ " yourself, so perhaps you might start by citing the source for the bit you put in quote marks, suggesting it is a quote.

 

[webdezyn]

Oolon Colluphid:

LOL! And still the tried and untrustworthy creationist claims roll in…

Thank you Les for yet another unsupported assertion on these boards. Now… I don’t suppose I could trouble you to support that claim, could I? I realise it’s too much to hope that you’ll explain why "evolution is becoming ‘untenable as science’ " yourself, so perhaps you might start by citing the source for the bit you put in quote marks, suggesting it is a quote.

LOL …another evolutionists supports theory as fact .
Evolution is only a THEORY which has never been proven but is taught as fact. scientists who support this THEORY has never found evidence to prove it yet they teach it as if its the discovery of the century !

 

[ppolz]

THE TRUTH about the THEORY of evolution… THE big FAT lie …

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16377

The simple fact is that no proof whatever has been found indicating that one species evolves into another. The fossil record is simply a series of still pictures of species that existed at one time. They do not show how one species evolves into another. Transitional fossils have not been found. The fossil record shows new species appearing suddenly without any ancestors. What scientific investigation indicates is that the species are immutable and that when mutations occur they do not become new species. For example, evolutionists have been experimenting with fruit flies for years in the hope of demonstrating evolution at work. But the fruit flies have stubbornly refused to develop into anything but more fruit flies, despite all kinds of stimuli, including radiation. Some mutations have occurred, but nothing to suggest the beginnings of a new species.

 

[Booger]

It’s obvious that ppolz and webdezyn have never taken biology. I wonder if the physicists would be mad if I, someone that has never taken physics, suddenly started to proclaim (loudly in bold type) that quantum theory is not real, never been proven, is not fact, and so on. They would probably look at my credentials (having no physics experience) and just laugh at me and continue their work. After all, it is only a theory.

 

[Booger]

I don’t see the big deal between accepting evolution and being a Christian. I have seen other Catholics here at this board that have said that some things in the Bible are accepted as historical fact and others are accepted as metaphor or poetry. The metaphor and poetry still provide meaning, although they may not be historical fact. It is obvious that sin (as described by Christians) does exist and that men are born with it and live with it. Isn’t that original sin? What difference does it make if there was no Adam or Eve and the creation story isn’t historical fact? Sin is here today. Doesn’t that still make Jesus’s mission valid?

 

[Les_Richardson]

Oolon Colluphid:

LOL! And still the tried and untrustworthy creationist claims roll in…

Thank you Les for yet another unsupported assertion on these boards. Now… I don’t suppose I could trouble you to support that claim, could I? I realise it’s too much to hope that you’ll explain why "evolution is becoming ‘untenable as science’ " yourself, so perhaps you might start by citing the source for the bit you put in quote marks, suggesting it is a quote.

For clarification, the quotation marks were originally from **georgeaquinas, **for the purpose of highlighting two distinct propositions.

As to the assertion, take it or leave it. If I have the time I’ll find the references. Recent genetic discoveries have a lot to do with it. It is just becoming more and more preposterous to accept the proposition that genetic mutation can result in a *higher, more complex *form of life from a lower. Indeed, it is the reverse.
Of course, within every species there are variants and changes in population ratios based on enviromental factors. Never a change of species.
That is where the “faith” of scientists has always existed. The “theory” of evolution has always depended on it. It has been a faith in the future, if you will, ie. “someday we will find out how it happens”, much like we will someday find a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste. But the more we know about genetics the dimmer and further away that future becomes. When it reaches critical mass across the fields of science, it will be general public knowledge.
Do you want to know what the real problem is? What do we replace it with without going back to a “young earth” creation? The whole point of this thread from georgeaquinas is that there is no need to reject evolution on theological grounds. I have no dispute with that.
I just made the point (perhaps not clearly) that it is ironic that evolutionary theory has been sustained and promoted on theological grounds from the beginning, ie. “There is no God.”
I apologize, but I find it amusing that we would be concerned with how popular opinion looks at creationists, in particular the “young earthers”, when “intelligent design” is gaining more credence as the only way, for now, to rationally explain the genetic complexity we see when we map the genome.
I suppose I haven’t as much invested in the theory of evolution as others, so you are right to ask for chapter and verse. I’ll go looking this weekend. If I can’t find what I need I’ll pull back.
Either way, I don’t think it is necessary to get too wedded to evolutionary theory.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

LOL …another evolutionists supports theory as fact .
Evolution is only a THEORY which has never been proven but is taught as fact.

:banghead: :yawn: (Though not necessarily in that order.)

Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

webdezyn:

scientists who support this THEORY has never found evidence to prove it yet they teach it as if its the discovery of the century !

Well as above, nothing is ever ‘proven’ in science. But if the claim is that scientists have never found evidence to *strongly support * it yet, then I’m at a loss as to where to start with introducing you to the evidence. Perhaps birds having genes for making teeth? The telomeres in our chromosome 2? our extensor coccygis muscle? KNM-WT 15000? Whale embryos having hind legs? Every aspect of every bit of biology?

And it was a discovery of the century before last. That’s how far behind the times you are.

 

[Catholic2003]

Booger:

It’s obvious that ppolz and webdezyn have never taken biology. I wonder if the physicists would be mad if I, someone that has never taken physics, suddenly started to proclaim (loudly in bold type) that quantum theory is not real, never been proven, is not fact, and so on. They would probably look at my credentials (having no physics experience) and just laugh at me and continue their work. After all, it is only a theory.

That’s another key difference between evolution and creationism. I have several books on evolution, and they all talk about various aspects of the theory, how they are supported by the latest DNA analysis, what problems still remain in the theory, etc., without even mentioning creationism. However, every book or website that I have seen on creationism consists mainly of attacks on the theory of evolution, without ever trying to build up a consistent theory of creationism or intelligent design that makes predictions that can be verified or falsified on their own.

 

[Booger]

Catholic2003:

That’s another key difference between evolution and creationism. I have several books on evolution, and they all talk about various aspects of the theory, how they are supported by the latest DNA analysis, what problems still remain in the theory, etc., without even mentioning creationism. However, every book or website that I have seen on creationism consists mainly of attacks on the theory of evolution, without ever trying to build up a consistent theory of creationism or intelligent design that makes predictions that can be verified or falsified on their own.

I would seriously give creationism/ID the time of day if they came up with something, anything that looked scientific. The problem is that they are religious movements, not scientific. You will never find a scientific creationism/ID model, hypothesis, or theory. After all, if the idea of creationism/ID is to explain God, then that is out of the realm of science. Creationists are free to believe whatever they want, but they cannot claim that their religion is science. If that is the case, then all religions are science and all should be respected equally. It just becomes one big mess. I am sorry that evolution clashes with the creationists’ religious views, but they cannot deny reality and still expect to be taken seriously. Evolution is reality. Evolution may be a tool used by a god, but it is still reality.

 

[Booger]

Something else that I don’t understand that I’ve been seeing at this board is that a lot of these creationist arguments are Young-earth Evangelican Protestant arguments? Why are Catholics siding with Protestants on religious issues? Is it because they are still harboring lingering Protestant views that didn’t leave after their Catholic conversions? Somebody should explain this.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

THE TRUTH about the THEORY of evolution… THE big FAT lie …

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16377

I couldn’t agree more. Nothing but big fat lies about evolution there… Would you like me to take that pile of poo apart line by line? Here’s but one example:

But the fossil record, revealing the different stages of man’s evolution from apelike creature to homo sapiens, has not been found. Paleoanthropologists have hunted high and low for the missing link or links. But not only have they not found them, they are now pretty sure that such links do not exist.

Yeah, right.

Here’s just a few of these non-existent things. Could you tell me which are the apes, and which are the humans, please?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The simple fact is that no proof whatever has been found indicating that one species evolves into another.

You mean presumably, apart from all these observed instances of speciation, these 29 evidences for macroevolution and these transitional vertebrate fossils, to name but a minuscule fraction of the evidence…

 

[georgeaquinas]

Mr. Booger (that was fun to type!)

Thank you for your last comment. I alluded to this in my original post, but your comments make it explicit. I also wonder how much of the discussion in this thread is a result of an incomplete de-Protestantization.

I came into the Church from Protestantism over ten years ago and am still amazed at the amount of Protestant baggage I still have.

One of my concerns is that if evolution is used as a litmus test for Faith, many potential Catholics will be left at the door.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

ppolz:

The fossil record is simply a series of still pictures of species that existed at one time. They do not show how one species evolves into another. Transitional fossils have not been found.

Naturally, I disagree. But perhaps, since you don’t think they exist, you could tell me please what a ‘transitional fossil’ should look like…? (I do think they exist, I have seen some, and so know what *I *mean by the term!) What sorts of things should we look for in a transitional fossil between humans and apes?

The fossil record shows new species appearing suddenly without any ancestors.

Could you list a few examples please?

What scientific investigation indicates is that the species are immutable

You mean, apart from things like ring species? If the species Canis lupus familiaris is immutable, I’ll need you to define immutable! I guess you mean that ‘kinds’ are immutable. Perhaps then you could tell us how to identify a ‘kind’?

(Just so you know, though, ‘baraminologist’ Kurt Wise thinks kinds roughly equate to the taxonomic level of Family. So the bovidae are all one kind – everything from a yak to a dik-dik. Apparently.)

and that when mutations occur they do not become new species.

Since evolution does not proceed by big jumps, that’s hardly a surprise, and certainly no objection to evolution.

For example, evolutionists have been experimenting with fruit flies for years in the hope of demonstrating evolution at work. But the fruit flies have stubbornly refused to develop into anything but more fruit flies, despite all kinds of stimuli, including radiation.

Perhaps they ought to turn into, say, cats? Do you know what a straw man argument is?

Some mutations have occurred, but nothing to suggest the beginnings of a new species.

Jeshua H Annointed! Please define species while you’re at it! You really do in fact seem to mean ‘kinds’. So tell us what a ‘kind’ is!

 

[georgeaquinas]

An innocent question:

If we are all agreed that evolutionary thoery is compatible with the Cathoic Faith, then why is everyone still arguing about evolution???

To the young-earthers, creationists, et al: What do you find so objectable about evolution (and don’t say it goes against religion, because we have disscussed that ad nauseum)? What makes you react so emotionally? Is it that offensive to say you share some genes with a panda?

In my humble opinion, I think it is because you still are refusing to believe that evolutionary thoery is compatible with the Faith.