Evolution question.

[Justin1982]

Is it such a stretch to believe that creation is only part of the story and evolution is the other part, much like the world only being 6000 years old. Could it be that 6000 years ago was the beginning of human understanding. Basically prior to, God allowed us to get to a certain point and then allowed us to think on our own. God created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days, what exactly is a day to God? We define a day by 24 hours, God’s day may be 65,000,000 years to us.

Maybe that helps maybe it doesn’t but that’s my thoughts or questions posed on evolution.

 

[Thing]

Once again Genesis gets it right; the phyla of plants are created first in day 3; the phyla of animals are created on the fifth day; and man was created last of all, on the sixth day.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. 3 And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Which I suppose is why we have not seen any new Phyla created since the Cambrian Explosion about 500 million years ago, (or even since the creation of man, on the sixth day, 100,000 years ago?).

 

[rossum]

Once again Genesis gets it right; the phyla of plants are created first in day 3; the phyla of animals are created on the fifth day; and man was created last of all, on the sixth day.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. 3 And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Which I suppose is why we have not seen any new Phyla created since the Cambrian Explosion about 500 million years ago, (or even since the creation of man, on the sixth day, 100,000 years ago?).

You are being misinformed by your source. All land plant phyla formed after the Cambrian and there are many animal Phyla for which the earliest fossil evidence appears after the Cambrian so we cannot say with certainty that they evolved in, or before, the Cambrian. Many Phyla have no fossil evidence at all so we cannot say when they originally appeared.

Period              # animal phyla    # plant phyla  total phyla
======              ==============    =============  ===========
Recent               12                 1             13
Oligocene             1                 1              2
Eocene                1                 1              2
Jurassic              1                 0              1
Triassic              0                 3              3
Carboniferous         3                 2              5
Devonian              1                 3              4
Silurian              0                 1              1
Ordovician            1                 0              1
Cambrian              9                 0              9
Vendian               4                 0              4

From Glenn Morton: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

The Phyla with no fossil evidence are included in “Recent”.

rossum

 

[Thing]

You are being misinformed by your source. All land plant phyla formed after the Cambrian and there are many animal Phyla for which the earliest fossil evidence appears after the Cambrian so we cannot say with certainty that they evolved in, or before, the Cambrian. Many Phyla have no fossil evidence at all so we cannot say when they originally appeared.

Period              # animal phyla    # plant phyla  total phyla
======              ==============    =============  ===========
Recent               12                 1             13
Oligocene             1                 1              2
Eocene                1                 1              2
Jurassic              1                 0              1
Triassic              0                 3              3
Carboniferous         3                 2              5
Devonian              1                 3              4
Silurian              0                 1              1
Ordovician            1                 0              1
Cambrian              9                 0              9
Vendian               4                 0              4

From Glenn Morton: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

The Phyla with no fossil evidence are included in “Recent”.

rossum

Ah yes, the wooden-literal approach. The author of Genesis states the plant and animal phyla are created on or between the third and fifth days, beginning on the third day, even up until the creation of man on the sixth day.
The alga Grypania, and eucaryote red algae Bangiomorpha pubescens, I read, has been found as far back as 2100 million and 1200 million years ago, respectively. This area of time, and it could go much earlier too, to bacteria 3.5 billion years ago, is analogous to the third day of creation, the first plants created;

…of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb

The rest of the plant phyla followed, during, before or after the Cambrian Explosion, if you want, it does not matter. The animal phyla in like fashion.
Man was created after the plant and animal phyla were created and no plant or animal phyla were created after man was created on the sixth day.
Vendian 4 0 4

From Glenn Morton: home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

The Phyla with no fossil evidence are included in "Recent".

rossum

 

[rossum]

Ah yes, the wooden-literal approach. The author of Genesis states the plant and animal phyla are created on or between the third and fifth days, beginning on the third day, even up until the creation of man on the sixth day.
The alga Grypania, and eucaryote red algae Bangiomorpha pubescens, I read, has been found as far back as 2100 million and 1200 million years ago, respectively. This area of time, and it could go much earlier too, to bacteria 3.5 billion years ago, is analogous to the third day of creation, the first plants created;

Science is literal. In science words have very precise meanings; algae are not plants, they are protozoa.

…of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb

The rest of the plant phyla followed, during, before or after the Cambrian Explosion, if you want, it does not matter. The animal phyla in like fashion.

Land plants did not appear until the Silurian, well after the Cambrian.

Man was created after the plant and animal phyla were created and no plant or animal phyla were created after man was created on the sixth day.

I spent a whole five minutes looking at a blade of grass and I could tell that it doesn’t grow at all. We will know whether new Phyla appear after Homo sapiens in a few million years time.

rossum

 

[Thing]

Science is literal. In science words have very precise meanings; algae are not plants, they are protozoa.

Nature does not have precise delineations, she probably abhors them too.
Algae can and do photosynthesize as plants do, and that is sufficiently close for me to call them plants.
Science is artificial. Nature has no natural clear bounds.

Land plants did not appear until the Silurian, well after the Cambrian.

Plants on earth - can mean either water or land plants.

I spent a whole five minutes looking at a blade of grass and I could tell that it doesn’t grow at all. We will know whether new Phyla appear after Homo sapiens in a few million years time.

rossum

So you agree, no new phyla were created after man was created on the sixth day.
The earth may end tomorrow or not, at least one story got it straight so far, we’ll worry about phyla in the future if it happens.

 

[rossum]

So you agree, no new phyla were created after man was created on the sixth day.

No, I do not agree. There are Phyla with no fossil record so we do not yet know when they evolved. We do not know how many new Phyla will evolve in the future.

rossum

 

[Thing]

No, I do not agree. There are Phyla with no fossil record so we do not yet know when they evolved. We do not know how many new Phyla will evolve in the future.

rossum

You only need to find new phyla created within the last… oh lets say, at a stretch, 3 million years, assuming the people 3 million years ago were fully human.

 

[edwest2]

I would like to get into a discussion. But, at this time I will respect the ban and try not to get in a back and forth concerning evolution. But, as ThomasToo pointed out, Pope John Paul II expressed an openness to the theory of evolution. I would just like to ask a question. The church seems quite open to the acceptance of the theory. Why do so many people still not accept it? Is it because you think it somehow goes against your belief in God? I have many Catholic friends that believe it was overseen by God. So, in essence, it is a natural process that is overseen by the creator. I’m just curious as to why this issue still divides so many when the church itself shows a great acceptance towards the theory.

.murmur.

“great acceptance”? Where?

From the document, 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.”

A careful reading of what the Church teaches clearly shows that there is more than one theory under consideration and that some are incompatible with the Catholic faith.

God bless,
Ed

 

[twinc]

I would like to get into a discussion. But, at this time I will respect the ban and try not to get in a back and forth concerning evolution. But, as ThomasToo pointed out, Pope John Paul II expressed an openness to the theory of evolution. I would just like to ask a question. The church seems quite open to the acceptance of the theory. Why do so many people still not accept it? Is it because you think it somehow goes against your belief in God? I have many Catholic friends that believe it was overseen by God. So, in essence, it is a natural process that is overseen by the creator. I’m just curious as to why this issue still divides so many when the church itself shows a great acceptance towards the theory.

.murmur.

Who or what is the Church in your opinion - does the Pope speak infallibly when he does not speak ex cathedra - the Pope stated fallibly,it seems,that coal and oil take millions of years to form,this just is not acceptable for many many Catholics because it just is not true - twinc

 

[murmur]

It is 4am and I should have gone to sleep a while ago. I am interested in following up your points. But, if I seem not to make sense I kindly ask for your forgiveness and I will look things over tomorrow morning. But, I shall try!

A careful reading of what the Church teaches clearly shows that there is more than one theory under consideration and that some are incompatible with the Catholic faith.

Hello, edwest. What I got from that is that the Theory of Evolution itself was being regarded by the Pope as more than a mere hypothesis. However, many groups will then take that theory and attempt to say it means different things. The excerpt mentions neo-darwinian groups that would leave God out of the equation entirely. Of course these groups are completely incompatible with the Catholic understanding of the world. A world created by a righteous and loving God. It makes sense that the Pope would make it clear that there are a number of schools of thought that view evolution in a different light. It follows that after making the strong point that there exists a large body of evidence supporting evolution, and that it is no longer a mere hypothesis, he should be clear in his support of the theory itself and not many of the schools that have formed and taken God out of the equation. To me, it seems as if he is speaking of the Theory of Evolution itself, period. He is talking about its most basic tenet which is gradual change through natural selection. Once you depart from the core theory itself and enter into different ideas of though concerning the theory, then you reach a branch point. It makes sense to me that the Pope would be sure to make it known that he was in no way condoning any of the schools that believe in ways that go against Church teachings.

The fact that you say that there is more than one theory under consideration seems incorrect. There is only one Theory of Evolution. Now, again, small disagreements exist over certain components within the theory. But, the over-reaching theory as a whole is fairly standard across the many schools of thought. The differences the Pope speaks on is whether people think God begin evolution and guided it progression or not. (This is a far simplified view of the many schools of thought, but I think you understand my meaning. Basically, there are those that see God in evolution, and see it as one of his tools. Then, there are those that see it occurring without his influence at all.)

Incidentally, could you provide me a link where I could read the whole document? It’s been some time and I should refresh myself. Thank you.

Who or what is the Church in your opinion - does the Pope speak infallibly when he does not speak ex cathedra - the Pope stated fallibly,it seems,that coal and oil take millions of years to form,this just is not acceptable for many many Catholics because it just is not true - twinc

Hello, twinc. I understand your position. Clearly, the Pope was not speaking on matters of faith, and is certainly fallible in such a situation. I just thought that most people would be of the impression that such a proclamation would not come lightly. Many times science and religion seem to go at one another. In this instance the Pope is saying that the Church recognizes the proposed science as more than a theory. I thought a large number of Catholics that might have previously rejected evolution for their religion’s sake alone would allow themselves to consider it. Indeed, in this area my experience is not as strong. I was under the impression that a majority of Catholics accepted the Theory of Evolution. Most of the ones that live in my area that I speak to do. Is this not a majority? I believe I am right when I say that compared to other Christian denominations Catholics have a higher percentage of followers that accept evolution. I would love to see some percentages on this if anyone is away. I am very curious. Thank you.

.murmur.

 

[Thing]

murmer:

He is talking about its most basic tenet which is gradual change through natural selection.

Perhaps there should be a New Official definition of what evolution really is.

It used to mean gradual change. Then it seemed to mean gradual change through natural selection. Then it seemed to throw out gradual change and say very rapid change with relatively long periods of no change.

The last idea was proposed by a quite famous atheist paleontologist after many years in the field studing fossil beds in the Burgess shale. Change occured rapidly, suddenly, not gradually. Which is closer to the idea of creature design being created on-the-hoof, so to speak by the Creator.

 

[rossum]

It used to mean gradual change. Then it seemed to mean gradual change through natural selection. Then it seemed to throw out gradual change and say very rapid change with relatively long periods of no change.

You have been misinformed. I suggest that you read “On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin. If you look at Chapter Four you will read:But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.
and in Chapter Eleven:the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.
That “very rapid change with relatively long periods of no change” you mention has been in evolution since 1859.

The last idea was proposed by a quite famous atheist paleontologist after many years in the field studing fossil beds in the Burgess shale. Change occured rapidly, suddenly, not gradually. Which is closer to the idea of creature design being created on-the-hoof, so to speak by the Creator.

Various errors here. Punctuated equilibrium was proposed by two palaeontologists, Gould and Eldredge and the bulk of their study did not involve the Burgess shale. Later on, Gould did write a popular book, “Wonderful Life” about the Burgess shale which also expounded his ideas on Punctuated Equilibrium and other things. It may be that you are thinking of that book.

Punctuated Equilibrium is not an alternative to evolution, it is part of evolution.

Just as I would be wary of anything I read on Jack Chick’s website about the Catholic Church, so you should be wary of what you read about evolution on a creationist website. Punctuated Equilibrium is not a problem for evolution, indeed it was mentioned briefly by Darwin when he first proposed his theory.

rossum

 

[Thing]

You have been misinformed. I suggest that you read “On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin. If you look at Chapter Four you will read:But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.
and in Chapter Eleven:the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.
That “very rapid change with relatively long periods of no change” you mention has been in evolution since 1859.

Various errors here. Punctuated equilibrium was proposed by two palaeontologists, Gould and Eldredge and the bulk of their study did not involve the Burgess shale. Later on, Gould did write a popular book, “Wonderful Life” about the Burgess shale which also expounded his ideas on Punctuated Equilibrium and other things. It may be that you are thinking of that book.

Punctuated Equilibrium is not an alternative to evolution, it is part of evolution.

Just as I would be wary of anything I read on Jack Chick’s website about the Catholic Church, so you should be wary of what you read about evolution on a creationist website. Punctuated Equilibrium is not a problem for evolution, indeed it was mentioned briefly by Darwin when he first proposed his theory.

rossum

Ah, I see. But, read again, I did not say, and I am not saying that punctuated equilibrium was an alternative to evolution. Where did you get that idea. It was stated a few posts ago that evolutions most basic tenet was gradual change through natural selection, but this gives the *impression *, to me at least, of a continuous gradual change by slight modification of design. That is the point. And as you say Darwin, within the confines of his degree of knowledge, and S.J. Gould and all those folk he worked alongside shared and, they would say, put forward the idea, not of gradual Darwinian change but of rapid substantial changes in design over short periods interspersed with long periods of stability, - not, gradual or otherwise continuous, changes or modifications.

…Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species… - wiki

 

[StrawberryJam]

Ah, I see. But, read again, I did not say, and I am not saying that punctuated equilibrium was an alternative to evolution. Where did you get that idea. It was stated a few posts ago that evolutions most basic tenet was gradual change through natural selection, but this gives the *impression *, to me at least, of a continuous gradual change by slight modification of design. That is the point. And as you say Darwin, within the confines of his degree of knowledge, and S.J. Gould and all those folk he worked alongside shared and, they would say, put forward the idea, not of gradual Darwinian change but of rapid substantial changes in design over short periods interspersed with long periods of stability, - not, gradual or otherwise continuous, changes or modifications.

…Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species… - wiki

There goes the argument used on this site to distrust Wiki

 

[Thing]

There goes the argument used on this site to distrust Wiki

I happen to like wiki - because if it states something thats wrong, then you can go into it change it and correct it. Hint hint…

 

[rossum]

Where did you get that idea. It was stated a few posts ago that evolutions most basic tenet was gradual change through natural selection, but this gives the *impression *, to me at least, of a continuous gradual change by slight modification of design.

Evolution is gradual, but it is not always continuous. As you say, some people have the impression that it is always continuous but that is an incorrect impression.

That is the point. And as you say Darwin, within the confines of his degree of knowledge, and S.J. Gould and all those folk he worked alongside shared and, they would say, put forward the idea, not of gradual Darwinian change but of rapid substantial changes in design over short periods interspersed with long periods of stability, - not, gradual or otherwise continuous, changes or modifications.

Gould did some good work on the snail Cerion which showed that in that particular case change was slow and continuous. Punctuated Equilibrium is not all that we see - we also see the slow continuous version.

It is also worth remembering that in Punctuated Equilibrium, ‘fast’ may mean 10,000 generations instead of 250,000 generations for the ‘slow’ style of evolution. PE is only ‘fast’ in geological terms. For example, the Cambrian Explosion took about 5 to 15 million years. That is fast in geological terms but slow in human terms.

rossum

 

[Ecoclimber]

I don’t usually get involve in discussions like this since I don’t have the background on this and it’s really not germane for salvation. But, I do have a question that involves the Hebrew language. First, everyone thought 7 days but our Lord said a day is like a thousand days. People then assumed 7 thousand years but to me it in 2 Peter 3: 8 means that God Who stands outside of time, was using that verse as a hyperbole meaning not specifically thousand years but a period of unknown duration. I was wondering if the Hebrew for day in Genesis could also mean period i.e. seven periods of time. Just curious…

 

[buffalo]

I’m just curious as to why this issue still divides so many when the church itself shows a great acceptance towards the theory.

.murmur.

Because this is better:

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

With Philpp on CAF - Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

 

[rvilbig]

I don’t usually get involve in discussions like this since I don’t have the background on this and it’s really not germane for salvation. But, I do have a question that involves the Hebrew language. First, everyone thought 7 days but our Lord said a day is like a thousand days. People then assumed 7 thousand years but to me it in 2 Peter 3: 8 means that God Who stands outside of time, was using that verse as a hyperbole meaning not specifically thousand years but a period of unknown duration. I was wondering if the Hebrew for day in Genesis could also mean period i.e. seven periods of time. Just curious…

This interpretation has been put forth. As Cardinal Ruffini has written: “The rigorously verbal theory [of Genesis] presented insurmountable difficulties to the greater number of modern scholars, therefore, it was thought to mitigate it by taking the Hebrew word yom not in the ordinary sense of “day,” but in that of an indefinite period or epoch (Periodism). Thus any clash with science seemed to be avoided without risking a capricious exegesis, for often in the Bible the word yom is found to have the value of a rather long period of time: (e.g. Is.49,8;Ezech 7:7, and in Psalm2,7). Indeed, such an explanation was believed to be, in the context, the only one possible, because on the one hand the first three days, being without the sun, could not have been days in the ordinary sense, and on the other, the seventh day, consecrated to God’s resting after creation-certainly equal in duration to the other six which preceded it-still continues (cf. Gen 2,3)” (Ruffini, Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith, page 70). Ruffini goes on to cite Cuvier, de Serres, Pianciani, Creseto, and Hettinger as Catholic proponents of this interpretation.

Also, it may be helpful to note Cardinal Newman’s thoughts on evolution: In a letter, he wrote: “As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. Mr. Darwin’s theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that ‘the accidental evolution of organic beings’ is inconsistent with divine design — It is accidental to us, not to God.” (Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, Volume 24, page 77)

I will pray that all of your questions are answered and that you remain always in the Church.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com