Evolution refuting catholicism?

[vern_humphrey]

dcdurel:

The creation story must be taken as true, though there is figurative language in it. The 6 days of creation may be taken as 6 literal days as many Church Fathers taught, or as 6 periods of time as Augustine taught. This is Church teaching in the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which Catholics MUST hold to.

The Church does say we must interpret the bible literally, unless there is a good reason not to do so, in Providentissimus Deus.

And in the case of the creation story, the Church agrees that science makes a persuasive case for evolution, such that Catholics are NOT required to reject evolution.

dcdurel:

For those who say Intelligent Design is not scientific, then why do these scientists believe in it?.

They DIDN’T and they DON’T!

Intellitgent Design (Capital I, Capital D), is a specific set of beliefs, advanced by a specific group of people. Some of the scientists you listed were dead before most of the people who devleoped the Intellitgent Design (Capital I, Capital D) system of beliefs were born!

To say that Albert Einstein believed in Intellitgent Design (Capital I, Capital D) makes as much sense as saying John the Baptist was a Baptist.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Now, do Catholics believe that God greated the universe? Yes.

Do they believe that He is involved in His creation? Yes.

Does that mean we must choose Behe to be our next Pope? No.

 

[Neithan]

Oh man, this is tiring, and pointless. Newsflash folks: science is never going to disprove the existence of God. Likewise, it will never prove His existence (“Intelligent Design Theory” is a bogus effort). It deals with physical matter only, not metaphysical matter. Natural, not supernatural. Kind of like you can never prove the substance of my thoughts or dreams purely from scientific observation. Science and religion are on different levels of reality. Not everything that exists can be perceived by our 5 bodily senses.

Evolution is not refuting Catholicism. Although there seems to be fossil evidence that the first homo sapiens evolved polygenetically, there is better evidence for monogenism. All modern humans (homo sapien sapiens) can be traced through mitochondrial DNA to two original ancestors (modern ADAM and EVE) about 150 000 years ago. Nothing is as-of-yet conclusively proven, however. No need to worry.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Neithan:

Oh man, this is tiring, and pointless. .

You said it!

Neithan:
Evolution is not refuting Catholicism. Although there seems to be fossil evidence that the first homo sapiens evolved polygenetically, there is better evidence for monogenism. All modern humans (homo sapien sapiens) can be traced through mitochondrial DNA to two original ancestors (modern ADAM and EVE) about 150 000 years ago. Nothing is as-of-yet conclusively proven, however. No need to worry.
Right.

1. Evolution does not threaten Catholicism.
2. Catholics are not required to believe in the story of creation literally.
3. So why worr this subject to death?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[vern_humphrey]

ISABUS:

Vern, why settle for being the Pope when there was a brief moment in history I was Mary, the Mother of God according to Led Zippy! Yee Gads! He is a clever little critter zip zapping along on his motorcycle. Unfortunately, the moderators deleted that quote and suspended him… ahhhh… **HE’s BACK! **He is now Leb Zep 75.2 . Actually, I think he is the cutest rascal. Gotta love ‘em. He is 'THE GREAT MEME’ on the loose! I guess my IQ of 173 is no match for him. Heck, I’ll use my laso and rope that steer before the year is up!

You did pick up on his claim that there is life on Mars?

(And no doubt communicating with him through his tinfoil helmit.)

ISABUS:

Vern, from the directions you have given, I must have driven past your exist last time I was in your neck of the woods. It is absolutely gorgeous country. Great locale for pulling the bow ~ archary or horseback riding.

I did hear some awesome folk music in a quaint pub while in Eureka Springs. It was great fun skipping from club to club listening to live tunes in the evening with my friends.

May the Spirit of Christmas bring great joy to you, your wife, and children ~

Mary

Mountain View has the music out of doors – stop at the Square and there will be several groups playing any evening when it’s not raining or too cold (but more on weekends.)

For outdoor sports, this place can’t be beat – the best trout fishing in the world is on the White River, there’s good fishing for bass and other fish in the creeks. Lots of hiking and ridig trails, good hunting, and so on.

If you’re in the neighborhood, give us a call – we’re in the book.

And a Merry Christmas to you and yours.

 

[PhilVaz]

Neith << there is better evidence for monogenism. All modern humans (homo sapien sapiens) can be traced through mitochondrial DNA to two original ancestors (modern ADAM and EVE) about 150 000 years ago. Nothing is as-of-yet conclusively proven, however. No need to worry. >>

Actually, mt-Eve and Y-Adam is not monogenism. But anyway, we’ve been through this a couple billion times in previous threads.

The mt-Eve (lived about 150,000 years ago) and Y-Adam (lived about 60,000 years ago) were our “most recent common ancestor.” It doesn’t mean they were the first homo sapiens, or the only homo sapiens around at that point. As HECD2 explains, the population bottleneck never got below around 10,000 human individuals. Plus “Adam/Eve” were not “married” – as you can see they are separated by about 80,000 to 100,000 years.

HECD2 has been through this a number of times presenting all the data. Check out his excellent EvolutionPages.com for detailed information

A short article explaining this from TalkOrigins

A good book is The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, explains how scientists arrive at the dates for mt-Eve and Y-Adam

Finally, a new book I found Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds of Faith and Biology (Intervarsity Press, 2004). Just finished it, a fantastic book by an evangelical Darrel Falk who has a Ph.D. in biology and teaches at a Nazarene college. He accepts a “gradual creation” (his term for evolution throughout the book) and presents all the scientific evidence on a undergraduate college level and how this doesn’t threaten but enhances his faith. Excellent Christmas gift.

Phil P

 

[Neithan]

The mt-Eve (lived about 150,000 years ago) and Y-Adam (lived about 60,000 years ago) were our “most recent common ancestor.”

Yeah, we’re all related, (all modern human beings) MtE and YcA prove that. Therefore the Catholic dogma of original sin stands. We should as Christians beleive the creation story in Genesis, but not in a literal way. Like Revelations.

Personally, I hypothesize that although homo sapiens (one notch lower on the evolutionary chain) were likely around at the time (Cain says “anyone who finds me will kill me” in Gen. 4: 14) Adam and Eve (whether they are the MtE or YcA or not) were the first homo sapien sapiens from which all modern humans are descendant. These were the only people with immortal souls (the first “true men” according to Pope Pius XII) and are the originators of sin. This is in keeping with Catholic orthodoxy (papal infallibility).

OR, maybe Adam and Eve in the Bible are the monogenetic ancestors of the ancient Israelites? The “historical” Adam and Eve then symbolize how *all *modern humanity has ‘fallen’ and is related through sin. This view is certainly not orthodox, but makes sense as well. This would still leave the question open of when God infused immortal souls, and the animals-resembling-men (our evolutionary ancestors) became true human beings.

 

[SCTA-1]

It was taught that God created the world perfect without disease,death or chaos.But science has shown that there was death and chaos for billions of years before so called Adam and Eve came around.Now, when was Paradise created? Why all the mess for billions of years then all of a sudden comes Paradise.What is Catholic teaching about death and chaos for billions of years on this earth.We were taught that God created everything perfect from the beginning.How do we solve this problem?

 

[PhilVaz]

SCTA << What is Catholic teaching about death and chaos for billions of years on this earth. We were taught that God created everything perfect from the beginning. How do we solve this problem? >>

It’s been discussed in previous threads. Don’t have a full answer myself. It’s clear the Catholic Church allows some figurative interpretation of the Genesis story. But the theological objections we keep coming back to are

(1) Adam/Eve literal – many references in the Catechism to “our first parents” and that we all descend from them and inherit “original sin” from them

(2) death before the Fall – I don’t think animal death would necessarily conflict, since Rom 5:12 (for example) seems to speak of human death only, or perhaps only spiritual death. Other folks point to Romans 8 as implying there was no death at all before the Fall. I don’t think you will find magisterial teaching that says no cockroach or ant or plant could die before the Fall.

Death before the Fall (or existence) of humanity is a fact of science unless you posit (A) a young earth, and sudden creation of all animals and humans, or (B) the original Paradise/Garden was something like heaven and not on this earth (which was suggested in other threads). This would not be a problem with science, since heaven or a “parallel universe” is not testable by science.

Three solutions to theological objections:

( I ) Deny all of science, posit a young earth, a sudden creation of all animals, and a literal Adam/Eve specially created from scratch who played with T-Rex in the backyard since the dinosaurs ate only plants and not meat

( II ) Deny or re-interpret Catholic theology to explain that Genesis is myth that presents religious truths, and that original sin and the human soul can be incorporated into a naturalistic evolutionary theology – John Haught view (books God After Darwin, and Deeper Than Darwin, but I’m not sophisticated enough to understand him)

These are the extreme ends of a possible solution. Then

( III ) Unknown solution that keeps Adam/Eve somehow literal and works them into the human evolution scenario (Glenn Morton is good here, though he is not Catholic)

Phil P

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Intellitgent Design (Capital I, Capital D), is a specific set of beliefs, advanced by a specific group of people.

No, it isn’t.

The fact that a group of semi-Fundamentalists have formed qan organization titled Intelligetn Designs, Inc. is not in any way evidence that the phrase “Intelligeent Design” carries with it any implication of affiliation with this obscure group.

If I wanted to, my freinds and I could go and start an organization called “Evolution, Inc.” but you wouldn’t exert the same energies toward differentiating “evolution” and “Evolution”, would you?

 

[PhilVaz]

Evolution, Inc (capital E)

Intelligent Design, Inc (capital ID)

 

[dcdurel]

vern humphrey:

And in the case of the creation story, the Church agrees that science makes a persuasive case for evolution, such that Catholics are NOT required to reject evolution.

The Church never says that science makes a persuasive case for evolution. It might make a case for a common ancestor, but not Darwinian evolution. The Pope mentioned something in passing, but He clearly was not presenting it as Church teaching. And even what he mention in passing refered to a God-directed evolution, which could have been accomplished in 6 seconds, 6 days, or 6 billion years, not a Darwinian evolution which Catholics cannot accept.

Then I wrote:
For those who say Intelligent Design is not scientific, then why do these scientists believe in it?
Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein:
"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation… His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."14]

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron… The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."15]

Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."16]

Astronomer Robert Jastrow:
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."17]

They DIDN’T and they DON’T!

Intellitgent Design (Capital I, Capital D), is a specific set of beliefs, advanced by a specific group of people. Some of the scientists you listed were dead before most of the people who devleoped the Intellitgent Design (Capital I, Capital D) system of beliefs were born!

To say that Albert Einstein believed in Intellitgent Design (Capital I, Capital D) makes as much sense as saying John the Baptist was a Baptist.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

I don’t think you read closely what Einstein said. He spoke about “universal causation” which means creation. Then he said
“which reveals an intelligence of such superiority”
Obviously this refers to intelligent design. All of them refer to someone or something designing the universe.

You wrote Intellitgent Design (Capital I, Capital D), is a specific set of beliefs, advanced by a specific group of people.

Actually they got it from the scientists mentioned above. All it means is that from studing the physics of the universe, it is impossible that it came about by chance. Some intelligence had to design it. This is what Einstein and other theoretical and astrophysicists have been saying for years. If you study their reasoning, it is hard to argue with Einstein, Hawking, Hoyle, and Jastrow. And I left out Crick, who discovered DNA. He also concludes that life could not have started on this planet from chance. So he says it came from another planet. Of course, on the other planet he will have the same problem. There is no way life can start from chance.

 

[dcdurel]

The problem is that most peoples pride is so strong that they don’t want to admit that they might be wrong. So they attack the person, (ad hominem attacks) rather than discussing closely the
merits of the case. Or they try to assign everything to Fundamentalists, implying that Fundamentalists are always wrong. That’s not very logical.

The case from studying the physics of the universe is extremely hard to reject. For every single part of the universe, from the smallest electron, to gravity, to the big bang, rule out chance as the cause of the universe.

Unlike evolution where the beginnings of life from chance must be ruled out, and many irriducible biological systems must be ruled out and the fossil evidence must be ruled out, because of the gaps, and the genetics rules out evolution, because beneficial mutations are rare if non existant, the evolutionist can still ignore all those and come up with a theory that ignores all those, and this theory will still seem plausible if one ignores all the above factors.

I notice that those who insist on evolution, either ignore the above contradictions to evolution, or deny them and say they don’t exist.
For example, they now simply ignore the beginning of life from chance and say it doesn’t concern them. It surely did in the past. But with the fossil record, they try to deny that there are huge gaps in the fossil record, despite the fact that evolution giants such as Gould admited there are giant gaps, and instead come up with all those discredited ape men, or dinosaur birds, or archeopterx, etc. which they propose as missing links, but in the end never work out. They all end up being false.

There is just no way around it, Darwinian evolution is will die. It is inevitable. It is a theory desperately in search of facts to try to justify it. It was proposed when scientists did not know the complexity of a single live cell, when they thought gaps in the fossil record would be filled, and when they thought small variations of species could eventully lead to large variations and new species, and hundreds of other false assumptions.
The proof that it is dying is the fact that it’s supporters increasingly rely on attacking the persons who support the theory, instead of trying to give any reasonable answer to the glaring scientific evidence that contradicts the theory.

The fact that this reply will generate all kinds of ad hominem attacks will be proof that it is a dying theory.

 

[PhilVaz]

durel << The fact that this reply will generate all kinds of ad hominem attacks will be proof that it is a dying theory. >>

Yeah you tell them. And don’t forget, the geologic column doesn’t exist except in the textbooks, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics absolutely refutes evolution, there are no transitional forms and the ones they think they have are all frauds because most scientists are liars, and the small dust layer on the moon proves the earth is young, that’s why NASA had those big cups on the lunar lander, those idiots thought there would be a lot more dust. Or maybe we didn’t go to the moon at all, but that’s for another thread. All explained at these sites

www.BibleBiology.com
www.SacredAstronomy.net
www.ScripturalGeology.com
www.BiblicalPaleontology.org
www.AnswersInGenesis.com

Phil P

 

[Neithan]

dcdurel: from those quotes you posted it seems like you are confusing “Intelligent Design Theory” with the “Strong Anthropic Principle.”
The former seems to deny that life evolved naturally, and says there must have been ‘supernatural intervention.’ Now, this to me seems completely unscientific. Science by its very nature, deals with what is natural, it can never infringe on the supernatural. That being said, Theistic Evolution (as opposed to IDT) is scientific because it is exactly the same as Naturalistic Evolution insofar as they both concern the study of the development of the physical universe. It is only in their underlying philosophies in which they differ, not the science itself. One beleives God is behind all the evolution that occured/is occurring, and that it is all purposed, the other beleives it is all completely random with no Higher Intelligence designing it. Neither of these philosophies can prove/disprove the actual science itself, since they both deal with supernatural phenomena (or lack thereof) that is purely a matter of faith. If one wishes to be a true scientist, he/she should actually not hold either of these philosophies, and stick to what the physical evidence, and the physical evidence only, is telling him/her.

Science deliberately manipulated to prove a philosophical or theological point is not truly science.

The “Strong Anthropic Principle,” (and I’m no expert) is basically the idea that the Universe is so perfectly set for the existence of human life that it seems it must have been designed for us. It is also a philosophy and therefore can not be proven/disproven by science, but unlike “Intelligent Design Theory” it does not agree that the ‘gaps’ in evolution can not be filled in with natural, scientific data. IDT is destructive of scientific pursuit. You have to realise that science should always be able to explain everything naturally, and there will always be skepticism, or else the value of faith in religion would be pointless.

Personally, I beleive in both the Strong Anthropic Principle, and Theistic Evolution. I’m more of a philosopher than a true scientist (who should always ‘put on the spectacles of skepticism’) in that regard.

I’m going to move the Adam & Eve debate into the other thread…

 

[Orogeny]

dcdurel:

The fact that this reply will generate all kinds of ad hominem attacks will be proof that it is a dying theory.

Prove it.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron… The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."15]

Here is another quote from Stephen Hawking:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.

Yes, that is the statement from Project Steve. IIRC he signed up as Steve number 400. There are currently 520 Steves signed up. You can find Hawking’s name in the list of Steves here.

Does my quote from Stephen Hawking convince you that “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences”? It should, since you seem to regard him as an authority. I consider it misleading to quote someone who calls Intelligent Design “pseudoscience” as if they are in favour of Intelligent Design.

rossum

 

[hecd2]

dcdurel:

The case from studying the physics of the universe is extremely hard to reject. For every single part of the universe, from the smallest electron, to gravity, to the big bang, rule out chance as the cause of the universe.

Really! I have studied the physics of the universe professionally and I find no such conclusion. Have you studied it, and if so just what about gravity or the Big Bang leads you to this conclusion? Is your conclusion based on a deep understanding of phyics or on wishful thinking or on the bidding of your Creationist masters? I think I know the answer to that.

But with the fossil record, they try to deny that there are huge gaps in the fossil record, despite the fact that evolution giants such as Gould admited there are giant gaps,

Pot calling kettle black. You have simply ignored Gould’s true position in the forlorn hope that it will go away. It won’t. Lying for Jesus will not get you or anyone else to heaven. Here, again, is what Gould thinks:

''Since modern creatonists…can advance no conceivable argument in the domain of proper logic or accurate empirics, they have always relied, as a primary strategy, upon the misquotation of scientific sources. They have shamelessly distorted all major evolutionists in their behalf, including the most committed gradualists of the Modern Sythesis…Since punctuated equilibrium provides an even easier target for this form of intellectual dishonesty (or crass stupidity if a charge of dishonesty grants them too much acumen), no one should be surprised that our views have become grist for their mills and skills of distortion.

Standard creationist literature on punctuated equilibrium rarely goes beyond the continuous recycling of two false characterizations: the conflation of punctuated equilibrium with the true saltationism of Goldschmidt’s hopeful monsters, and the misscaling of punctuated equilibrium’s genuine breaks between species to the claim that no intermediaries exist for the larger morphological transitions between classes and phyla."

It is *your *intellectual dishonesty that Gould is referring to.

There is just no way around it, Darwinian evolution is will die. It is inevitable. It is a theory desperately in search of facts to try to justify it. It was proposed when scientists did not know the complexity of a single live cell, when they thought gaps in the fossil record would be filled, and when they thought small variations of species could eventully lead to large variations and new species, and hundreds of other false assumptions.

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the death of the Theory of Evolution. That would be bad for your health. You obviously don’t read any scientific journals in which evolution is reinforced on a weekly basis. I estimate that more tahn 25% of papers in Nature and Science rely on and/or reinforce the ToE. Your idea about where science is heading is based on pure wish fulfilment and misinformation, and not at all on the real scientific status of the Modern Synthesis.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

dcdurel:

The problem is that most peoples pride is so strong that they don’t want to admit that they might be wrong. So they attack the person, (ad hominem attacks) rather than discussing closely the
merits of the case. Or they try to assign everything to Fundamentalists, implying that Fundamentalists are always wrong. That’s not very logical.

The case from studying the physics of the universe is extremely hard to reject. For every single part of the universe, from the smallest electron, to gravity, to the big bang, rule out chance as the cause of the universe.

Unlike evolution where the beginnings of life from chance must be ruled out, and many irriducible biological systems must be ruled out and the fossil evidence must be ruled out, because of the gaps, and the genetics rules out evolution, because beneficial mutations are rare if non existant, the evolutionist can still ignore all those and come up with a theory that ignores all those, and this theory will still seem plausible if one ignores all the above factors.

I notice that those who insist on evolution, either ignore the above contradictions to evolution, or deny them and say they don’t exist.
For example, they now simply ignore the beginning of life from chance and say it doesn’t concern them. It surely did in the past. But with the fossil record, they try to deny that there are huge gaps in the fossil record, despite the fact that evolution giants such as Gould admited there are giant gaps, and instead come up with all those discredited ape men, or dinosaur birds, or archeopterx, etc. which they propose as missing links, but in the end never work out. They all end up being false.

There is just no way around it, Darwinian evolution is will die. It is inevitable. It is a theory desperately in search of facts to try to justify it. It was proposed when scientists did not know the complexity of a single live cell, when they thought gaps in the fossil record would be filled, and when they thought small variations of species could eventully lead to large variations and new species, and hundreds of other false assumptions.
The proof that it is dying is the fact that it’s supporters increasingly rely on attacking the persons who support the theory, instead of trying to give any reasonable answer to the glaring scientific evidence that contradicts the theory.

The fact that this reply will generate all kinds of ad hominem attacks will be proof that it is a dying theory.

Those who believe in evolution have to make some incredible jumps–namely that matter just “started” or “became” on its own…and then that life just started or began on its own. It is not really possible to combine these notions with Catholic theology. You don’t get NATURAL selection from GOD.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tom of Assisi:

Those who believe in evolution have to make some incredible jumps–namely that matter just “started” or “became” on its own…and then that life just started or began on its own. It is not really possible to combine these notions with Catholic theology. You don’t get NATURAL selection from GOD.

Evolution does not say matter just started or became on its own. It says nothing about the origin of the universe – it deals with life AFTER creation.

And, since the Church is NOT – despite the title of this thread – “refuted” or threatened by science, what’s the point in pretending people “believe” in evolution, or of making pronouncements about it?

 

[Brown10985]

SCTA-1:

It was taught that God created the world perfect without disease,death or chaos.But science has shown that there was death and chaos for billions of years before so called Adam and Eve came around.Now, when was Paradise created? Why all the mess for billions of years then all of a sudden comes Paradise.What is Catholic teaching about death and chaos for billions of years on this earth.We were taught that God created everything perfect from the beginning.How do we solve this problem?

**310 **But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” toward its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.