Evolution science or reality?

[Thal59]

Dr. Bonnette:

Please permit me to clarify a couple points about my work.

For those who have not read Origin of the Human Species (www.origin.youshoppe.com)/), please note that I am not trying to defend the current theory of human evolution. One of the tasks I attempt, among several, is to show that the current human evolution theory need not conflict with Christian teaching about the historicity of Adam and Eve and about Original Sin. I am a philosopher. It is not my task to determine the truth about evolution theory in all its scientific aspects. In fact, on page 210, I write: “We may never know whether human or general evolution occurred because of (a) the complexity of issues raised; (b) evolution’s unscientific unfalsifiability; and (c) perinoetic knowledge’s limitations.” That last point about perionetic knowledge points to inherent epistemological limitations of natural science, some of which, as pointed out by Thal59, are even more acute for events occurring long ago.

Also, what I said about Adam possibly appearing in the Homo erectus population was conditioned on two assumptions: (1), that paleontologists are correct in detemining that the Acheulean hand axes in question properly date to 500,000 years ago and (2), that they are correct in attributing their fabrication to the Homo erectus population existing at that time. Moreover, the fact that Homo erectus dates back to nearly a million years prior to the time that such tools were made raises more issues: (1) Were Homo erectus fully human from the very beginning, but failed to manifest true intellect until half a million years ago, or (2), were they merely primates that were anatomically similar to us, but did not actually possess and manifest true intellect until God infused a spiritual intellective soul in them half a million years ago?

It is not my purpose to settle all the important scientific questions here, but merely to point out that morphology is not the determining factor in deciding when we are dealing with true man. Rather, intellect is. My point philosophically is that true man is present from the moment that true intellect first appears, and that the first clear evidence of such appearance at this point in time appears to be the newer type of congruent, three-dimensionally symmetrical hand axes which first appear about 500,000 years ago. In the preface to my second edition, I point out that the paleontological record might presently fail to record the presence of the first intellective activity. Future discoveries of intellectively produced artifacts, such at artistic tools or paintings, might push back the earliest recorded date of true human presence.

In determining when true human beings first appeared, we must always be more concerned about what they did than how they looked.

Dr. Bonnette

Fully understood and accepted. However, one of the more interesting questions that came to mind when I was reading over the info from the link I provided was derived from the notion that apparently the Neanderthal had a slightly larger barin than modern man. This suggests that modern man is somehow less evolved than the Neanderthal, at least where cranial capacity and size is concerned.

Or is the current approach to this situation answered by the possibility that while the Neanderthal had a larger brain, it was not as developed or complex as modern man’s?

Thal59

 

[PhilVaz]

BTW, I am re-reading Dr. Bonnette’s book, and while I do recommend it I wanted to tell people who support evolution in here: you may be disappointed in the first chapter (“Darwinian Evolution versus Scientific Creationism”) as it gives too much credence to typical bad anti-evolution arguments (the claim of "no transitional fossils" for example), uses older sources, and suggests the ID arguments of Mike Behe and Phil Johnson have not been answered. Some reference to Ken Miller’s and Denis Lamoureux’s critiques would have been nice.

Better books in this area are Finding Darwin’s God (1999) by Ken Miller and Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (2003) by Keith Miller which are both uncompromising on the scientific evidence for evolution while also supporting Christian faith.

Otherwise chapters 2 through 14 of the book got my endorsement and probably the best modern answer to the Adam/Eve question from an orthodox Catholic view.

Phil P

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To Phil,

It is hard to find fault with a review of my book that applauds the last 13 chapters, while offering qualified criticism of solely the first chapter.

Rather than trying to respond directly to what may well be legitimate points you make about the first chapter, let me just say one thing. It was an introduction to the topic. I had no intent of deciding the issue of evolution there, nor of driving away the adherents of either side at the outset of the discussion. And it was overwhelmingly about evolution itself, not ID theory. Regarding Johnson’s critiques of evolution, I finally write there: “All of the above criticisms of evolution by Johnson do not necessarily mean that some form of evolution has not occurred.” (p. 24) And then I conclude by saying, “I will suspend judgment about the definitive validity of evolutionary theory for purposes of the present investigation.”

Given the distinction between biological species and natural philosophical species which was not introduced until the second chapter, you can see that the question of genuine transformism must then be addressed at more than one level. Chapter one merely set the stage for deeper penetration of issues. No one questions that intraspecific evolution or microevolution occurs. The real questions arise about interspecific evolution or macroevolution. When raised to the level of natural philosophical species, these questions become even more daunting. And, recall that I finally conclude that we may never be able to reach a final determination as to whether evolution is true. It may indeed prove to be the only model that makes scientific sense, and methodological naturalism requires that we continue to explore for natural causes of observable phenomema.

Chapter one was intended to set the stage for what followed. Thus, I write in the second last paragraph of that chapter: “My task in the following chapters will be to examine various philosophical and theological problems that arise in evolutionary theory, testing in each case the intelligibility and inferences which would follow.” That is where our first parents, Adam and Eve, come in.

Dr. Bonnette