C
convert_2000
Guest
I didn’t take what Fr Benedict said this way. Maybe you could go to EWTN’s library section and listen to it again. I never miss his program, he’s a great teacher.
- Status
P
PhilVaz
Guest
I found the program in question, from “Sunday Night Live” 12/4/2005
Fr. Benedict Groeschel on Sunday Night Live
See the 12/4/2005 program on Original Sin. I am listening now…
Here is a transcript of the astounding “heresy” in question:
“Now, what was Pope Pius [XII] saying? We all come from a common ancestor. And it would seem the anthropologists have written a great deal about these first people. By the way, what do they call them? You guessed it. They call them ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve.’ These two words are not names, they are titles: ‘father’ and ‘mother’ of the human race. And they can tell us something about them. They probably lived someplace between 20,000 and 200,000 years ago, this common ancestor couple. And it’s a little hard to put them down because they came from other people, or other creatures, who are not what we call human beings. Way, way back, we had ancestors among the other creatures of the earth, and someplace along the line, God gave an immortal soul, to two people, to two creatures. And you hear about it in Genesis.” (Fr. Benedict Groeschel, 12/4/2005 on Sunday Night Live, from about minute 28 on, transcribed by PhilVaz)
And he goes on to refer to the Neandertals who were similar to us. Sounds good to me.
He is simply attempting to reconcile to the science, as these are:
Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record
Hominization: On the Origin of Man
International Theological Commission statement on creation and evolution (July 2004)
Phil P
Fr. Benedict Groeschel on Sunday Night Live
See the 12/4/2005 program on Original Sin. I am listening now…
Here is a transcript of the astounding “heresy” in question:
“Now, what was Pope Pius [XII] saying? We all come from a common ancestor. And it would seem the anthropologists have written a great deal about these first people. By the way, what do they call them? You guessed it. They call them ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve.’ These two words are not names, they are titles: ‘father’ and ‘mother’ of the human race. And they can tell us something about them. They probably lived someplace between 20,000 and 200,000 years ago, this common ancestor couple. And it’s a little hard to put them down because they came from other people, or other creatures, who are not what we call human beings. Way, way back, we had ancestors among the other creatures of the earth, and someplace along the line, God gave an immortal soul, to two people, to two creatures. And you hear about it in Genesis.” (Fr. Benedict Groeschel, 12/4/2005 on Sunday Night Live, from about minute 28 on, transcribed by PhilVaz)
And he goes on to refer to the Neandertals who were similar to us. Sounds good to me.
He is simply attempting to reconcile to the science, as these are:Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record
Hominization: On the Origin of Man
International Theological Commission statement on creation and evolution (July 2004)
Phil P
B
BonnieBj
Guest
OK I see I’ve touched off a firestorm here, have been away and was surprised to see 567 replies (last time I looked there were 5).
I think my problem is that the Bible says we were created out of the dust of the earth and not from another creature. The animals were created and then Adam was told to name them. I know the Bible isn’t a science text and I know the genetics of humans and apes (and some other species) are very close. I know how the process of evolution works. My college major was anthropology and my minor was in achaeology and biology. And I keep up with the reweaarch in all fields of science. But even all the years I was a fundalmentalist protestant while away from the Catholic Church, UI never beleived that man was evolved from an ape. And I resent being called the relative or kin of an ape. My only kin are God and my fellow humans.
It is a relief that the Church has no specific stand on this because I would find it impossible to go along with evolution and I guess I’d be in confession all the time for mot believing in it. But since we don’t know for sure, we’ll just have to ask God when we see Him.
I think we’ve probasbly spent enough time on this topic. I would be curious however to know which other theologians believe in evolution.
I think my problem is that the Bible says we were created out of the dust of the earth and not from another creature. The animals were created and then Adam was told to name them. I know the Bible isn’t a science text and I know the genetics of humans and apes (and some other species) are very close. I know how the process of evolution works. My college major was anthropology and my minor was in achaeology and biology. And I keep up with the reweaarch in all fields of science. But even all the years I was a fundalmentalist protestant while away from the Catholic Church, UI never beleived that man was evolved from an ape. And I resent being called the relative or kin of an ape. My only kin are God and my fellow humans.
It is a relief that the Church has no specific stand on this because I would find it impossible to go along with evolution and I guess I’d be in confession all the time for mot believing in it. But since we don’t know for sure, we’ll just have to ask God when we see Him.
I think we’ve probasbly spent enough time on this topic. I would be curious however to know which other theologians believe in evolution.
B
BonnieBj
Guest
'Nuther comment from me. The Bible says God created us male and female in His image and likeness. Does this mean that God looks like an ape? This kind of harkens to the idea that some scholars have that the reason the OT priests had to wear bells on their garments was so that when they approached the sanctuary to enter it, the “donkey” in there could disguise himself so that they wouldn’t know He was what God really looked like.
I do believe in evolution, not just in the case of humans.
I do believe in evolution, not just in the case of humans.
J
Joe_Sarto
Guest
That right there is heresy.I found the program in question, from “Sunday Night Live” 12/4/2005
Fr. Benedict Groeschel on Sunday Night Live
See the 12/4/2005 program on Original Sin. I am listening now…
Here is a transcript of the astounding “heresy” in question:
“Now, what was Pope Pius [XII] saying? We all come from a common ancestor. And it would seem the anthropologists have written a great deal about these first people. By the way, what do they call them? You guessed it. They call them ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve.’ These two words are not names, they are titles: ‘father’ and ‘mother’ of the human race. And they can tell us something about them. They probably lived someplace between 20,000 and 200,000 years ago, this common ancestor couple. And it’s a little hard to put them down because they came from other people, or other creatures, who are not what we call human beings. Way, way back, we had ancestors among the other creatures of the earth, and someplace along the line, God gave an immortal soul, to two people, to two creatures. And you hear about it in Genesis.” (Fr. Benedict Groeschel, 12/4/2005 on Sunday Night Live, from about minute 28 on, transcribed by PhilVaz)
And he goes on to refer to the Neandertals who were similar to us. Sounds good to me.
Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record
Hominization: On the Origin of Man
International Theological Commission statement on creation and evolution (July 2004)
Phil P
T
TNT
Guest
Not only did Adam and Eve evolve sometime between 20,000 and 200,000 years ago, but they conveniently both evolved at the same time and in the EXACT same place.
Further, they did not evolve as 2 of the same sex, but of the opposite and reproductively compatible sexes. And, this occurred on the very first try! Otherwise the Catholic idea of NO preceding humans is in error.
Does anyone have a computer that will calculate the odds of this actually happening?
I have enjoyed this thread. It reminds me of a Muslim and Mormon trying to convert each other…completely sterile activity.
the term evolution: micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro evolution refers to the study of minor variations that occur in populations over time as observed in, for instance, the coloration of the peppered moth, beaks of Galapagos finches (Darwin’s observation), and selective animal and plant breeding. Macro evolution is the study of the origin of major innovations. These are new organs, structures (e.g., fish scales evolving into feathers), or body plans. Darwin’s natural selection acting on random variation is a valid concept accounting for micro evolution (e.g., drought-resistant wheat, hip dysplasia in dogs, a shorter race of men resulting from the taller men being lost to the gene pool because of war deaths).
My favorite jpg used by Chinese Communists to persuade the ignorant in indoctrination camps:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-5/1016585/erectus-22-man-evolution.jpg
…Adam Looking for Eve
Further, they did not evolve as 2 of the same sex, but of the opposite and reproductively compatible sexes. And, this occurred on the very first try! Otherwise the Catholic idea of NO preceding humans is in error.
Does anyone have a computer that will calculate the odds of this actually happening?
I have enjoyed this thread. It reminds me of a Muslim and Mormon trying to convert each other…completely sterile activity.
the term evolution: micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro evolution refers to the study of minor variations that occur in populations over time as observed in, for instance, the coloration of the peppered moth, beaks of Galapagos finches (Darwin’s observation), and selective animal and plant breeding. Macro evolution is the study of the origin of major innovations. These are new organs, structures (e.g., fish scales evolving into feathers), or body plans. Darwin’s natural selection acting on random variation is a valid concept accounting for micro evolution (e.g., drought-resistant wheat, hip dysplasia in dogs, a shorter race of men resulting from the taller men being lost to the gene pool because of war deaths).
My favorite jpg used by Chinese Communists to persuade the ignorant in indoctrination camps:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-5/1016585/erectus-22-man-evolution.jpg
…Adam Looking for Eve
T
TNT
Guest
The following question ASSUMES that natural selection had some sort of causal necessity behind it like hostile or friendly enviroment either elemental or animal enemies, etc.
Further, I now confess that much of my biology class was spent writing love letters and poems.
Question:
If we still have the most primitive forms of 1-celled creatures, what necessities as described above, pushed some to mutate into BETTER or more advanced life forms or species, yet at the same time kept them just as they were then and are today?
We could also apply this question all the way up the species chain where the primitive form still exists today quite successfully.
Further, I now confess that much of my biology class was spent writing love letters and poems.
Question:
If we still have the most primitive forms of 1-celled creatures, what necessities as described above, pushed some to mutate into BETTER or more advanced life forms or species, yet at the same time kept them just as they were then and are today?
We could also apply this question all the way up the species chain where the primitive form still exists today quite successfully.
S
steveandersen
Guest
You’re kidding me right?
(A) evolution says nothing about “better” or more “advanced”
(2) what makes you think that modern single celled organisms are exactly the same as they were billions of years ago?
(III) evolution addresses populations diverging from each other. There is nothing contradictory in the evidence if one population undergoes large changes while another remains stable. They were simply subjected to different conditions.
M
mike182d
Guest
Sorry, but a scientific theory that can predict nothing in particular, but can incorporate any and all findings retrospectively into its theory is not a valid scientific explanation. Evolution is not falsifiable.Hello, earth to anti-evolutionists, paging all anti-evolutionists. I have two links for you
TalkOrigins.org
Benedict XVI to all Catholics: Evolution is True
(from July 2004, see especially paragraphs 62-70)
Phil P
S
steveandersen
Guest
show me a hominid fossil from the new world or a 6 legged land vertebrate or a mammal without 3 bones in its ear and the theory would come crashing down like a stone
it is very falsifiable
and it makes predictions
M
mike182d
Guest
Lady Cygnus:
The problem is that its not God creating, its evolution. Which is worth more: a painting actually painted by Leonardo DaVinci by hand or a reproductions by an automated process (like a Xerox machine) that Leonardo DaVinci created? For God to create a process that would create on His behalf would deny His personal connection with His creation - entirely contrary to Theology of the Body and Pope Benedict XVI when he says: “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
Adaptation is quite different than innovation. When a punk band does a cover of an 80s hit, that’s adaptation. When a band creates a new song, that’s innovation. No one is denying that organisms adapt to their surroundings. It is being denied that as part of that process of adaptation that the organism in question will turn into another, new thing entirely - or speciation. The paradox of evolution and the common ancestry of species is that one cannot believe in both evolution and speciation. If evolution is true, and all organism are variations of the same thing, the classification of animals into “species” is arbitrary, meaningless and merely a product of the human brain trying to fit everything it perceives into recognizable boxes while not actually existing as such in the real world.
There is a difference too between not understanding and contradicting. If one’s theology or scientific beliefs contradict, then one of them must be wrong, necessarily.
The fallacy of this analogy is that evolution isn’t a “thing.” It is not a distinct, tangible thing that can be manipulated by God whereas paint and paintbrushes are tangible, inanimate things that exist independent of the painter’s picking them up and deciding to use them. It is defined as merely a “force,” which is equally ambiguous in its meaning. Your analogy would work if the painter had been Mickey Mouse in Fantasia and with his own “magic” got the paint and the brush to move of their own and create the painting.
Processes aren’t “things” they are perceived effects. In the case of evolution, a perceived effect is being defined as its own sufficient cause.In the same way, God is not “the process of evolution”, but he uses these processes to create.
M
mike182d
Guest
steveandersen said:
show me a hominid fossil from the new world or a 6 legged land vertebrate or a mammal without 3 bones in its ear and the theory would come crashing down like a stone
it is very falsifiable
and it makes predictions
If there were a mammal without 3 bones in its ear, an evolutionist could *easily *claim that this was a breakout mutation and entirely consistent with the theory.
From Biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter:
There is yet another reason that the universality of the genetic code is not strong evidence for evolution. Simply put, the theory of evolution does not predict the genetic code to be universal (it does not, for that matter, predict the genetic code at all). In fact, leading evolutionists such as Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel are surprised that there aren’t multiple codes in nature.Consider how evolutionists would react if there were in fact multiple codes in nature. What if plants, animals, and bacteria all had different codes? Such a finding would not falsify evolution; rather, it would be incorporated into the theory. For if the code is arbitrary, why should there be just one? The blind process of evolution would explain why there are multiple codes. In fact, in 1979 certain minor variations in the code were found, and evolutionists believe, not surprisingly, that the variations were caused by the continuing evolution of the universal genetic code. Of course, it would not be a problem for such an explanation to be extended if it were the case that there were multiple codes. There is nothing wrong with a theory that is comfortable with different outcomes, but there is something wrong when one of those outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence. If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used as evidence for the theory. When it comes to the genetic code, evolution can accommodate a range of findings, but it cannot then use one of those findings as supporting evidence. (Hunter, 38.)No finding could ever disprove evolution.
M
mike182d
Guest
Lady Cygnus:
I hope by now that those feelings have dissipated?
I guess this was getting too far into philosophy, but the distinction is important because Martin Luther claimed that things like justice, truth, beauty, right, and wrong exist as they do because God decides that they do. So, in theory, God could change His mind and make what is “wrong” right and what is “right” wrong - which is absolute nonsense. What is logical is not so because God decided what would be logical, what is logical is so because it *is *logical. But that’s quite a digression…I admit.I’m not sure I see a difference between these, but then I’m a scientist, not a philosopher. God makes logic true because it is a part of His Nature would be my guess.
According to evolutionary theory, a “penguin” didn’t adapt to get flippers, but an organism mutated to possess flippers and became what we know as a “penguin.” Furthermore, I question whether this can legitimately be called “adaptation.” Taking a different route to work, and in essence rearranging what is already available to me, because traffic is consistently terrible in the mornings is adaptation. Evolving to posses wings, something I did not once have but do now, so I can just fly to work and avoid the traffic entirely is not - that is innovation.
M
mike182d
Guest
Where’s the link between the Dalanistes and the Rodhocetus? Your chart is incomplete.
The inherent paradox within evolution is that for every “link” it finds, it must necessarily find two more: the one before and the one after.
In other words, if evolution were true, there should be another branch off of Dalanistes with features similar to the Rodhocetus but died out to the superior form of Rodhocetus that was better suited to its environment. But, since no such things exists, I suppose we must all assume that evolution is batting 1000 and perfectly evolves forms into perfectly formed species prefectly suited for their current environment.
M
mike182d
Guest
The problem with this line of thinking is that the body is not a vehicle for the soul. Our body and soul are intimately connected and are not seperate entities. We exist as “body-souls” in the words of Christopher West. Thus, if evolution is true, then evolution has not stopped and will continue on which means human beings will continue to evolve to the point when we’re no longer human beings but another species. If we continue to evolve, and we have souls, are souls would necessarily have to evolve with our bodies.
This is all Theology of the Body.
M
mike182d
Guest
Quite possibly. It is a very fluid, and confusing theory.
And how does nature go about formulating the best response to the given conditions? If one just looks around at the world, these “responses” to conditions are not random, arbitrary, and pointless. The “responses” to conditions seem rather well thougth out. In other words, there are always “bad” responses and “good” responses. A teenager being pressured to smoke pot may respond by taking a hit or saying no and dissociating himself from that group of people. One response is bad, the other is good. With evolution, every response that nature has made in regards to various pressures seems to be perfect. Why is it that birds evolved with wings in perfect positioning and perfect form for creating the necessary lift for flight? If evolution is truly random, where are all the failed responses to pressures, like birds with both wings on the same side of the body or completely disproportionate to its body? If one opens their eyes, they’ll see that every response “life” has given is perfectly calculated and has almost always been the best “response.”
That’s quite intelligent on the part of DNA and would require a certain amount of conscious thought, don’t you think?
I have an '87 Mustang and an '05 Mustang which I think shares common ancestry. There is a '64 Mustang that has the same braking system, steering wheel, and Ford logo as the '87 and '05 Mustang and came from the same Ford factory in Michigan.
Ergo, the Mustang is a product of evolution.
There are minerals on the moon that are the same on earth. Do the earth and the moon share a common ancestry?
These aren’t the same textbooks that told me atoms were the smallest of all particles, are they?
Predicting outcomes of the past isn’t useful science.
Are there any mutations not caused by evolution?and this whole idea of mutations…evolution can occur through multiple mechanisms including plain old genetic drift. The key is variance rather than “mutations”. This isn’t 1950s B movie sci-fi with killer mutant monsters
It probably would be easier if there was one, whole, consistent theory of evolution.
Is extinction proof of failure? How many organism have gone extinct because of man’s willed intervention? Was extinction at the hands of man due to their poorly evolved bodies or our irresponsibility? Is the will of man to be taken into account when trying to predict the future evolution of animals?Batting 1000!?!?!?!?!
I’d love to see a science that can effectively predict what the decisions of men will yield…
However, that brings me to another problem with evolution: subjectivity. There is no objective means for determining whether or not something was a failure. One day I will die. Is that because I was a failure, biologically? In fact, one day the whole of the human race will be dead. Is that because our bodies were poorly evolved and biological failures?
I think you’ll find that has more to do with Christ.
S
steveandersen
Guest
no, the theory demands that species of common decent will show common features.
a radical departure is not consistent
even species that have lost limbs still show evidence of their tetrapod ancestry either through vestigial limbs or during their embryonic development
that is because it’s true
seriously though, the robustness of the theory is the fact that is conforms with an enormous preponderance of the evidence
M
mike182d
Guest
Actually, I do have an important question: is that phylogeny morphological or molecular?
The reason being is that morphological phylogenies do not yield the same outcome as molecular phylogenies.
But I’m sure that little inconsistency is not a problem for evolution…
M
mike182d
Guest
Not necessarily. Once again, this all depends on *which *evolutionist you listen to. There are some that posit the common decent of organisms in its molecular makeup and not necessarily its historical morphology.
So, evolution is now a scientific “law?” Every legitimate scientific theory must, necessarily be falsifiable and “possibly” incorrect.that is because it’s true
Its really the other way around: evolution conforms what it sees to fit the theory. There are plenty of inconsistencies and debates among evolutionists over what the “evidence” actually tell us.
T
TNT
Guest
Of course. There’s not a serious bone in my body. How can there be after slogging thru this thread?You’re kidding me right?
Ok, bad choice. How about “adapted” to some external condition?
However, the idea that some population was not exposed to the cause for adaptation is somewhat puzzling. Are you saying that AMOEBAS adapted to a successive species in one part of the world, then kept on adapting, but the AMOEBAS in another part of the world are in no state of adaptation. Further, since AMOEBAS are in all parts of the humid or decaying world…which is pretty much everywhere, then why do they still exist everywhere? Oh, I know. They migrate after the cause to adapt was removed and so, the cause no longer exists. Therefore, the need to adapt disappeared.
I love Science!
Oh, I don’t know. I just figured that there were not infinite models of AMOEBAS. But even if there were, it would only support a micro-adaptation, not a new species.
Of course. I missed that. Pre-humans in N Europe began to lose their massive thick body hair because the need for winter protection disappeared. But the wolves in that same area kept it just in case…mindlessly of course.
A flying fish needed to adapt to flying because, well, the food in the water was poor. All the other brethren fish liked poor food. The non-Giraffe who hung out with the antelope and jackels, or whatever, ie not in isolation from other mammals, needed a new food source, so he grew a neck and legs and all the awesome complex hydraulic plumbing required to support it simultaneously while the antelope and jackel had no such cause.
It’s all very logical if you tinker on it.
You’ve convinced me to scratch out
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind.
And again:
Gen 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind.
And again:
Gen 1: 24 God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.
And again:
Gen 1:25 God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind.
And again:
Gen 1:25 And God saw that it was good.
I changed “good” to “adaptable to further influences”.
I changed all the “kinds” to “local extra-speciel adaptations”.
Next time my daughters get pregnant I will pray for it to be the same species (after its kind). The heck with boy or girl.
Speaking of evolution…it’s in the bible:
Isaias 37 :27 The inhabitants of them were weak of hand, they trembled, and were confounded: they became like the grass of the field, and the herb of the pasture, and like the grass of the housetops, which withered before it was ripe.
Romans 1:22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Then there is me repeating myself:
Not only did Adam and Eve evolve sometime between 20,000 and 200,000 years ago, but they conveniently both evolved at the same time and in the EXACT same place.
Further, they did not evolve as 2 of the same sex, but of the opposite and reproductively compatible sexes. And, this occurred on the very first try! Otherwise the Catholic idea of NO preceding humans is in error.
Does anyone have a computer that will calculate the odds of this actually happening?
I have enjoyed this thread.
- Status