Evolution supported in Father Groeschel program

[Kristina_P]

mike182d:

When a scientist tells me that an organism mutated to possess wings out of necessity and survival - and not to mention in perfect dimensions to achieve necessary lift proportionate to its body weight - I become highly skeptical. Show me fossil records of “proven” failed speciations that were part of the evolutionary process and then I might raise and eyebrow. Until then, I fail to see how natural selection can be batting 1000 over the course of several millions years.

I appreciate your frustration at the lack of concrete evidence to support macro-evolution. I do not believe evolution in the same way that I believe other scientific theories that have more experimental evidence on their side. The largely unscientific evolution propaganda out there is obsessed with a “fossil record” that I admit doesn’t exist. We simply don’t have that many fossils of anything, period. A very small proportion of formerly-living things have actually been fossilized, so the absence of a definitive fossil record really isn’t surprising. Also, any “failed attempts,” as you call them, would not have had large populations. In fact, it’d probably be a short-lived population of one. The chances that a member of such a population would end up fossilized are quite small.

That said, I think macro-evolution follows logically from micro-evolution. I also think that there is good circumstantial evidence to support macro-evolution.

 

[coyote]

“[alleged]Failed attempts” can be found in many a jar of formalin.

 

[Blackbog]

The following is from a July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution, cited in this thread:

1. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

So, there you have it.

 

[PhilVaz]

mike << The best I’ve seen is: “Hey, we’ve caused this microscopic bacteria to change into a different type of bacteria! Evolution is true!” That’s hardly a “smoking gun” of macro-evolution, in my opinion. >>

That’s the best you’ve seen?

Smoking gun here (land mammal to whale transitionals)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

Another smoking gun here (vertebrate fossil record, fish to tetrapods, dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, etc)

Another smoking gun here (copying of DNA errors)

See my summary of Theobald, or the full Theobald Evidences article

Have you read Finding Darwin’s God yet?
Have you read Perspectives on an Evolving Creation yet?
Have you read Coming to Peace with Science yet?

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

BTW, I just heard Fr. Groeschel support the theory of gravity, theory of relativity, theory of electromagnetism, theory of plate tectonics, atomic theory, cell theory, and the germ theory of disease. There is NO WAY I can ever watch him again.

Phil P

 

[steveandersen]

mike182d:

…Secondly, you say that evolution is dependent upon random mutations, and then you say this reveals the order of nature and God. That seems to be a huge contradiction. But, if you think it is a legitimate scientific theory, I think we should hold it to the same standards as other scientific theories and ask the following questions of it:

1. What is the current, perceived rate of evolution?
2. What can we expect evolution, under this current rate, to yield in the next thousand, million, or ten million years? (Rough estimates, of course, would be sufficient)
3. Which mutations are a product of evolution and which mutations are adverse affects of chemical or nuclear exposure? Is there a difference? Why?..

these questions of yours indicate a profound misunderstanding of evolution

evolution has no “rate” or direction. It is a response to conditions (call those conditions “the environment” or the will of God if that makes you more comfortable.)

the predictive quality of evolution goes this way:
we have species A and B which we think share ancestry. If they do there must be a species C that has X, Y, & Z characteristics, and lived in L, M, N, O location at P point in time
Or similarly we have fossil A and species C. We think C evolved form A therefore there must be a specie B that shares certain characteristics and lived at a certain place and time.

The text books are full of such work. Over and over intermediate species or common ancestors have been predicted and found right where they were supposed to be. The discovery of the “first ant” back in the 60s is a classic example and the recent work on the origins of whales(as Phil indicated above) and tetrapods (in this month’s Sci-Am) is quite amazing.

the understanding of plate tectonics in the last few decades has vastly increased the rate of discovery since now we have a better understanding of how location changes with time so placing things in their proper time and place is easier

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

mike182d:

…When a scientist tells me that an organism mutated to possess wings out of necessity and survival - and not to mention in perfect dimensions to achieve necessary lift proportionate to its body weight - I become highly skeptical. Show me fossil records of “proven” failed speciations that were part of the evolutionary process and then I might raise and eyebrow. Until then, I fail to see how natural selection can be batting 1000 over the course of several millions years…

errr…once again you’re misrepresenting what the theory says.

Batting 1000!?!?!?!?! 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. How many more examples of failed speciation do you need?

 

[Ender]

mike182d:

Once again, this position is Deism. Let me ask you this: If God did not intervene, would it be possible for the universe to continue on its own for even a little while? If your answer is no, then these “laws” and “forces” are not the effective causes you think they are but rather it is God who is the immediate cause of every moment in the cosmos. If something is a cause, then it is necessarily so and the effect could not exist apart from it. However, if your answer is yes, then you believe in an autonomous creation not dependent on God at all for its continued existence - and I mean “continued” not “initial.”

If I understand your position then I disagree with both of your options. God created an ordered universe and the physical laws that govern it. It is not deism to believe that stars will go on burning without his constant attention and it is not necessary to believe that he is directly involved as the immediate cause of every effect to also believe that he is nonetheless intimately involved in our lives.

I believe the following definition:
Esimmons:

Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency.

Darwinian evolution is defined as natural selection working on random changes. The issue is over what “random” means. If it means that the creation of man was purely accidental then this is contrary to Christianity. If, however, it merely means that chance was involved but the outcome was inevitable, then this falls under the above definition and Catholics have no reason to oppose it (at least on the grounds that God could not have used natural evolution to create man.)

Ender

 

[Ahimsa]

If evolution is good enough for God, then it’s good enough for me.

 

[Kristina_P]

Ender:

If I understand your position then I disagree with both of your options. God created an ordered universe and the physical laws that govern it. It is not deism to believe that stars will go on burning without his constant attention and it is not necessary to believe that he is directly involved as the immediate cause of every effect to also believe that he is nonetheless intimately involved in our lives.

I believe the following definition:

Darwinian evolution is defined as natural selection working on random changes. The issue is over what “random” means. If it means that the creation of man was purely accidental then this is contrary to Christianity. If, however, it merely means that chance was involved but the outcome was inevitable, then this falls under the above definition and Catholics have no reason to oppose it (at least on the grounds that God could not have used natural evolution to create man.)

Ender

Thank you to both you and Esimmons for helping me understand this. I have to admit that while this whole, “If God uses cause and effect processes, then he’s a divine clockmaker” argument was unconvincing to me for some reason, I couldn’t find a direct counter to it. As I said earlier, I am not a philosopher or logician. To me, it just seemed common sense that there could be cause and effect relationships (like a bat hitting a ball and causing it to move) and still not affect the fact that the Universe owes its continuing existence to God’s will and presence.

Just out of curiosity, if Hell is by definition a place without God, then do beings there cease to exist? If they continue to exist, does that mean that a deist in Hell would be right, in regard to his current location? Just a thought, not a burning question.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Kristina P.:

Thank you to both you and Esimmons for helping me understand this. I have to admit that while this whole, “If God uses cause and effect processes, then he’s a divine clockmaker” argument was unconvincing to me for some reason, I couldn’t find a direct counter to it. As I said earlier, I am not a philosopher or logician. To me, it just seemed common sense that there could be cause and effect relationships (like a bat hitting a ball and causing it to move) and still not affect the fact that the Universe owes its continuing existence to God’s will and presence.

Just out of curiosity, if Hell is by definition a place without God, then do beings there cease to exist? If they continue to exist, does that mean that a deist in Hell would be right, in regard to his current location? Just a thought, not a burning question.

I have no clue, but this sounds like a new thread

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BonnieBj:

Earlier this week I was watching Father’s programming and he espoused and was in agreement with evolution of mankind from lower forms of life starting at about 20,000 years ago, and that human beings had their origin in Africa and were black, instead of in the Garden of Eden. I was flabbergasted and disgusted. I will certianly no longer watch his show.

What is the Church’s teaching on this matter?

Is there a reason the first humans can’t be black ?​

More to the point, there have been many suggestions about the location of the garden of Eden: Africa is no more outlandish than any other, and seems to have some support in Gen. 2 (unless Kush, Ethiopia, is really meant to be a reference to the Kassites in Mesopotamia).

The Septuagint speaks of a “paradise of pleasure” - eden does mean “pleasure” in Hebrew; and although the Hebrew is gan (= garden), paradeisos in Greek is a borrowing from Persian pardesh, meaning “walled garden”. The placing of the eartly paradise in the East may have been prompted by the existence of the land of Bit-Adini in the East.

As for the four rivers: the Gihon is a spring in Jerusalem; Pishon has been variously identified; Hiddekel is the Tigris; and the Euphrates is the Euphrates.

Put together, the details describe nowhere on earth - and that is probably the point: the garden is an ideal place of earthly happiness, a land “East of the sun, West of the moon” That it is ideal, is suggested by Ezekiel 28: the chapter includes a different fall-story - in this case, the garden is on the mountain of God.

What is so wrong with evolution ? It’s better to be descended from a piece of primeval sludge than a sinner, surely.

I’d carry on watching ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

steveandersen:

while his statements may be orthodox his science seems screwy

I wonder where he got the 20,000 year figure

unless he is speaking of the neolithic cultural explosion

Some Fundamentalists try to save the value of Gen. 5 as trustworthy palaeontology & pre-history by interpolating lots of extra pre-diluvian Patriarchs - maybe he agrees with that approach​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

steveandersen:

I don’t know but I think that ever since that Galileo thing the Church has been wise enough and smart enough not to pronounce on science with that level of detail.

exactly how or when we were created is immaterial
that we were created is

This has some interesting info about early attacks on evolution, including Darwin’s ideas: human-nature.com/reason/white/chap1.html​

The notion that Genesis 2 must be understood as though it were something like a documentary is worrisome. That sort of approach positively encourages sceptics to ask whether Adam was created with an extra rib - and why God could not have foreseen He would need to use it. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mike182d:

Certainly, but with the recent enlightment on the importance of human sexuality and the formation of the body as explained in Theology of the Body, it does not seem consistent to believe that something as important as our bodies in their composition were not directly created as such by God, but by an indirect process. This belief would seem to negate the intimacy expressed in Theology of the Body and subsequently undermine our union with Christ in the Eucharist if we were not built directly by God for God.

Not to mention the complications in explaining how the Son of God who always existed became incarnate into a form defined by a “random” scientific process. I would think that if God possessed an image of Himself, it would be pretty clearly defined by Himself and not some indirect process.

Why shouldn’t the Incarnation be subject to the same sort of contingency as we are, though ?​

Taken far enough, I think your line of reasoning could end up in determinism and in a denial of the Incarnation - God must have everything absolutely ideal, as it is God Who is being born, and no one of lesser standing: so He must be protected from the rough and tumble of a world full of indeterminacy (unlike us). If Christ cannot share our life from His own experience, He becomes a spectator-God - and it is not clear how He can redeem that which He has not taken into Himself; such as our own contingency.

As I understand it, the Incarnation tells us that God came to share our life in its totality - not excluding the agonies of a criminal’s death. The “argument from dignity” would not envisage such a possibility for God Incarnate: yet it happened. “What happened” may be what is needed so that theologising does not become detached from this-worldly realities.

As for our union with Christ: perhaps the integrity of our communion with Him can be protected by making it start with the heart of man, and save the body as a consequence - convert the heart; & the rest of our nature will look after itself, as it were. Our hearts would then be the bait on the hook in the mouth of the Fish by which it reels us in, as it were. ##

 

[Ahimsa]

Kristina P.:

Just out of curiosity, if Hell is by definition a place without God, then do beings there cease to exist? If they continue to exist, does that mean that a deist in Hell would be right, in regard to his current location? Just a thought, not a burning question.

The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God.

      This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible.

While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and “gnashing of teeth” for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations. The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God’s presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the Almighty, the perfect and unchanging God.

 

[Kristina_P]

Ahimsa:

The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God.

      This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible.

While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and “gnashing of teeth” for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations. The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God’s presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the Almighty, the perfect and unchanging God.

Wow, you read way more into that than I meant. Thanks for the info, but your view seems to contradict Church teaching. I didn’t really mean to hijack the thread anyway, but thanks again for such a thorough response to my silly musing.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ahimsa:

The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God.

This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible.

While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and “gnashing of teeth” for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations. The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God’s presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the Almighty, the perfect and unchanging God.

Interesting ​

God = Heaven/Hell, perhaps ? As experienced by different people, that is, according to their capacity to do so.

And as God is Life, maybe to live apart from God (if “live” is the word) is to have almost no existence at all, in a bad way (non-existence as such is a different matter, I suspect: beings that are not existent, are not bad - just non-existent) ##

 

[Ahimsa]

Kristina P.:

Wow, you read way more into that than I meant. Thanks for the info, but your view seems to contradict Church teaching.

That’s not “my” view. It’s the view of the Orthodox Church (see link), and, I would think, an allowable view in Catholicism.

 

[Sirach14]

The Church teaches that we can believe in the eveloution of the body but not the soul.

 

[Kristina_P]

Ahimsa:

That’s not “my” view. It’s the view of the Orthodox Church (see link), and, I would think, an allowable view in Catholicism.

By contradicting Church teaching, I only meant to say that it contradicts what the catechism has to say about Hell. I’m not sure that there’s been an official pronouncement or anything, so your view probably is allowable. I just wanted to point out that it doesn’t seem to be what the Church is currently teaching.

I didn’t even notice the existence of the link first time around. I’m looking at it now and digesting it. Pretty interesting stuff. I’m not terribly attached to any particular view of Hell myself, but as a new convert, think it’s wise for me to take seriously what’s in the catechism, at least until I’m better able to see how other views fit in with Catholic theology.

Sorry for getting so off-topic here.