EVOLUTION: what about this

[StAnastasia]

Each man receives his eternal retribution in his **immortal soul **at the very moment of his death…If you believe that the concept of an immortal soul is not “theologically helpful”, do you suggest that the Catechism be revised to not include this concept?

“Eternal retribution” sounds like a punitive, out-dated theological concept. The priests in our parish preach about love, reconciliation and forgiveness, never about eternal retribution.

 

[edwest2]

In matters of science… science.

In matters of faith… the church.

Then you’ve missed the often repeated quotes from Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI in support of evolutionary theory that have been made here. Evolution supporters will use the Church to support their version of science every chance they get. They will just ignore the other statements made by the same Popes that go against evolutionary theory.

As far as evolution, the only source of information I trust is the Catholic Church. It does have a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. And it does guide the faithful by studying science and adding other critical information. That is, God is a direct causal agent in the development of life. Science, at best, has a distorted picture of human origins.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Then you’ve missed the often repeated quotes from Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI in support of evolutionary theory that have been made here. Evolution supporters will use the Church to support their version of science every chance they get. They will just ignore the other statements made by the same Popes that go against evolutionary theory.

Sorry Ed, but that is what *you *do.

As far as evolution, the only source of information I trust is the Catholic Church. It does have a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. And it does guide the faithful by studying science and adding other critical information. That is, God is a direct causal agent in the development of life. Science, at best, has a distorted picture of human origins.

Interesting that you bring up the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Want to guess what they say about a literal 6 day creation?

Peace

Tim

 

[Marocchino]

“Eternal retribution” sounds like a punitive, out-dated theological concept. The priests in our parish preach about love, reconciliation and forgiveness, never about eternal retribution.

Pope St. Pius X:

Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles.

Do you think that Jesus’ teaching, which includes clear statements about eternal retribution, is punitive and outdated?

 

[Marocchino]

Pope St. Pius X:

Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles.

 

[hecd2]

It has been. By using mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomal DNA testing they have shown all of current humanity has been traced back to one male and one female. Coincidentally, scientists refer to these people as ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’. Granted, these two individuals are predicted to be a a few thousand years apart, but it does show humanity stemmed from one man and one woman.

I am afraid this isn’t quite correct in a couple of respects. First of all DNA testing has not “shown” the existence of a male lineage and female lineage Most Recent Common Ancestor for the extant human population. This is a common misconception but it is a misconception.

Assuming that humans are monophyletic (which is supported by other molecular evidence), the existence of the male lineage and female lineage MRCAs follows automatically - it is a mathematical certainty without any DNA testing. It so happens that mtDNA is passed down exclusively through the female line, and the non-recombining portion of the Y-chromosome is passed down exclusively through the male line, so these tracts of DNA provide a means for determining the date of the male lineage and female lineage MRCAs, and that is waht has been tested by comparing the DNA of different people.

Secondly the male and female lineage MRCAs are not estimated to be a “few thousand years apart”, but about eighty to a hundred thousand years apart (female at 140K - 175K BP, and male at 60K - 75K BP).

Thirdly, although these are the most recent common ancestors of all living humans in respectively the male lineage and the female lineage, they are not the sole ancestors of living humans in their, or any other generation. The size of the breeding population leading to extant humans has not dropped below a few thousand since the divergence of human and chimpanzee lineages.

Fourthly, although they are the most recent common ancestors in the strict male and female descent, they are not the only ones. The father, grandfather and so on of the male lineage MRCA and the mother, grandmother etc of the female lineage MRCA are also common ancestors. There are also common ancestors in other lineages (eg chromosome 4, or the X chromosome), including the MRCA of everyone alive today through any lineage, who lived much more recently than Y-chromosome Adam or Mitochondrial Eve.

Fifthly, the MRCA of all humans alive today in either the male or female lineage was not always a common ancestor and the current MRCA will not always be an MRCA, a more recent MRCA will arise as particular existing families or lineages die out, or combine through interbreeding - we cannot identify the MRCA with a single unique unchanging individual.

The only connection between biblical Adam and Eve and these MRCAs is in the name “Adam” and “Eve”. The extant human population did not arise solely from a single breeding couple.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm
evolutionpages.com/Mteve_not_biblical_eve.htm

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you think that Jesus’ teaching, which includes clear statements about eternal retribution, is punitive and outdated?

The evangelists cohnstructed their gosples in the idiom of the times. Both they and Jesus inhabited a worled imbued with apocalyptic feeling. Naturally, the Jesus of the gospels will speak about eternal retribution. However, that is not the deeper theme of his message.

If it helps your spirituality to focus on a Christianity preoccupied with eternal damnation and retribution, I’m sure that’s fine. However, most 21st century Christians I know prefer to focus on the positive rather than the negative, and it is appropriate for theology to reemphasize that dimension of Christ;s message.

 

[edwest2]

Idiom of the times? One good power outage and you are back to those times. Men and women have cell phones and computers but still behave the same as 2,000 years ago. The big problems today, as then, revolve around sexual immorality. The Bible tells us in more than one place to flee fornication.

And now science, in the form of evolution, is the new idolatry. The mind of man is exalted above God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

You pronounced a blatant lie in contending that I hold Genesis to be a lie. As for the teaching of the Church with respect to our understanding of the world, that changes over time. John Paul II indicated as much in his 400-year-overdue apology regarding Galileo.

You must be thinking about someone else.

I asked you what lies you were referring to.

You don’t hold Genesis to be a lie.

As for the teaching of the Church … you didn’t deny the charge (not made by myself) that you consider the Church’s constant teaching to be a lie.

 

[Marocchino]

Naturally, the Jesus of the gospels will speak about eternal retribution.

Is there some other Jesus besides the “Jesus of the Gospels”? Are you calling the reliability of the Gospels into question?

If it helps your spirituality to focus on a Christianity preoccupied with eternal damnation and retribution, I’m sure that’s fine.

It helps my spirituality to accept the whole teaching of Jesus Christ instead of some watered down modernist version.

 

[reggieM]

I asked:

"Do you accept that there is room for criticism of evolutionary theory? "

You said:

You do realise that academic progress depends on criticism ?​

I’ll accept that as “yes, there is room for criticism of evolutionary theory”.

This means that evolutionary theory is “not certain” and can be criticized, questioned, doubted and rejected – right?

ET as such however is not going to collapse - it is too solid for that.

I don’t see evidence that what you’re saying is true. On the contrary, I see it falling apart quite badly.

ET’s here to stay … What is to replace [it]?

The Altenberg 16 has been working on something to replace it. Certainly, an admission of ignorance is a far better replacement for the nonsense that is Darwinism today.

 

[hecd2]

The Altenberg 16 has been working on something to replace it. Certainly, an admission of ignorance is a far better replacement for the nonsense that is Darwinism today.

Why do you persistently misrepresent this? Why is the truth of so little value to you? Altenberg never was and is not working to *replace *evolutionary theory, as you have been taught before.

Are you still in thrall to Mz Mazur?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

Why do you persistently misrepresent this?

I don’t misrepresent it.

Why is the truth of so little value to you?

Why do you ask idiotic questions?

Altenberg never was and is not working to *replace *evolutionary theory,

Yes it was and is.

 

[StAnastasia]

The big problems today, as then, revolve around sexual immorality.

Only in the minds of the sex-obsessed!

Let’s see if there are some minor problems that don’t revolve around sex:

Global ecological breakdown
Widespread ethnic cleansings
Rapacious consumption of resources
Economic collapse
Grinding poverty in many parts of the world
Sea level rise threatening the very existence of coral atoll nations
Political corruption
Gross inequity between rich and poor
Financial greed on Wall Street
Idolatries of power

Here are ten problems that put sexuality in the shade any day, except in the minds of the sex-obsessed.

StAnastasia

 

[reggieM]

Only in the minds of the sex-obsessed!

As in the people who lobby for gay marriage and greater abortion rights.

 

[hecd2]

I don’t misrepresent it.

You do, absolutely misrepresent it every time you open your mouth about it

Why do you ask idiotic questions?

So, why is the truth obviously of so little value to you?

Altenberg never was and is not working to *replace *

evolutionary theory Yes it was and is.

Why do you have so little respect for the truth? I think you need to be reminded about what the organiser of the conference himself said about the matter:

"Creationists and their intellectual cousins, intelligent design proponents, keep saying that scientists disagree as to “the truth” of evolution, and that the field is therefore in crisis, despite official attempts by scientists to deny any problem and unite under the evil cause of fighting “the truth” about Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. … As a case in point, I am about to leave the United States for a trip to Vienna where I will be chairing a workshop on the status and future of evolutionary theory, the anticipation of which has been providing delight to creationists for the past several months.

The so-called “Woodstock of evolution” (not my term, and a pretty bad one for sure) will see a group of scientists, by now known as “the Altenberg 16” (because there are sixteen of us, and we’ll meet at the Konrad Lorenz Institure for theoretical biology in Altenberg, near Vienna) has been featured on blogs by a variety of nutcases, as well as the quintessential ID “think” tank, the Discovery Institute of Seattle. They have presented the workshop that I am organizing in collaboration with my colleague Gerd Müller, and the proceedings of which will be published next year by MIT Press, as an almost conspiratorial, quasi-secret cabala, brought to the light of day by the brave work of independent journalists and “scholars” bent on getting the truth out about evolution. Of course, nothing could be further from the (actual) truth.

The workshop is part of a regular series organized by the KLI (they do a couple of these a year), that has been going on for years now. Each workshop is limited to a small number of participants, both for logistical reasons (the Institute is small, and they have to budget the costs of paying for travel and lodging for all scientists involved) and because the idea is to get people to focus on discussing, rather than lecturing (hard to do with large groups). Articles and commentaries on the web have also made much of the fact that the meeting is “private,” meaning that the public and journalists are not invited. This is completely normal for small science workshops all over the world, and I was genuinely puzzled by the charge until I realized (it took me a while) that a sense of conspiracy increases the likelihood that people will read journalistic internet articles and ID sympathetic blogs. You’ve got to sell the product, even at the cost of, shall we say, bending, the reality.

So, what are the Altenberg 16 going to do in Altenberg next week? …The agenda is to discuss the current status of evolutionary theory, with a particular emphasis on developments – some of them under intense debate – that have occurred since the last version of it has been in put in place back in the 1930s and ‘40s…
In the 1930s and ‘40s it became clear that one had to integrate the original Darwinism with the new disciplines of Mendelian and statistical genetics. Such integration occurred through a series of meetings where scientists discussed the status of evolutionary theory, and through the publication of a number of books by people like Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, George Gaylor Simpson, George Ledyard Stebbins and others. The result was an updated theoretical framework known as the Modern Synthesis (MS). But of course evolutionary biology has further progressed during the last eight decades (unlike, one cannot help but notice, creationism). So for a few years now several evolutionary biologists have suggested that it may be time for another update, call it evolutionary theory 3.0 or, as many of us have begun to refer to it, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES).

A number of authors, including Stephen Gould, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Eva Jablonka, Stuart Kauffman, Stuart Newman, the above mentioned Gerd Müller, and myself, have published papers and books recently attempting to articulate what an EES might look like, and which elements of the MS will need to be retained, modified or discarded (just like the MS had retained, modified or discarded individual components of the original Darwinism). The goal of the Altenberg workshop is to get some of these people around the same table for three days and trade ideas about these sorts of questions (while also enjoying some excellent Austrian Riesling, of course).

What exactly is it that the MS does not incorporate and may require an Extended Synthesis? Ah, this brings us back to why creationists, IDers and others who have been writing about this over the past few months are either misunderstanding the issue or (surely in the case of the Discovery Institute) are deliberately distorting it to serve their inane agenda.

• to be continued

 

[reggieM]

If there were evidence suggesting an “evolutionist deception,” I suspect it would be all over the news, and that bishops and popes would be championing the cause. In fact, the upcoming conference in Rome has deliberately excluded extremists such as IDers, YECers, and Dawkinsians.

StAnastasia

Sure … you now cite “the upcoming conference in Rome” shortly after stating:

I trust the world’s hundreds of thousands of scientists to discover scientific truth; the Magisterium has no competence in this sphere.

There is an “evolutionist deception” and I can see it on display here just about every day.

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

The basic idea is that there have been some interesting empirical discoveries, as well as the articulation of some new concepts, subsequently to the Modern Synthesis, that one needs to explicitly integrate with the standard ideas about natural selection, common descent, population genetics and statistical genetics (nowadays known as evolutionary quantitative genetics). Some of these empirical discoveries include (but are not limited to) the existence of molecular buffering systems (like the so-called “heat shock response”) that may act as “capacitors” (i.e., facilitators) of bursts of phenotypic evolution, and the increasing evidence of the role of epigenetic (i.e., non-genetic) inheritance systems (this has nothing to do with Lamarckism, by the way). Some of the new concepts that have arisen since the MS include (but again are not limited to) the idea of “evolvability” (that different lineages have different propensities to evolve novel structures or functions), complexity theory (which opens the possibility of natural sources of organic complexity other than natural selection), and “accommodation” (a developmental process that may facilitate the coordinated appearance of complex traits in short evolutionary periods).

Now, did you see anything in the above that suggests that evolution is “a theory in crisis”? Did I say anything about intelligent designers, or the rejection of Darwinism, or any of the other nonsense that has filled the various uninformed and sometimes downright ridiculous commentaries that have appeared on the web about the Altenberg meeting? Didn’t think so… what we will achieve is taking one more step in an ongoing discussion among scientists about how our theories account for biological phenomena, and how the discovery of new phenomena is to be matched by the elaboration of new theoretical constructs. This is how science works, folks, not a sign of “crisis.”

I’ll tell you what does constitute a crisis, though: the fact that creationists have been on the retreat ever since the Scopes trial, having to invent increasingly vacuous versions of their attacks on science education in order to keep pestering the Courts of this country with their demands that religious nonsense be taught side by side with solid science. You want serious disagreement? How about several orders of magnitude difference in the estimate of the age of the earth among creationists: some of them still cling to the primitive idea that our planet is only a few thousand years old, their only “evidence” a circular argument from authority – that’s two logical fallacies at once! (The Bible says so; how do you know the Bible is right? Because it’s the word of God; how do you know it’s the word of God? The Bible says so…) Other creationists, particularly many in the ID movement, concede that the science of geology and physics is a bit too well established to throw it out of the window, so they accept the figure of about four billion years for the age of the earth. Now, if any scientific theory were to make statements that varied by six (I repeat: six!) orders of magnitude about a basic aspect of reality, that would really mean that the theory in question is in deep trouble. C’mon, guys, fix your own house first, then start knocking at our door if you must." - Massimo Pigliucci

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

You do, absolutely misrepresent it every time you open your mouth about it

No I do not.

So, why is the truth obviously of so little value to you?

Why do you ask mindless questions?

Why do you have so little respect for the truth?

Are you mentally ill?

I think you need to be reminded about what the organiser of the conference himself said about the matter:

I’ll admit that you do provide some humorous interludes. Just as before, you post a long, irrelevant text from the “organizer” and nothing from the participants. More importantly, you don’t even include a link to the article that quoted from the participants.

Your game is transparent. But again, I can fully understand why you don’t want to deal with what was actually said.

 

[buffalo]

“Eternal retribution” sounds like a punitive, out-dated theological concept. The priests in our parish preach about love, reconciliation and forgiveness, never about eternal retribution.

Yes, recently they leave out the justice part.