Evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It’s called “the modern synthesis.” Early in the last century, Darwinian theory was combined with genetics to produce modern evolutionary theory.

That is called “making up the story as you go along”

No, it’s called “being willing to change your opinion when you learn more about it.” This is obviously offensive to you. For reasons everyone here can see.

and maybe other Christians feel a desire to take a very anti-scientific view of the matter in going along with you but you will never shake the national supremacy core out of Darwin’s ‘cause’

You’ll never get the orange leprechauns out of your attic. For the same reason.

I am sorry,I do not deal in consensus nor can I be swayed by long and impressive figures supporting a false conclusion such as the ‘theory of gravity’ which amounts to attempting to reduce astronomy down to the ‘experimental lab’ by distorting existing astronomical insights to make planetary motion look like terrestrial ballistics.

Yeah, evidence offends you. We got that.

That is where the damage was done and encountering Newton’s attempt is like meeting something akin to Frankenstein’s monster with bits and pieces cobbled from everywhere.The fact is that the original astronomical insights are fairly easy to understand with modern imaging with the original texts of the great astronomers in support.

Aristarchus of Samos, for example, realized heliocentrism was correct by observation and math. The sort of thing that upsets you.

BTW, even Ptolemy used math and evidence. He just missed some things because he was locked into thinking geocentrism.

Barbarian observes:
Two errors there. First, science is by nature empirical, and always has been.

Second, seeing the consequences of anti-scientific views is not what makes one a Christian.

Why should you care…

I’m a scientist and a Christian.

 

[agangbern]

Science works by evidence, not quotes. I’m away from my library, but I’ll see what I can do tonight for you.

The better would it be if you could present here the evidence themselves supporting evolution theory.

 

[oriel16]

Aristarchus of Samos, for example, realized heliocentrism was correct by observation and math. The sort of thing that upsets you.

I’m a scientist and a Christian.

You are an Arian which makes you an empiricist and empiricism is not science.

Geometrical details are much harder to distort than the minor conceptual outriggers such as Darwin’s ‘cause’ by jumping on the empirical bandwagon created by Newton.You are terrified of pursuing this line of inquiry and for good reason,this is where empiricism entered Christian scientific tradition and distorted it to where it is now.Newton did make up the story as he went along and it does not take much to see exactly where he managed it.

Most people never encountered the original arguments as they are blocked by empirist smoke and mirrors about astronomy being difficult but they sure are going to get nothing from Newton’s hypothetical observer on the Sun to account for retrogrades in direct conflict with Copernicus and Kepler’s work -

“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct…” Newton

We actually do see our orbital motion and those of the other planets around the central Sun from an orbitally moving Earth as that is how apparent retrogrades were resolved by putting the Earth in motion between Venus and Mars -

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

The arguments for solar system structure are based on the length of time it takes a planet to return to the same point against the stellar background and it is an imperative to use the 365 days to place the Earth between the Venus and Mars -

Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler

"Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their whole system - does not revolve in some annual movement, as Brahe wishes,but in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one place,while the centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement. "

Argument 10

" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure between Venus’ period of 225 days and Mars’ period of 687 days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth…but the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running around the Sun." Johannes Kepler

There cannot be any Christian scientists here who are prepared to sacrifice the works of Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo for an Arian numbskull like Newton who made up things as he went along.It is crude,it is brutish and it sure is not science.

Darwin is just the symptom of the problem ,a case of jumping on a natural ‘law’ bandwagon but it is Isaac where the actual damage was done.

 

[cassini]

Re: Can someone please give me the Catholic ‘teaching’ that says evolution is not opposed to Catholic teaching.

---

My but aren’t you theistic evolutionists as short on ‘Catholic teaching’ that says evolutionism and Catholicism are compatible, as you were in not being able to answer my other thread asking one of you to show us how evolutionism and the dogmas on Adam and Eve and Original Sin can be made comply with evolution.

On this thread the best you guys can come up with is Humani Generis, an encyclical letter from Pope Pius XII that merely carried warnings that evolutionism MUST comply with Catholic dogma, not that it IS.

‘If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.’

At best it allows evolutionists TRY to show how it can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. This way everybody will see it DOESN’T.

But Pope Pius XII was well aware that you theistic-evolutionists, so cock-sure of your ‘science’ that he had to warn others about YOU:

‘Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question…’

Tell me half the threads on this forum on evolution were not written by Catholics who place science ahead of revelation and catholic theology in their list of infallible beliefs.

Humani Generis’s final warning

’ When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.’

more no. nos for evolutionists, including the question none of you could answer on my other thread about Adam and Eve and Original Sin.’

Now someone correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t Cardinal Ratzinger hint or point to Adam and Eve as methaphor for ‘mankind’ in his book In The Beginning 1981, reprinted when he wasa made pope? I certainly know I have read many such accounts written by ‘Catholics’ that include all the no, nos forbidden by Pius XII above.

So, where in God’s name does the above say evolution is not not opposed to Catholic faith? You first have to compile your theology, submit it to the Church, and then you will see if your mish-mash is compatible to Catholic teaching.

‘provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.’

Given the pathetic three liner theology by one of you on the other thread, we find you have NOTHING to say. Compare this with the 1000 posts on the ‘scientific evidence’,

Finally, here is the new religion of the evolutionists:

Fr Guy Consolmagno SJ, Vatican Observatory, revising the Galileo case once again for all gullible Catholics today, said recently:

‘or, to put it in another way, religion tells us that God made the universe, science tells us how He did it.’

Now time was when Catholic theology told us how God created and there is a wealth of theology on the matter. How sad to see all this theology redundant. Evolutionism, any Catholic worth his or her salt should see if they had any faith in them, is a doctrinal POISON.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Cassini tries a little false witness)

You are an Arian

An Arian is a person who denies the divinity of Christ. Since I firmly accept the Trinity, that’s obviously wrong. Getting angry and lying about people is a sure way to advertise that you’ve lost the debate.

which makes you an empiricist and empiricism is not science.

Back to the “evidence is evil” stuff, um? Are you unhappy that I pointed out that even your geocentrists used evidence and math?

Geometrical details are much harder to distort than the minor conceptual outriggers such as Darwin’s ‘cause’ by jumping on the empirical bandwagon created by Newton.You are terrified of pursuing this line of inquiry and for good reason,this is where empiricism entered Christian scientific tradition and distorted it to where it is now.

Nonsense. Steno and Bacon were much earlier scientists, who were willing to accept evidence. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Most people never encountered the original arguments as they are blocked by empirist smoke and mirrors about astronomy being difficult

That’s absurd. Astronomy is one of those sciences where dedicated amateurs can still make significant contributions, something professional astronomers are pleased to tell you about.

 

[Namesake]

The better would it be if you could present here the evidence themselves supporting evolution theory.

Do you understand how huge the literature supporting evolution is? I don’t think you do understand that. You are asking a question that to answer would require more band width than this site can accommodate. Much more than you can read in a lifetime. It’s a ridiculous request.

Maybe you ought to pare your question down to something more manageable. Either that or start reading about evolution on your own. Educate yourself a bit instead of asking us to spoon feed you.

 

[DavWan]

I must say that I see absolutely no logic in calling people who support evolution “Arians.” Arians denied that Jesus was God, but also claimed that He was the first of all creation.

Really, if one wanted to argue Arians were Evolutionists, you would think they would hold Jesus was created last because He was a perfect creation.

Given that Science is based on the observable, it makes no sense whether the observation is made by a Catholic, Protestant, Non-Christian or Athiest. What a person is may color his views outside of science and may lead him to conclude wrongful things. However that does not make science wrong.

 

[agangbern]

Do you understand how huge the literature supporting evolution is? I don’t think you do understand that. You are asking a question that to answer would require more band width than this site can accommodate. Much more than you can read in a lifetime. It’s a ridiculous request.

Maybe you ought to pare your question down to something more manageable. Either that or start reading about evolution on your own. Educate yourself a bit instead of asking us to spoon feed you.

It does not need to be all the evidences that support the concept of evolution that you spouse. One evidence would suffice here. Yes, I did some reading, but I found out that even the believers in evolution theory, they are not all having the same concept of it through out. That is why I wanted to know what concept of evolution theory are you aligned with. That way hopefully we could achieve a more enlightening discussion about this theory.

 

[oriel16]

I must say that I see absolutely no logic in calling people who support evolution “Arians.” Arians denied that Jesus was God, but also claimed that He was the first of all creation.

Really, if one wanted to argue Arians were Evolutionists, you would think they would hold Jesus was created last because He was a perfect creation.

Given that Science is based on the observable, it makes no sense whether the observation is made by a Catholic, Protestant, Non-Christian or Athiest. What a person is may color his views outside of science and may lead him to conclude wrongful things. However that does not make science wrong.

This is like encountering the people of Babel who are lost in a thousand different opinions swirling around Adam, Genesis, evolution,empiricism,genuine science and all the other different factors with one opinion no better or worse than the next.

The entry of empiricism into genuine science has a definite beginning,it took a definite route through astronomy,it distorted definite astronomical principles to achieve its aims and had obvious consequences that can be seen here day in and day out.

The explicit inference is that there is a resolution based on the principle that empiricism does not represent genuine science no more than Darwin’s insertion of a ‘cause’ represents genuine biological and geological investigations insofar as these two disciplines once worked in tandem through rock strata and fossil evidence.

Genuine scientific investigation once thrived within Chrstinaity even if its institutional arm is slow to pick up on these things as intuitive intelligence which serves recognise the Trinity beyond the scope of surface intelligence is also the same facility which handles observations in investigations of terrestrial and celestial phenomena.Newton was an Arian and his work reflects much distortions,lots of cleverness in organising these distortions to look like genuine astronomical methods and none of the inspirational qualities seen in the works of Copernicus and Kepler and to a lesser extent Galileo.

Evolution is fine, the empirical twist on evolution by Darwin is not but it does expose the Arian atmosphere from which it emerged.Too many try to substitute inspiration with novelty and contention and that is exactly what happened in evolution but the real damage is what Newton did to astonomy.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The better would it be if you could present here the evidence themselves supporting evolution theory.

There’s a huge body of that, but let’s look at the major points.

1. Nested hierarchy of living things, first noted by Linnaeus. Never happens, except by common descent.
2. Living and fossil transitionals, showing homologies which are functionally unnecessary. And we never see such homologies where they are not predicted.
3. Observed macroevolution.
4. Mendel’s discovery that inheritance was particulate. This removed an important objection to Darwin’s theory as to the persistance of new traits.
5. Molecular biology, showing the same phylogenies as Linnaeus’s classification.
6. DNA evidence, showing common descent is a fact. And we know it works, because we can trace the family relationships of living organisms with it.
7. Sorting of fossils in the rocks, showing the same patterns of descent.

A good review of the evidence can be found in Charlotte Avers’ Process and Pattern in Evolution, Oxford Press.

This is why scientists consider it to be compelling.

 

[grannymh]

There’s a huge body of that, but let’s look at the major points.

1. Observed macroevolution.
2. Molecular biology, showing the same phylogenies as Linnaeus’s classification.

A good review of the evidence can be found in Charlotte Avers’ Process and Pattern in Evolution, Oxford Press.
.

Dear Barbarian,

Would you please give a couple of examples of macroevolution?

Number 5 sounds interesting Is there an on-line “evolutionary terms” dictionary or an on-line reliable, non-biased source for basic evolutionary info?

Thanks.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings belong at the foot of Christ’s cross.

 

[oriel16]

An Arian is a person who denies the divinity of Christ. Since I firmly accept the Trinity, that’s obviously wrong. Getting angry and lying about people is a sure way to advertise that you’ve lost the debate.

.

The same intuitive intelligence which comprehends the Trinity is the same one which rejects the Arian idea of Jesus,the former being a gift of conversion while the latter tries to rise to Christ and God by reason alone.In Christian terms,God known by the heart
replaces God guessed at by the brain and it is a God given thing -

“But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.” JOHN 1

Man tries to reason his way to an understanding of nature on his own terms and this is what the empiricists do,they substitute God with the ‘laws’ of nature and so today we inherit a Frankenstein creation while the genuine science either suffers or becomes lost in a babble of opinions.The present situation is a repeat of a much older situation which happened in the early Church and has cropped up occasionally throughout its history even though I concede that the present strain is probably the hardest to deal with.

We inherit the worse part of an empirical strain that began in the late 17th century with all these numbskulls running around trying to impose natural ‘laws’ in the celestial or terrestrial arena and make themselves and all who follow them foolish in their misguided Arian agenda.

The genuine Christian,on the other hand,does not pay attention to the foolish imperatives such as the empirical ‘cause’ for the diversity of life on the planet insofar as it comes from people who do not have the intuitive intelligence to know better.That is how I approach astronomy,geology and climatology and get so much work done because observations provide the opportunity to arrange things to provide the best explanation rather than th empirical attempt to hammer everything into a conclusion they have already established.

Now pay attention to what Christians do know for a change -

‘How a Friend of Christ willingly fulfilleth by his outward Works, such Things as must be and ought to be, and doth not concern himself with the rest.’

“How, it may be asked, what is the state of a man who followeth the true Light to the utmost of his power? I answer truly, it will never be declared aright, for he who is not such a man, can neither understand nor know it, and he who is, knoweth it indeed; but he cannot utter it, for it is unspeakable. Therefore let him who would know it, give his whole diligence that he may enter therein; then will he see and find what hath never been uttered by man’s lips. However, I believe that such a man hath liberty as to his outward walk and conversation, so long as they consist with what must be or ought to be; but they may not consist with what he merely willeth to be. But oftentimes a man maketh to himself many must-be’s and ought-to-be’s which are false. The which ye may see hereby, that when a man is moved by his pride or covetousness or other evil dispositions, to do or leave undone anything, he ofttimes saith, “It must needs be so, and ought to be so.” Or if he is driven to, or held back from anything by the desire to find favour in men’s eyes, or by love, friendship, enmity, or the lusts and appetites of his body, he saith, “It must needs be so, and ought to be so.” Yet behold, that is utterly false. Had we no must-be’s, nor ought-to-be’s, but such as God and the Truth show us, and constrain us to, we should have less, forsooth, to order and do than now;[for we make to ourselves much disquietude and difficulty which we might well be spared and raised above].”

passtheword.org/DIALOGS-FROM-THE-PAST/theogrm1.htm

 

[grannymh]

If Evolution teaches that man and animal “evolved” from the SAME primitive biological source, is this not a blatant denial of the Scriptures. The Bible clearly teaches that the flesh of humans is different from the flesh of beasts… “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (1st Corinthians 15:39). Mankind was created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26); animals were not.

…

Questions pertaining to the OP above:

1, Keeping within the general theory of evolution, why is there only one teaching regarding evolution of human beings?

2.Does the concept of the same primitive biological source mean only one source?

1. Given the variety of chemicals (if chemicals is not the right term for life’s building blocks, please correct me) couldn’t there be more than one possibility for combining into human life, especially given the huge amount of time estimated for the development of the proper genomes?
2. Is there a principle of unity within life forms such as human beings and animals?
3. Is there a principle of diversity within life forms such as human beings and animals?

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.

 

[The_Barbarian]

1, Keeping within the general theory of evolution, why is there only one teaching regarding evolution of human beings?

The Church is indifferent to the way our bodies were created. It only insists that each soul is give to us by God directly.

2.Does the concept of the same primitive biological source mean only one source?

Wouldn’t have to be so, but the evidece indicates so.

1. Given the variety of chemicals (if chemicals is not the right term for life’s building blocks, please correct me) couldn’t there be more than one possibility for combining into human life, especially given the huge amount of time estimated for the development of the proper genomes?

Good question. There was only way to do it exactly as it happened. But there is probably an endless number of ways that a primate might have evolved into something we would call “human.”

1. Is there a principle of unity within life forms such as human beings and animals?

Yes. This was first noticed by Linnaeus, who should that all living things fit nicely into a sort of family tree. Molecular biology, paleontology, and genetics have all reinforced the discovery of Linnaeus.

1. Is there a principle of diversity within life forms such as human beings and animals?

Quite a few of those. Perhaps “adaptive radiation” and disruptive selection are the most important ones.

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian -

The Church is not indifferent to the way our bodies were created. To say otherwise is misleading. Eve was created by God from Adam’s side. Science cannot comment on God’s miracles.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

The Church is indifferent to the way our bodies were created. It only insists that each soul is give to us by God directly.
.

This was answer to question 1, Keeping within the general theory of evolution, why is there only one teaching regarding evolution of human beings?

Dear Barbarian,

Could you please re-answer question 1. ? because I was thinking more about “scientific” teaching. I keep getting the impression that there is only one “scientific theory” explanation of how human beings evolved. Why only one? Humans are so unique that I wonder if there could be a different model for their evolution–similar to what we have but different because of the unique nature and purpose of humanity.

The unity of creation, the tree of life, is a good foundation because of the common elements of living beings. Yet, while similar, different species evolve differently, time being one of the differences. Human beings are the most different of all because of their supernatural soul. So why couldn’t there be an evolutionary model that would take into account the soul?

Blessings,
granny

Human llife is sacred.

 

[DavWan]

This was answer to question 1, Keeping within the general theory of evolution, why is there only one teaching regarding evolution of human beings?

Dear Barbarian,

Could you please re-answer question 1. ? because I was thinking more about “scientific” teaching. I keep getting the impression that there is only one “scientific theory” explanation of how human beings evolved. Why only one? Humans are so unique that I wonder if there could be a different model for their evolution–similar to what we have but different because of the unique nature and purpose of humanity.

The unity of creation, the tree of life, is a good foundation because of the common elements of living beings. Yet, while similar, different species evolve differently, time being one of the differences. Human beings are the most different of all because of their supernatural soul. So why couldn’t there be an evolutionary model that would take into account the soul?

Blessings,
granny

Human llife is sacred.

I would think any scientific theory which sought to explain the “evolution” of the soul would have gone beyond science

 

[agangbern]

“*As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramifications.”

Charles Darwin
The Origin of Species, p. 171 *

'According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree."

Yes, modern living organisms, specially human organism, is the progeny of one single species, and this species was revealed to the Christians as Adam and Eve.

 

[grannymh]

I would think any scientific theory which sought to explain the “evolution” of the soul would have gone beyond science

Let me rephrase the original question with some additional notes. “So why couldn’t there be an evolutionary model that would take into account the soul?”

First, the soul would not have evolved because it is not material. On the other hand, it is the soul which makes us truly human as opposed to other species. It seems to me that the current evolutionary theory treats humans as just the same as other species when it comes to the development of descendents. Meaning that only one set of parents, Adam & Eve, would be impossible.

Now, since humans have a supernatural soul, it could be possible that Adam & Eve were on a different track than the polar bears, etc. Why not?

 

[DavWan]

Let me rephrase the original question with some additional notes. “So why couldn’t there be an evolutionary model that would take into account the soul?”

First, the soul would not have evolved because it is not material. On the other hand, it is the soul which makes us truly human as opposed to other species. It seems to me that the current evolutionary theory treats humans as just the same as other species when it comes to the development of descendents. Meaning that only one set of parents, Adam & Eve, would be impossible.

Now, since humans have a supernatural soul, it could be possible that Adam & Eve were on a different track than the polar bears, etc. Why not?

Well that is why Humani Generis is still relevant to any discussion of evolution after 50 odd years. It seems to me that humanity with a soul was done as the pinnacle of creation, so when God created the souls, it was His will that humanity began here. This was not a “roll of the dice” sort of thing. God knew where and when humanity would enter existence.

This is of course beyond what Science can discuss however.

Keep in mind that while evolution seems to be the best way to explain Creation based on what God did create (the physical laws of the universe for example), it cannot explain the direct creation of the soul.

Also, a proponent of evolution goes beyond what he can say if he decides “Well, the Church is wrong about the direct creation of souls by God.”