Evolution

[edwest2]

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

We are not haphazrd mistakes

Peace,
Ed

 

[Marocchino]

Lets use bible verse for the theory of evolution… guess what I got some very strong ones. will post if i get a responds …

Let’s hear it.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, I agree. Some of Ayala’s remarks are contradictory to Catholic teaching, which may be why he left the priesthood. But Ayala’s skewed theology is the result of a consistent theistic evolutionary position.
.

I beg to differ. Ayala’a skewed theology is the result of scientific research based on incomplete assumptions. And he is not alone in that regard.

At one point, I was considering the term theistic evolutionary theory and have decided that the term belongs in public relations and not in science nor philosophy. Maybe the term should be complimentary as in evolutionary theory can operate along side Catholic doctrine.

Regarding incomplete assumptions in evolutionary theory, ever wonder about the foundation for evolutionary theory? Ever question the validity of its base or beginning. I am not referring to the origin of life but rather looking at earth’s environment for the beginning of life.

Lately, I’ve been doing two kinds of posts regarding the alleged bottleneck which is what Ayala referred to – one asking questions since I don’t have a scientific background and the other in the form of flights of evolutionary fancy which is really dumb because most posters have literal minds focused on science as it is given to them.

Before I get too cranky to be in polite society, here’s the link for the “evolution” conference in Rome. You probably have it, but maybe someone else doesn’t.

www.evolution-rome2009.net

Blessings,
granny

All humanity belongs at the foot of Christ’s cross.

 

[grannymh]

Pope Leo XIII, however, wrote that where there is unanimous consent among the Fathers regarding the sense of a Scriptural passage, we are bound to their interpretation. 6 day creation is held to by almost every Church Father except Origen, who allegorized everything, and St Augustine who said that creation may have been instantaneous. But Augustine was open to the position that 6 day creation was true and his belief in instantaneous creation was influenced by a bad intepretation of a passage from the Latin vulgate and his question about when the angels were created (for more on this visit the Kolbe Center website).

Yes, the Church allows a belief in evolution under strict circumstances – circumstances so strict, I argue, that theistic evolution strays from evolutionary doctrine as understood by evolutionary biologists (ie, with the belief in two original parents of humankind).

Almost and except is not unanimous.

 

[DavWan]

Book Of Jubilees - Pseudepigrapha

And Cain took Âwân his sister to be his wife and she bare him Enoch at the close of the fourth jubilee. [190-196 A.M.] And in the first year of the first week of the fifth jubilee, [197 A.M.] houses were built on the earth, and Cain built a city, and called its name after the name of his son Enoch.

Of course Psudepigrapha is not canonical

 

[buffalo]

Of course Psudepigrapha is not canonical

Of course, but it can help us.

 

[DavWan]

Of course, but it can help us.

To a limited extent, yes it can. It can tell us what some of the small “T” traditions were for example. Generally, it was rejected as non-canonical because it was written by someone who was a non-witness posing as another who was a witness.

Remember the demon Lilith was supposed to be Adam’s first wife too.

 

[Marocchino]

Almost and except is not unanimous.

95% is about as unanimous as it gets. And Augustine was undecided about whether it was 6 days or 1 instant, while Origen allegiorized everything and due to his often abberant views was never canonized a saint.

Not one of the Fathers held to the long ages view of evolutionary theory, which they were familiar with as some Greek philosophers advocated primitive evolutionary theories.

 

[buffalo]

To a limited extent, yes it can. It can tell us what some of the small “T” traditions were for example. Generally, it was rejected as non-canonical because it was written by someone who was a non-witness posing as another who was a witness.

Remember the demon Lilith was supposed to be Adam’s first wife too.

If we found a book of the Bible tomorrow it could not be canonical because it could not be testified to by the Apostles.

The best we can do is surmise and to try and draw our best conclusions.

 

[DavWan]

If we found a book of the Bible tomorrow it could not be canonical because it could not be testified to by the Apostles.

Indeed. We know the Gospels are to be revered because they always were testified to. We know of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is no fifth gospel attested to (which is why I am dubious of the so-called “Q” source). We do know of many Gospels which were rejected because of being heretical or being pseudepigrapha

The best we can do is surmise and to try and draw our best conclusions.

Within the Church of course, recognizing these documents are fallible. Some were heretical. Others were orthodox, and perhaps even reflect what was believed (such as the protoevangelium of James or the Gospel of Nicodemus), but not recognized as inspired because they were written long after by people who were not present.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Not one of the Fathers held to the long ages view of evolutionary theory,

Not one of them argued that the Earth orbited the Sun either. There’s a lesson there, if you’re willing to listen to it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Yes, the Church allows a belief in evolution under strict circumstances – circumstances so strict, I argue, that theistic evolution strays from evolutionary doctrine as understood by evolutionary biologists (ie, with the belief in two original parents of humankind).

Why doesn’t the Pope agree with you? What “circumstances” do you think rules out what the Pope has written about it? The problem for a Catholic evolution-hater is acute; he must show that the Church is wrong in not supporting YE creationism, at the same time he must show that the Church really isn’t wrong.

Rock and a hard place.

 

[Marocchino]

Why doesn’t the Pope agree with you? What “circumstances” do you think rules out what the Pope has written about it? The problem for a Catholic evolution-hater is acute; he must show that the Church is wrong in not supporting YE creationism, at the same time he must show that the Church really isn’t wrong.

Rock and a hard place.

I said the circumstance in my post: that Original Sin requires the existence of Adam and Eve and all of humanity’s descent from them, while evolutionary theory says that there was not one original pair from which all humans descended.

There is no problem for Catholic YECs – evolution has not been introduced into the deposit of faith so the Church is not in error, which it would be in if it contradicted the dogma of original sin. Like I said previously, maybe the last 2 popes have made undogmatic statements in support of evolution because they are convinced of it or they don’t want secular society to think that the Church is a flat earth society.

That’s all for today. It’s getting late.

 

[grannymh]

Sure, God could have. Did He choose to act that way, though?

Sounds like you all are in the middle of a philosophical discussion regarding evolution. So I have some philosophical thoughts about the beginning of evolution.

Apparently, evolutionary theory doesn’t extend to the exact origin of life, that wonderful nudge that got inanimate stuff becoming life. That gives me the idea that the door is wide open, So why can’t the philosophers say that God looked around and saw all the wonderful chemical properties and other goodies and decided to combine them in different ways. So instead of having one common source of life, there could be two.

The second source of life would include the ability to become human with natural physical bodies and the ability to receive a supernatural soul. Because their bodies would come from the same building blocks as other animals of course there would be similar genomes etc. between humans and monkeys etc. It’s called unity of creation.

The ability to become human and the ability to receive a supernatural soul separates humanity from animals who do go through various kinds of bottlenecks. This creates another theory which theoretically can remove natural limits on procreation. The evidence for this idea would be the conflicting points in evolutionary theory. Logically, two conflicting points indicates more than one possibility. Bingo!

As long as we are philosophizing, the Garden of Eden would substitute for that nasty bottleneck that Ayala referred to.

Good night and may God bless you all,
granny

 

[DavWan]

Sounds like you all are in the middle of a philosophical discussion regarding evolution. So I have some philosophical thoughts about the beginning of evolution.

Apparently, evolutionary theory doesn’t extend to the exact origin of life, that wonderful nudge that got inanimate stuff becoming life. That gives me the idea that the door is wide open, So why can’t the philosophers say that God looked around and saw all the wonderful chemical properties and other goodies and decided to combine them in different ways. So instead of having one common source of life, there could be two.

The second source of life would include the ability to become human with natural physical bodies and the ability to receive a supernatural soul. Because their bodies would come from the same building blocks as other animals of course there would be similar genomes etc. between humans and monkeys etc. It’s called unity of creation.

The ability to become human and the ability to receive a supernatural soul separates humanity from animals who do go through various kinds of bottlenecks. This creates another theory which theoretically can remove natural limits on procreation. The evidence for this idea would be the conflicting points in evolutionary theory. Logically, two conflicting points indicates more than one possibility. Bingo!

As long as we are philosophizing, the Garden of Eden would substitute for that nasty bottleneck that Ayala referred to.

Good night and may God bless you all,
granny

Well, I think it is a given that the step between non-life and life comes about when God says “let there be…”

 

[grannymh]

I said the circumstance in my post: that Original Sin requires the existence of Adam and Eve and all of humanity’s descent from them, while evolutionary theory says that there was not one original pair from which all humans descended.
.

With today’s knowledge about the past conditions of the earth and information on formation of cells, etc., why doesn’t someone challenge the one-size fits all evolutionary theory? Excuse me, there are exceptions, mountains, x-rays, and maybe plants. What says that there can’t be another exception for a being intended to have a soul?

 

[grannymh]

Well, I think it is a given that the step between non-life and life comes about when God says “let there be…”

You have a good philosophical point. Sorry to be cranky, but…

 

[djconklin]

A good book I’m reading on evolution from the perspective of a doctor: What Darwin Didn’t Know by Geoffrey Simmons.

The body has between 10-100 trillion cells (no one knows the exact number) which conduct “more than a quadrillion purposeful chemical interactions each day … In many ways the human body functions like an extremely well-organized blizzard of invisible chemical responses and rapidly changing electrical impulses.” (page 16) As King David said in one of the Psalms: “we are fearsomely and wonderfully made!”

 

[oriel16]

Not one of them argued that the Earth orbited the Sun either. There’s a lesson there, if you’re willing to listen to it.

The thing about this is neither do you or anyone else here.You heard that it orbits the Sun but that is not the same thing as knowing through the enjoyable experience how Copernicus arrived at that conclusion.Judging by what is going on here,the cross currents of everybody’s opinions make for a gruesome sight with no clear direction on science within Christianity,either historically or as a fertile ground for contemporary investigation.

The fact of the matter is that Newton give himself a choice he did not have when approaching retrogrades and their resolution therefore astronomy withers instantly for those who follow his precepts.Sort of an example of Adam and Eden where nothing productive happens when you choose to believe that you know the ‘cause’ for why the Earth turns or orbits the Sun or know the ‘cause’ for the diversity of life.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The thing about this is neither do you or anyone else here.You heard that it orbits the Sun but that is not the same thing as knowing through the enjoyable experience how Copernicus arrived at that conclusion.

He wasn’t the first, you know. Aristarchus of Samos figured it out over a thousand years before Copernicus. And I had the “enjoyable experience” of doing the same observations as Aristarchus, and directly experiencing the process, as a teen.

I recommend it. You might go away with some insights on the world.

Judging by what is going on here,the cross currents of everybody’s opinions make for a gruesome sight with no clear direction on science within Christianity,either historically or as a fertile ground for contemporary investigation.

Not surprising. Christianity doesn’t depend on science.

The fact of the matter is that Newton give himself a choice he did not have when approaching retrogrades and their resolution therefore astronomy withers instantly for those who follow his precepts.

It’s not hard to understand. Science follows Newton’s theory, because it works. They don’t follow yours, because it doesn’t work. End of story.

Sort of an example of Adam and Eden where nothing productive happens when you choose to believe that you know the ‘cause’ for why the Earth turns

Conservation of angular momentum.

or orbits the Sun

Technically, it’s falling. If this puzzles you, read here.

or know the ‘cause’ for the diversity of life.

Random mutation and natural selection. If this seems contrary to faith, it might be time for you to learn about the different sorts of causes.