Genesis v Evolution

[PhilVaz]

<< In his book Thomas E. Woods Jr. ( How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization) has a quotation from Edward Grants book “Science and Technology in the Middle Ages” which is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. It says as follows… >>

Thanks! That reminds me, another good book to add to my list above:

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

chapter on THE CHURCH AND SCIENCE (MP3 audio)

Phil P

 

[edwest2]

Well let’s see what the scientists are talking about then:

secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=harris_27_2

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mirdath]

What are you talking about? Genetic predispositions for different behaviors are claimed to have been found. Man has been described as a biological device, or an animal, whose primary function is to survive and pass on his genes.

Predisposition does not enforce compliance. Doesn’t the Church’s teaching on homosexuality depend entirely on that very fact?

Sure, we can be predisposed towards any number of behaviors. We can be neurotic, we can be chronically depressed, we can be easily addicted – and we can be generous, we can be courageous, we can be loving. We are not mere machines. Have you heard of a device called a homeostat? It is an ‘analog robot’ that seeks always to maintain state. It’s a fascinating machine, and homeostats may eventually be the first ancestors of true artificial life. A man named Mark Tilden has recently been making incredible strides in the field.

Those robots behave, essentially, like retarded insects. They recognize and avoid ‘painful’ stimuli; they explore their world, sometimes altering their motion to reflect changes in their bodies. If a leg is removed, they plod onwards. Are they alive? In a strict sense, no – they lack any cellular structure, and according to any bio textbook, the cell is the basic unit of life – but in another, very real sense, they are human-created living things. Already our troops regard their battlefield assistants as pets, as integral parts of the team. A recent test of a minefield-clearing robot, one that just steps on them and sets them off (losing a leg in the process), was halted by the officer in charge, who couldn’t handle the sight of the robot dragging itself slowly, ‘painfully’ onward on its one remaining leg. To him, it was the same as setting a dog run through the minefield.

And the best part about those analog robots? They’re unpredictable. We designed each and every one of their component parts. We put them together. We made them. But we cannot tell if they’re going to go left or right. Shouldn’t we, the creators, know that?

We humans are animals. Biologically speaking, the purpose of all life is to reproduce and die afterwards, and we are no different from apes or frogs or bacteria in that way. But that does not make us mere machines. We can invent our own purposes, our own meanings of life. That is what makes us different from the next animal over.

What do you mean “distrust of science”? There is plenty of science I trust and have no problem with. Evolution is a belief system. And it is the justification for the lives and behaviors for a lot of people.

Evolution is a scientific theory, currently supported by all available evidence. It is not a ‘belief system’ for the simple reason that it does not require faith; all it requires is a good, hard look at the research conducted so far, which shows that it is the best explanation for the problem of origin anyone has yet come up with.

And finally, I have never heard of anyone saying ‘welp, I evolved from prehistoric hominids, guess I’ll go stick up a gas station!’

 

[Riley259]

Don’t get so upset. This has been going on for at least two centuries and the Church and God are still here. When scientist speak of nature not requiring God just realize they are full of themselves and a lot of bull excrement. There are not a few who see religion as a limit on their freedom and thbeir complaint has nothing to do with science.

As for an old earth they have just found a human footprint in Egypt that they have dated to 2 million years ago. The earth itself is thought to have formed 4.5 million years ago. I think the evidence for an old earth is very strong, but it does not in any way deny God’s hand in creation. It does point out in the thinking person’s mind that some of the factual information one would attempt to glean from Genesis is indeed mythical. That in no way denies that the myth carries truth. God did and does create we just don’t know all the factual details. As far as Adam and Eve being the first true humans, I cannot see why that cannot be true. Homo Sap. is what we think were the first humans, but there were a lot of forerunners so I think it is a mistake to believe that Adam and Eve were necessarily Homo Sap. We just don’t know and given the breaks in fossil records I don’t think we ever will.

As far as conflict between Scripture and Science, I found the following quite useful.

In his book Thomas E. Woods Jr.( How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization) has a quotation from Edward Grants book “Science and Technology in the Middle Ages” which is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. It says as follows:

(quote)“First, the truth of Scripture must be held inviolable. Secondly when there are different ways of explaining a Scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that, if convincing arguements show it to be false, anyone dare to insist that it still is the definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture and the way to faith will be closed to them.”

In this day when there is sufficent archeological and/or scientific evidence that contradicts certain historical or scientific parts of the Scriptures it seems obvious that biblical history and science in the Old Testament needs be taken as carrying only theological truth. So what is to be made of narratives like the Creation, the Exodus, Noah’s Ark, David and Solomons Kingdom and such like?
newadvent.org/summa/106801.htm
On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 1:6): “God said: let there be a firmament,” and further on (verse 8); “And the evening and morning were the second day.”

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.(close quote)

I think that certainty for falsehood is growing. If one becomes too insistent on the absolute scientific and historical facts presented in Scripture, one does our Faith a disservice. Stick to the theological/spiritual meaning.

You offer excellent advice on how to interpret Scripture and why science and religion are never in disharmony but are complementary. One tiny criticism of which was probably just a typo: the earth is probably about 4.5 billion years old not million.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Well let’s see what the scientists are talking about then:
secularhumanism.org/ >>

Sure you can listen to the “Beyond Belief” conference of atheists, but don’t be upset by them. Its a free country. The videos are available for download from YouTube, Google Video, and various places. Now for some counter scientists:

www.ASA3.org

Pontifical Academy of Science

And when William Lane Craig gets his hands on Sam Harris in a debate, I’ll be in the front row. Just kidding.

Phil P

 

[Jake_Ellison]

There is a section in Humanis Generis where Pius XII says something about the first humans. I cannot seem to find it, but it goes along the lines of Adam and Eve were the first human persons. And I see it like this, if there were just two human beings in the beginning, instead of an entire generation, then they must be special.

Fair enough. Is Humanis Generis on the internet?

 

[Jake_Ellison]

What do you mean “distrust of science”? There is plenty of science I trust and have no problem with. Evolution is a belief system. And it is the justification for the lives and behaviors for a lot of people.

God bless,
Ed

Evolution is a scientific theory its not a belief system. It just happens to be the best one for explaining the diversity of life on this planet and exactly where we came from. I know Christians who believe in evolution. I did when I was a Christian. The only major point of contention I can find is that while scientists say evolution is blind and nondirectional, Christians believe that if evolution is true it must have been directed to produce humans.

Now while some might say they cant see why we cant just believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, there is also no reason why we should. There are more reasons to believe in evolution. Using Adam and Eve really just takes something fairly simple and complicates it. It takes an explaination that makes sence and replaces it with one that doesnt.

 

[edwest2]

Mirdath,

You are just repeating old humanist philosophy:

“Man invents himself.”

“Man is the measure of all things.”

There is something beyond us. I am very familiar with the robotics work you mention. Your statement about us not knowing if our robots are going to the left or right is false. The three armed battlefield robots in Iraq had better follow orders. If there is a malfunction or an attempt at jamming, there’s a kill switch.

This is called intelligent design.

I am very much for science revealing factual information, but people like Sam Harris and others don’t want science to have no say one way or the other about God. It is clear that they want science to be anti-God. It would have been one thing if Mr. Harris chose to publish his thoughts on his own web site, but he chose the secular humanist site which supports his writings and Dawkins’ plus others of their ilk.

If I thought science about evolution was being presented in a fair, straightforward manner, without the constant cajoling and endless posts by its supporters here and elsewhere, I might look at it differently. But thanks to the evolutionists, I’ve had to look at evolution more closely, and Intelligent Design, and you know what? Evolution is just not credible. I can observe electricity at work and have sufficient knowledge to know how to work with it, magnetism, gravity, photosynthesis, nanotechnology, robotics, these things I understand. But shouldn’t I be able to judge evolution on my own? Apparently not. All I’ve gotten here is the word ignorant and ‘you don’t know enough.’ I doubt something taught to teenagers in high school is meant to be beyond the average person.

Something is not right.

God made all of us and through Him, we reach understanding and our purpose in life. “There is a way that seems right to a man but it leads to death.” Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath,

You are just repeating old humanist philosophy:

“Man invents himself.”

“Man is the measure of all things.”

Well, I am a humanist. It’s not a bad thing to be, either.

There is something beyond us. I am very familiar with the robotics work you mention. Your statement about us not knowing if our robots are going to the left or right is false. The three armed battlefield robots in Iraq had better follow orders. If there is a malfunction or an attempt at jamming, there’s a kill switch.

I was talking about Tilden’s robots, not heavily-programmed robots like Asimo. The former are autonomous and unprogrammed.

I am very much for science revealing factual information, but people like Sam Harris and others don’t want science to have no say one way or the other about God. It is clear that they want science to be anti-God. It would have been one thing if Mr. Harris chose to publish his thoughts on his own web site, but he chose the secular humanist site which supports his writings and Dawkins’ plus others of their ilk.

When a scientist speaks on the subject of God, he is not speaking of science. Science and theology are separate domains, perhaps complementary, but not overlapping.

Evolution is just not credible. I can observe electricity at work and have sufficient knowledge to know how to work with it, magnetism, gravity, photosynthesis, nanotechnology, robotics, these things I understand. But shouldn’t I be able to judge evolution on my own? Apparently not. All I’ve gotten here is the word ignorant and ‘you don’t know enough.’ I doubt something taught to teenagers in high school is meant to be beyond the average person.

We see evolution at work all the time. Bacteria continue to evolve to resist antibiotics, as fast as we can develop new ones. Australian snakes have developed smaller mouths to avoid swallowing poisonous cane toads (abstract). There are many, many more examples.

Something is not right.

That something is not the theory of evolution. It doesn’t say anything about God. You’re free to believe God started the process, that he created human souls to be different from vegetative souls – anything you want. But the evidence we have points unwaveringly to an evolution of species.

 

[rossum]

Fair enough. Is Humanis Generis on the internet?

Yes: Humani Generis

rossum

 

[Arwen037]

My understanding, as the product of a catholic grade school and high school, with some very knowledgeable, conservative catholic teachers, is that the church supports science when it does not directly defy dogma. My understanding is that the church says evolution (well, more properly Divine Intervention) is the correct belief. I’ve always seen that they fit together. From the first time I heard about the Big Bang as a child, I have always pictured it as God drop kicking a soccer ball. I just feel at some point God gave his spirit to man, and they because Adam and Eve. It would also give an explanation for the genetic variety of humans.

 

[edwest2]

At one time, I thought scientists who said “water and amino acids and ‘poof’ life” were on to something. It’s wishful thinking.

No animal has been observed changing into another animal. No organ additions. It’s wishful thinking.

The simple answer is God did it, not evolution.

Humans have bred dogs and horses but have always ended up with dogs and horses.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Steve40]

You have strong passions for your subject

But you do a disservice to the devout believer who also happens to know about science.

Evolution is religion it isn’t science. Any theory that can’t take criticism is a religion. It’s a cult.

 

[Steve40]

My understanding, as the product of a catholic grade school and high school, with some very knowledgeable, conservative catholic teachers, is that the church supports science when it does not directly defy dogma. My understanding is that the church says evolution (well, more properly Divine Intervention) is the correct belief. I’ve always seen that they fit together. From the first time I heard about the Big Bang as a child, I have always pictured it as God drop kicking a soccer ball. I just feel at some point God gave his spirit to man, and they because Adam and Eve. It would also give an explanation for the genetic variety of humans.

It’s all a lie. Your body and soul were always one and so was Adam and Eve’s just as God Is One. If Adam and Eve’s body’s came from animals it is equivalent with having sex with animals. There is too much meaning in procreation to just assume that Adam and Eve’s bodies came from animals. Both the scientific theory of evolution and the theology of evolution are inherently flawed.

 

[Steve40]

There is a section in Humanis Generis where Pius XII says something about the first humans. I cannot seem to find it, but it goes along the lines of Adam and Eve were the first human persons. And I see it like this, if there were just two human beings in the beginning, instead of an entire generation, then they must be special.

Pius XII condemned poly-geism, which means we came from multiple original parents because it contradicts the doctrine on original sin. As a Catholic you must believe that we all came from a real Adam and a real Eve.

The problem for evolution is that evolving to one single set of parents does not fit the evolutionary model which relys upon large populations and an even larger number of mutations. This is another area where evolution theory and the Catholic faith are not compatible.

 

[Mirdath]

At one time, I thought scientists who said “water and amino acids and ‘poof’ life” were on to something. It’s wishful thinking.

Not that wishful. The organic compound urea was synthesized a long time ago.

No animal has been observed changing into another animal. No organ additions. It’s wishful thinking.

Speciation doesn’t work that way; it’s not nearly so cut-and-dried, we just like to have it that way for our bookkeeping. A monkey doesn’t suddenly start discoursing with the zookeeper. Small mutations over time, influenced by environmental pressures.

How about two entirely different species producing offspring? Ever seen a mule? A liger? A tigon? Doesn’t that suggest that, in spite of being different species, horses and donkeys are really, really closely related?

The simple answer is God did it, not evolution.

Have you ever considered the popular compromise of ‘God did it by way of evolution’? It’s good enough for the pope!

Humans have bred dogs and horses but have always ended up with dogs and horses.

We did not breed dogs. We bred wolves.

 

[edwest2]

I am not a fan of popular compromise. Pope Benedict is concerned about “those fooled by atheism.”

“environmental pressures”? What, the genes decide which way to mutate? I don’t think so. Very large populations would be required and the genetic lottery (much like a real lottery) has pretty significant odds against ‘winning.’ Oh, and if you don’t end up with the mutation you need, you’re dead.

The organism lives in a dynamic environment, change in weather, natural catastrophe, accidents, disease, the odds keep going up against the organism. No, I find it easy to believe God and look at the interpretation of the evidence for evolution and say, what?

An eye is not a discrete organ. It needs an optic nerve. The optic nerve needs to connect to the brain. The brain needs to interpret the (name removed by moderator)ut. Evolution? I don’t think so.

I ask everyone reading this to think it through. Small incremental changes? That’s a lot of steps. Miss one, and it’s back to square one. A lot of steps to get from vague light receptor to fully formed eye.

I much prefer Genesis occurring over 6, 24 hour days. I much prefer believing Jesus: Mark 10:6 “From the beginning of the creation GOD MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.” (Caps in original.)

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mirdath]

I am not a fan of popular compromise. Pope Benedict is concerned about “those fooled by atheism.”

Welp, have it your way. I find it interesting you reject the statements of the previous two popes that evolution does not contradict the teaching of the Church, though.

“environmental pressures”? What, the genes decide which way to mutate? I don’t think so. Very large populations would be required and the genetic lottery (much like a real lottery) has pretty significant odds against ‘winning.’ Oh, and if you don’t end up with the mutation you need, you’re dead.

And you’re right not to think so, because that’s not how it works. Genes don’t decide anything. Let’s say the climate changes as the planet descends into an ice age, and we have a decently-sized population of mammals. They can hang on for a while, but they’re going to need to adapt to the cold. Some of them already have slightly thicker fur; some of them are naturally slightly fatter; some of them are just better at procuring food. All of these, among others, are positive traits needed in the face of the oncoming freeze. They’re going to last longer than the rest of the population, and they’ll have more time to breed – and thus more time to pass on their genes for thicker coats, better insulation, sharper senses, and so on.

Or say we have a population of staphylococcus bacteria! They’re currently inhabiting some poor soul who gets an antibiotic regimen from his doctor. He starts taking the pills, and our bacteria die off in massive numbers. But even after he’s been on the course for a few days, there are still some hardy bacteria left. They’ve survived so far. Our patient feels better, since the population has mostly died, and like an idiot who doesn’t pay attention to his doctor, he decides to save the rest of the antibiotics for a rainy day. Those staph bacteria proved themselves against the antibiotics; they were exposed and survived. When they reproduce, they’ll pass that resistance, that hardiness, on, and that quality will only improve until we have completely antibiotic-resistant staph. Which is what we have right now.

This is basic, basic stuff. Ed, the only biology course I’ve taken was a general ‘biology for jocks and non-science-majors’ (I was the latter) at a community college when I was fifteen. It covered this just fine.

An eye is not a discrete organ. It needs an optic nerve. The optic nerve needs to connect to the brain. The brain needs to interpret the (name removed by moderator)ut. Evolution? I don’t think so.

Would you believe that the octopus eye is set up completely differently from the human eye – and works better? It’s true

Come now, that’s just the watchmaker argument, and not even applied as a 'proof; of God but as a mere ‘disproof’ of evolution. That’s not even trying. I had hoped for better from you.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Yes: Humani Generis

rossum

Thank you.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Evolution is religion it isn’t science. Any theory that can’t take criticism is a religion. It’s a cult.

Thats really a fairly ridiculous thing to say. Evolution has taken a fair amount of criticism and dealt with all of it. Nothing has been put forward that is anywhere close to being as good a theory when we consider the evidence. And how can you say evolution is a cult when the theory has been improved and changed over time, even if in minor ways, but your own believes remain constant, blind to any new evidence?