Genesis v Evolution

[Jake_Ellison]

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.

Like Mirdith said, this argument just isn’t trying.

However you also appear to have an extremly limited grasp of what evolution is. It might be better to actually know what you are talking about before you try to disprove it. I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard of cumulative selection? Yes, there are a lot of steps that go to make up the eye. The are organisms alive today that show some of these steps. They range from organisms with meer light sensitive patches to organisms with pits to contain the cells, to animals where the pits have closed over to form ‘pinhole cameras’ to animals where a lens exists. Now to jump from anyone of these steps to another in one leap would be ridiculously improbable. To go in many little steps over a large amount of time is clearly possible.

Your biggest mistake is to say ‘Miss one, and it’s back to square one.’ Why would that be? You think that if one organism was born with a slightly poorer eye then all the organisms of that species would automatically have the same eye? Or that when that happened some judge would come down and say, ‘no, no, thats all wrong, back to square one for you!’ Surely this one organism with a poorer eye does not mean that the whole specis is now going to deevolve to nothing?

Prehaps you will find that that organism has a worse eye and thus a worse chance of surviveing. Another organism of the same specis may have a better eye and a better chance of surviving. Through variation and natural selection, the best mutations are allowed to reproduce and become common, while the worse, at a selective disadvantage, dissapear from the population.

This is cumulative selection, very small incremental changes, but occuring with no direction. They don’t intend to make an eye. However, if in some small way they make a better one and that organism has a better survival chance, then unknowingly they will have.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

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.

I think you should speak to a preist about this. I don’t think catholic are required to believe in a real Adam and a real Eve. My preist told me it was a metaphor.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

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.

Humans are animals so really you could argue that any time anyone has sex they are having sex with an animal.

Prehaps you more worried about people having sex with animals of a different specise? Well while I’m sure that floats some peoples boats, it has nothing to do with evolution. Becuase for the production of vialble offspring the copulating organisms must belong to the same species. Over time a specise develops from another, but there is no sudden dividing line when suddenly you go from one to another. Sure, you go back far enough and you wouldn’t have been able to reproduce with one of your ancestors. But they reproduced with animals that certainly did belong to their specise.

So I’m sure that won’t really quell your fears over humans ‘having sex with animals’ but it certainly quells my fears over the huge amount of incest that must have occured between Adam and Eve and there offspring, and between there offspring to creat a whole new race. Its impossible for two animals to spawn all humans due to the huge genetic abnormalities that would have built up. By the time someones great grandfather and father were the same person, we may have had a few problems. Of course if you feel more comfortable in this belief then thats fine by me.

 

[rossum]

“environmental pressures”? What, the genes decide which way to mutate? I don’t think so.

No gene “decides”, genes mutate randomly. It is natural selection which “decides”. Genes which reproduce get into the next generation. Genes which don’t, don’t.

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 odds on your winning are very good. Every one of your ancestors, back to the very first proto-cell has succeeded in reproducing. Not one failure - even a single failure to reproduce would mean that you would not exist. You are descended from a very long line of winners, and only winners - no losers. Your genes have been winning the lottery for millions of generrations and by now they are getting pretty good at it.

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.

Think simpler. A single celled organism has no brain and no nerves yet it can have a light sensitive spot - as with the stigma of euglena. Jellyfish are a bit less simple, they are multi-celled and have nerves, but no brain. Jellyfish have eyes - Jellyfish eyes. An eye can exist without a brain to connect to.

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.

As you said above, a population evolves. If one member of a population has a mutation rendering it blind then that individual is likely to die before reproducing. Other members of the population will not have that mutation and so will survive to reproduce. It is the cumulative effects of small beneficial mutations over the many generations of winners, and only winners, which can build something as complex as an eye.

I much prefer believing Jesus: Mark 10:6 “From the beginning of the creation GOD MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.”

Why is this a problem for you? Sexual reproduction evolved long before humans - humans have always been male and female.

rossum

 

[steveandersen]

Evolution is religion it isn’t science.

I’ve heard this mantra chanted many times.
But how is biology any more a religion than meteorology or thermodynamics?

You don’t do experiments on religion.
Biology has no mythos, no search for meaning, and no values system. It doesn’t provide the rituals that bind our lives together.

Christianity is my religion. Science is just one more tool like fire or pointed sticks to help humans deal with the world. Nothing more nothing less.

As with edwest2’s original post you’re questioning the faith of fellow Christians.

I my humble opinion that is (among other things) poor apologetics.

Any theory that can’t take criticism is a religion. It’s a cult.

As this thread (an many others) indicates the theory is quite robust and capable of dealing with criticism.

 

[cpayne]

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

By the way, the caps aren’t in the original (if you mean the ORIGINAL original). Being in caps just means you are using a translation that capitalizes Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, like the NASB does.

I want to go back to the OP: One of the objections to evolutionary theory was that it states “You are an animal.” That didn’t seem problematic to me—after all, Aquinas says the same thing. Humans are defined as “rational animals.” So one of two things is meant here, I think:

(1) Either the problem is that evolutionary theory states “You are ONLY an animal (and therefore purely physical in nature)”; or—

(2) The problem is the statement itself, “You are an animal”; the OP does not accept the idea of humans as animals of any kind.

I just wondered which of these was meant in the OP.

 

[cpayne]

One more thing, again from the OP: There seems to be a confusion in the use of the term “rational”; as in the argument “Belief in evolution is rational; belief in God isn’t.” But I don’t think that’s a correct use of the term. Evidence for evolution is NOT rational evidence; it is empirical. Evidence for God’s existence IS rational. If a scientist says, “I don’t see any evidence for God’s existence,” the scientist is using the word “evidence” in the first (empirical) sense. However, even in that sense, I’d argue that Aquinas’s cosmological argument is fundamentally empirical in nature.

 

[cpayne]

Okay, one more thing and then I’ll be quiet. My point here is that one can accept rational evidence for God and empirical evidence for evolution at the same time. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, the two do not contradict each other.

 

[buffalo]

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

It can be a bad thing for your soul if you are ignoring the Truth.

 

[Steve40]

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?

I have to disagree. I don’t see evolution taking criticism well at all. The scientific community is very defensive without considering the criticism of evolution. Partly this is due to the threat of a loss of grant money. If you do not promote evolution you can loose your funding. This is an indication of a religion and the promotion ideology, not science. I don’t think you see the whole picture.

You can believe what ever you want, green men who planted us here from another world or what ever. But to believe in evolution and call it science tells me you have not given it serious critical thought. There are political forces and monetary forces at work that take the objectivity out evolutionary scientific work.

I prefer not to defend my religion with deceit and hoaxes but every religion will have it’s own operating mode depending upon whom they worship of course.

 

[Steve40]

Humans are animals so really you could argue that any time anyone has sex they are having sex with an animal.

Prehaps you more worried about people having sex with animals of a different specise? Well while I’m sure that floats some peoples boats, it has nothing to do with evolution. Becuase for the production of vialble offspring the copulating organisms must belong to the same species. Over time a specise develops from another, but there is no sudden dividing line when suddenly you go from one to another. Sure, you go back far enough and you wouldn’t have been able to reproduce with one of your ancestors. But they reproduced with animals that certainly did belong to their specise.

So I’m sure that won’t really quell your fears over humans ‘having sex with animals’ but it certainly quells my fears over the huge amount of incest that must have occured between Adam and Eve and there offspring, and between there offspring to creat a whole new race. Its impossible for two animals to spawn all humans due to the huge genetic abnormalities that would have built up. By the time someones great grandfather and father were the same person, we may have had a few problems. Of course if you feel more comfortable in this belief then thats fine by me.

My argument that evolution is equivalent to saying it is OK to have sex with animals comes from my understanding of what Pope John Paul II was trying to teach with the Theology of The Body. In his general audiences commonly referred to as The Theology of the Body. Our Pope, of happy memory, says some profound things about what it means to be in the body, what it means to be made male and female and in the likeness and image of God, and what sex between a husband and wife means.

The human person is the only part of creation that is a gift unto itself. This is not true for the animals. When a husband and wife bond in the procreative act (sex) they give what God has given them which is themselves totally one to the other. A mutual self giving that is meant to image the love within the Trinity, a total mutual self giving. Animals are not capable of this.

Pope John Paul II starts his Theology of The Body with recalling how Christ spoke of the physical bond between a husband and wife as a one flesh union.

My proposal is that the bond between a mother and child is also a type of one flesh union. Now it can be argued that the child in this case it not capable of totally giving of themselves to their mother, however the reality that every bond between mother and child images does posses this total giving of each one to the other. That reality is the one Flesh Union between our Blessed Mother and our Lord and King Jesus. Because of this reality and the type of Trinitarian Love, total self giving love in union, I find it unthinkable that God would present this image between an animal which is not a gift unto itself and a human being which is an eternal gift unto itself.

It is the Love and Union of the Trinity that created Adam from dirt which had no life, virgin soil as scripture says. The lack of life within the dirt that was used to create Adam is more than metaphorical. It speaks about the way God designed us to be created as well, in the image of Trinitarian Love.

 

[edwest2]

Let’s see: Once again we have the “if you only knew enough” argument. I believe God can do anything literally. I also believe Jesus Christ was on earth literally.

I have also been exposed here and elsewhere, to the usual attacks I’ve observed made against others. “Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe the earth is round? Do you believe the earth is the center of the universe?” The answer to the first two is yes and no to the last one.

Then I’m accused of being anti-science, another common attack. Science is quite broad and consists of a number of fields. I have a background in chemistry and electronics. The amount of evolution included in my studies was zero. Zip, none.

Next, it’s been stated, elsewhere, that a disbelief in evolution is likely to lead to error in the other sciences. Really? I can still do all the things I’ve been taught.

And by making these statements, I am in no way implying that anyone should put any more weight on my words than those of the average person, and I thank you for reading them.

I think Christians should consider the following:

The End of Atheism

The End of Christianity

What would be required to help bring about an end to atheism? An increase in reason or an increase of God in their lives?

What would be required to help bring about an end to Christianity? An increase of reason or an increase of God in their lives?

Science, especially lately, has been weighing in on natural causes for religion. There are claims that religion “evolved” for the purpose of benefitting the survival of early man.

For Christians, there is a real relationship with a real living being. There is spiritual and physical fruit from that relationship. It is not about meaningless rituals but about an ongoing, loving relationship with God. Reason tells me that the genetic changes claimed by evolutionists did not happen. They are assumed.

Beware, my Christian brothers and sisters, some science is seeking to stamp out all belief, to be replaced by what they believe. Trust me, God is not an option.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Caldera]

Edwest2:

I think Christians should consider the following:

The End of Atheism

The End of Christianity

Only God can change people’s lives. I’d be an athesist today if i didn’t have a spiritual awareness that was given to me by God.

For Christians, there is a real relationship with a real living being. There is spiritual and physical fruit from that relationship. It is not about meaningless rituals but about an ongoing, loving relationship with God.

Absolutely true, but not everyone is aware of this phenomenon.

Beware, my Christian brothers and sisters, some science is seeking to stamp out all belief, to be replaced by what they believe.

I don’t believe there is anything wrong with science, including evolutionary studies. I believe science is critically important in our everyday lives. I believe that God intended people to gradually discover the mysteries and technologies he created to be apart of the universe. (Yes, i believe in creation)

When you contemplate the universe, it’s either the most ridiculously gigantic waste of space, or something God intended for us humans to ponder and discover gradually over time. The universe is anywhere from 13.7 to 150+ billion light years wide. (lol) That is simply mind-boggling. It is a mere speck of sand on a huge radar screen, and on this speck of sand is currently 6+ billion souls who daily wonder what the truth of it all really is.

I believe God gave us this incredible/mysterious universe to ponder as we live life… When you remove the mystery from anything in life, (pick a topic) it tends to get boring, and you begin to look for something new to discover. It’s human nature. It’s meant to be. It’s God’s plan?

Take care.

 

[Mirdath]

Pope John Paul II starts his Theology of The Body with recalling how Christ spoke of the physical bond between a husband and wife as a one flesh union.

John Paul II also said, essentially, ‘hey, evolution? Yeah, we’re okay with that – as long as you believe God’s behind it all and that he created rational souls for humans’. According to the two most recent popes – at the very least, since I haven’t read up on their predecessors’ views on the subject – evolution does not conflict with Catholic teaching.

edwest2:

What would be required to help bring about an end to atheism?

No less than direct empirical proof of the existence of a deity. In other words, revelation of a specific God to every living person on this earth. And with that goes the free will to choose whether to believe or disbelieve in that deity.

Science, especially lately, has been weighing in on natural causes for religion. There are claims that religion “evolved” for the purpose of benefitting the survival of early man.

Are you asserting it didn’t? The belief in a warmongering deity sure helped the Israelites overrun Canaan – and so on. The idea that religion changed as a social institution has no want for evidence. Religion does not so much transcend humanity as it is, apparently, a great part of our progress. It is a mechanism of social control in ways governments only dream of. How else could anyone convince a billion people that masturbation is wrong?

Reason tells me that the genetic changes claimed by evolutionists did not happen. They are assumed.

We have verifiable, living and fossil proof that they did happen. We know evolution occurs. We have antibiotic-resistant bacteria; we have Archaeopteryx; we have whales with feet; we have snakes with legs; we humans even have vestigial tailbones! We have, in short, all kinds of evidence for evolutionary processes.

Ed, yes, what we’re saying is that your reason is misleading you. That isn’t necessarily your fault – biology is perhaps the most complex of all the sciences, for what other science deals with living things on such a scale? But can you seriously look at antibiotic-resistant staph and say ‘these bacteria did not evolve to become immune to the drugs humans made in the last fifty years’? You can’t! Those bacteria had no such thing to react to before we humans made those antibiotics!

Beware, my Christian brothers and sisters, some science is seeking to stamp out all belief, to be replaced by what they believe. Trust me, God is not an option.

How many times do I have to tell you that science is an entirely separate domain from theology? Science does not proclaim one way or the other on the existence or nature of a deity; and theology should not presume to speak on matters of the natural world. Like I said before, they may well be complementary, but they do not overlap at all.

 

[Steve40]

John Paul II also said, essentially, ‘hey, evolution? Yeah, we’re okay with that – as long as you believe God’s behind it all and that he created rational souls for humans’. According to the two most recent popes – at the very least, since I haven’t read up on their predecessors’ views on the subject – evolution does not conflict with Catholic teaching.

It’s OK to disagree with the opinion of Popes and that goes for both of us. However, there are certain universal truths that both our present gift of a Pope and John Paul II have talked about that help us to understand who we are. I see an inconsistency between what both Popes say about the meaning in sex (procreation) and what they say about the meaning in original creation. So, you have to consider which do they care more about and which have they devoted more thought to, in order for you to attempt to resolve this inconsistency. The answer is sex.

Both Popes would much rather get the meaning of sex right than discuss the meaning in original creation. To some extent I agree with their judgment of priorities. There is an immediate need that humanity has in a loss of understanding of what sex/procreation means. But, evolution is foundational in distorting our view of what it means to be created in the body and what it means to human. Eventually this core modernist belief will need to be definitively and authoritatively addressed by the Magisterium of the Church.

As an engineer I have viewed the Church’s discussion of sex as how you view the process of how something is brought about is related to how you view the end result. If you design something you need to respect and design the process of manufacturing. With sex the Church has said, if we disrespect the sexual act we will disrespect the result which is human life. The same principal holds true for original creation, if we misunderstand how we were originally created we could misunderstand what it means to be created. Process and result are connected.

 

[Axion]

John Paul II also said, essentially, ‘hey, evolution? Yeah, we’re okay with that – as long as you believe God’s behind it all and that he created rational souls for humans’. According to the two most recent popes – at the very least, since I haven’t read up on their predecessors’ views on the subject – evolution does not conflict with Catholic teaching.

But what a lot if not most people now mean by evolution is RANDOM evolution - ie without Divine Intervention, simply by chance. Random creation DOES conflict with christianity. I am quite prepared to believe one species emerged from another, but NOT that this was purely random.

Are you asserting it didn’t? The belief in a warmongering deity sure helped the Israelites overrun Canaan – and so on. The idea that religion changed as a social institution has no want for evidence. Religion does not so much transcend humanity as it is, apparently, a great part of our progress. It is a mechanism of social control in ways governments only dream of. How else could anyone convince a billion people that masturbation is wrong?

Atheism is also a great means of Social control. It also removes all moral barriers so that mass killings in the millions can take place for deterministic reasons

We have verifiable, living and fossil proof that they did happen. We know evolution occurs. We have antibiotic-resistant bacteria; we have Archaeopteryx; we have whales with feet; we have snakes with legs; we humans even have vestigial tailbones! We have, in short, all kinds of evidence for evolutionary processes.

None of this provee RANDOM evolutiion or creation

 

[cpayne]

I think Christians should consider the following:

The End of Atheism

The End of Christianity

What would be required to help bring about an end to atheism? An increase in reason or an increase of God in their lives?

What would be required to help bring about an end to Christianity? An increase of reason or an increase of God in their lives?

God bless,
Ed

Perhaps you should consider Benedict’s recent statement at Regenburg, or John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et Ratio.

The increase of reason and the increase of God in one’s life should go hand in hand. Reason is not the enemy of Christianity; it is a precious gift of God.

 

[Mirdath]

I see an inconsistency between what both Popes say about the meaning in sex (procreation) and what they say about the meaning in original creation.

What is this inconsistency? Evolution is hardly dehumanizing. We’re not any less people because we realize we evolved from other animals.

Axion:

But what a lot if not most people now mean by evolution is RANDOM evolution - ie without Divine Intervention, simply by chance. Random creation DOES conflict with christianity. I am quite prepared to believe one species emerged from another, but NOT that this was purely random.

We’re not talking about what started evolution. The Church says that if you believe God kicked it off, you’re fine.

The process itself is not random at all: natural selection is always a response to environmental pressure, which is decidedly not a throw of the dice. I don’t think you’re using the word ‘random’ correctly. Spontaneous mutation is random, but fails to push through into the gene pool the vast majority of the time.

Atheism is also a great means of Social control. It also removes all moral barriers so that mass killings in the millions can take place for deterministic reasons.

Totalitarianism did that, and works great whether it condemns religion or espouses it. Atheism didn’t have much to do with that control or the killings – people were killed or sent to the gulags for being religious not because atheism was better than religion, but because it was a social institution the government did not control.

Atheism does not remove moral barriers, and the constant theist assertion that atheists are more free to rape and pillage in the streets is unfounded, unprovable, nonsensical, and altogether tiresome.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

I have to disagree. I don’t see evolution taking criticism well at all. The scientific community is very defensive without considering the criticism of evolution. Partly this is due to the threat of a loss of grant money. If you do not promote evolution you can loose your funding. This is an indication of a religion and the promotion ideology, not science. I don’t think you see the whole picture.

You can believe what ever you want, green men who planted us here from another world or what ever. But to believe in evolution and call it science tells me you have not given it serious critical thought. There are political forces and monetary forces at work that take the objectivity out evolutionary scientific work.

I prefer not to defend my religion with deceit and hoaxes but every religion will have it’s own operating mode depending upon whom they worship of course.

I think your problem is that you don’t understand evolution. Your on the defensive far too much. Prehaps you should attempt to acctually learn about evolution before you claim it isn’t science. You may find it compatible with your beliefs. If I could recommed a book that might help explain it to you I’d suggest ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ by Richard Dawkins. Don’t be put off by the author, this book isn’t an full on attack on religion.

I have given evolution theory serious thought. It is a beautiful theory that works perfectly and takes all the evidence into account. I’ll say again, there is no better scientific theory. If there was, and you gave me all the evidence, as a scientist, I would change my mind. Evolution theory is open to improvments and critisisms and that is why it is science. You havn’t provided any critisisms of the theory. I’m sorry but simply say, ‘but what about god!’ or ‘but the bible says this!’ is not really any kind of reasonable critisism that anyone should be expected to take seriously.

And if you really think that scientists that promote evolution don’t believe it and are just fishing for funds, then you really are pretty nieve. (No offense intended.)

 

[freesoulhope]

The problem for evolution is that evolving to one single set of parents does not fit the evolutionary .

Why?