Genesis v Evolution

[edwest2]

Feminism is a human invention, God is not.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Bacterial resistance does not prove evolution. It’s time to get that myth out of the way.

Ed, I presume you are not a biologist. Biologists define evolution as “change in gene frequencies over time.” This includes changes in gene frequencies within species as well as larger changes. If we create a drug (penicillin, for example), to fight a certain kind of bacteria, it will probably kill 99% of the bacteria, but 1% will survive because they have a genetic mutation that allows them to be resistant to penicillin. Then those bacteria will divide and multiply and they cannot be killed by penicillin. With the accumulation of changes over millions and tens of millions of years, we have the development of species that are genetically so different from the ancestral branch that they cannot interbreed or exchange chromosomes/genetic information.

That is how new species come about; it is observable fact in the laboratory. How do we interpret it? One possible theory would be that it is God’s will, to punish arrogant medical scientists for thinking they can outwit God’s bacteria which he created to punish us for Adam’s sin. Another theory is that this is biological evolution in action.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow,

I agree with you whole-heartedly on the matter of science. But I’m not sure what you are implying about Latin, with a slightly pejorative note? As a classically educated scholar and theologian I love Latin, and my church sings in Latin. In fact, we did a Haydn Mass last Sunday, and are singing a Palestrina Mass this Sunday. So respect for and use of Latin in the liturgy is quite compatible with respect for the integrity of science!

Petrus

I love latin masses as well. I was suggesting that Ed was that rare bird a fundamentalist, most of whom as I understand reject Vatican II. It was an inelegant statement on my part.

It’s just frustrating when someone chooses to put himself out on the far reaches of understanding, twisting and beating a text into submission to achieve some goal of perfect inerrency for no reason other than one’s personal need to have a theology that answers everything neatly. The Church does not so reqjuire, and the Church could not continue and prosper without its scholars who carefully examine with care the evidence presented by both the secular world and within its own institutions of higher learning.

To me, to pursue fundamentalism under Catholicism is to come dangerously close to sola scriptura. Even if one still claims to accept tradition and the magisterium…it seems one has frozen them in time to a place that was determined comfortable to their emotional psychological needs.

To force God into such narrow confines it seems to me diminishes the extraordinary story of a people and their ongoing quest to dialogue with their Creator.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, I presume you are not a biologist. Biologists define evolution as “change in gene frequencies over time.” This includes changes in gene frequencies within species as well as larger changes. If we create a drug (penicillin, for example), to fight a certain kind of bacteria, it will probably kill 99% of the bacteria, but 1% will survive because they have a genetic mutation that allows them to be resistant to penicillin. Then those bacteria will divide and multiply and they cannot be killed by penicillin. With the accumulation of changes over millions and tens of millions of years, we have the development of species that are genetically so different from the ancestral branch that they cannot interbreed or exchange chromosomes/genetic information.

That is how new species come about; it is observable fact in the laboratory. How do we interpret it? One possible theory would be that it is God’s will, to punish arrogant medical scientists for thinking they can outwit God’s bacteria which he created to punish us for Adam’s sin. Another theory is that this is biological evolution in action.

There is a proven other option. Bacteria have a built-in, pre-existing means of dealing with harmful substances, whether it’s a purpose made antibiotic or contamination in the environment. Plasmid transfer allows bacteria to transfer genetic bits between other bacteria, including those from different species. Please note, the bacteria that survive do not gain arms, legs or gills, but perform their pre-planned, pre-existing function, and they remain bacteria. They do not become ants. They are bacteria now and forever.

That’s the disconnect between bacteria and those who support what evolution claims. No new body parts are added, no eyes, tail, gills to lungs, etc.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

SpiritMeadow, thank you for your posting. My choir director and I are leading the challenge in our diocese to increase the quality of liturgical music, but a lot of the parishes have musically and historically untrained choir directors, who ave never been introduced to the glories of 2,000 of Catholic music. I also wish our parish would use incense more, but I understand the folks with chemical sensitivity.

You raise an interesting point about the psychological factors compelling people toward a fundamentalist take on reality. Historian William Shea suggests that the official church’s rigid stance against Galileo in the 17th century had little to do with theology (as the theological case against Galileo was not there) and a lot to do with the crisis of confidence in the Italian mind following the sack of Rome in 1527, the collapse of the Florentine Republic, and the loss of nearly half of Christendom to Protestantism. Historian of Creationism Ronald Numbers argues similarly that Fundamentalism in this country arose at a time of great insecurity culminating in World War I.

I suggest that Fundamentalism appeals to people today because we are living in a similarly chaotic time, with global warming, massive species die-off, and the rapidly approaching end of affordable oil (perhaps by 2012) that threatens our very way of life. Such threats magnify the ordinary human craving for security and order. Humans are also anthropocentric and parochial, and read design in everything (we are hard-wired to do that). Clinging to various forms of scriptural inerrantism – whether as Jews, as Christian, or as Muslims – can bring a sense of order and security, although at the price of marginalizing the individual from mainstream (particularly scientific) society. Some Fundamentalists have also developed the false argument that evolutionary biology entails, or is conducive to irreligion, immorality, and societal breakdown.

In my job I’m in the peculiar situation of being equally contemned by atheist scientists for my Catholicism, and by Fundamentalists (Prot and Papist) for my work with science. Damned on two accounts, but I thrutch on, Ad maiorem Dei gloriam!

Prayerfully,
Petrus

 

[hecd2]

drpmjhess;2769776:

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?

The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
***Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

---

more…

If what you say is accepted then it is either a terrible embarrassment to the concept that something once proposed infallibly by the Magisterium must forever be held definitively by the faithful; or it means that the pope and the college of cardinals are no longer to be numbered amongst the faithful, because this is no longer taught by them as literal and historical truth.

So, if what you say is true which option would you plump for: the plasticity of supposedly infallible propositions or the heresy of the current church leaders? Or could it be that you are wrong in your argument?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[drpmjhess]

buffalo;2772313:

So, if what you say is true which option would you plump for: the plasticity of supposedly infallible propositions or the heresy of the current church leaders? Or could it be that you are wrong in your argument?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Alec, to whom and to which post are you addressing this?

 

[hecd2]

There is a proven other option. Bacteria have a built-in, pre-existing means of dealing with harmful substances, whether it’s a purpose made antibiotic or contamination in the environment. Plasmid transfer allows bacteria to transfer genetic bits between other bacteria, including those from different species.

But this not the only or even a common mechanism for generating antibiotic resistance to synthetic antibiotics. As others have pointed out to you, bacteria develop antibiotic resistance by demonstrable new mutations against novel synthetic antibiotics such as sulphonamides that do not exist in nature. In this case lateral gene transfer is irrelevant. What you say is simply wrong: why do you keep repeating this erroneous claim after you have been corrected?

In addition, Hall, Cairns, Foster and others have done a wealth of work that demonstrates that bacteria acquire, through mutation, an ability to digest novel substrates. This ability is NOT ‘built-in’. It is acquired through mutation. So let’s have no more of your false claims that beneficial genetic variations always pre-exist in the population. It is simply and demonstrably not true.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2;2774344:

Alec, to whom and to which post are you addressing this?

Achhh!

Clicked on the wrong post. I was asking the question of buffalo.

I will re-post and correct this.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?

The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
***Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

---

more…

If what you say is accepted then it is either a terrible embarrassment to the concept that something once proposed infallibly by the Magisterium must forever be held definitively by the faithful; or it means that the pope and the college of cardinals are no longer to be numbered amongst the faithful, because this is no longer taught by them as literal and historical truth.

So, if what you say is true which option would you plump for: the plasticity of supposedly infallible propositions or the heresy of the current church leaders? Or could it be that you are wrong in your argument?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

[Re-posted to correct the attribution of the quote above]

 

[drpmjhess]

Please note, the bacteria that survive do not gain arms, legs or gills, but perform their pre-planned, pre-existing function, and they remain bacteria. They do not become ants. They are bacteria now and forever.

Ed

Ed, I don’t know from which Creationist website you got these talking points, but you have created a straw person: we do not expect evolution to turn a bacterium into an ant in one generation, because such changes take millions of years and tens of millions of generations. Indeed, the transformation of a bacterium into an ant in one generation would be a substantial falsification of evolution.
Prayerfully,
Petrus

 

[hecd2]

Ed, I don’t know from which Creationist website you got these talking points, but you have created a straw person: we do not expect evolution to turn a bacterium into an ant in one generation, because such changes take millions of years and tens of millions of generations. Indeed, the transformation of a bacterium into an ant in one generation would be a substantial falsification of evolution.
Prayerfully,
Petrus

Ah, but given time the bacteria (eubacteria and archae-bacteria) did grow arms and legs and wings and heads and leaves and fruit and spores and polyps and all the paraphernalia of eurkaryotes. I wonder whether our friend Ed has ever heard of Lynn Margulis or the similarity between mitochondrial, chloroplast and bacterial ribosomal RNA (the most conserved genes in organisms) or the circular chromosomes of bacteria and organelles?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

This is nonsense. There are no proven events or fossils that show one creature changing into another. And how many bacterial generations occur in a year or ten years? Bacteria have built-in means to defend themselves and my point is, after many thousands of generations, remain bacteria.

See this article: actionbioscience.org/evolution/meade_callahan.html

Look under the heading: Mechanisms of spread of antibiotic resistance. Note the phrase “naturally resistant.” Bacteria can mutate but this is a built-in ability.

Millions of years cannot be proven. No one was there millions of years ago.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

This is nonsense. There are no proven events or fossils that show one creature changing into another. And how many bacterial generations occur in a year or ten years? Bacteria have built-in means to defend themselves and my point is, after many thousands of generations, remain bacteria.

See this article: actionbioscience.org/evolution/meade_callahan.html

Look under the heading: Mechanisms of spread of antibiotic resistance. Note the phrase “naturally resistant.” Bacteria can mutate but this is a built-in ability.

Millions of years cannot be proven. No one was there millions of years ago.

God bless,
Ed

Creationists are either stupid beyond belief, or lie through their teeth! The very article you abuse here is from a web site about evolution in action! I thought lying was prohibited by one of the Ten Commandments. I guess Catholic Creationists are exempt from that…Sigh!

 

[Steve40]

Creationists are either stupid beyond belief, or lie through their teeth! The very article you abuse here is from a web site about evolution in action! I thought lying was prohibited by one of the Ten Commandments. I guess Catholic Creationists are exempt from that…Sigh!

It isn’t stupid to say we don’t know how we were created. We could probably agree that humanity knows less, than they know. Evolution is an arrogant assertion with a lot of assumptions. A bunch of scientific assumptions and theories isn’t enough for me to disregard the literal meaning of Scripture. I believe that as a scientists and as a Catholic. But, I’m Catholic first. Science and the faith that is applied to it will never be my religion. Is it yours?

 

[buffalo]

buffalo;2772313:

If what you say is accepted then it is either a terrible embarrassment to the concept that something once proposed infallibly by the Magisterium must forever be held definitively by the faithful; or it means that the pope and the college of cardinals are no longer to be numbered amongst the faithful, because this is no longer taught by them as literal and historical truth.

So, if what you say is true which option would you plump for: the plasticity of supposedly infallible propositions or the heresy of the current church leaders? Or could it be that you are wrong in your argument?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

This is exactly the crux of the issue. Divine Revelation that Catholics have believed is in error? God’s tranmission of the truth is faulty? or is our receiving?

 

[edwest2]

Creationists are either stupid beyond belief, or lie through their teeth! The very article you abuse here is from a web site about evolution in action! I thought lying was prohibited by one of the Ten Commandments. I guess Catholic Creationists are exempt from that…Sigh!

“Evolution” in action? No. Evolutionary dogma in action? Yes. Did you read the article? Don’t you understand that the bacteria will always remain bacteria? That the exchange of material between different species of bacteria is built-in? Read what the article actually says about how bacteria work. There is zero “evolution” occurring. None. The bacteria have a built-in ability. They can only use the genetic material already in existence.

Your little emotional outbursts add nothing to the discussion.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

There is zero “evolution” occurring. None. The bacteria have a built-in ability. They can only use the genetic material already in existence.

God bless,
Ed

Ed, creationists typically construct three different meanings of evolution, with only one of which they disagree. The disputed issue over antibacterial resistance comes from a misconception that organisms evolve new structures in response to environmental change. Instead, it is more accurate to think of the variation already existing in the population, so that when the environment changes it selects for organisms at one end of the variation spectrum. This is evolution, and it takes millions of years. But of course, your a priori extra-scientific assumption of the short timeline in the Genesis cosmogonic myth, which you impose on science, precludes your reading genotypical and phenotypical change in light of the millions of years of geological time.

You referred to and misinterpreted the work of Dr. Maura Meade-Callahan. I decided to phone her this morning, and although she was unavailable I spoke with her colleague Luke Holbrook (an evolutionary biologist at the same institution, Rowan University). He confirmed that you completely misunderstand her work on the evolution of drug bacterial drug resistance, and sighed that he is all too familiar with your type of creationist half truth and misrepresentation.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow, thank you for your posting. My choir director and I are leading the challenge in our diocese to increase the quality of liturgical music, but a lot of the parishes have musically and historically untrained choir directors, who ave never been introduced to the glories of 2,000 of Catholic music. I also wish our parish would use incense more, but I understand the folks with chemical sensitivity.

You raise an interesting point about the psychological factors compelling people toward a fundamentalist take on reality. Historian William Shea suggests that the official church’s rigid stance against Galileo in the 17th century had little to do with theology (as the theological case against Galileo was not there) and a lot to do with the crisis of confidence in the Italian mind following the sack of Rome in 1527, the collapse of the Florentine Republic, and the loss of nearly half of Christendom to Protestantism. Historian of Creationism Ronald Numbers argues similarly that Fundamentalism in this country arose at a time of great insecurity culminating in World War I.

I suggest that Fundamentalism appeals to people today because we are living in a similarly chaotic time, with global warming, massive species die-off, and the rapidly approaching end of affordable oil (perhaps by 2012) that threatens our very way of life. Such threats magnify the ordinary human craving for security and order. Humans are also anthropocentric and parochial, and read design in everything (we are hard-wired to do that). Clinging to various forms of scriptural inerrantism – whether as Jews, as Christian, or as Muslims – can bring a sense of order and security, although at the price of marginalizing the individual from mainstream (particularly scientific) society. Some Fundamentalists have also developed the false argument that evolutionary biology entails, or is conducive to irreligion, immorality, and societal breakdown.

In my job I’m in the peculiar situation of being equally contemned by atheist scientists for my Catholicism, and by Fundamentalists (Prot and Papist) for my work with science. Damned on two accounts, but I thrutch on, Ad maiorem Dei gloriam!

Prayerfully,
Petrus

Some very interesting points. I’m glad you pointed out that fundamentalism arises or has the potential to arise in any faith, and I would guess any secular pursuit as well. Given the conseqences we are realizing today from 911, I feel compelled to speak out regularly.

There is a nice list at www.religion-online.com on fundamentalism. They publish books online, there are quite a few articles and books. I found some good stuff as well by googling psycology fundamentalism…

Someone pointed out to me that in all likelihood, fundamentalism eventually kills itself. The resulting repressive life can only be maintained so long and the human spirit rebels ina revolution. But the cost is too much to bear in my opinion.

Somehow we have to figure out how to dialogue as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoist, etc and concentrate on the real enemy…intolerance.

I say all this to say,…its plain a waste of time to try to convince a fundamentalist of anything necessary to his/her delusion. Jesus could stand in front of them and they still would wait for the Magisterium to give them permission. That sounds harsh, but gosh, its just so frustrating. Believe me I argue this stuff a lot to unchurched sola scriptura fundamentalists who have no training whatsoever. I expect the lack of logic from them I guess. It was a shock to find it among Cathlic brethern.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, creationists typically construct three different meanings of evolution, with only one of which they disagree. The disputed issue over antibacterial resistance comes from a misconception that organisms evolve new structures in response to environmental change. Instead, it is more accurate to think of the variation already existing in the population, so that when the environment changes it selects for organisms at one end of the variation spectrum. This is evolution, and it takes millions of years. But of course, your a priori extra-scientific assumption of the short timeline in the Genesis cosmogonic myth, which you impose on science, precludes your reading genotypical and phenotypical change in light of the millions of years of geological time.

You referred to and misinterpreted the work of Dr. Maura Meade-Callahan. I decided to phone her this morning, and although she was unavailable I spoke with her colleague Luke Holbrook (an evolutionary biologist at the same institution, Rowan University). He confirmed that you completely misunderstand her work on the evolution of drug bacterial drug resistance, and sighed that he is all too familiar with your type of creationist half truth and misrepresentation.

You missed the phrase “natural resistance” in the article, didn’t you? You seem to be totally missing the fact there are bacteria in dirt that are resistent to antibiotics. How can this be? It’s impossible? No.

bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2286

God bless,
Ed