Genesis v Evolution

[abu_kamoon]

Quite false – we see it all the time. Bacteria are evolving antibiotic resistance. Rattlesnakes in the West are evolving stronger venom as their prey develops resistance to it.

You are also wrong to assume that evolution = progress. You are confusing a philosophical assumption about “evolution” when the term is used to describe human society, with “evolution” as it describes the differential survival of members of a given species, or of species in symbiosis.

Petrus

I don’t know how many times I have to explain this:

Bacteria do not evolve. There are millions of strains of a bacteria. When an antibiotic is introduced that is successful in wiping out the dominant strain, another strain becomes dominant. This new dominant strain did not evolve. It always existed (at least since the bacteria was created).

In the sam manner, humans with black skin did not evolve because of condition. They are the result of separation and inbreeding, just as are groups with red hair, small stature & c. I heard this nonsense fifty years ago when I was in grammer school. I didn’t believe it then.

If Africans received their dark skin from living in equatorial lattitudes, why aren’t the Amazon Indians black? If northern Europeans are fair skinned because of the lack of direct sunlight, how do you explain the Eskimoes, who are darker?

Farmers have known for centuries how to breed horses and cattle. That how the dogs are bred. The different racial characteristics in humans are the result of separation in inbreeding also. Why do so many people have trouble making the connection?

 

[abu_kamoon]

Why wouldn’t it be?Why would you make that leap of faith?Why not? Are you opposed to science?

Peace

Tim

Certainly I am not opposed fo science. I am opposed to what passes for science. I am referring to politically correct science, or pop science.

Science is the result of observation and testing. It is not the result of speculation. It’s like four blind men describing an elephant. None of them grasp enough of the elephant to actually understand its physical structure, yet each is ready to describe it.

One man grasps the trunk. “An elephant is like a snake”, he says. Another grasps the front leg. “What are you talking about? It’s like a tree.” he says. The third man touches the ear. “You are both wrong. It’s like a sheet of leather”, he tells them. The forth man is holding the tail. "You guys must be blind. “It’s like a vine in the tree with a brush on the end” he tells them.

The moral of the story is, don’t make bold statements when you don’t have all the facts. Pop science has been doing this for a long time. That’s why the story keeps changing. I have no problem with people investigating in this manner. It’s the only way we can learn. My problem is when people get a little information, and begin to pontificate. That is what passes for science today.

And that is why I am very skeptical of what “science” tells us. What they tell us today may well change tomorrow. When science becomes a consensus of a theory, and anyone who challenges it is ridiculed, it is no longer science.

 

[Orogeny]

Certainly I am not opposed fo science. I am opposed to what passes for science. I am referring to politically correct science, or pop science.

No, you are referring to science as defined by abu kamoon.

Science is the result of observation and testing. It is not the result of speculation. It’s like four blind men describing an elephant. None of them grasp enough of the elephant to actually understand its physical structure, yet each is ready to describe it.

Yep, you have that part right. You are speculating that science doesn’t have answers to your claims, yet the answers are there.

The moral of the story is, don’t make bold statements when you don’t have all the facts.

You mean like those you constantly make?

Pop science has been doing this for a long time. That’s why the story keeps changing. I have no problem with people investigating in this manner. It’s the only way we can learn. My problem is when people get a little information, and begin to pontificate. That is what passes for science today.

There is clearly some pontificating going on, but I don’t think it is from science.

And that is why I am very skeptical of what “science” tells us. What they tell us today may well change tomorrow. When science becomes a consensus of a theory, and anyone who challenges it is ridiculed, it is no longer science.

Really? You mean that you have a problem with science updating theories as new data becomes available? Should science be completely silent until every possible piece of evidence is uncovered and explained?

By the way, there is no doubt that evolution occurs. Evolution is a fact whether you want to put your fingers in your ears and scream “Is not!!!” over and over or not. There is still a question as to the mechanisms of evolution, but not to the fact that evolution occurs.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

So you have a way to scientifically show that each has a soul? It may be that one dies from the standpoint that the soul leaves. It may also be that, since God knows what will be developing, one doesn’t get a soul. I don’t know the answer to this, but I don’t really worry about it either. My not knowing doesn’t really give me a reason to reject Church teaching.

I’m merely extrapolating from the rhetoric of those who say that “human life beings at conception.” If this is true – and there is no way of knowing scientifically – the soul is infused at conception. If two conceptions occur simultaneously, two souls are infused into two genomes, and we have twins. If those twins fuse, we have a tetragametic (dizygotic) blastocyst, one being with two souls. Either God decides to remove the soul from one of the fertilized eggs (certainly possible), or the zygote with two souls develops into a fetus and later a baby with two souls.

The alternative, of course, is to say that that human life does not begin at conception; the soul is infused only later when the zygote has implanted, or something.

I’ve just received an email that a geneticist defended a mother whose child was taken from her because the child’s genome did not match hers. Later testing from a different part of her body showed that she had another genome, from the other twin that had become her. The child was restored to her.

Of course I leave it up to God to sort out all the moral dimensions of this, but if t is fascinating.

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

And where is God? This is a Catholic forum. Where is God? The bystander? The guy who got the ball rolling?

Evolution is not important! God is important. He was born, lived, died and rose again, not for a bunch of hominids but for a sin freely committed by our first parents. Get that straight. Or let those who admit they love the “fact” of evolution also admit that the Bible is just a book written by non-scientists and God had nothing to do with it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

I don’t know how many times I have to explain this: Bacteria do not evolve. There are millions of strains of a bacteria. When an antibiotic is introduced that is successful in wiping out the dominant strain, another strain becomes dominant. This new dominant strain did not evolve. It always existed (at least since the bacteria was created).

Abu, you must live in an interesting fantasy world. The hundred thousand working biologists and allied scientists in the US would enjoy a good laugh at this post, and then return to their productive work based on the cogency of the evolutionary theory. Your creationist “science” has produced discoveries that can be counted on the fingers of a five-digit amputee!

Evolutionary biology has been more and more confirmed every year since 1859, incorporating Mendel’s discovery of genetics (he was a Catholic, you know!). The Neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s-1940s has moved the science well beyond Darwin; and what you attack is the Darwinism of 1859.

My professional concern is to invite people such as yourself into the 21st century. I work with a very secular clientele, most of whom have nothing but contempt for your kind of denial of science. I want Catholics and Protestants who are trapped in the ghetto of anti-evolutionary rhetoric to accept modern science and take their vital place in its articulation. When Christians do this they can exercise a strong imapct on public debate, as have done geneticist Francis Collins and Catholic biologist Francisco Ayala.

Petrus

 

[Orogeny]

I’m merely extrapolating from the rhetoric of those who say that “human life beings at conception.”

Those that say that includes the Church.

If this is true – and there is no way of knowing scientifically – the soul is infused at conception.

Ensoulment is not scientific by any measure, yet I know you believe it occurs at least at some point. If we cannot measure it, we cannot see it happen, and we have no evidence that the teaching of the Church is wrong, why would we question it, especially since in this case the subject matter is squarely in the Magesterium’s court.

The alternative, of course, is to say that that human life does not begin at conception; the soul is infused only later when the zygote has implanted, or something.

But why would we go there when we have no reason to do so?

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

And where is God? This is a Catholic forum. Where is God? The bystander? The guy who got the ball rolling? God bless,Ed

Ed, God is everywhere. God is the ground of all reality; God permeates the universe, and the universe itself is only an infinitesimal part of this reality.

Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The problem has always been that the Church has not recognized polygenism, which means there was a population of hominids, of which Adam and Eve were a part. Adam and Eve were not part of a population of hominids that one undefined day, developed the neural capacity to determine right from wrong. We are told by some that because hominid brains reached a certain point, we could, in some undefined way, “recognize” God. There’s nothing in the Bible about that.

**Why on earth would there have to be something in the bible about it? Is there something in the bible about microwave ovens? **

Those who love science ahead of God believe that somehow, “science” is informing the Church, when, in fact, the Church holds that:

A) God creates from nothing.

B) Original sin was the result of an act freely committed by our first parents.

C) That is why Jesus Christ was born, lived, died and rose from the dead.

Darwin wrote his Origin of Species in the mid 1800s, immediately suggesting that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Unfortunately, this completely fails to explain why there are still apes and monkeys.

**I’m not sure Darwin said that, but the scientists here can handle it . **

God bless,
Ed

I don’t know how many times I have to explain this:

Bacteria do not evolve. There are millions of strains of a bacteria. When an antibiotic is introduced that is successful in wiping out the dominant strain, another strain becomes dominant. This new dominant strain did not evolve. It always existed (at least since the bacteria was created).

In the sam manner, humans with black skin did not evolve because of condition. They are the result of separation and inbreeding, just as are groups with red hair, small stature & c. I heard this nonsense fifty years ago when I was in grammer school. I didn’t believe it then.**Bingo. Now we get. If you didn’t believe it in grammar school it was because somebody was feeding you with YEC as a child. You were in no position as a child to have the necessary information to either dispute or accept what was told you by the teacher. You show conclusively that you have been taught this since you were a child and stubbornly refuse to examine the evidence. I understand the psychologically need of course. **

If Africans received their dark skin from living in equatorial lattitudes, why aren’t the Amazon Indians black? If northern Europeans are fair skinned because of the lack of direct sunlight, how do you explain the Eskimoes, who are darker?

Farmers have known for centuries how to breed horses and cattle. That how the dogs are bred. The different racial characteristics in humans are the result of separation in inbreeding also. Why do so many people have trouble making the connection?

You no doubt believe in science in so far as you drive a car, have a house with electricity, use a phone, a microwave, TV, computer, and of course science is just fine if it cures your disease. Are any of those things mentioned in the bible?

 

[Orogeny]

And where is God? This is a Catholic forum. Where is God? The bystander? The guy who got the ball rolling?

Ed, why do you keep going here? Have we not stated over and over that we believe in God? Why do you keep insinuating that we who are willing to use the intelligence God has given us to explore His creation are leaving Him out?

Evolution is not important!

Then don’t start any more threads about it.

God is important.

Yes.

He was born, lived, died and rose again, not for a bunch of hominids but for a sin freely committed by our first parents.

Yes.

Get that straight.

Quit pontificating, Ed.

Or let those who admit they love the “fact” of evolution also admit that the Bible is just a book written by non-scientists and God had nothing to do with it.

Do I love the “fact” of evolution, Ed? Should I admit that the bible is just a book written by non-scientist and God had nothing to do with it? Do I really believe that Ed? Do I?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Abu, you must live in an interesting fantasy world. The hundred thousand working biologists and allied scientists in the US would enjoy a good laugh at this post, and then return to their productive work based on the cogency of the evolutionary theory. Your creationist “science” has produced discoveries that can be counted on the fingers of a five-digit amputee!

Evolutionary biology has been more and more confirmed every year since 1859, incorporating Mendel’s discovery of genetics (he was a Catholic, you know!). The Neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s-1940s has moved the science well beyond Darwin; and what you attack is the Darwinism of 1859.

My professional concern is to invite people such as yourself into the 21st century. I work with a very secular clientele, most of whom have nothing but contempt for your kind of denial of science. I want Catholics and Protestants who are trapped in the ghetto of anti-evolutionary rhetoric to accept modern science and take their vital place in its articulation. When Christians do this they can exercise a strong imapct on public debate, as have done geneticist Francis Collins and Catholic biologist Francisco Ayala.

Petrus

Do not accuse people of living in a fantasy world. Do Catholics accept the reason Christ was born, do Catholics accept the miracle of bread and wine turning into His body and blood? Do Catholics accept saints who are recognized as such by the Church after two confirmed miracles?

Quit putting the cart before the horse! Our God is a real supernatural force. Evolution is materialism disguised as science. It is against Catholic teching.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And where is God? This is a Catholic forum. Where is God? The bystander? The guy who got the ball rolling?

Evolution is not important! God is important. He was born, lived, died and rose again, not for a bunch of hominids but for a sin freely committed by our first parents. Get that straight. Or let those who admit they love the “fact” of evolution also admit that the Bible is just a book written by non-scientists and God had nothing to do with it.

God bless,
Ed

I guess it begs the question then why you continue to start these threads, and why you continue to recycle again and again the same arguments which are patiently shown to be false. You wait, and start them again, acting like they are entirely new. If we have to remind you once more what a theory is, I think I may carve it into a sign and send it to you. You are not playing to a new audience, you’ve been shown the fallacy again and again.

 

[Orogeny]

Do not accuse people of living in a fantasy world.

Do not question peoples faith.

Do Catholics accept the reason Christ was born, do Catholics accept the miracle of bread and wine turning into His body and blood? Do Catholics accept saints who are recognized as such by the Church after two confirmed miracles?

Yes, yes and yes. That has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is materialism disguised as science. It is against Catholic teching.

No, it’s not and no, it’s not. You have been shown that both of those statements are incorrect. To continue to make those statements is to be making intentionally false statements. That is truly against Church teaching.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

I ask you kindly Petrus, please leave me alone.

Wildleafblower, as I recall, you made an assertion and I simply asked you to clarify it. You refused, telling me to read your old posts. Hiding behind old posts is not how a discussion forum works. Countless times people have challenged me, and I have been quite willing to restate, redefine, or otherwise modify an assertion. And you just can’t go off half-cocked against people, questioning their love for Jesus, and get away with it.

Your campaign against panentheism mystifies me. I mentioned it once or twice, distinguished it carefully from pantheism, and moved on. You have not moved on, ascribing panetheism – in your negative understanding of it – to a variety of people. I have never asked you to adopt it; I have never “pushed” it; I have only discussed it as a fruitful theological concept employed by many Christians, past and present, including saints and cardinals. I just spent the weekend at a Trappist monastery, and the abbot himself – who incidentally is a Catholic – used panentheist language to describe the Cistercian spirituality of God permeating their orchards and vineyards, their architecture, and their daily work, prayer, study, and lectio divina. He won’t be burned at the stake for mentioning that!

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[buffalo]

Three points.

1. As many others have pointed out people have believed a lot of things for a very long time that turned out to be untrue. Flat earth, earth as center of the universe, various superstitions about the source of diseases, etc. So the fact that so many were wrong for so long is unremarkable.
2. I am not sure that the vast majority of Catholics have always believed that the Earth was a few thousand years old. Most Catholics who have ever lived have lived in the last hundred or so years, and evolution has been well accepted for most of that time. And while the early church fathers were not familiar with the theory of evolution, I have read that at least some recognized that the Genesis account was not literal. (Can anyone shed light on this?)
3. Finally, the Church has made clear that despite the scientific understanding of people in the past, this scientific theory is not incompatible with the Church’s teachings, just as heliocentrism and microbiology are not. So why is it such a problem?

These points have to be reconciled to be comatible.

Eve coming from Adam and preternatural gifts.

 

[buffalo]

Quite false – we see it all the time. Bacteria are evolving antibiotic resistance. Rattlesnakes in the West are evolving stronger venom as their prey develops resistance to it.

You are also wrong to assume that evolution = progress. You are confusing a philosophical assumption about “evolution” when the term is used to describe human society, with “evolution” as it describes the differential survival of members of a given species, or of species in symbiosis.

Petrus

Here again let’s not confuse adaptation through mutation as being the same as an increase in information.

 

[drpmjhess]

Quit putting the cart before the horse! Our God is a real supernatural force. Evolution is materialism disguised as science. It is against Catholic teching.God bless,
Ed

Ed,

(1) the fantasy word you and Abu inhabit is the one that believes “creationism” of the anti-scientific variety has ever, or could ever, make a single scientific discovery. If you show me a single discovery by the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, or any other creationist think tank, I might revise my opinion in part.

(2) Of course Catholics accept miracles.

(3) Evolution is not against Catholic teaching.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Here again let’s not confuse adaptation through mutation as being the same as an increase in information.

More ID poppycock. Dembski and Behe have not produced an iota of scientific knowledge in fifteen years of obfuscation. Their evolutionist opponents have gone on quietly deepening human knowledge all the while, outside the “creationist” ghetto.

 

[buffalo]

More ID poppycock. Dembski and Behe have not produced an iota of scientific knowledge in fifteen years of obfuscation. Their evolutionist opponents have gone on quietly deepening human knowledge all the while, outside the “creationist” ghetto.

I guess that answers it!

 

[edwest2]

Fortunatunately, those who have worked out a theory of Intelligent Design for themselves do not have to slavishly follow anyone who has proposed it. Irreducible Complexity which simply states that a living thing will cease to function unless certain totally essential parts are there, working in concert, makes sense. It leaves the door open for God as creator.

I am glad that Behe and Dembski have published their work, since it provides a viable alternative to the theory of evolution, which also explains why it is so strongly opposed here.

God bless,
Ed