Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a m

[rossum]

No. Just that creationism is no more than a story for Sunday School children. Complete with crayons, colouring in books and wall mounted pictures of the ark complete with cutout felt animals, two by two.

You are correct with respect to YEC-style young earth creationism. In a more general sense, all followers of the Abrahamic religions are creationists, “YHWH/God/Allah created the universe”. Providing they stop there there is little need conflict with science.

The error that YECs make is to try to place their overly literal interpretation of scripture ahead of science. More sensible Jews/Christians/Muslims avoid that error, and let science speak to the material aspects of the process. “Let the earth bring forth…” is a material process, and so can be described in more detail by science.

$0.02

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

Granny. If you want to start yet another thread on Adam and Eve, then please feel free. You can ride your hobby horse there as much as you like. But continuing the equine analogy, I think you’ve beaten that horse to death already.

Come on man, everybody loves Granny!

 

[grannymh]

You assert that one can’t believe in biological evolution and also be Catholic. I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with you as I stand behind the recent popes who also don’t hold your rigid stance.

Agree to disagree, as it were.

Please note that biological evolution, including humans, is based on large polygenesis populations. The originating populations are never less than three.

Here is the link to the definitive Encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII
Take your time reading the pertinent parts.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 

[edwest2]

Buddy, where’s your authority to sow discord in your Church by telling all the Christians who accept evolution that we lie and manipulate?

It really doesn’t matter what you believe about evolution, unless you work in the life sciences and want to fight disease or restore habitats, etc., where you will find evolution helps you while none of the creationist alternatives help you at all.

But which knowledge you personally accept or reject is entirely up to you.

The Catholic University of America teaches evolution. Its School of Theology and Religious Studies lists lots of resources on evolution. So whatever posters on an internet forum try to tell us, all who have eyes to see know for sure that many Catholics accept evolution.

You don’t appear exactly familiar with evolution (as in your “How did the Mayfly learn how to fly and use those wings? There’s only one day to do it all”) so here’s the list again - trs.cua.edu/Science-for-Semin…-evolution.cfm

Evolution has no practical purpose.

Ed

 

[OneSheep]

Science cannot study the soul or anything supernatural, so that leaves mechanistic processes as the only reason human beings are the way we are. Almost like a computer, the assumption is that various accidents caused our brains to self-upgrade compared to our alleged earlier, primitive selves. But that reduces human beings to biological robots who respond to outside stimuli and react however we react.

Ed

Hi Ed,

Your use of “biological robots” is well-placed! To a large degree, we are biological robots. For example, on this thread people have lined up in accordance to adhered-to ideologies, right? People trust those who have common likes and dislikes, and quote those who are in the same trust circle. We develop our likes and dislikes from our human experiences, and since we do not really choose our most basic experiences, especially concerning our birth and place in the world as children, our trust circles are developed very mechanistically.

In addition, we mechanistically get angry at those who show anger toward us, we are territorial with our possessions, we have developed fears, we only listen openly to our in-groups, we strive for wealth, status, and mates, we want what other people have, and these do not include very physical machinations such as thirst, hunger, etc.

These robotic mechanisms are basically what St. Paul describes as “death”. Life means being able to transcend the mechanism, to turn the cheek, to be generous with everyone, to replace fear with faith, to include those we despise (the Samaritans in Jesus’ day) and to break loose of tight affiliations where we find only mechanistic security (denial of parents, brothers and sisters). We are to transcend our drives for wealth, status, desire for what others have, and sex, and not be enslaved by these. Indeed, being a robot is to remain dead. The most glaring example of death is desperate drug addiction; is the addict who steals from those he loves truly alive? Yet, the addict is only the extreme condition.

Life is the supernatural choice to forgive our enemies, embrace all people, be merciful to everyone, and transcend the robotics of our nature, right?

Blessings!

 

[rossum]

Evolution has no practical purpose.

False. It is important to use our knowledge of evolution to slow down or prevent bacteria gaining resistance to new antibiotics. That is a very practical purpose, to reduce the impact of disease.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Hi Ed,

Your use of “biological robots” is well-placed! To a large degree, we are biological robots. For example, on this thread people have lined up in accordance to adhered-to ideologies, right? People trust those who have common likes and dislikes, and quote those who are in the same trust circle. We develop our likes and dislikes from our human experiences, and since we do not really choose our most basic experiences, especially concerning our birth and place in the world as children, our trust circles are developed very mechanistically.

In addition, we mechanistically get angry at those who show anger toward us, we are territorial with our possessions, we have developed fears, we only listen openly to our in-groups, we strive for wealth, status, and mates, we want what other people have, and these do not include very physical machinations such as thirst, hunger, etc.

These robotic mechanisms are basically what St. Paul describes as “death”. Life means being able to transcend the mechanism, to turn the cheek, to be generous with everyone, to replace fear with faith, to include those we despise (the Samaritans in Jesus’ day) and to break loose of tight affiliations where we find only mechanistic security (denial of parents, brothers and sisters). We are to transcend our drives for wealth, status, desire for what others have, and sex, and not be enslaved by these. Indeed, being a robot is to remain dead. The most glaring example of death is desperate drug addiction; is the addict who steals from those he loves truly alive? Yet, the addict is only the extreme condition.

Life is the supernatural choice to forgive our enemies, embrace all people, be merciful to everyone, and transcend the robotics of our nature, right?

Blessings!

Our fallen nature has existed since two real people committed Original Sin. Our desire for material things has existed since then. But it goes deeper than the material. Regarding immoral sexual relations.

Galations 5:17

New International Version
For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.

New Living Translation
The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions.

English Standard Version
For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.

The 10 Commandments cover the other things:

“I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.”

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”

“Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.”

“Honor thy father and mother.”

“Thou shalt not kill.”

“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

“Thou shalt not steal.”

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.”

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.”

Science should not be about ideology but it is clear that here, to not accept it means it is an ideological issue for some. For Catholics, our trust has been abused many times by those claiming to have something better or easier. Or modern. The wrong actions of men and bad examples of how to live will always be wrong.

So no, we were not created to be robots or biological mechanisms. Every child has to be taught every time he or she is brought into the world. This is right and this is wrong.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

False. It is important to use our knowledge of evolution to slow down or prevent bacteria gaining resistance to new antibiotics. That is a very practical purpose, to reduce the impact of disease.

rossum

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

Bacteria have a pre-existing, built-in mechanism called horizontal gene transfer that allows them to exchange genetic material when they come into contact with a harmful substance.

Ed

 

[IWantGod]

False. It is important to use our knowledge of evolution to slow down or prevent bacteria gaining resistance to new antibiotics. That is a very practical purpose, to reduce the impact of disease.

rossum

That’s a good point

 

[OneSheep]

Our fallen nature has existed since two real people committed Original Sin. Our desire for material things has existed since then. But it goes deeper than the material. Regarding immoral sexual relations.

Galations 5:17

New International Version
For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.

New Living Translation
The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions.

English Standard Version
For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.

The 10 Commandments cover the other things:

“I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.”

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”

“Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.”

“Honor thy father and mother.”

“Thou shalt not kill.”

“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

“Thou shalt not steal.”

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.”

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.”

Science should not be about ideology but it is clear that here, to not accept it means it is an ideological issue for some. For Catholics, our trust has been abused many times by those claiming to have something better or easier. Or modern. The wrong actions of men and bad examples of how to live will always be wrong.

So no, we were not created to be robots or biological mechanisms. Every child has to be taught every time he or she is brought into the world. This is right and this is wrong.

Ed

Yes, we are not created to be, ultimately, simple robots. We are called to much more, and that “more” begins with the disciplines of the 10 commandments and other important mores.

Look at celebrities and other public figures, striving for the limelight, striving for popularity. Famous musicians and others experiencing overwhelming depression even commit suicide or at least go to dangerous levels of drug use when they fall in public esteem. Robots. Sure, we are all subject to the same trappings, but let’s look at these trappings for what they are, part of our nature.

These forces do not necessarily need to fight each other forever… We can remain disciplined, but come to love and accept our nature as coming from our Loving Father.

I Cor 1

10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas**”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?**

Substitution: “I follow evolutionary thinking” vs “I follow non-evolutionary thinking”.

It is our nature that divides vis a vis the parameters of this topic. It is robotic to fear the ramifications of one side or another. I am not putting down such fears at all, though. Fears are natural developments of individual experiences, correct? They are also opportunities for enlightenment. Individual experiences are to be respected, not dismissed. That said, as fears divide us, as they define circles of trust, they are of the flesh. Yes, Catholics’ trust has been abused many times, and that is to be a respected viewpoint. We are called to understand, forgive, reconcile. For example, one poster explained that he has many times seen Catholics fall away from faith because of adherence to evolutionary theory. This is a stance to be respected, but there is plenty of space for investigating circumstances, which leads to enlightenment. (i.e. the atheist who experienced abuse from a religious parent, finding more credence in non-belief.)

Do you see a “meta” level of looking at the topic?

 

[tonyrey]

Please note that biological evolution, including humans, is based on large polygenesis populations. The originating populations are never less than three.

Here is the link to the definitive Encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII
Take your time reading the pertinent parts.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Even though originating populations may have never been less than three it doesn’t follow that all of them were human. Their bodies are not evidence that they all had a soul. A person is created by God not by biological evolution…

 

[edwest2]

Yes, we are not created to be, ultimately, simple robots. We are called to much more, and that “more” begins with the disciplines of the 10 commandments and other important mores.

Look at celebrities and other public figures, striving for the limelight, striving for popularity. Famous musicians and others experiencing overwhelming depression even commit suicide or at least go to dangerous levels of drug use when they fall in public esteem. Robots. Sure, we are all subject to the same trappings, but let’s look at these trappings for what they are, part of our nature.

These forces do not necessarily need to fight each other forever… We can remain disciplined, but come to love and accept our nature as coming from our Loving Father.

I Cor 1

10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas**”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?**

Substitution: “I follow evolutionary thinking” vs “I follow non-evolutionary thinking”.

It is our nature that divides us using the parameters of this topic. It is robotic to fear the ramifications of one side or another. I am not putting down such fears at all, though. Fears are natural developments of individual experiences, correct? They are opportunities for enlightenment. Individual experiences are to be respected, not dismissed. That said, when fears divide us, when they define circles of trust, they are of the flesh.

Do you see a “meta” level of looking at the topic?

Fear and ignorance are the accusations. I have found that the rules of polite debate can be used by those on either side of the divide. I grew up in what later became a tough part of town. I was carjacked at gunpoint. I had a chance of dying but didn’t. I do not fear going anywhere in what has become a mostly crime-ridden, mostly abandoned town that is filled with people who are on some form of public assistance.

The ramifications are clear to me. While I am grateful to those who have patiently explained the process to me here over the years, the obvious questions are: Why this and not quantum mechanics or dark matter or a number of scientific topics that have nothing to do with this? Every single time this subject appears and resistance is brought up in the form of articles from appropriate/checkable sources, only two responses are possible: No response or the ‘you don’t know enough to understand.’

Discussions end in other words, or objections are ignored and those who bring this up on a regular basis appear to hope to “convert” and perhaps confuse some Catholics. It is definitely an ongoing program. And the wording used can be quite similar to the way psychological warfare is used. As someone who judges the use of words as a working editor, I have studied this. Ideas are promoted a certain way in order to get a desired response. There are two terms: “perception management,” meaning manipulating the way you and I look at the world, and “engineering consent,” which is a method of engaging people through media and directly to convince them of something.

So, fear does not enter into this when proven, established methods are in place to literally sell certain ideas and concepts. All that is desired is “to get the numbers up” and people to back your cause/idea/concept. This in spite of any objections.

Ed

 

[rossum]

Bacteria have a pre-existing, built-in mechanism called horizontal gene transfer that allows them to exchange genetic material when they come into contact with a harmful substance

Yes, and HGT is one of the mechanisms of evolution. By slowing down that mechanism we can delay the spread of antibiotic resistance among bacteria. That is exactly the kind of practical measures that evolution can help with.

The science of evolution has advanced a lot since Darwin.

rossum

 

[OneSheep]

Fear and ignorance are the accusations. I have found that the rules of polite debate can be used by those on either side of the divide. I grew up in what later became a tough part of town. I was carjacked at gunpoint. I had a chance of dying but didn’t. I do not fear going anywhere in what has become a mostly crime-ridden, mostly abandoned town that is filled with people who are on some form of public assistance.

The ramifications are clear to me. While I am grateful to those who have patiently explained the process to me here over the years, the obvious questions are: Why this and not quantum mechanics or dark matter or a number of scientific topics that have nothing to do with this? Every single time this subject appears and resistance is brought up in the form of articles from appropriate/checkable sources, only two responses are possible: No response or the ‘you don’t know enough to understand.’

Discussions end in other words, or objections are ignored and those who bring this up on a regular basis appear to hope to “convert” and perhaps confuse some Catholics. It is definitely an ongoing program. And the wording used can be quite similar to the way psychological warfare is used. As someone who judges the use of words as a working editor, I have studied this. Ideas are promoted a certain way in order to get a desired response. There are two terms: “perception management,” meaning manipulating the way you and I look at the world, and “engineering consent,” which is a method of engaging people through media and directly to convince them of something.

So, fear does not enter into this when proven, established methods are in place to literally sell certain ideas and concepts. All that is desired is “to get the numbers up” and people to back your cause/idea/concept. This in spite of any objections.

Ed

Fear comes into play when it comes to “why” back one view or another, though. I see yours as an effort to stand and protect those who may be subject to “getting the numbers up”, or conversion/confusion, and to keep in check the possibility of abusing the trust of Catholics. It is a merciful endeavor on your part, no doubt.

Accusations of fear or ignorance are acts of the flesh, are they not? We all have fears, and none of us has the corner on truth. So, when I demonstrate fears, help me identify them. When I display a lack of understanding, feel free to enlighten me. Accusations (finger pointing) are done in ignorance, and we can forgive those who know not what they do; when someone accuses me, it is an opportunity to forgive. The humble approach is the supernatural one, the one that comes from the wisdom of knowing that there is so much more to discover. Do you agree?

 

[edwest2]

Yes, and HGT is one of the mechanisms of evolution. By slowing down that mechanism we can delay the spread of antibiotic resistance among bacteria. That is exactly the kind of practical measures that evolution can help with.

The science of evolution has advanced a lot since Darwin.

rossum

Evolution does not provide any guidance as the article I posted tells us. No one can predict which direction HGT will take or when and in what way a virus will change its outer layer. There is no ‘cookbook,’ so to speak. Drug discovery is still a trial and error process. Infected tissue samples are placed in hundreds of containers and then some chemical combination is dropped in. It works or does some damage or doesn’t work. Even if it works, it still has to go through a trial process to make sure what works doesn’t do significant damage or even kill the patient. I’m sure people have seen TV commercials for various drugs that sound great until they get to the list of possible side effects.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Fear comes into play when it comes to “why” back one view or another, though. I see yours as an effort to stand and protect those who may be subject to “getting the numbers up”, or conversion/confusion, and to keep in check the possibility of abusing the trust of Catholics. It is a merciful endeavor on your part, no doubt.

Accusations of fear or ignorance are acts of the flesh, are they not? We all have fears, and none of us has the corner on truth. So, when I demonstrate fears, help me identify them. When I display a lack of understanding, feel free to enlighten me. Accusations (finger pointing) are done in ignorance, and we can forgive those who know not what they do; when someone accuses me, it is an opportunity to forgive. The humble approach is the supernatural one, the one that comes from the wisdom of knowing that there is so much more to discover. Do you agree?

A bit more than a yes or no response is required. Properly judging the pros and cons of one view and an opposing view is not based on fear but on the merits, or lack thereof, of both views. The tendency here is the “evolution is a fact” approach - so it’s a settled matter. No debate, no dissent, no counter-argument(s) allowed. Or, to put it in colloquial terms: “What? You don’t believe in evolution? Do I have to slap you upside your head? I won’t stand for such ignorance.” Of course, far, far more subtle approaches have been tried.

If someone accuses me and their accusation is provable, I admit my error. I say I’m sorry. Not with this.

Discover does not work either. This is a take as it is now approach, or suffer subtle accusations and indignations, or fall into the 'you’re obviously not educated enough to accept what I accept" group. The answer must always be yes. Anything else and you have page after page of “I’ve read it all before,” before the thread is locked or disappears.

Ed

 

[Aloysium]

. . . the inherent sense of the supernatural is the same as belief in the supernatural.

This inherent sense of the supernatural, I would call an awareness of the spiritual.
I don’t see it is a matter of belief, but rather of finding the words that communicate that knowledge to ourselves and others.

What we are addressing when we speak of the supernatural is of a structure to existence that is something other than that of the material and of the psychological.
That structure pertains to the person, who is a unity, one who perceives, feels, thinks and acts.
We may deconstruct persons into their many and various components and basically intellectually kill them off, ideologically reducing ourselves to illusions.
But, in the end we meet ourselves in the undeniable reality of our own individual existence.

That existence that pertains to the person has a structure.
We know it to be finite in that it is not the totality of the universe.
Our individual existence is in the form of a relational self-other.
It’s triune nature is an image of Existence Itself, He who brings us into being.
This is one aspect of being which involves the realities of goodness and compassion, truth and knowledge, time and eternity, beauty and joy.

There is clearly a material structure to our being as well as a psychological and there are different approaches to their study.
The spiritual is sometimes understood as being supernatural, where nature is restricted to what we observe through the lens of empiricism.
Spiritual, metaphysical, supernatural, existential, and ontological are words tied to that aspect of reality which is explored in oneself through introspection and meditation, and externally through philosophy, sacred scripture and ultimately known through loving relationships.

A scientific view that has at the very best a very tenuous metaphysical foundation, as does the theory of evolution will ultimately reveal that flaw.
And, this is what leads the OP to ask, “Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a minority worldview?”

My respose would be John 14:26 - “. . .the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”

I would say that the sense and belief in the supernatural are aspects of the same phenomenon which rests on our response to God’s call.

 

[Bradski]

A bit more than a yes or no response is required. Properly judging the pros and cons of one view and an opposing view is not based on fear but on the merits, or lack thereof, of both views. The tendency here is the “evolution is a fact” approach - so it’s a settled matter.

This is akin to complaining that there is a tendency to claim that ‘gravity is a fact’ or that t
‘the earth is a few billion years old’ is a fact. And to top it off, you imply that we should hear both sides of the argument. As if there IS an argument that is not based 100% on religious sensibilities.

Surely, and I mean surely, just that point alone would ring the loudest alarm bells in the head of any disinterested person. The ONLY people who deny evolution, and I mean that literally, are those with religious beliefs that they think are contradicted by it.

All the info you have posted trying to deny the facts of evolution have come from web sites run by Christians. I’m pretty sure that if you look hard enough, you will find someone who claims not to be a Christian who has the same view. Statisically, there must be someone out there. But I challenge you to deny that you are not arguing from a scientific viewpoint but a religious one.

In which case, we can pack our bags and the caravan can move on.

 

[edwest2]

I’ll try again:

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

Ed

 

[Bradski]

I’ll try again.

Skell has no formal training in any aspect of evolution (he was a Chemist), and who seems to have spent his last few years ranting against the proposal that evolution is a usefool tool in biology and medicine. He has been described as a creationist.

He is also a signatory to the risible ‘Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’, a laugh out loud statement by experts in the field of such relevant sciences such as aviation and meteorolgy published by…wait for it…our good friends at the Discovery Institute. That charming group of charlatans intent on promoting creationism.

He is also a Christian.

Try harder, Ed.