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

[Roseeurekacross]

Are we science bashing again.

 

[tonyrey]

Not so. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, raised the dead literally. This intersection between God and His Creation cannot be avoided. People who would have otherwise died were brought back from the dead, without science.

It would certainly be odd if the only ones are confined to the few raised by Jesus who must have been mistaken when He promised otherwise.

 

[tonyrey]

The fatal flaw in NeoDarwinism is its failure to explain the increase in complexity because simplicity is a valuable asset for survival because there is less to go wrong. That is why amoeba have outlasted multicellular organisms like dinosaurs.

They wouldn’t! In any given situation there is a limit to the number of possibilities - which makes nonsense of Jacques Monod’s view that evolution is due to Chance and Necessity… No wonder he had doubts when he reflected on the devastating implication that all of us (including himself!) are the product of irrational events.

“Necessity” is a myth and “Chance” is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. In daily life no reasonable person makes an important decision by throwing dice! To attribute the existence of rational beings to fortuitous combinations of mindless molecules and random genetic mutations is the apex of absurdity.

The achievements of science far surpass the effects of unplanned coincidences precisely because they are based on knowledge of natural laws and understanding of a predictable universe whereas chaos leads to confusion and destruction at the expense of insight and creativity. All the evidence points to Design…

Exactly. We use the power of science to engineer results. Even with all of that, we cannot create life - which supposedly just emerged from totally random combinations of chemicals. How hard should it be to do it in a lab? We have the chemicals. Just mix them. Take a cell apart into its components, then in a lab it should be easy to create life again. But it never works that way. Only God can create life.

:clapping: The weakness of many scientists is that they have an atomic rather than a panoramic view of evolution. They forget, ignore or reject the significance of the final outcome. Some members of this forum - even Christian - belittle philosophy (and metaphysics in particular) as if physics doesn’t need a rational foundation!

 

[tonyrey]

Are we science bashing again.

Science needs to be bashed when scientists and their followers get too big for their boots!

 

[grannymh]

Are we science bashing again. ������

Not exactly.

Unfortunately, there are a few Catholics who do not understand the basics of some of the science disciplines, for example, paleoanthropology.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Ed,

Not sure which assumptions you are referring to, but no accusation was intended.

Again, there is no argument against this solid, genuine, viewpoint based on personal experience. I can think of no possible counter-argument to the view that giving merit to the Theory of Evolution has any effect on your ability to do anything or experience life in a better way. Stand by your good statement, friend, there is nothing to say to refute this!

“personal experience” is not the measure anyone should be using in the case of this subject. An answer is true, or in this case, a fact, or not. There are no two right answers. However, after reading many other posts, it appears that for some there would be something to lose or gain regarding science itself. And for some, a worldview would be lost. Evolution cannot be the whole answer.

Thank you for your kind words.

Ed

 

[tonyrey]

I think of the physical universe as fundamentally spiritual by the fact that it exists, has a purpose, is the truth in the structure of its being, expresses its Creator’s glory and beauty and is held within the ocean of His infinite compassion. The ontological structure of the material world, the formation of complex organisms, layered by their souls into a hierarchy from “light”, to particles forming atoms, molecules, and cells to become animals and plants, reflects the triune nature of its Maker. It is an act of loving union of pure individual states having a common essence, surrendering to each other (entangled) and the greater whole, which together they form. Sorry if this sounds confusing and esoteric; I’m not sure how to simply express it.

God is not blood and guts, save in the Eucharist, the body and blood of our Saviour. As Creator, He is other to His creation, with which He is in Love. We as its sentient expressions can come to know Him, our love for Him and His love for us becoming one in Jesus Christ, as the Beatific Vision.

I understand that The Science of Human Evolution would be the study of anatomic and physiological changes that have occurred since we came into this world and that result in the diversity that we see among various populations.

My perspective of the Homo/Pan split is that it exists as an idea that brings together data in a coherent picture, portraying mankind as emerging from animals that resemble us. This is a view that many, perhaps even most of us believe. This need not necessarily be the case. God is God and we could have come into being initially any number of ways. For example, God knowing we need a companion, made Eve from Adam as he slept. I have no idea why there should be male and female other than it expresses love better than does asexual reproduction. So, one scenario might be that while Adam slept through the millions of years it took to mold stardust into the human form, the pair was formed, in this case cradled within a prehuman womb, to become our parents. God who emptied Himself to became a man, immaculately conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, God who raises the dead, of whom we partake that we may transform ourselves into Him, God can definitely bring about a flourishing of genetic variety necessary for human adaptation, that may give the appearance of there having previously existed a group, where initially there were only two.

A further consideration is that NeoDarwinism implies that free will is an illusion because it violates the principle of conservation of energy. It is self-destructive in its implication that we cannot choose what to think! In Hume’s words “What a peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain which we call 'thought”, thereby rejecting the value of all his conclusions! It is absurd to believe neural impulses are an adequate substitute for insight and understanding…

 

[Aloysium]

A further consideration is that NeoDarwinism implies that free will is an illusion because it violates the principle of conservation of energy. It is self-destructive in its implication that we cannot choose what to think! In Hume’s words “What a peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain which we call 'thought”, thereby rejecting the value of all his conclusions! It is absurd to believe neural impulses are an adequate substitute for insight and understanding…

The will is not a physical force. It is an attribute of a person who is one being, having human qualities which can be understood and categorized into physical, psychological and spiritual.

Free will is spiritual and can be experienced as the past-present-future we experience within the flow of time.
With respect to our self, this is in accordance with the will’s purpose of participating in our own creation in its journey along the Way to God.
With respect to our interaction with and understanding of the physical world, it is at the root of relativity, through its having a point of view of that whole.
Emotionally, we all wish to be free, even to the point of desiring to be gods. It is an assault on our boundaries and we rebel and can suffer psychological trauma when it is taken from us.
Ultimately, the only true freedom, that which cannot be taken from us is our choice to do good or evil.
Consumerist, zealotous, and communistic societies each in their own way, are attempts to do away with free will.
Too often we willingly submit in order to be free of its burden and accompanying anxieties.

A materialistic vision does not address the nature of illusion other than it would be an agitation of the brain, as would the truth, if at all they exist as anything other than that. In addition to being empty of truth, as the old joke goes, it is all quite mindless.

Psychological determinism is an assumption, which in circular fashion, some use to “prove” the absence of free will.
We behave based on feelings that are generated by the understanding of our particular circumstances. This understanding has a genetic and congenital basis, affected by the interuterine environment, our physical health throughout life, our early childhood and family experiences, school, our peer group, work and the general psychosocial milieu in which we dwell.
As is the case when we put together the physical pieces of the person, where we will find only the physical acting randomly within the very rigid laws of nature, so too a psychological analysis will reveal only complex but nonetheless instinctual behaviour linked to the person’s described perceptions, thoughts and emotions.
From the bottom up it would be all illusion, potentially brainless and ultimately devoid of any possibility for truth.

Simply stated, the person is a unity of the spiritual and the material, inseparable except in death.
We exist, relate, experience and create the good and the beautiful; we can discern the truth which includes the meaning of all this.
We can know love and therefore know God.
All living creatures can experience instinctual physical and emotional pain, but we, rooted in the eternal, know its significance - nonexistence.

We can know all this, meeting here in time and space as physical beings.

 

[Vonsalza]

Respectfully, I think the majority of you are arguing against a philosophically amended straw-man of evolution.

It’s far simpler than most of the presentations given by a few of my fellow Catholics.

As this thread has largely become a non-evolved creationist echo-chamber, I’ll leave you guys to it.

:tiphat:

 

[Aloysium]

. . . a philosophically amended straw-man of evolution. . . :

I would think that there can only be straw-man arguments within a discussion that utilizes a word that has not much more descriptive value than “thing”.

My use of the term “evolution” is grounded in the work of Crick and Watson. Around when they came up with that discovery, I may be stuck in the past with respect to the general public’s understanding, what with the influence of shows like the The Big Bang Theory, Star Wars, Star Trek, Jurassic Park, X-Men, et al., but not rigorous science as it is taught in physics, chemistry and biology.

 

[inocente]

Unfortunately, it has become complicated. That may be because over time, people have become very sloppy in their terminology at the same time that evolution has become very precise due to technology. Evolution has left the era of the Piltdown Man.

For example. “God gives everyone their soul.” That is correct; however, the term “gives everyone” assumes that there was an everyone such as the first two in order for God to give the living them a soul. The Science of Human Evolution is precise in that populations developing into new populations are capable of humanizing everyone.

We can say that God gives everyone their soul because the “spiritual soul is created immediately by God --it is not “produced” by the parents --” (CCC 366) Still we cannot skip over the fact that it is the spiritual soul which animates matter (conception) so that this matter “becomes a living human body;” (CCC 365) The Science of Human Evolution uses words such as “emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter”

Refer to this famous speech.
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

“Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.”
​

I would comment on your phrase “it is the spiritual soul which animates matter”.

I think Aristotle’s biology explains life as needing a soul, but for him ‘soul’ is more like ‘life force’ than what we now mean by the word soul. In his biology all plants and animals have a soul, and this explains why they are alive, it is the life force which makes them alive, and which animates animals.

But of all the species, only humans have a soul that contains intellect, and so only human souls are immortal.

Whereas modern biology explains life differently. There is no ‘life force’ and instead, life is sustained by metabolism. So modern biology says nothing about ‘soul’, as in both plants and animals life is explained differently.

As a result, once Aristotle’s biology is replaced with modern biology, the human soul is set free from all biological constraints in terms of who God first gave it to. Therefore if we’re consistent, modern biology including evolution is silent about souls, and so evolutionary theories about population bottlenecks and so on are silent about how many humans first received souls.

Please accept my apology, but I am traveling and cannot properly continue the above.
And yes, I have enjoyed life.

And present tense I hope. ​

 

[inocente]

inocente;14825474:

Evolution is very easy to understand. We were taught the idea in one lesson aged 13 or 14.

It would be easy to tell if God directed it. Lots of people have tried to find something, anything, that God directed, but after 158 years no one has. Appears He lets it run on autopilot.

Not so. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, raised the dead literally. This intersection between God and His Creation cannot be avoided. People who would have otherwise died were brought back from the dead, without science.

I was commenting on evolution.

 

[tonyrey]

The will is not a physical force. It is an attribute of a person who is one being, having human qualities which can be understood and categorized into physical, psychological and spiritual.

Free will is spiritual and can be experienced as the past-present-future we experience within the flow of time.
With respect to our self, this is in accordance with the will’s purpose of participating in our own creation in its journey along the Way to God.
With respect to our interaction with and understanding of the physical world, it is at the root of relativity, through its having a point of view of that whole.
Emotionally, we all wish to be free, even to the point of desiring to be gods. It is an assault on our boundaries and we rebel and can suffer psychological trauma when it is taken from us.
Ultimately, the only true freedom, that which cannot be taken from us is our choice to do good or evil.
Consumerist, zealotous, and communistic societies each in their own way, are attempts to do away with free will.
Too often we willingly submit in order to be free of its burden and accompanying anxieties.

A materialistic vision does not address the nature of illusion other than it would be an agitation of the brain, as would the truth, if at all they exist as anything other than that. In addition to being empty of truth, as the old joke goes, it is all quite mindless.

Psychological determinism is an assumption, which in circular fashion, some use to “prove” the absence of free will.
We behave based on feelings that are generated by the understanding of our particular circumstances. This understanding has a genetic and congenital basis, affected by the interuterine environment, our physical health throughout life, our early childhood and family experiences, school, our peer group, work and the general psychosocial milieu in which we dwell.
As is the case when we put together the physical pieces of the person, where we will find only the physical acting randomly within the very rigid laws of nature, so too a psychological analysis will reveal only complex but nonetheless instinctual behaviour linked to the person’s described perceptions, thoughts and emotions.
From the bottom up it would be all illusion, potentially brainless and ultimately devoid of any possibility for truth.

Simply stated, the person is a unity of the spiritual and the material, inseparable except in death.
We exist, relate, experience and create the good and the beautiful; we can discern the truth which includes the meaning of all this.
We can know love and therefore know God.
All living creatures can experience instinctual physical and emotional pain, but we, rooted in the eternal, know its significance - nonexistence.

We can know all this, meeting here in time and space as physical beings.

:clapping: In other words it is a question of all or nothing. There are no half-way measures: our ultimate destiny is either survival or extinction. Belief in the supernatural will never die out because it corresponds to our deepest emotions, highest aspirations and longing for love and perfection. Without God we are in an intellectual, moral and spiritual desert. In the words of Saint Augustine:

“Great are You, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is Your power, and of Your wisdom there is no end. And man, being a part of Your creation, desires to praise You, man, who bears about with him his mortality, the witness of his sin, even the witness that You resist the proud, — yet man, this part of Your creation, desires to praise You. You move us to delight in praising You; for You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in You.” - Confessions

 

[grannymh]

Respectfully, I think the majority of you are arguing against a philosophically amended straw-man of evolution.

It’s far simpler than most of the presentations given by a few of my fellow Catholics.

As this thread has largely become a non-evolved creationist echo-chamber, I’ll leave you guys to it.

:tiphat:

I agree because a simple law of evolution theory has been delegated to the trash bin.

 

[grannymh]

I would comment on your phrase “it is the spiritual soul which animates matter”.

I think Aristotle’s biology explains life as needing a soul, but for him ‘soul’ is more like ‘life force’ than what we now mean by the word soul. In his biology all plants and animals have a soul, and this explains why they are alive, it is the life force which makes them alive, and which animates animals.

But of all the species, only humans have a soul that contains intellect, and so only human souls are immortal.

Whereas modern biology explains life differently. There is no ‘life force’ and instead, life is sustained by metabolism. So modern biology says nothing about ‘soul’, as in both plants and animals life is explained differently.

As a result, once Aristotle’s biology is replaced with modern biology, the human soul is set free from all biological constraints in terms of who God first gave it to. Therefore if we’re consistent, modern biology including evolution is silent about souls, and so evolutionary theories about population bottlenecks and so on are silent about how many humans first received souls.

And present tense I hope.

As I recall, the Catholic Church understands an expanded version of Aristotle. And then there is form and matter which becomes obvious when we credit God with providing a spiritual soul.

What current Catholics apparently do not recognize in modern biology is that a new species is not produced by a population of two.

 

[Lion_IRC]

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?

No.

worldwide.increasing

Meanwhile, science is discovering more and more about just how little we know - quite the opposite of what the so-called ‘Age of Enlightenment’ was supposed to deliver. More ‘gaps’ for God to fill.

 

[inocente]

Meanwhile, science is discovering more and more about just how little we know - quite the opposite of what the so-called ‘Age of Enlightenment’ was supposed to deliver. More ‘gaps’ for God to fill.

Your argument seems to be that we should exult ignorance, because the more ignorant we are, the less we realize how little we know.

 

[grannymh]

Your argument seems to be that we should exult ignorance, because the more ignorant we are, the less we realize how little we know.

As I recall, years ago there was a folk saying that the more we learn, the more
we find out how little we really know. This was a tribute to the vast knowledge in our universe. In my old neighborhood, it meant that we could keep learning for a thousand years and there would still be more things to learn. It was an exciting challenge to keep exploring the vast universe and the millions of years it existed.



Personally, I do not understand the “gaps” thing. This only possible thing would be the shift from Genesis 1: 25 to1: 27 when God used a spiritual soul to animate the human body of matter.

 

[OneSheep]

“personal experience” is not the measure anyone should be using in the case of this subject. An answer is true, or in this case, a fact, or not. There are no two right answers. However, after reading many other posts, it appears that for some there would be something to lose or gain regarding science itself. And for some, a worldview would be lost. Evolution cannot be the whole answer.

Thank you for your kind words.

Ed

I’ve had a few days to consider your comments.

Without your own personal experiences, you may not have near the impetus to be here presenting a viewpoint, Ed. Even our own assertions or truth or falsehood are not immune to experience-generated perceptions and vocabulary development. Now I am not talking about “relativism” here, I assert that there is an underlying truth, but personal experience is to be considered and respected as part of a means to understanding viewpoints, especially when presented by some with the objective of protection.

And what came to me this morning is that without my own personal experiences of the supernatural, yes, I would have faith, but the experiences of the supernatural enrich my faith and to me add a dimension of potentiality to my own life, and by projection, to existence itself.

Indeed, Apologetics must continue to self-reflect. Are we protecting something? If so, from what? Are we being productive, or counter-productive, in this effort to protect? Is there a light to be directed in such a way as to illuminate a means to reconciliation of different stances?

It’s all quite exciting, actually.

God Bless, and thank you.

 

[edwest2]

I’ve had a few days to consider your comments.

Without your own personal experiences, you may not have near the impetus to be here presenting a viewpoint, Ed. Even our own assertions or truth or falsehood are not immune to experience-generated perceptions and vocabulary development. Now I am not talking about “relativism” here, I assert that there is an underlying truth, but personal experience is to be considered and respected as part of a means to understanding viewpoints, especially when presented by some with the objective of protection.

And what came to me this morning is that without my own personal experiences of the supernatural, yes, I would have faith, but the experiences of the supernatural enrich my faith and to me add a dimension of potentiality to my own life, and by projection, to existence itself.

Indeed, Apologetics must continue to self-reflect. Are we protecting something? If so, from what? Are we being productive, or counter-productive, in this effort to protect? Is there a light to be directed in such a way as to illuminate a means to reconciliation of different stances?

It’s all quite exciting, actually.

God Bless, and thank you.

Thank you for your well-considered response. Again, truth is not about a stance. Something is true regardless of our own personal experience. Yes, personal experience can shape us in various ways but truth is always true. Now regarding this subject, there are clearly two camps. One camp is done. It’s settled for them. No counter-argument is possible. The other camp may consist of those who some consider ignorant, or who hold to obviously false beliefs and ideas, to the point where information from certain sources is called lies.

There is another group that has said, “Let’s look elsewhere. Let’s consider other possibilities.” But, that will not be accepted by some. That is where this ongoing situation remains.

Ed