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

[minkymurph]

I think it is high time for some honesty.

I terms if honesty what is it that we want? If we want people to accept evolution - why? What difference should it make to us whether they accept it or not? I argue the only reason it may be important is we can give ourselves big pat on the back for being right and showing the religious how ignorant they are and how superior in intelligence we are. I argue academic intelligence has no value off the pages of book and ice is not a book. Same can be said for theology. If what we wrote on paper has no application to the reality it is of no value.

As far as I see it we can all accept and think what we like. If we want others to accept it - why? If you want someone to accept evolution - why? If you want someone to accept Catholicism why? If it is so you can give yourself a big pat on the back for compelling someone else to concede you are right - great - if that is all you want to achieve.

I have no desire to convince anyone to either accept or reject evolution. To me all that can be achieved from such a discussion is confirmation u am right

Sorry for typos posting on phone and hard 2 proof read

 

[Aloysium]

. . . When exactly that happened, when we received our souls, science cannot say. I guess the important point is that we did receive them & the type/level of understanding that makes us culpable, and thus we are different from the non-human animals. We, unlike them, can go to Hell. I think it matters less when exactly the change happened, only that it did happen and here we are. . . .

:twocents:

I would describe it as not so much having “received our souls”, but rather having been created as human body-souls.

We definitely are different from animals. Our eternal spirit differs from their being temporal creatures existing solely in their time. And, whereas animals behave instinctively, as they have been created, we participate in our own creation, becoming who we are through our choices, our actions in time. Along with this, as you point out, we have the capacity to understand the moral issues that arise from freedom, as part of our rational nature which can grasp the underlying structures of reality. Heaven is our destiny, but we may choose to end up elsewhere, forsaking love.

Sorry if I’m coming across as nit-picking, hopefully not obnoxious, but I have to assert that that what happened was not change, but a new creation.
Simply stated, we were created at a certain point in the time-line of the universe, which I believe happened in accordance with the teachings of the Church, beginning with one man.
God formed the dust, in a manner not described in scripture but science may seek to elucidate, and into that dust He breathed His spirit.
So, before that, there would have been animals, and then there were human beings.
How this came to be, likely included some four billion years of life whose physical aspect changed with time, becoming ever-more complex and suited to be one with the human spirit.
There was no change per se in what was - at a point in time, there appeared by the Word of God, something quite new and distinct from what was.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you all for all the amazing information, right or wrong.

As I used to say years back.
Divine Revelation trumps.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[edwest2]

This was your response to my question:
“can you think of any other way that people come to devalue humanity?”

Yes, I agree, when people have a strong desire or need, they may come to devalue humanity in some way. You present a good example; the value of embryos is seen as less than the value of what the medical research could do for people born.

Well, all fallow land is habitat, whether it is a swamp or not. But I understand what you are saying, that for a scientist to have a bad feeling toward humanity because of habitat destruction is an error.

Again, there is an emotional aspect involved. People see the intricacies and beauty of ecosystems and the amazing creation of individual species, and when they see habitat destruction, they feel resentment. Then, land that is set aside for habitat restoration is subsidized, costing billions, and many taxpayers resent the use of their money for a purpose they do not appreciate. Again, the emotional aspect is present.

And then, we take a look at questions like “why does the human have a capacity to resent?”. One answer might be “because he is fallen”, which really goes nowhere (and in some respects expresses a resentment toward human nature). Instead, an investigation can be made toward the objective of understanding the evolutionary advantages of resentment as an emotion, and, for example, it could be shown that resentment plays an important role in conscience formation, and conscience formation is an important, survival-enhancing mechanism for a species that relies on societies (tribes) in order to enhance fitness.

Now, in taking this “whole picture” approach, how can one not experience wonder and awe? One comes to the question, “from where did all this come?” and we can surmise the source to be a Wondrous Something, and when one is in prayerful relationship, a Loving and Merciful Something.

There is zero evidence for an evolutionary investment in anything, especially human emotions. From bugs to animals, they don’t care about emotion in the wild, they just want to eat. The end.

Evolution has no practical purpose in any sphere.

Ed

 

[GEddie]

That said, being unable to speak, walk or hold on to things does not make one any less human.
Nor does a damaged or undeveloped head, despite of the honour of sapiens that we have bestowed upon ourselves.

Well no, if you want to define humanhood by solely the possession of human genes. But then you’d have to call the HeLa cell colony a human being.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

There is zero evidence for an evolutionary investment in anything, especially human emotions. From bugs to animals, they don’t care about emotion in the wild, they just want to eat. The end.

Evolution has no practical purpose in any sphere.

Ed

Evolution isn’t ‘practical’, any more than gravity or entropy. It is just a scientific principle that describes how biological life works.

And it’s not really even about feeding; it’s about genes propagation. Mayflies, after all, no longer feed, but do reproduce.

Learning to decipher the emotions of others costs relatively very little biologically, but significantly increases the likelihood that one’s genes will get propagated.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bradski]

I think it is high time for some honesty.

I terms if honesty what is it that we want? If we want people to accept evolution - why?

Because it tells us where we came from. How we got here. Why you are sitting there reading this. Why we feel what we feel and act as we do.

Would you want your children to be taught that everything was created in seven days or how it actually happened? Would you want your children to be taught that the earth is the centre of the universe or where we actually are in the grand scheme of things? Would you want you children to be taught that all life was created as we see it now or that it evolved?

Give your children as much knowledge of the world as you can and make sure they pass it on to their kids. It’s your responsability.

 

[grannymh]

Give your children as much knowledge of the world as you can and make sure they pass it on to their kids. It’s your responsibility.

Give your children the correct knowledge of both the material world and the spiritual world…

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Eric, you really need to move away from taking every single figure and date that you come across as being dyed in the wool, 100% specific and accurate as to the matter in hand. If someone mentions a specific date or number, then quite often they are being used as an indication of something.

You brought this up first, to show Adam and Eve could not happen. But when we challenge evolution, using your exact dates, it then appears you make the rules up as you go along.

No-one actually means that there were 1829 steps involved in the evolution of the eye. They are using the figure to indicate how quickly an eye would evolve if, in this particular example, there was only a 1% change in each generation, then an eye could evolve in 1829 steps involving just 364,000 generations.

Yes they do

Taken from your link,

They concluded that the whole sequence, as shown, required 1829 steps, as follows:

Now it would not bother me if they had said it might need between 1500 - 2000 steps, but they are very exact in their number. They have made up a new rule, that is random mutation follows a mathematically set formula, so they supply this specific number on purpose.

Random mutation means random, they have no end goals in mind. But the Nilsson and Pelger example requires nature to follow a mathematical formula. They set out seven specific goals, it would need 176 steps to reach the first goal, 362 steps to reach the second goal, etc.

There are no goals in evolution, natural selection is supposed to sort that out, not a mathematical formula.

Even allowing 1 year per generation, that’s less than a million years. A ridiculously short time when you are considering evolution. See here: don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html

As you posted in an earlier link, it takes changes in the environment to force change to happen. What changes in the environment would force random mutation, to mutate 176 steps in one direction? Then repeat for six more mathematically designed goals?

If you are going to set rules that explain how the ToE works, then examples like the evolution of the eye should follow those rules.

 

[Bradski]

Eric, I was going to say that the meaning behind these examples are so straightforward that a ten year old could understand them.

But I was afraid your response might be: ‘So if the child is only 9 years and 11 months, then she wouldn’t be able to grasp it, but then in just 4 weeks time, she could. What happens in those 30 days to give her such insight?’

 

[lynnvinc]

:twocents:

I would describe it as not so much having “received our souls”, but rather having been created as human body-souls…

I don’t think God operates in time as we do, so even tho evolution is a process (which I believe God was in and involved in the entire time) we just don’t have the language to describe the workings and ways of God very well. So I think your “created as human body-souls” is fine.

I tend to look at all of creation as one, thinking of the elements being created in the belly of stars and the microscopic life forms sort of as our relatives/related, and even in the Bible it speaks of God creating man from the earth/dirt, so that’s why I used “received,” even tho theologically it might be wrong.

However, I think you must be right, since you seem to know a lot more about theology, so I’ll take your word for it.

 

[lynnvinc]

Give your children the correct knowledge of both the material world and the spiritual world…

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

Exactly. I think we focus way to much on teaching our kids about the material world and getting ahead, without consideration of ethics, morals, or spiritual pursuits (and ultimately detachment from this world in pursuit of union with God) which are the ONLY things that can bring true peace and happiness.

We’d rather have a photo of “my son the doctor” with which to impress our friends and enemies, even tho that son is depressed and suicidal.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Eric, I was going to say that the meaning behind these examples are so straightforward that a ten year old could understand them.

But I was afraid your response might be: ‘So if the child is only 9 years and 11 months, then she wouldn’t be able to grasp it, but then in just 4 weeks time, she could. What happens in those 30 days to give her such insight?’

How does your answer explain why random mutation should follow a mathematical projection?

 

[Bradski]

How does your answer explain why random mutation should follow a mathematical projection?

It doesn’t. It’s random. But even random events over time exhibit characteristics that can be represented mathematically. Draw a card at random from a deck and if you do it 520 times, the odds Re that you will pick the ace of hearts ten times.

“There is a science called population genetics, and it has mathematical formulae for how quickly favorable genetic changes can spread throughout a population of sexually reproducing creatures. From these formulae, Nilsson and Pelger concluded that the 1829 steps could happen in about 350,000 generations.”

Read the articles why don’t you.

They took a random number of steps, used a random figure of one percent for each change and then worked out that eyes can evolve in a ridiculously short time. There are NOT 1829 steps from no eye to eye. The changes are NOT exactly one percent. The generations are NOT exactly one year. They are simple figures that they used in a simple scenario to. make evolution relatively simple to understand.

Obviously it didn’t work in your case.

 

[lynnvinc]

My poor older than dirt brain… I remember hearing that Adam was a He not a We.

Well, were all in this together, and if it has been any of us back then, we probably would have done the same thing. And we have been doing a lot worse since.

However, I’ve given some thought to eating that fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

Origin myths (myth being the true and most sacred and lofty stories of a culture) are used to explain the present, how we got to where we are. So ancients who wrote down Genesis (the best they could as God revealed it to them) would have noticed the differences between animals and humans, our intelligence and knowledge. They would have also seen that such often enough leads to killing, death, and destruction, knowingly.

Also they would have noticed that animals don’t seem to understand death. They don’t have human language, so they can’t talk about the past or future, even tho the higher animals do have memory and can anticipate. Humans, however, can wonder what would happen to the dead – obviously they look like the living at first (before decay), but something crucial is missing, something that animated them, something … well, spiritual & special that dead animals don’t even have. (I’ve even read that the dead are heavier than the living…so that something was buoyant, uplifting.)

So in a way, pre-human-knowledge (before eating the apple) we (Adam and Eve) were not so aware of death. We could talk to the animals and they could talk to us, like the serpent, and to God; perhaps it was not in human language, but in some clear communication. But after eating the forbidden fruit we (ever since Adam and Eve) were then aware of death and it seems could no longer communicate with animals or even with God very well – after the fruit was more like difficult revelations only given to a few until Jesus came and told us all everything we had to know.

The ancients also needed to explain how death came about…surely from sin. Surely knowledge of good and evil is a double-edged sword, which can be used for good and for evil.

So I don’t really believe that no life formed died before Adam and Eve ate that fruit – you can if you want to – but that with the knowledge of good and evil came the understanding of death…and the possibility of going to Hell.

Just some of my musings…

 

[edwest2]

Well, were all in this together, and if it has been any of us back then, we probably would have done the same thing. And we have been doing a lot worse since.

However, I’ve given some thought to eating that fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

Origin myths (myth being the true and most sacred and lofty stories of a culture) are used to explain the present, how we got to where we are. So ancients who wrote down Genesis (the best they could as God revealed it to them) would have noticed the differences between animals and humans, our intelligence and knowledge. They would have also seen that such often enough leads to killing, death, and destruction, knowingly.

Also they would have noticed that animals don’t seem to understand death. They don’t have human language, so they can’t talk about the past or future, even tho the higher animals do have memory and can anticipate. Humans, however, can wonder what would happen to the dead – obviously they look like the living at first (before decay), but something crucial is missing, something that animated them, something … well, spiritual & special that dead animals don’t even have. (I’ve even read that the dead are heavier than the living…so that something was buoyant, uplifting.)

So in a way, pre-human-knowledge (before eating the apple) we (Adam and Eve) were not so aware of death. We could talk to the animals and they could talk to us, like the serpent, and to God; perhaps it was not in human language, but in some clear communication. But after eating the forbidden fruit we (ever since Adam and Eve) were then aware of death and it seems could no longer communicate with animals or even with God very well – after the fruit was more like difficult revelations only given to a few until Jesus came and told us all everything we had to know.

The ancients also needed to explain how death came about…surely from sin. Surely knowledge of good and evil is a double-edged sword, which can be used for good and for evil.

So I don’t really believe that no life formed died before Adam and Eve ate that fruit – you can if you want to – but that with the knowledge of good and evil came the understanding of death…and the possibility of going to Hell.

Just some of my musings…

That does not follow Church teaching.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

"The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390). "

Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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?

The theory of godless evolution is more likely than religion to die out.

Even Darwin was not an atheist.

The great-great-great-granddaughter of Charles Darwin, Laura Keynes, has returned to the Catholic faith of her youth. Now there’s a nice instance of evolution!

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny!

 

[IWantGod]

The theory of godless evolution is more likely than religion to die out.

Even Darwin was not an atheist.

The great-great-great-granddaughter of Charles Darwin, Laura Keynes, has returned to the Catholic faith of her youth. Now there’s a nice instance of evolution!

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny!

What is Godless Evolution? Things act according to their natures and it is God who gives the Universe it’s nature.

 

[PluniaZ]

Plato believed in Intelligent Design.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timaeus_(dialogue

 

[IWantGod]

Laura Keynes

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

*“I’m a direct descendant of Darwin, but I have discovered the beauty of the Catholic faith”
*

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/06/17/im-a-direct-descendant-of-darwin-but-i-have-discovered-the-beauty-of-the-catholic-faith/