Help with Creationism vs Darwinism

[thistle]

Eireann:

Anyway thanks for all your replies, this is my first time to actually question this, I don’t actually believe in it but there you go.

Evolution due to adaptation to the inviroment and natural selection ?

I was thinking about some of the people that tried to climb mount Everest and sadly died on the way because they didn’t adapt to their inviroment.
Maybe by natural selection you mean if 50 tried to climb and only 10 made it, that would be natural selection, who knows

Because I’m a Catholic I don’t believe an animal has a soul, it has a spirit but not a soul.
So if we came from apes, then it stands to reason that apes should have a soul, but I don’t believe they have.
When was a soul put in man, after he came from an ape ? :ehh:

Oh another question because I’m only guessing this one, but don’t apes have brown eyes ? do they have any other colour other than brown ?

Man-kind is supposed to be the most intelligent being on earth, sometimes I wonder, we’ve mad a bad mess of it if we are.
If man came from an ape, then why aren’t apes turning into men
why are they still apes ?
Anyway back to the point about other living things not having souls, Jesus caught fish, I don’t think Jesus would have sanctioned the killing of fish if they had a soul.
Jesus placed great emphasis on the soul and not the body, if your eyes cause you to sin pluck it out, your hand cut it off.
It seems to me that if evolution is true, then everything passed on from it should have a soul.

Oh I know I ask the most awkard questions, probably stupid to some but to me reasonable.
I was listening to a Cardinal about two years ago from the Vatican, he said Science and nature work hand in hand,you cannot seperate science and nature.
My own thinking is God made nature and scientists study nature, so we are really a long way off even geting near to understanding creation.
Where science falls short on is understanding spiritual things, miraculous cures etc; apparations.

Anyway I think the one thing that marks us out as being different from the animal kingdom, is we have a soul.

That is not the teaching of the Church. The Church teaches that all plants, animals and humans have souls but only the human soul is immortal. Plants and animals have a material soul which dies when the plant and animal dies.

 

[Orogeny]

Sugar Ray:

Orogeny:

Your link shows that the George Wald quote was indeed taken out of context. After saying the spontaneous generation of life was impossible he then went on to say given enough time anything is possible.

What your link did not mention however, is that the second law of thermodynamics is a stumbling block to the answer that enough time makes anything possible and that Wald himself conceded this was evolution’s biggest hurdle.

A hurdle that still has not been cleared.

See the link below…

greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_18/default.htm

The second law of thermodynamics in no way invalidates evolution. That is one argument that you should stay away from.

Peace

Tim

 

[roymckenzie]

thistle:

That is not the teaching of the Church. The Church teaches that all plants, animals and humans have souls but only the human soul is immortal. Plants and animals have a material soul which dies when the plant and animal dies.

My friend I have the greatest respect for you and your opinion. Please provide line and verse from the CCC or other authoritative Catholic documents for your assertion.

 

[thistle]

roymckenzie:

My friend I have the greatest respect for you and your opinion. Please provide line and verse from the CCC or other authoritative Catholic documents for your assertion.

St. Thomas Aquinas

Summa Theologica Part I Q:75-80

newadvent.org/summa/107500.htm

Particularly (ST I: Q75 a3 - Are the souls of brute animals subsistent?)

newadvent.org/summa/107503.htm

 

[Chris_W]

Eireann:

If man came from an ape, then why aren’t apes turning into men why are they still apes ?

I think you are misunderstanding the evolutionist position a bit (although I am NOT an evolutionist…just so we’re clear):
They do not argue that men came directly from an ape, but rather, men and apes share a common ancestor. In their position, it is not that apes evolved and then some continued to evolve into men, but rather that the split occurred somewhere else, so that apes evolved and men evolved separately…just from some same common ancestor.

At least, that is how I understand their position.

Eireann:

It seems to me that if evolution is true, then everything passed on from it should have a soul.

Two problems with this line of reasoning:

1. The godless scientist would not recognize a soul, so it is an issue they would not address. A theistic scientist may address the question though (see #2)
2. Because the evolutionist position is not that one being came from another in a single chronological order, but rather many chains of evolution would have occurred, all merely stemming from a single organism way back when, it does not follow that any being other than a human would have a soul…unless a human (the first to receive a soul) eventually evolved into something else, which has not happened.

Eireann:

I was listening to a Cardinal about two years ago from the Vatican, he said Science and nature work hand in hand,you cannot seperate science and nature.

My own thinking is God made nature and scientists study nature, so we are really a long way off even geting near to understanding creation.

Where science falls short on is understanding spiritual things, miraculous cures etc; apparations.

The key is that science and nature work hand in hand with spiritual truths, but only if a person is willing to consider other evidences that fall outside the realm of scientific empiracal data. Science cannot contradict the Truth of revelation, because God created both the material world and the spiritual.

Where problems arise, as is the case with evolution (in my opinion), is when man draws conclusions based on exclusively scientific analysis, without considering what else can be known. If those conclusions contradict what God has revealed to us through other means, it is in that case where we can justifiably reject the conclusions of scientists as flawed…even if scientists believe the overwhelming evidence supports their conclusions.

You mentioned miracles. That is a good illustration of what I am saying. The overwhelming scientific evidence says the conception of a child requires a man sperm and a woman’s egg to occur. Yet we know from non-scientific evidence that this occurred in the case of Jesus. Therefore, the conclusions of scientists, while cartainly true in a normative sense, is not necessarily true, even though we could not explain from a scientific perspective how what we know happened happened.

Similarly, many scientists believe humans evolved. Evolutionary geneticists will argue that our DNA requries that humans evolved from a group of no less than approxiamately 50 persons. Yet the Catholic faith requires belief that all of mankind decended from an initial pair of humans (Adam and Eve).

Like the conception of Jesus, we cannot explain from a scientific perspective how this occurred, yet we know it did occur because of truths revealed through other means. Therefore, I must conclude that the scientific analysis is flawed in some way. This position is not hostile to reason because the science is not proven, per se, it is merely the best conclusion scientists can draw without including God in their analysis.

 

[Chris_W]

Eireann:

When was a soul put in man, after he came from an ape ? :ehh:

That is exaclty the position of theistic (or at least Christian) evolutionists. This idea can even be somewhat reconciled with Genesis, if a literal reading is not required. God formed man from the clay of the earth (via evolution they will say) and then breathed the breath of life (interpreted as a soul) into that evolved being.

This small success in reconciling evolution and Catholicism however, is not sufficient because it does not address Original Sin (which requires that we all descended from an initial pair), nor how Eve was created (literally from the side of Adam). Fr. Harrison explains very well in a document entitled “Did Woman Evolve form the Beasts?” that this is a required Catholic belief (although his work seems to be ignored by Catholic evolutionists).

One question I have had, which is related to the many questions you have asked is this:

How does evolution account for the fact that humans have the ability to reason, free will, and a conscience, while no other living thing on earth has those attributes? This is a different question than the question of an invisible soul because unlike a soul, it is unquestionably demonstrable.

It seems to me that the evolution of these charachteristics must be accounted for if evolution is to be accepted, for what could affect how man reacts and adapts to his environment (the whole premise of evolution) more than these traits? So far, I have not seen an explanation supported by scientific emprical data that can explain how and why only humans “evolved” in this way.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

If those conclusions contradict what God has revealed to us through other means, it is in that case where we can justifiably reject the conclusions of scientists as flawed…even if scientists believe the overwhelming evidence supports their conclusions.

This assumes that our knowledge of revelation is inerrant.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

How does evolution account for the fact that humans have the ability to reason, free will, and a conscience, while no other living thing on earth has those attributes?

Well, for me there are 2 points: evolutionary theory is typically silent on psychological matters, being more concerned with morphological changes, although more attention is being paid now to the connection between DNA instructions and the mind. This study is probably still in its infancy. And second, are we sure that reason, free will, and a conscience is not present, at some level, in any animal? It’s interesting research, at least. I believe, as you probably do, that we have a divinely sowed immortal soul, but there are aspects of consciousness and reason we probably share with many animals.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

This assumes that our knowledge of revelation is inerrant.

Craftily stated! Revelation is inerrant. Knowledge builds on itself. If we have not understood Revelation properly how far back was the misunderstanding?

An assumption that science makes is that we properly understand science. We know we do not.

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

Craftily stated! Revelation is inerrant. Knowledge builds on itself. If we have not understood Revelation properly how far back was the misunderstanding?

In my opinion, all the way back. We cannot perfectly understand the divine.

An assumption that science makes is that we properly understand science. We know we do not.

Of course not. That’s why there is still science. That’s why our theories are mere models of Nature. We will probably never “properly” understand Nature, either.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

In my opinion, all the way back. We cannot perfectly understand the divine.

Correct, we do not have the capacity. Therefore I submit that Revelation is not as crytic as some suggest. Although I do agree we can come to a fuller undrstanding of it as time goes on. Reversing the accumulated dogmas and doctrines - that would be very difficult given the protection of the Holy Spirit.

 

[AJC]

PhilVaz:

SugarRay << Try reading How Now Shall We Live by Chuck Colson which covers not only the staggering complexity of the universe… When combined with the gaping holes in evolution (read Darwin on Trail by Phillip Johnson) >>

Do not read Chuck Colson, do not read Phillip E. Johnson, further do not read Lee Strobel for your science. They are not scientists.

Phil P

Phil,

Very good explanation, very thorough. I liked your sources and have bookmarked them on Amazon. While I agree with much of what you say Colson and Johnson are not bad sources if you want to argue the philosophical implications of Darwinism. In fact I would say that some scientific organizations refusal to even broach the subject of how religion and science play off of one and other and the place of God in creation and origins really smacks of a kind of fundamentalism on the part of some in the science community.

All that being said I agree with Chesterton who was alive during the Scopes Trial. He, and I paraphrase, when asked how evolution affected a Catholic’s view of Holy Scripture said something to the effect that it did not as Catholics do not look at the book of Genesis as a science text book.

Again good job Phil.

AJC

P.S. Considering the outcome of the school board election in Dover, PA it appears that the majority of Americans must feel the same way.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

In my opinion, all the way back. We cannot perfectly understand the divine.

…That’s why there is still science. That’s why our theories are mere models of Nature. We will probably never “properly” understand Nature, either.

Indeed. The job of each person then, is to conclude based on ALL of the information available to the person, what is the most credible to believe…holding steadfast to the law of non-contrdiction. For me, the higher truths are the truths taught and protected by the Catholic Church. Where the conclusions of scientists (or anyone else really) contradict those truths, I reject those conclusions as flawed.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

Well, for me there are 2 points: evolutionary theory is typically silent on psychological matters, being more concerned with morphological changes, although more attention is being paid now to the connection between DNA instructions and the mind. This study is probably still in its infancy…

I understand your point that this sceince is perhaps in its infancy. Still, our mental capacity is based (to a large extent) on our biological make-up isn’t? Glands that affect hormones that produce a fight or flight reaction, etc. Doctors and scientists can show the activity of the brain when under stress, or guilt, or happiness, danger, when laughing, when reading, speaking in front of a large group of people, when sad, etc, etc. This question is one of a biological nature every bit as much as a psychological one, so the argument that it falls essentially outside the realm of science or in particular the theory of evolution falls flat.

wanerious:

And second, are we sure that reason, free will, and a conscience is not present, at some level, in any animal? It’s interesting research, at least. I believe, as you probably do, that we have a divinely sowed immortal soul, but there are aspects of consciousness and reason we probably share with many animals.

Yes. We are sure of the significant difference between human intellect and that of every other creature. Obviously one could argue that elephants appear to cry at the grave of a member of his family. Pet owners can say animals appear to smile. An ape can be taught sign language, etc. But can anyone deny the huge divide between humans and other animals? No other animal writes books, tells jokes, feels the need to cover oneself either out of shame or to make oneself look better, argues for the equal treatment of every member of the species, and so on.

All other animals can be described by how they do act. Humans cannot. Why? Because for some reason, we have the ability to decide between conflicting instincts.

This is much more tangible than the immortality of the soul, as I mentioned in the post to which you were responding. This is quite demonstrable, and not a matter of faith as to whether we have it or not. As such it cannot be placed exclusively into the realm of religion or philosophy, and conveniently out of the realm of science.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

Originally Posted by Chris W
If those conclusions contradict what God has revealed to us through other means, it is in that case where we can justifiably reject the conclusions of scientists as flawed…even if scientists believe the overwhelming evidence supports their conclusions

This assumes that our knowledge of revelation is inerrant.

Not necessarily. I do happen to believe the revelation explained by the Catholic Church is inerrant (and for good reason), but that is not required.

There is a convergence of evidences from many fields of study which point to a creator God. One can merely decide his/her position based on what is the most reasonable to believe. A person who did not believe in an inerrent protector of truth could still reject evolution justifiably: He would simply be deciding between the more certain of two beliefs.

An inference of the necessity of intellectual pride is not a justifiable argument.

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

Correct, we do not have the capacity. Therefore I submit that Revelation is not as crytic as some suggest. Although I do agree we can come to a fuller undrstanding of it as time goes on. Reversing the accumulated dogmas and doctrines - that would be very difficult given the protection of the Holy Spirit.

I agree. And that’s why there are fairly few dogmas — the Church has been careful to avoid those pronouncements that are directly confronted by present or future natural discoveries. Truth can’t contradict truth, as has been pointed out.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

I agree. And that’s why there are fairly few dogmas — the Church has been careful to avoid those pronouncements that are directly confronted by present or future natural discoveries. Truth can’t contradict truth, as has been pointed out.

Add in the many infallible doctrines for the complete picture.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

Not necessarily. I do happen to believe the revelation explained by the Catholic Church is inerrant (and for good reason), but that is not required.

Hmmm — I agree. Requiring an inerrant revelation is not it; rather, for any perceived contradiction, one puts his certainty of theological conclusions above natural conclusions. Thanks for the correction.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

I understand your point that this sceince is perhaps in its infancy. Still, our mental capacity is based (to a large extent) on our biological make-up isn’t? Glands that affect hormones that produce a fight or flight reaction, etc. Doctors and scientists can show the activity of the brain when under stress, or guilt, or happiness, danger, when laughing, when reading, speaking in front of a large group of people, when sad, etc, etc. This question is one of a biological nature every bit as much as a psychological one, so the argument that it falls essentially outside the realm of science or in particular the theory of evolution falls flat.

It certainly doesn’t fall outside the realm of science, as active scientific investigation of the connection between the material and the conscious is taking place. I don’t think, though, that this has been seriously addressed yet by any evolutionary theory — one day it will (with uncertain results), but for now, my point is that current evolutionary theory, the one presently taught in schools, answers different questions.

But can anyone deny the huge divide between humans and other animals? All other animals can be described by how they do act. Humans cannot. Why? Because for some reason, we have the ability to decide between conflicting instincts.

I’m not arguing that we aren’t profoundly different, only that (behaviorally) it might just be a matter of degree, however large. My dogs have felt shame, and they often must decide between conflicting instincts, learning new behavioral patterns along the way. Dogs are not deterministic.

This is much more tangible than the immortality of the soul, as I mentioned in the post to which you were responding. This is quite demonstrable, and not a matter of faith as to whether we have it or not. As such it cannot be placed exclusively into the realm of religion or philosophy, and conveniently out of the realm of science.

Right. I don’t argue that we don’t have it, only that it is possible that some brutes possess similar capabilities.

 

[zian]

Chris W:

No other animal writes books, tells jokes, feels the need to cover oneself either out of shame or to make oneself look better, argues for the equal treatment of every member of the species, and so on.

All other animals can be described by how they do act. Humans cannot. Why? Because for some reason, we have the ability to decide between conflicting instincts.

This is much more tangible than the immortality of the soul, as I mentioned in the post to which you were responding. This is quite demonstrable, and not a matter of faith as to whether we have it or not. As such it cannot be placed exclusively into the realm of religion or philosophy, and conveniently out of the realm of science.

I believe that a number of the human attributes you mention here, complex language, shame, wanting to mediate conflict, etc., are perhaps more learned behaviors made accessible through human’s larger bra(name removed by moderator)ower. Hence they are to some significant extent a product of human culture. There may certainly be biological influences on some of these attributes that affect their cultural expression. Doubtless there are aspects of this that may be amenable to the means of science, perhaps less so with other aspects.