Help with Creationism vs Darwinism

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

That sentence is a pretty strong statement from the Church’s point of view.

We differ on our interpretation of that, but that’s okay. Its not a difinitive document so we are free to disagree with each other.

Orogeny:

Which is completely consistent with my views - until both the body and soul are present, there is no human.

What I was getting at is the idea that the soul is created first and then matter formed around it. But that too is a matter of interpretation.

Orogeny:

I would disagree with your interpretation, but the point of the document is not to approve or reject the theory of evolution, but to show that Catholics do not need to reject the science based on theology. That is why I love to use it as a reference.

I understand completely, Tim. Thats a fair use of the document in my opinion. Its just that normally I see this quoted with the inference (or sometimes the outright claim) that the Church approves of ToE. Whereas to use it as you suggest seems quite reasonable to me.

Orogeny:

You would be correct that creationists (or, as I would prefer to refer to them as anti-evolutionists) have at times taken quotes out of context…

That’s interesting. I’ve never really considered how I would label myself, but I suppose anti-evolutionist is a pretty fair description. The term creationist is pretty broad…it could mean a young earth 7day view, or a person who thinks God used evolution in creation, or someone like me who is undecided to what extent God may have used evolution in creation but rejecting evolution as a whole based on theological complications regarding the evolution of man.

Thx,
Chris W

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

Huh?
How can you be an “evolutionist” and not assert that something evolved?

This takes me back to my question earlier on in the thread. Can’t a person accept evolution in general while considering man the exception to the rule? Is there something that necessarily requires an evolutionist to accept that man in particular evolved?

Obviously outside of faith in the Creator, there would be no reason to take such a position, but in the case of a Catholic evolutionist like yourself, why would that not be a reasonable position to take, considering that it would remove the difficulties about Original Sin and the creation of Eve from the side of Adam?

I guess what I’m getting at is this: Let’s say a person believes evolution can acount for much of the development of life…the only reason one should necessarily have to assert that it can account for all of it would be if it was necessary to eliminate God from the equation (at least in my opinion).

 

[steveandersen]

Chris W:

This takes me back to my question earlier on in the thread. Can’t a person accept evolution in general while considering man the exception to the rule?

you can’t be a little bit pregnant
Chris W:

Is there something that necessarily requires an evolutionist to accept that man in particular evolved?

There are no physical parts of a human that do not have precursors or parallels in related organisms
see here for a humorous treatment
Chris W:

Obviously outside of faith in the Creator, there would be no reason to take such a position, but in the case of a Catholic evolutionist like yourself, why would that not be a reasonable position to take, considering that it would remove the difficulties about Original Sin and the creation of Eve from the side of Adam?

well …while the creation story is important, frankly there is more to Catholicism than that. Just like I think that some of the Protestant groups that obsess over the “end times” are missing a good deal about the here and now, I think that getting so wrapped up in the creation story that it makes us deny what the world tells us is so is kinda missing the point.
If that means I choose not to be particularly rigorous on this subject…well so be it. I know both are true…how is for someone else to worry about.

What’s the old joke? “Somebody went to a lot of trouble to bury those fossils, blue-shift light, and build up rocks so we better believe in evolution if we know what is good for us.”

We are told that man has both natural and spiritual aspects. Since the spiritual cannot be measured by science, we can believe anything we want about it and not be in conflict. As I pointed out earlier evolution shows how we all have common ancestors and can easily (in my mind at least) be reconciled with evolution. And I might suggest that just as the story of Noah isn’t about a boat ride in a rain storm, the story of the creation of Eve isn’t about Adam having a little outpatient surgery done.
Chris W:

I guess what I’m getting at is this: Let’s say a person believes evolution can acount for much of the development of life…the only reason one should necessarily have to assert that it can account for all of it would be if it was necessary to eliminate God from the equation (at least in my opinion).

I wouldn’t comment on someone’s motives for holding one position over another. There are atheists who hold to evolution but there are also Deists, Christians, Buddhist…you name it. I’m just not quite sure why this is such an issue only in parts of North America.

I think that asserting that evolution did X&Y but God did Z you are limiting Him.
God did X, Y,& Z…evolution was just one of his tools

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

And I might suggest that just as the story of Noah isn’t about a boat ride in a rain storm, the story of the creation of Eve isn’t about Adam having a little outpatient surgery done.

Then you do not believe what the Church has said:

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Introduction

     The       purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis       which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but       now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and       derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the       first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult       Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly       by the universal and ordinary *Magisterium* of       the Catholic Church as literally and historically       true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to       be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I       would express the thesis in Latin as follows:

     ***Definitive       tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice       formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.***

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

Then you do not believe what the Church has said:…

you mean what a theology student in Puerto Ricco has said

you have posted that particular scholar’s thesis before…very nice

and like I said before it is strange that it doesn’t appear on the (http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm) of dogmas

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

you mean what a theology student in Puerto Ricco has said

you have posted that particular scholar’s thesis before…very nice

and like I said before it is strange that it doesn’t appear on the (http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm) of dogmas

Shoot the messenger! :banghead: Spend your time refuting the historical documents he uses.

This is the author:
Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D.
Associate Professor of Theology,

      ***Pontifical       Catholic University of Puerto Rico

---

Whatever you think of the author doesn’t negate the facts of the documents and sources he uses.

Notice the footnotes.

From his conclusion:

However, when any part of infallible Catholic doctrine comes to be widely neglected, questioned and even denied, it is for that very reason timely, and the task of responsible theology, to reassert and defend the endangered truth in question. We may thus conclude by repeating the thesis enunciated at the beginning of this study: since the year 1880 at the latest, it has been, and so will forever remain, true to affirm the following:*** definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis. ***And this truth of Catholic doctrine, if it regains its rightful recognition among the People of God after a half-century or more of relative oblivion, will necessarily have some impact on our understanding of a closely-related question which we have deliberately not touched upon at all in this essay: the origin of the body of the first man, Adam. Karl Rahner, among others, has said that once we accept an evolutionary origin for the male human being, we can scarcely deny it for the female. On the basis of that kind of logic—which may or may not be watertight—the reverse would appear to be an equally valid inference: that is, once Catholics return to recognizing the *non-**evolutionary origin of the female human being as a truth taught by God’s Word, they can scarcely uphold an evolutionary origin for the male. Whether or not such inferences are in fact valid would be an interesting and timely subject for another article.

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

I don’t understand why this topic brings out the beast in people. The church allows for a whole range of views on this issue. The Church does not question Evolution, it questions the atheist conclusions of individuals like Dawkins. Intelligent Design, as I defined in an earlier post, is an opposing conclusion to the facts. When discussing this topic we should remember that science and faith can never contradict each other if God is the author of both.

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

…This is the author:
Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D.
Associate Professor of Theology…

Whatever you think of the author doesn’t negate the facts of the documents and sources he uses.

Yes, I saw who the author is and I wasn’t saying anything against him.
I’m sure he can run theological rings around me without breaking a sweat. No reason to bang your head. You just said “the Church has said X” and I found it ironic that you linked me to one guy rather than “the Church”. Was I being snide? Sure, I’m sorry. I’m glib by nature.

However, I was taught the story as an allegory and, as I pointed out, it is not listed in the dogmas so regardless of what good Dr Harrison says, I don’t think there is a problem reconciling the two.

(Some might point out that you need to be careful about reviving old pronouncements since there are historical documents making pronouncements say…against the existence of Australia but I couldn’t possibly do that)

Riddle me this…If the story is allegorical rather than literal how does that in anyway diminish the truth it conveys?

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

Yes, I saw who the author is and I wasn’t saying anything against him.
I’m sure he can run theological rings around me without breaking a sweat. No reason to bang your head. You just said “the Church has said X” and I found it ironic that you linked me to one guy rather than “the Church”. Was I being snide? Sure, I’m sorry. I’m glib by nature.

(Some might point out that you need to be careful about reviving old pronouncements since there are historical documents making pronouncements against the existence of Australia but I couldn’t possibly do that)

Riddle me this…If the story is allegorical rather than literal how does that in anyway diminish the truth it conveys?

Is reviving old pronouncements the same as Tradition?

So we need to fit science to religion?

It doesn’t - but it certainly can tell more than one story.

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

There are no physical parts of a human that do not have precursors or parallels in related organisms
see here for a humorous treatment

I understand why a person might say man evolved. My point is there is no reason that they have to make that assertion in order to accept evolution in general.

steveandersen:

If that means I choose not to be particularly rigorous on this subject…well so be it. I know both are true…how is for someone else to worry about.

Understood. My mention of this topic was in response to the idea of the “proper bounds” regarding the theory of evolution. When considering the proper bounds, since they have not yet been defined by the Church (so far as I’m aware) it seems that we should consider at which points evolution and Catholicism do seem to contradict each other.

If Schonborn is to be quoted saying he has no problem reconciling the two so long as they stay within proper bounds, then it is logical to conclude that if they do seem to contradict each other, those bounds have perhaps been crossed. No?

steveandersen:

What’s the old joke? “Somebody went to a lot of trouble to bury those fossils, blue-shift light, and build up rocks so we better believe in evolution if we know what is good for us.” .

I’d alter that punch line to say “so we better be sure the conclusion we draw from those evidences is correct…if we know what is good for us”

 

[steveandersen]

Chris W:

I understand why a person might say man evolved. My point is there is no reason that they have to make that assertion in order to accept evolution in general.

science is all about induction, making a general rule from a limited data set rather than examining each an every thing separately.

If there were one glaring example of a species that didn’t evolve (a species that by the way showed all the signs of having evolved) then the theory would be useless
Chris W:

… then it is logical to conclude that if they do seem to contradict each other, those bounds have perhaps been crossed. No?

Well I suppose you could look at it that way. But that seems to leave you with the choice of having to reject one or the other (or some portion thereof and I don’t think you can be either a little bit evolved or a little bit Catholic).

I prefer to acknowledge that, while they may seem to contradict, they actually can’t contradict so we must just not understand them completely yet.

I’m willing to say “I don’t know” when I don’t.

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

science is all about induction, making a general rule from a limited data set rather than examining each an every thing separately…

Yes but science doesn’t consider God.

steveandersen:

If there were one glaring example of a species that didn’t evolve (a species that by the way showed all the signs of having evolved) then the theory would be useless…

Kinda like a virgin birth, or water coming from a rock, or a dead man coming to life again…

Once God is taken into consideration, there may in fact be exceptions to the general rule, without reducing the general rule to uselessness.

steveandersen:

Well I suppose you could look at it that way. But that seems to leave you with the choice of having to reject one or the other

Yes, that is the logical end to that line of reasoning…hence my rejection of evolution (until we learn more about either evolution or Catholicism which answers the apparent contradiction).

Hey, this is getting us somewhere afterall. At least you seem to understand in part the reasoning behind my position.

steveandersen:

I prefer to acknowledge that, while they may seem to contradict, they actually can’t contradict so we must just not understand them completely yet.

I’m willing to say “I don’t know” when I don’t.

I understand that position, steve.

It seems that for some people there is more discomfort caused by the thought of rejecting evolution than by considering the theological implications of it. Whereas for others (like me) there is more discomfort in considering the theological implications of it than by the thought of rejecting of evolution.

Fortunately for us, both positions are acceptable since the Church has not explained things well enough to decide between the two positions with any certainty. It seems we can both be good Catholics and believe what you and I believe.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[Sugar_Ray]

Please read…

nationalreview.com/comment/bethell200512010829.asp

 

[Chris_W]

Sugar Ray:

Please read…

nationalreview.com/comment/bethell200512010829.asp

An interesting read, but enough covered in it to result in several threads and active debates here.

One thing he said which relates to a topic mentioned ealier (regarding Julie Thomas) is this: He mentions how evolution is really no more falsifiable than intelligent design. I think he’s right, but I disagree with the idea that this is a method of detemrining if a thoery is scientific or not.

It seems to me Julie Thomas is taking a superior approach: She seems to say that if the theory is useful for forming new hypotheses that will give rise to new research and experiments and subsequent advancements in science, then that should be criteria enough to consider the theory scientific. By that guideline, both evolution and intelligent design are scientific theories, even though neither of them can actually be falsified.

…but I fear we are straying from the topic of this thread

 

[steveandersen]

Sugar Ray:

Please read…

:yawn: same old same old

his basic argument is the old tired “scientists haven’t found an explanation for X so the whole thing must be a load of whooie.”
While he repeats this several times there is no meat to any of his arguements. Who cares if scientists “have no idea how this happens — even though they have been trying to figure it out for 150 years.” or if “We have been unable to do anything remotely like this in the lab.” what bearing has that have on the theory?

While examples of one may be great for religion, you don’t make science from one data point. You use the preponderance of the evidence.

I’m reminded of the anti-evolutionist who was harping to the failure of scientists to discover how ants evolved from wasps. It was his big clincher that ants were created as they were…and then about 30 years ago they found the transitional Ur-ant (exactly where the theory predicted). Boy was he embarrassed

Remember :
(1) just because an answer hasn’t been found doesn’t mean there isn’t one
(2) just because an answer hasn’t been found using one explanation doesn’t make any other explanation automatically any more valid
(3) If Science were so easy and intuitively obvious then we’d all understand it and there wouldn’t be a need for any more work to be done
(4) as Einstein said “It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven.”
&
(5) God had 4.5 billions years to work on this…150 years is nothing
Tom Bethell:

George Will recently said that the Kansas Board of Education (which on Election Day voted to amend science standards in favor of intelligent design) is controlled “by the kind of conservatives who make conservatism repulsive to temperate people.”

Amen brother George!
testify
Tom Bethell:

We are expected to believe — and I do mean believe — that evolution answers the important question: How did life, in all its abundance, appear on Earth?

Abiogeneses is a separate theory from evolution
if he’s going to do a critique then he should know his subject.
Tom Bethell:

The underlying problem, rarely discussed, is that the conclusions of evolutionism are based not on science, but on a philosophy: the philosophy of materialism, or naturalism.

this seems to be the new mantra of the ID crowd. Do they have meetings where they pass out notes?
What he says is specious. Evolution is surely based on science. While there may be a philosophy of science behind that, evolution is clearly not a philosophy.

And of course science is naturalistic and materialistic! (And rational for that matter) It has never claimed to be anything more!
what do you expect? You can’t measure the supernatural or anything isn’t material.

If He wants to know how natural, material things works than ask a scientist. Don’t fault science for not providing meaning, that’s not its job. If he wants meaning he may want to talk to the chaplain

 

[Sugar_Ray]

ChrisW:

I see your point, but what I think the article addresses quite nicely is something I’ve been mentioning on the thread which is the idea that when evolutionsists say that evolution is a fact they need to be much more precise in what they mean.

From my perspective it is damaging to our society to have people hearing scientists say that evolution is settled fact and interpreting that to mean that all life began by accident and that man evolved as the resut of an unguided process.

And as Cardinal Schonborn’s document says so well when scientists assert that life began by chance and that evolution is random they are going beyond the boundaries of science and are actually stating a belief for which they have supporting evidence.
Not unlike ID.

I think the article supports this argument better than I could.

 

[steveandersen]

Sugar Ray:

…I see your point, but what I think the article addresses quite nicely is something I’ve been mentioning on the thread which is the idea that when evolutionsists say that evolution is a fact they need to be much more precise in what they mean.

they are usually fairly precise in my experience
it is non-scientists like Mr. Bethell that tend to get a little fuzzy on their facts

there is both the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution which as (then) Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out is held by scientists to be nearly certain. Which is about as close to “fact” as a theory will ever get. I’m not sure how much more precise they can get.
Sugar Ray:

From my perspective it is damaging to our society to have people hearing scientists say that evolution is settled fact

how so?
Sugar Ray:

and interpreting that to mean that all life began by accident

chemistry is actually quite deterministic so be careful when you use the term “accident”
things change for a whole lot of reasons. Some of those are completely random but others are not.

(Some might even see this determinism as the Hand of God)

(FWIW as I understand it, recent developments in quantum mechanics hint that many physical constants may also be fixed by the underlying structure of matter…another finger print?)
Sugar Ray:

and that man evolved as the resut of an unguided process.

how would you tell a guided from an unguided process?
How would you test for it?
If you can’t then it is non-falsifiable and/or violates the principle of parsimony and is therefore not science

(Forgive me but it seems odd that you start off criticizing scientists for not being precise enough but then don’t want to pay heed to a fairly precise, straight forward definition of what constitutes a valid theory)
Sugar Ray:

And as Cardinal Schonborn’s document says so well when scientists assert that life began by chance and that evolution is random they are going beyond the boundaries of science and are actually stating a belief for which they have supporting evidence.
Not unlike ID…

err… why would you need to believe in something for which you had supporting evidence? You would know it…after all, you have evidence.

It seems that belief comes in when you don’t have supporting evidence.

 

[Sugar_Ray]

stevenandersen:

People look for evidence to support the things they believe but that does not mean they will ever prove what they believe.

You mentioned that the random development of organisms cannot be verified or proven. I would say the same for many aspects of evolution including the origen of life as a chance occurence and the evolution of man from a lower being. None of these things can be tested and proven.

Yet, as I have said before, in my experience most laypeople consider evolution to mean exactly those things, which is why it is damaging to society when scientists say evolution is fact because it creates the impression that to believe God has created all things is primitive and foolish. As a result God is diminished in society. This is what mean by being more precise, especially regarding what is taught in schools.

In addition, evolutionists need to be more accepting, in my opinion, of the beliefs of creationists. This thread has gone on for forever and a day with evolutionists trying to convince creationists that they need to accept the scientific fact of evolution.

But as the article I submitted shows there is plenty of room to doubt evolution and that what we are really talking about are two different philosiphies, one that depends on God completey and the other that operates as if God does not exist in order to provide a natural explanation for everything.

Niether can be proven or falsified. But both will go on forever (as this thread might) collecting evidence to support their BELIEFS.

 

[wanerious]

Sugar Ray:

You mentioned that the random development of organisms cannot be verified or proven. I would say the same for many aspects of evolution including the origen of life as a chance occurence and the evolution of man from a lower being. None of these things can be tested and proven.

Not proven, but the underlying ideas and principles can be tested to lend a degree of credibility to the theory. Just because one non-scientist in this article (or many) don’t understand the science or principles does not make them any less valid.

Yet, as I have said before, in my experience most laypeople consider evolution to mean exactly those things, which is why it is damaging to society when scientists say evolution is fact because it creates the impression that to believe God has created all things is primitive and foolish. As a result God is diminished in society. This is what mean by being more precise, especially regarding what is taught in schools.

Sure, we should strive to be precise and accurate, but the opinions of most laypeople matters not a hill of beans. What is even more important, in my opinion, is for laypeople to also be willing to modify their personal understanding of theology. There are ways to imagine God creating all things that are indeed primitive and foolish, and ways to imagine him creating all things that are subtle and beautiful. The misunderstanding and misapplication of science in society is not only the fault of journalists and scientists. Each person should take upon himself the responsibility to understand that which he professes opinions about. The author of this article is not well-versed in scientific matters, and yet would offer his opinion authoritatively where no authority exists.

In addition, evolutionists need to be more accepting, in my opinion, of the beliefs of creationists. This thread has gone on for forever and a day with evolutionists trying to convince creationists that they need to accept the scientific fact of evolution.

Why? Why should we be accepting of beliefs for which there is no (and often contrary) evidence? Whether they eventually accept scientific findings or not is their own problem, and probably it has nothing to do with ultimate salvation, so there really is no need to accept it, but if they pretend to argue against science they had better know what they’re up against.

and that what we are really talking about are two different philosiphies, one that depends on God completey and the other that operates as if God does not exist in order to provide a natural explanation for everything.

I agree with this. There is an assumption we make while doing science that there is a natural explanation for everything. So far, it’s worked out pretty well.

Niether can be proven or falsified. But both will go on forever (as this thread might) collecting evidence to support their BELIEFS.

This is 100% wrong. Natural explanations can certainly be falsified and, more often, modified as we conduct more sensitive observations. Supernatural explanations, necessarily, are invoked to fill in the “gaps” in natural explanations.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

I agree with this. There is an assumption we make while doing science that there is a natural explanation for everything. So far, it’s worked out pretty well.

.

Since scientists are curious by nature and science by definition is limited in what it can say about the universe it is curious to me why scientists would limit their understanding.