Ignorance and evolution

[Camron]

Much of it derives from the propensity of The Mighty And August Enlightened Scientific Minds Of All Superior Wisdom to take any sources provided here (and not just by me—by others as well), and instead of reading it first hand to see what’s in it, they instead read what somebody else who thinks just like they do has said about it, and then they come back and ridicule the source, the provider of the source, and what they think the source contains.

That may be true. But the Church has allowed us speculate on our origins on some parts, since it’s not written in stone for some matters. I do believe that the Book of Genesis does contain allegory that has kernals of literal truth written with metaphors of distinctly Jewish poetry that has spiritual truths blended into it.

Are you actually open to theistic evolution?

After you’ve been shat on enough times, you just shrug and walk away. If they don’t want to listen, they won’t. It’s more edifying to break off further contact with evolutionists who claim to be Christians, but whose arrogance, condescention, selective quoting of Vatican texts, and utmost glee in running others down belies the title of the Savior they claim to serve. There are those here who do serve a god, but the god is not Christ: the god is Love of Argument. They will argue simply for the sheer joy of arguing, and to denegrate anybody else who does not agree with them.

I’ve had experiences like this in other areas. But just keep in mind that not everybody knows what they’re talking about. With more than a few issues people simply have their convictions, convictions which they are very passionate about.

That’s why most of them are on my “Ignore” list, and I don’t engage them any more. I may comment from time to time, but by and large, I don’t waste time with these people any more…I don’t have to roll in pig manure to recognize it when I see it. Besides which, the Apostle Paul (1 Timothy 1:3-5, Titus 3:9) enjoins us to avoid foolish and endless arguments, and that’s exactly what I intend to do.

God bless all here.

I guess one thing that I am curious about is whether these arguments pushed you away from theistic evolution or not. I am saddened by the potential for someone to push another way from a potential truth regarding God’s Creation simply because they did a poor job being His ambassador (so to speak).

Are you saying that science has definitely proven that evolution is impossible? If so, I will admit that I don’t agree with that. There is much good science in place to infer the evolution of humanity from prior species, and that we have a shared ancestor with certain species alive today. But if you’re saying that you personally don’t accept evolution on religious grounds (cf. God’s Creative Act), then I can accept this even if I don’t agree with it.

 

[ricmat]

Are you saying that science has definitely proven that evolution is impossible? If so, I will admit that I don’t agree with that. There is much good science in place to infer the evolution of humanity from prior species, and that we have a shared ancestor with certain species alive today. But if you’re saying that you personally don’t accept evolution on religious grounds (cf. God’s Creative Act), then I can accept this even if I don’t agree with it.

Although your post was addressed to someone else, I have a comment.

God Bless You Camron! Someone who believes in evolution (or Theistic Evolution anyway), and can accept the beliefs of others that they don’t agree with.

Your posts have always been polite, honest (in the sense of not cutting and pasting others’ comments to make your arguments easier), and respectful.

Thank you. Thank you. Welcome to the forums.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian
Common descent is the most encompassing statement of evolutionary theory. It subsumes natural selection, speciation, etc. In general, it is the last thing creationists will accept about evolution, precisely because accepting that means accepting all the rest of it.

This has nothing to do with “creationist” accepting something or not.

It is about the pope acknowledging the most encompassing theory of evolution.

You said that the pope said that evolution was virtually certain, trying to get us to believe that this is a church teaching.

No, it merely illustrates the teaching of the church that evolution is not contrary to the teaching of the Church. Obviously, if it was, the pope would not have so endorsed it. (as a scientific fact, not a teaching of the Church)

In fact, the pope mentioned common descent, which is not the same as “evolution”, but only a part of it, and not the whole thing.

Actually, common descent is all of it. It subsumes all of Darwin’s theory, and the additions to the theory since.

Barbarian observes:
It was merely an observation by the pope; since it’s a scientific observation, I would not want it in the Catechism.

Yes, it was merely an observation by the pope, sort of like “It is virtually certain that the New England Patriots will win the Super Bowl.” Or “It is virtually certain that it will rain during my vacation next week.”

Assuming that there wasn’t a huge body of evidence so indicating that fact. If you think it’s like predicting a football game, then you have some study to do. The magisterial teaching from this is not that evolution is true (although he acknowledges that it is). It is that evolution is not contrary to our faith.

Barbarian observes:
Model" is usually the way the creationists do it. But yes, Catholics are permitted to accept scientific theories that do not include God. Indeed, as the pope pointed out, scientific theories should not be about God.

Again, creationists have nothing to do with this,

Words mean things. Creationists often use “model” when they refer to scientific theories. They are quite different things.

Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.

Yes. This refers to non-scientific notions of evolution, since no scientific theory can deny God or His role in the world.

Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.

Yes, quite properly, the Church does not require one to accept scientific theories.

Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).

Yes, science cannot be strictly materialistic, since it is unable to deny God’s role in the world. Some “theories” (not scientific ones) have been raised by others to deny God. As the pope says, this is not science at all.

Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

For example the one held by science, which the last two popes have held to be supported by compelling evidence, even “virtually certain.”

Barbarian observes:
I will again state that I found nothing in your quote from the Catechism to which I could not completely agree.

There seems to be a big discrepancy between what you agreed to before, and what you’re saying now.

I don’t see how. I suspect that you are somehow conflating methodological naturalism with strict materialism, but that’s just a guess.

Maybe there’s some assumptions that haven’t been examined properly?

 

[ricmat]

Maybe there’s some assumptions that haven’t been examined properly?

My concern with your post to Jmcrae (who I believe is new in this thread) was that she might be led to believe by your comments that Catholics could accept theories of Evolution which deny God.

You quoted “somebody” who I assume was jmcrae as saying:

                           First, God must be involved.

To which you responded:

No. [then followed by what appeared to be comments related to some other question]

As I’ve said, your posts are confusing, because you don’t include the entire post of who you are talking to (thereby deleting valuable background information), nor do you indicate where the quote came from that you are responding to. It would really help if you did that.

 

[garysibio]

The Catholic Church is aware of these theories. It has not ruled infallibly as to the age of the earth.

Nor could it since it is a matter of science and not faith or morals.

We really can’t know the age of the Earth. We don’t know when Adam and Eve were created or how much time elapsed between their creation and the fall.

Gary

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Earth is about four and a half billion years old. There are a number of independent lines of evidence showing this fact.

God has given us no way of determining when Adam and Eve lived, since we have no way of measuring when God gave the first man and woman souls or when we first gained a knowledge of good and evil, and became thereby like God.

It doesn’t matter in the long run, or He would have told us, or at least left us with a means to find out.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Now that’s fascinating.
So it does appear that Neanderthal, much like humanity, was certainly capable of rather human traits: they appear to be capable of burying their dead (perhaps even in expectation of an after life), they most likely had the ability to comfort others who suffered, and they appear to have had rudimentary tool development (including the usage of fire).

Did Neanderthal man have an eternal soul capable making it to the afterlife?

They were almost certainly fully human in the sense we think of humanity. There are certainly traces of careful burial and even ritual, which suggests a knowledge of God. Since they clearly cared for others who were unable to care for themselves (we have examples of crippled Neandertals who would have had to depend on others to live) they seem to have had a sense of right and wrong.

I believe that they did each have an immortal soul. But remember, they and anatomically modern humans diverged earlier. The earliest Neandertals look more like us than later ones did.

Suppose we had never evolved beyond H. erectus. Would that mean anything to God, if we had an immortal soul, and a sense of good and evil? The difference between us and early man is nothing at all, compared to the difference between man and God.

And yet He still loves us. Not because we are wonderous or powerful or good. It is because He has given us the great gift of an immortal soul and the potential to share all of creation with Him.

 

[garysibio]

Maybe He has revealed this knowledge to us through nature itself. <<

I believe that God does reveal Himself through nature as well as Scripture but the two revelations cannot contradict each other. If creation were gradual, we would obviously need a lot of time. I’m not so sure that there has been sufficient time. I’ve addressed the problems with Potassium-Argon dating before so I won’t go into that here but there is also evidence to show the Earth is relatively young. Scientists usually ignore this evidence because it doesn’t fit in with their preconceptions (that is, their religion).

Let me give you an example. Back in the early days of the space program we sent a probe that was to land on the moon. Knowing the rate at which meteoritic dust accumulates on the moon and assuming that the moon was around 4 billion years old, scientists believed that the probe would be buried in the dust. (This was one of the things that needed to be looked at before we could send someone up there.) When the probe landed scientists were surprised to discover that the dust was only an inch or two thick. This would indicate that the moon is much younger than the 4 billion years, a minute fraction of it. However, since it contradicts the established dogma, you won’t hear scientists talk about this.

When Eve’s labor pains were increase due to partaking in the TotKoG&E, <<

Please fill in th gap in my education. What is that?

I’ve sometimes even wondered if the days should even be through of as chronological at all. For example, King David is called the “firstborn” even though he is the “eighth son” of Jesse. Maybe the days of Genesis are actually ranked by Biblical numbers according to “importance” instead of having a literal “chronological” significance. <<

You’ve kinda answered your own point here. The title ‘firstborn’ has nothing to do with chronology. On the other hand, the word ‘day’ in Gen 1 is preceded by the phrase ‘evening and morning.’ In other words, day is defined as evening and morning.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Why is it that Evolutionists continue to believe in their phantasy even though it is continually disproven? They continue to come up with revisions like “punctuated equelibrium”, and other scientific sounding nonesense.

The problem is that the theory of evolution has turned science into a religion with its own dogma which must be believed or the non-believers will be shunned.

Gary

 

[jmcrae]

On the other hand, the word ‘day’ in Gen 1 is preceded by the phrase ‘evening and morning.’ In other words, day is defined as evening and morning.

Gary

There is nothing that requires that the days of Creation be directly consecutive - there could have been an unspecified amount of time between them, since obviously the trees in the garden (which were created on the fifth day) had grown up by the time Adam and Eve were created.

This is neither here nor there, though. I don’t have a problem with the time issue - and even if humanity is billions of years old, although I consider it unlikely, it doesn’t take anything away from God, or from what we are supposed to believe in. Nor is there any issue if God created adult trees on the fifth day, and then right away created the animals and the people the very next day.

Where I have trouble is the idea of Adam and Eve being born to non-humans. That is the part that makes absolutely no sense to me. I do not think this idea corresponds at all to the way that God has designed the world to be.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The problem is that the theory of evolution has turned science into a religion with its own dogma which must be believed or the non-believers will be shunned.

Perhaps you don’t know what “dogma” means. Evolutionary theory has been repeatedly modified as new evidence has indicated.

This is precisely the opposite of dogma: it is immutable.

 

[garysibio]

There is nothing that requires that the days of Creation be directly consecutive - there could have been an unspecified amount of time between them, since obviously the trees in the garden (which were created on the fifth day) had grown up by the time Adam and Eve were created.

Well, since the plants were created on the third day and the sun on the fourth, I don’t see where there’s room for a lot of time to pass in between them.

Also, in the book of Exodus when the sabbath rest is established, the week there is tied in with the week of creation with God resting on the seventh day. (After all, did God really need to rest?)

Gary

 

[Camron]

Maybe He has revealed this knowledge to us through nature itself. <<

I thought that was discreditted already. In other words, based on the creationist sites I’ve read, many of them do not hold this position any longer.

When Eve’s labor pains were increase due to partaking in the TotKoG&E, <<

Please fill in th gap in my education. What is that?

TotKoG&E = Tree of the Knowledge of the Good and Evil.

I just used an anacronym instead of spelling it out.

I was just suggesting that increased knowledge, corresponding to increased cranium size, has indeed led to a more painful delivery for woman giving birth.

I’ve sometimes even wondered if the days should even be through of as chronological at all. For example, King David is called the “firstborn” even though he is the “eighth son” of Jesse. Maybe the days of Genesis are actually ranked by Biblical numbers according to “importance” instead of having a literal “chronological” significance. <<

You’ve kinda answered your own point here. The title ‘firstborn’ has nothing to do with chronology. On the other hand, the word ‘day’ in Gen 1 is preceded by the phrase ‘evening and morning.’ In other words, day is defined as evening and morning.

Gary

Yes. But numbers within the Bible seem to have added significance. It may mean something besides a simple chronology. Bearing in mind that other geological evidences which God allowed us to understand contradict a young earth, it seems reasonable to conclude that these days within Genesis are not talking about literal 24 hour days. They seem to be a metaphor for something else.

 

[garysibio]

re: lunar dust

I thought that was discreditted already. In other words, based on the creationist sites I’ve read, many of them do not hold this position any longer. <<

I don’t spend a lot of time on creationist sites so I wouldn’t know about that but it seems to me that something like this would be pretty hard to dismiss. If you know how much of the stuff falls on the moon during a given period, it should be easy to calculate how much of it should be there.

I suppose there could be some mechanism that converts the dust into something harder but it would have to be a very fast process in geological terms to keep the existing layer so thin. You would think that any process capable of doing that would also smooth out the craters over time. I know that new ones are formed constantly - a few months ago NASA release a photo of a meteor hitting the lunar surface - but not in sufficient numbers to produce the number of craters we see.

TotKoG&E = Tree of the Knowledge of the Good and Evil. <<

Thanks. I should have been able to figure that one out.

Yes. But numbers within the Bible seem to have added significance. It may mean something besides a simple chronology. Bearing in mind that other geological evidences which God allowed us to understand contradict a young earth, it seems reasonable to conclude that these days within Genesis are not talking about literal 24 hour days. They seem to be a metaphor for something else. <<

While numbers in the Bible sometimes do have a special symbolic meaning, to quote Freud, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” Not all numbers in the Bible are symbolic. Sometimes they mean exactly what they say.

Gary

 

[jmcrae]

Well, since the plants were created on the third day and the sun on the fourth, I don’t see where there’s room for a lot of time to pass in between them.

Also, in the book of Exodus when the sabbath rest is established, the week there is tied in with the week of creation with God resting on the seventh day. (After all, did God really need to rest?)

Gary

You know like how the Second Day of Advent is seven days after the First Day of Advent, maybe there were ordinary days in between the First Day of Creation and the Second Day of Creation. I’m just throwing that out there as an idea - I don’t think the story itself indicates one way or another whether the Days of Creation actually have to be one right after the other, with no ordinary days in between.

 

[garysibio]

You know like how the Second Day of Advent is seven days after the First Day of Advent, maybe there were ordinary days in between the First Day of Creation and the Second Day of Creation. I’m just throwing that out there as an idea - I don’t think the story itself indicates one way or another whether the Days of Creation actually have to be one right after the other, with no ordinary days in between.

I believ if you look on the liturgical calendar you will see that it is the ‘First Sunday of Advent’ followed seven days later by the ‘Second Sunday of Lent,’ etc. Unless they changed something when we made the switch to daylight savings time, this is pretty much the pattern all year.

Gary

 

[The_Barbarian]

The “moon dust” scam depends on a faulty estimate of the amount of meteorite dust. Early estimates of “space dust” in the upper atmosphere turned out to be wildly inflated; most of it was actually ordinary Earth dust.

So, by the time the Apollo missions were planned, the engineers were pretty sure that there wouldn’t be a huge layer of dust. But the lander had wide feet to make sure that it woudn’t sink into a broken regolith caused by meteorite damage. Because there is essentially no weathering or erosion on the moon, the rocks broken from impacts stay that way for a long time.

 

[Camron]

Yes. But numbers within the Bible seem to have added significance. It may mean something besides a simple chronology. Bearing in mind that other geological evidences which God allowed us to understand contradict a young earth, it seems reasonable to conclude that these days within Genesis are not talking about literal 24 hour days. They seem to be a metaphor for something else. <<

According to Jonathan Sarfati, the days of Genesis 1 have an interesting pattern in the Hebrew, which is not often reflected in English translations.

The first day has a cardinal number (i.e. one, two, three … ), יום אחד (yôm echad*****) Day One.

The others have ordinal numbers (second, third, fourth … ).

Also, days 2–5 lack a definite article (ה, ha, ‘the’) while days 6–7 have one.

So a literal translation of Creation Week would be:

Day One, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day.

You can see the information at this sight for further reference.

Nonetheless, if these numbers mean exactly what they say, then why are they worded in this way in the Hebrew language?

Is it possible the God may be revealing something about His will in the oldest parts of the Bible by allowing the Holy Spirit to inspire these distinctions within the pattern of the Days of Genesis?

This brings me back to my previous post…

I’ve sometimes even wondered if the days should even be thought of as chronological at all. For example, King David is called the “firstborn” even though he is the “eighth son” of Jesse. Maybe the days of Genesis are actually ranked by Biblical numbers according to “importance” instead of having a literal “chronological” significance.

I’ve read the article’s rebuttal and was not impressed with their response. They’ve only asserted what they believe to be true, which is fair. But it’s far from proven or even strongly indicated in my opinion. And I thought I would get your thoughts on this too.

---

*****I also find it interesting that the “echad” is used for Day One [echad], which is most often used to indicate a unified one, or sometimes a numeric oneness.

For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 “the two shall become one [echad] flesh” it is the same word for “one” that was used in Deuteronomy 6:4.

This can also be seen in one people (Genesis 11:6; 34:16, 22), one heart (2 Chronicles 30:12; Jeremiah 32:39), and two objects becoming one (Ezekiel 37:17).

All these examples use echad.

 

[Camron]

Where I have trouble is the idea of Adam and Eve being born to non-humans. That is the part that makes absolutely no sense to me. I do not think this idea corresponds at all to the way that God has designed the world to be.

Why?

What do you think of this passage from the Bible?

But God gives it a body as He has determined, and to each kind of seed He gives its own body.

All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.

1 Corinthians 15:38-40​

 

[garysibio]

Cameron,

All these theories about what the numbers could mean are very interesting but they could also just be exactly what they appear to be, nothing more, nothing less. We’re not dealing with a book written as apocalyptic literature, where everything is symbolic. The book of Genesis is written as history. Genesis tells us that Jacob had 12 sons. Is that literally true or is it just symbolic? Were Abraham and Sarah as old as we are told? We take these numbers literally, why not the seven days of Gen 1?

I’m not a literalist. I realize the Bible contains metaphors, poetry, apocalyptic literature and even novels (book-length fables such as Tobit and Job.). However it also contains history. (This is not to say that the Bible is a history book, that is not its intent. However, when it gives us history, we can believe it is accurate.)

It is clear that the Gen 12 on is intended to be read as history. What is it about 1 through 11 that differentiates that portion from the rest? If there was a good textual reason for thinking it different, I wouldn’t have a problem with taking it symbolically but I just don’t see anything that justifies making that distinction. Do you believe that there was a universal flood? If not, then why are functionally identical flood stories found all over the world?

Gary