Liberalsaved:
Evolution does not make life meaningless. Meaning in life comes from your actions, the kind of person you are, what you do in relation to your fellow man. It isn’t the result of where you came from. Can you say that a Christian who does nothing helpful with his or her life has a meaningful life? Or, what about those Christians who do negative things with their life?
Meaning comes from what you do, not what you are.
Thank you. To me the fact that all or part of me has possible origins in “lower” forms of life is no more of an insult to human dignity to realize that we breathe the same air, drink the same water, eat much of the same food, and reproduce in precisely the same manner as dogs. Since we are humans with souls, we have the capability of making our lives in service to God – not that all the animals aren’t also by proxy through us, THE species which God considers “in His image.”
The statement by the Holy Father seems very tentative especially the part “if you ask me.” This, to me, indicates he is NOT holding himself up as an expert in this area, and is reacting on the basis of incomplete information. Based on what he has been told about evolution that is probably a very appropriate stance.
Not only that, but really, what is this “I” that is human? Does it or does it not include the myriad bacteria and other living organisms inside me without which I could not live? This “I” is more than just a single living being in an abyss of nothingness. Is the space inside my mouth part of me, or am I just borrowing it? What is a “voluntary” human action? Do I breathe, or am I “breathed?” In short, I don’t think anyone can give me a precise answer for where their neck ends and their head begins – although there is some notion that might matter differently depending on whether we ask a plastic surgeon or a painter.
Yesterday I was discussing this with a friend who believes in micro-evolution (adaptation) but not macro-evolution (production of a new species). It occurred to me (too late for our discussion) that whether we are of the same species is really a matter of human definition than anything else. I think we can agree that the DNA of an organism is pretty well linked to what species something is. Guess what? We decide arbitrarily on species based on their looks, their behavior, and whatever else has gone into taxonomy, and now we find that we are about 99% the same in DNA.
Do we even know enough about species to understand what it is that we – as scientists – even consider one species or the other? Scientists may still not be in agreement whether white tigers are a separate subspecies as others.
To say that macroevolution does not occur is to say that the universe has hard and fast delimiting mechanisms on species, that neatly fall in line according to current scientific theory, and that the universe nicely “obeys” that part of scientific theory but ignores the others. Keep in mind that taxonomy and the identification of species (a continuation of Adam’s work in the garden to name the animals) is all based on evolutionary theory, lest two breeds of dog be thought of as just as different as dust is from a human being. One can become the other, but not directly and such that is can be recreated in a lab.
If one species cannot create another, then the mule must not exist. Sure it’s sterile, but wanna place bets on whether we can get enough mules over the next million years that some could reproduce?
Therefore, a person who says there is microevolution but no macroevolution is borrowing from science for the purposes of disagreeing with it, and is IMO very likely confused. Maybe that’s all they’ve seen in “recorded history” but are we so arrogant to think that everything that has ever happened in the world was recorded in our history books? If one were to be consistent, one would have to abandon the idea of “species” altogether, and then such a person would have nothing to say at all.
Alan
