Is evolution a fact?

[Orogeny]

I thought calculations in gravity did minutely change and gravity conceptually changed as to its nature and how we functionally calculate gravity for rockets and stuff also changed. Seems to me to be a strong argument for scepticism of the scientific community, not scepticism of science.

OK, so you don’t understand the difference between the fact of gravity (gravity exists) and our theories as to how it works (ie those calculations you reference). I’m not sure how to make it more clear to you. Do you agree that gravity exists (is a FACT)? If not, this discussion is most certainly over. If so, where is the confusion you are having coming from?

Reminds me of the Global Warming debate and how people are getting threatened with being fired if they have alternate theories regarding global warming. Scary stuff. The scientific community has a mindset. Level playing field, indeed.

Even global warming critics (or at least the ones I am aware of) agree that the globe is warming, no? In this example, global warming would be the FACT. Most scientists say that the warming is driven mostly by human activity. That is their way of explaining a fact. Their stance would be the THEORY.

If you like to trumpet that Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not incompatible, I would really like to beg you also to work on how this can be an ecumenical tool for atheists who have entrapped themselves in a metaphysics based on their interpretation of evolution. Doing so without denying scientific method I agree would be laudable and in fact required to reach out to them I think. Someone with your passion for evolution and your faith would be perfect for this

I actually have these discussions with some of my agnostic friends. The problem isn’t getting them to get beyond the idea that life has arisen from completely natural means, it is getting them to understand that God IS those natural means. I would think the same approach would be appropriate with athiests. But the problem is is that evolution isn’t why people are athiests. It may be an excuse, but no the reason.

Peace

Tim

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

OK, so you don’t understand the difference between the fact of gravity (gravity exists) and our theories as to how it works (ie those calculations you reference). I’m not sure how to make it more clear to you. Do you agree that gravity exists (is a FACT)?

Tim

Gravity exists. I do not think I ever called that into question. The nature and how we understand that went through a pretty significant change. Also its scope changed (Gravity having an impact on time/space)

Evolution within a species exists. That is a fact. Is it possible that its scope could also change?

peace

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

sidebar

I geuss one issue with some theories is that it seems like people expect me to have a kind of assent to those theories on the same level that I assent to the Nicene creed. It just seems wrong to give that kind of assent to human knowlege, but you are shunned if you do not give that assent. Just does not seem very scientific to me, particularly when the complexity of sciences requires a lifetime of study, I am essentially making a faith assent even if I assiduously follow a particular field. very frustrating

 

[steveandersen]

With evolution I still see the problem of Adam and Eve being conceived in sub-humans. It spins into a Jungle Book type story of being raised and nursed by gorillas until Adam realized he was made in God’s image and decided to disobey.

Not necessarily sub-human, just not fully human. Biologically things don’t change species in a single generation.

Evolution deals with divergence between populations so it can say nothing about particular individuals. Any Jungle Book creation is your own.

However in that case when Adam called his mother in law a big dumb ape I guess he was right.

Apes beget apes, and Man is an ape,
which means that a man’s mother is also an ape.
Apes have given birth to man
just as birds beget ducks
cetaceans beget dolphins
and canids beget dogs.
link

And the other problem is the evolution proposed in the school textbooks wont allow the Catholic notion that man was made in God’s image and that Adam and Eve were the first humans, so yes this does are undermining the faith on those grounds.

You want the public schools to start teaching the Faith?

 

[Orogeny]

Gravity exists. I do not think I ever called that into question. The nature and how we understand that went through a pretty significant change. Also its scope changed (Gravity having an impact on time/space)

Evolution within a species exists. That is a fact. Is it possible that its scope could also change?

peace

Gravity is the same as it always was. Our understanding of how it works in given conditions has changed, but the fact that gravity exists has not. Same as evolution. Our understanding of how it works has changed since Darwin’s time, but the fact that evolution exists has not. It is not only possible that our understanding of how evolution works will change, I would say it is likely.

Peace

Tim

 

[Future_Prodigy]

Yes, at a time God saw fit he gave us the gift of a soul.

The human soal did not evolve.

You seem to doubt God could do that?

No i do not doubt that but that is what i was asking the whole time. I wanted to make sure we weren’t falling down into a brahminical type religion where apes and other creatures had souls like us. So The Christians who do hold to evolution believe at one point in time we were given a soul whereas our sub-human predecessors did not get one?

 

[Pondero]

so when did we have souls… was it part way through the evolution process that ‘bam’ all of a sudden we had a soul that was sparked into us and not our primate ancestors?

No, it couldn’t be that. We have souls at the first moments of conception as human beings. There is no evidence in our religion that an ape was given a soul.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Not necessarily sub-human, just not fully human. Biologically things don’t change species in a single generation.

What is your distinction between sub-human and “not fully human”? I see them as one in the same.

Evolution deals with divergence between populations so it can say nothing about particular individuals. Any Jungle Book creation is your own.

My references to Jungle Book were due to the fact adam was raised by sub-humans, not much different than apes compared to humans today. Are you trying to say Adam’s sub-human parents didnt raise him according to their animal instincts?

Apes beget apes, and Man is an ape,
which means that a man’s mother is also an ape.
Apes have given birth to man
just as birds beget ducks
cetaceans beget dolphins
and canids beget dogs.
link

Not sure what your getting at, you appear to agree with the notion that Adam was conceived in a sub-human.

You want the public schools to start teaching the Faith?

That would be nice. As it stands now, what children are being taught slamms the door on the teachings of a human soul, mono-genism and original sin, as well as other issues.

 

[steveandersen]

What is your distinction between sub-human and “not fully human”? I see them as one in the same.

to me the term sub-human implies something that is not biologically human.

I use the term Fully Human to mean a biological human with a soul. IIRC the CCC teaches that Adam was the first to be fully human and that humans have a physical and spiritual nature.

My references to Jungle Book were due to the fact adam was raised by sub-humans, not much different than apes compared to humans today. Are you trying to say Adam’s sub-human parents didnt raise him according to their animal instincts?

I imagine they had to. What the limits of Homo sapiens prior to being ensouled were I do not know.
Some suggest that the Paleolithic Revolution is an indication of humans being given souls. That is a little late in the game for modern genetic distributions I think.

Not sure what your getting at, you appear to agree with the notion that Adam was conceived in a sub-human.

I’m saying that he had biologically human parents.

That would be nice. As it stands now, what children are being taught slamms the door on the teachings of a human soul, mono-genism and original sin, as well as other issues.

I don’t want the government teaching about the soul. Whose teachings would they use?
I only want them to teach things that they can back up with data.

Science does teach mongenism of a sort. But it says that there was a common original population since it can’t speak of individual pairs. A few centuries ago some Christian scholars taught a sort of polygenism with the world divided into non-Adamites, Semites, Hamites, etc. Fortunately we know better now.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

I’m saying that he had biologically human parents.

at some point he had to have had non biological human parents because that is what evolution says.

 

[Orogeny]

at some point he had to have had non biological human parents because that is what evolution says.

??? Adam could only possibly have one set of parents.

Peace

Tim

 

[Catholic_Dude]

To me the term sub-human implies something that is not biologically human.

I use the term Fully Human to mean a biological human with a soul. IIRC the CCC teaches that Adam was the first to be fully human and that humans have a physical and spiritual nature.

Your saying “not fully human” means a biological human withOUT a soul, that is a sub-human to me, it is something infinitely inferior to a full human. Your idea proposes that there were multiple human looking animals walking around yet two of them were given souls one day.

I imagine they had to. What the limits of Homo sapiens prior to being ensouled were I do not know.
Some suggest that the Paleolithic Revolution is an indication of humans being given souls. That is a little late in the game for modern genetic distributions I think.

So you agree there was a jungle book situation going on.

I don’t want the government teaching about the soul. Whose teachings would they use?
I only want them to teach things that they can back up with data.

You dont want them teaching about the soul?..there is a moral meltdown in our culture today because the concept of soul is seen as “unscientific” and hence no need for morality/ethics.

Whose teaching should they use…the Christian one, the same principles the civil laws are based on (eg along the lines of the 10 Commandments).

Science does teach mongenism of a sort. But it says that there was a common original population since it can’t speak of individual pairs. A few centuries ago some Christian scholars taught a sort of polygenism with the world divided into non-Adamites, Semites, Hamites, etc. Fortunately we know better now.

The idea that we all came from a single set of parents is unsupported (or at least one of a few of possibilities) and would never be put in science textbooks.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

Your saying “not fully human” means a biological human withOUT a soul, that is a sub-human to me, it is something infinitely inferior to a full human. Your idea proposes that there were multiple human looking animals walking around yet two of them were given souls one day.

thats what i’m saying too yet somehow i keep gettin these one word answers back. This is what ppl are implying but not accepting.

 

[Orogeny]

thats what i’m saying too yet somehow i keep gettin these one word answers back. This is what ppl are implying but not accepting.

I won’t answer for anyone else, but I would expect that it was something like that.

There you go. A multiple word answer!

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

at some point he had to have had non biological human parents because that is what evolution says.

that certainly is not what it says

unless by parents you mean very remote ancestors

 

[steveandersen]

Your saying “not fully human” means a biological human withOUT a soul, that is a sub-human to me, it is something infinitely inferior to a full human.

A question of semantics I suppose. “sub-human” reminds me too much of the Nazis.

Your idea proposes that there were multiple human looking animals walking around yet two of them were given souls one day.

That appears to be what the evidence suggests

So you agree there was a jungle book situation going on.

Well no. In Jungle Book Mogli was raised by wolves.

You dont want them teaching about the soul?..

Since the schools do such a poor job teach something as straightforward as science I would be afraid to see what they would make of the soul. Curricula get mired in politics.

there is a moral meltdown in our culture today because the concept of soul is seen as “unscientific” and hence no need for morality/ethics.

Well technically spiritual things are beyond the realm of science. But I don’t agree with you that it is therefore the cause of immorality. History is full of pre-scientific people whose morality left much to be desired.
I for one am an optimist and don’t buy into that “it was better in the old days” routine. I saw a piece on the news the other day of a convent in the mid-West that had only 7 sisters a few years ago and now has 72. Hope springs eternal.

Whose teaching should they use…the Christian one, the same principles the civil laws are based on (eg along the lines of the 10 Commandments).

While some of the 10 commandments are reflected in the civil law (e.g. murder, theft, perjury) those are found in non-Christian cultures too
The balance of the 10 commandments has to do with beliefs and thoughts. While that is perfectly OK for the Church, that is something the government has no business regulating.

But if we were to have the government teach on the soul would they only teach one immortal soul per person a la Christianity? Would politics force the inclusion of other ideas of the soul?

The idea that we all came from a single set of parents is unsupported (or at least one of a few of possibilities) and would never be put in science textbooks.

As I said, evolution can’t speak to a single pair. Scientific monogenism refers to a single population.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Should human ability to reason be limited to math and scinece?

If we limit our human ability to reason by only allowing math and science, can we rationally examine things such as love, courage, wisdom, prudence, and forgiveness?

Don’t we make deductions and inductions in other places than just math and science?

Should one examine the origins of the universe with only a limited percentage of one’s ability to reason?

(I have not set the percentage.)

Well, I do not know if this point makes sense.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

As I said, evolution can’t speak to a single pair. Scientific monogenism refers to a single population.

Can you explain what you mean by this? So modern day evolution doesnt support our coming from 2 humans who evolved from subhumans yet were zapped with souls one day? Now this is getting more confussing haha

p.e thanks oregony for a mutlip word answer lol

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Should human ability to reason be limited to math and scinece?

If we limit our human ability to reason by only allowing math and science, can we rationally examine things such as love, courage, wisdom, prudence, and forgiveness?

Don’t we make deductions and inductions in other places than just math and science?

Should one examine the origins of the universe with only a limited percentage of one’s ability to reason?

(I have not set the percentage.)

Well, I do not know if this point make sense.

Let me try again.

It seems to me that many physical scientist refuse to use anything but math and science to solve the big bang and evolution. The better terms are the origin of the universe and human beings.

If that is true: Why do scientists refuse to use all of the humans ability to reason to solve the problems?

They will only use math and science. That leaves a great deal of human ability to reason out.

I am curious, so please don’t think that I trying to cause problems.

 

[Orogeny]

It seems to me that many physical scientist refuse to use anything but math and science to solve the big bang and evolution. The better terms are the origin of the universe and human beings.

Imagine that. A scientist using science. What will they think of next? Perhaps they should use music? Or maybe english literature? How silly of them to use math and science!

If that is true: Why do scientists refuse to use all of the humans ability to reason to solve the problems?

They will only use math and science. That leaves a great deal of human ability to reason out.

I am curious, so please don’t think that I trying to cause problems.

Let’s just forget for a minute that scientists use science and math and assume that they could use “all of the humans ability to reason to solve problems”. What makes you think that the conclusions they reach would be different than when they are using ONLY science and math?

Truth cannot contradict truth.

Peace

Tim