Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy

[PoG]

Posted by Gottle of Geer

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoG
Okay, but you didn’t answer my other questions that followed on from this. If you don’t think it is de fide, at what level of teaching would you classify it?

It’s not taught as true as part of the everyday teaching of the Church, because it is now recognised to rest upon an unduly literal understanding of the passage in question.​

You have already stated that “Arcanum does do this, so it is no definition - what it does do, is rehearses what was already Catholic teaching. ##”. We have seen that this is the doctine of the Church known to all, and which could not be doubted by any, confirmed by Ecumenical Councils, Popes and Bishops. Let’s forget for a minute what you think some modern Bishops may think about the doctrine. If they think in a different way they are in opposition to nearly 2000 years worth of Catholic doctrine. Have you considered that they may be in error? It is recognized to rest upon an unduly literal understanding of the passage by exactly which Magisterial pronouncement?

What I would like to know from you is this; Considering only the Magisterial pronouncements that have already been made on the subject by Ecumenical Councils and Popes at what level of teaching would you consider this doctrine if you do not consider it de fide?

It’s impossible historically, quite apart from anything else, becase it takes for granted a much more recent earth, & a much younger race, than is in fact possible.

Than is in fact, possible? Are you claiming that man possesses complete and infallible knowledge about history and natural processes. I had always thought that science reached tentative conclusions about its investigations - conclusions that change over time. Are you saying that Revealed Truth also changes over time or that tentative scientific conclusions contain more truth, are more accurate than Catholic doctrine?

 

[PoG]

FOR THE ATTENTION OF PHILVAZ

Phil, you posted earlier that you were going to deal with the Magisterial issues of this thread. You probably haven’t seen it because it’s stuck at the bottom of page 1, but I posted some questions for you. Post #100. Thanks.

 

[steveandersen]

The only “going after the throat” I’ve seen on this thread just from browsing it tonight, are the attacks (personal, and then self-congradulatory) against the original poster and the Kolbe Center and Intelligent Design theory.

As I stated above, merely pointing out that someone is saying things that are not correct or are acting in a certain way is not a personal attack.

There you go again posting theory as fact.

There is both the fact of evolution (that is occurs) i.e. phylogeny and the theory of evolution (the proposed mechanism to explain the facts)
I don’t think I said anything that was related to theory.

Or perhaps - it scandalizes the modern version of scientific theory. Wherein does your heart lie?

DustinsDad

Why do I have to choose? Faith and reason can’t contradict. God gave us Creation and the brains to try to understand it.

 

[PoG]

Posted by steveandersen
There is both the fact of evolution (that is occurs) i.e. phylogeny and the theory of evolution (the proposed mechanism to explain the facts)
I don’t think I said anything that was related to theory.

That evolution occurs is a fact and is not in doubt because evolution simply means ‘a development’ or ‘change over time’. We see this all the time as life develops from conception to death. But when speaking of ‘evolution’ it is necessary to make definitions, or distinctions, because the word means different things to different people. The scientific question, which is not the question or subject of this thread, is to what, if any, limit does evolution occur.

Phylogeny is not a fact. It is a study of evolutionary relatedness based upon hypotheses which need to be empirically tested, and which can lead to scientific conclusions. Scientific conclusions are not facts. They are always tentative conclusions that, after further investigation, are developed, amended, changed and so on. Scientific conclusions themselves evolve. They are not immutable facts.

The proposed mechanism for the theory of evolution is not a fact either. It is a hypothesis.

If you want to open a different thread to investigate whether or not mutation and natural selection can account for what the theory of evolution claims, then feel free to do so. It is an interesting subject. I will even join in myself when I have finished contributing to this thread but do not have time to do both at the same time.

 

[steveandersen]

……The scientific question, which is not the question or subject of this thread, is to what, if any, limit does evolution occur.

as I’ve said before you can’t be just a little bit evolved

…… Scientific conclusions themselves evolve. They are not immutable facts.

the observable data on which those conclusions are based are the facts

The proposed mechanism for the theory of evolution is not a fact either. It is a hypothesis.

No, it is (as I said) a theory. It is far far more than a hypothesis. And while science doesn’t use the word “law” any more if they did evolution would probably be first in line for the title. (won’t even mention the observed instances of speciation again for those stuck on “empirical” testing)

Germ theory is just a theory after all but I suggest that the doctor or the chef should wash his hands before starting work.

If you want to open a different thread to investigate whether or not mutation and natural selection can account for what the theory of evolution claims, then feel free to do so. It is an interesting subject. I will even join in myself when I have finished contributing to this thread but do not have time to do both at the same time.

I know you’re new here but we’ve had more threads on evolution than you can shake a stick at. Usually they are started when someone comes here and cuts and pastes text from the Kolbe Center. In the end the threads are all akin to trying to teach a dog Norwegian; it leaves both sides frustrated and the dog still can’t speak Norwegian.
So no, we don’t really need another. But if you want to be my guest.

Your original point was that some Papal statements might indicate that there may be conflicts between Catholic faith and evolution. Others chimed in with a hearty “No there isn’t”.

My point was that as this is an apologetics site we need to be conscious of the image that we present to the world. If we are trying to win hearts and minds we better make sure that what we say is true.

I’m no theologian. You and Phil can probably quote four Popes before I could even name one. But I do know my science. You started this thread by quoting the Kolbe Center. As I said above I don’t know about their theology but their science is often quite wrong so to my mind that makes everything else they say suspect. If they selectively interpret or misrepresent data to support their science views then how do I not know that they are not doing the same when they are mining Papal quotes?

 

[mich2]

That evolution occurs is a fact and is not in doubt because evolution simply means ‘a development’ or ‘change over time’. We see this all the time as life develops from conception to death. But when speaking of ‘evolution’ it is necessary to make definitions, or distinctions, because the word means different things to different people. The scientific question, which is not the question or subject of this thread, is to what, if any, limit does evolution occur.

I am late coming in this thread, so forgive me for not being aware of the whole discussion.PoG, from what you’ve written above, you don’t seem to be completely against a form of “life development”, which many identify as evolution.The analogy of a foetus developing into a full human person (sort of what you wrote) suggests that life could have developped in such a manner, something which you seem to agree with.Your concern seems to be the level of acceptance allowable when including evolution as a personal hypotheses. What would be your personal threshold in accepting some of the thoughts behind the evolutionary theory?

Andre

 

[DustinsDad]

… What would be your personal threshold in accepting some of the thoughts behind the evolutionary theory?

I’ll chime in on this one, myself being a newcomer to this thread. And this will be in layman’s terms, me being a non-scientist backward fundamentalist Catholic Christian type and all.

On the faith side, one threshold is that Adam and Eve weren’t the first man and woman - that the first humans were really a group of human beings. That is a matter of faith on what God has revealed to us. Contrary positions are contrary to both Genisis accounts and New Testament references to Adam, as well as contrary to constant Christian understanding and teaching down through the ages.

On the science side, my threshold is would be the concept that evolution involves species popping out from other species due to random mutations - I’ll allow for evolving traits or characteristics within a given species, but to hop from one species to another because some cosmic rays happened to genetically alter in a positive way and in the exact same positive way two of the same species into two of another species …sorry, I just ain’t bying it. From my limited reading of it - the statistical probabilities of such an occurance happening by chance are just too astronomical - and for such a change to occur for species hopping, it wouldn’t just be one positive change genetically, but bunches of 'em occuring exactly the same way in two critters of the same original species. Something like that.

It’s like the old concept of a chimp sitting at a typewriter - eventually the critter would type out a Shakespear play. Evolution says not only did this occur (a theoritical possibility I suppose), but that it occurred over and over and over again - just by chance. Interesting theory - but I’m not gonna bet the farm on it.

Too me it’s just to simple. Science folks look at similar traits - DNA and what not - between different species and see that as “proof” that all evolved from the same single celled animal. I say, well, why is it so hard to consider that God created all our physical bodies with similar traits, etc. Why the leap to such a bizzare and improbable theory - unless one wanted to take God out of the equation in the first place.

Which is the only logical explanation behind these folks attacking Intelligent Design folks - all the latter group is saying, in a nutshell, is that such mutations could not be “random”, they are too complex and there must be an intelligence behind it. To this the atheistic evolutionists cringe and condemn the “heretics” as cranks and what not. Too obvious.

And quite frankly - it matters not how many academies, governmental agencies, and schools of higher learnin’ the evolutionists can site as “proof” that they’re right - folks who advocate the destruction of innocent human beings for scientific experimentation and research do the same darn thing. We live in a secular world who prefers the dark to the Light. I’ll stick with the Light.

As for the age of the universe - I’m undecided. It’s like the Adam analogy I used earlier. Looking at Adam a moment after his creation, and he’d look like he’d been around for a few decades. Look at the universe a few thousand years after it was created, and it may appear to be millions of years old. Simple as that. Interesting - but I wouldn’t go condmning “creationists” and “young earth” folks as simple minded heretics. They may be on to something that the learned folks have “educated” out of their system.

One non-scientist layman’s opinion. Take it for what it’s worth.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What is a “Darwinian”?

and what does “macro” (sigh) evolution have to do with belief?

I did say that I am no scientist; I’ve done so more than once in these discussions. So, if I’ve mis-spoken & put my foot in it (which is more than likely), my apologies ​

I only used the word “Darwinian” because some people seem to equate accepting evolution with Darwinism - which is like equating Biblical criticism with sceptical Biblical criticism; some people are so deeply aware of criticisms of certain types of evolution, & certain types of Biblical criticism, that they can’t see how there can be theistic evolution & non-sceptical Biblical criticism. It’s partly the fault of the Popes for caricaturing those they criticise - nonsensical exegesis is not validated
by being Papal.

As to macro (?)-evolution [strike out if inapplicable] & belief - don’t ask me; ask the people who think it’s incompatible with Catholicism. I’m not a Fundamentalist; I’m not trying to distort the sciences so that they say only what the Churches graciously permit them to say. I wish I had written Alec’s post 47 - he 's entirely right, & I wish all Christians saw things like that. It’s intolerable that any Church should have the gall to tell scientists how to do their job; it’s disgraceful, atrocious. What Popes say about exegesis cannot have the slightest bearing on palaeontology - that is for the palaeontologists, not for the Popes, to comment on. So as the Fundamentalist interpretation by a Pope of Genesis 2 is incompatible with the sciences, so be it; the intepretation will have to change, as it is manifestly wrong; as most exegetes know perfectly well. Bad science makes the Faith look utterly contemptible.

I’m not the one who is insisting that an anthropomorphic passage in Genesis 2 is a record of what actually happened. And please, don’t class me as anti-evolution. I’m not; & I am absolutely not a Fundamentalist; it’s a perversion of the intelligence. I may well be very ignorant of the sciences - but I will not tolerate being classed with people of the likes of Sungenis & other enemies of intellectual progress. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m gonna jump in here just for a second. Looks to me like you are demonstrating very clearly - albeit surly unintentional - modernism’s impact on the current state of catechesis in the Church. Seems you are trying to bend Church teaching to fit current whims of scientific theory - i.e. the “religion of modern man”.

The scientific theory ain’t all that convincing anyway, but let’s say it’s all pretty solid. Here’s just a little thought experiment to ponder that gets it through to even grade-schoolers (Used it when I taught a few years back when I taught 6th grade PSR). It’s an imperfect analogy but I think you’ll get the point:

God created Adam just like it says there in Scripture. Now that same day, later in the afternoon, a doctor walks up to Adam and gives him a physical - not knowing anything about Adam at all. He would look at a guy that by all scientific methods and tools he has at his disposal, and Adam looks like a full grown man, roughly in his 20s or 30s (at least that’s how I picture him). All the science points to this “fact” - the bones are long, the teath are adult, the skull is fused (no soft spot), etc. But in reality, Adam is a few hours old. God told us so.

Same thing applies in reality as we look back a few millenia into the past and examine this situation “scientifically” with the our new fancy smanchy “tools” we have at our disposal. Interesting that it looks a certain way when examined with certain questionable tools and coming from a certain questionable philosophical perspective - but ya gotta think outside the box here and see the big picture. It is what it is - and it is what God has revealed. Simple as that. If the science points to something else, the science is wrong.

Simple as that.

This makes hay of the appeal of natural theology, & of the possibility of accurate sense-knowledge.​

And there is not the slightest reason - apart from an unexamined tradition of teaching - to believe that the Bible is giving an historical account of the creation of the first man. The man is called Adam, Man, precisely because he is not an individual, but the representative of a race. This ridiculous interpretation of the adam as an individual, has no foundation in the text. It is a blunder which is treated as true. ##

If individual bishops are teaching something contrary to magesterial teaching, contrary to what has been handed down to us from the Apostles, they are wrong. Look how many were wrong back in the days of the Arian heresy.

We were warned of such wolves among the ranks of the clergy for the last century or two - shouldn’t surprise us to see the problem hasn’t gone away:

“…That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open.”

Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope Saint Pius X, September 8, 1907

That doesn’t answer my question, which is about a specific passage in a specific Papal letter of 1880 which some people want to insist is Catholic doctrine.​

Have you read the whole of the post of mine that you quoted from ? ##

 

[DustinsDad]

… So as the Fundamentalist interpretation by a Pope of Genesis 2 is incompatible with the sciences, so be it; the intepretation will have to change, as it is manifestly wrong; as most exegetes know perfectly well. Bad science makes the Faith look utterly contemptible.

Those darned Christians - not caring what the world thinks of them - not bending their theology and Biblical interpretations to fit the scientific theoretical whims of the day! The gall!!!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…That doesn’t answer my question, which is about a specific passage in a specific Papal letter of 1880 which some people want to insist is Catholic doctrine. Have you read the whole of the post of mine that you quoted from ?

I was responding to post 113 - which was the culmanation of the back and forth posts between you and PoG which I did read. I’m siding with your opponent as to the officiality of the teaching on Adam and Eve being one man and one woman - I think his arguments hold much much more weight.

It’s like the analogy I drew - you are siding with the doctor examining Adam right after his creation and you are insisting he is 30 years old, that it’s officially 100% impossible and ludicrous to think he’s just a few hours old. That for God to have created him as an adult male would automatically mean God was playing “tricks” with our senses and our intellect. I think not. God could have done it either way - and just as easily either way I might add. And the creation as an adult way would not be “tricky” - it’s just the way He chose to do it, as it has been revealed and taught by Him through the ages and through His Church. It makes good sense and doesn’t conflict with my reason at all because an all powerful God who stands outside of time and can do all things is, well, perfectly reasonable. I’ll place my bet on Him rather than on the johnny-come-lately modernist interpretations built upon an atheistic view of the Universe whose sole goal and intention is to take all reference to God out of the equation of All Things Reasonable.

Just as an example on the latter item there. In defeating Intelligent Design inclusion in a public school curriculum, U…S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III stated in his conclusion that “intelligent design” is not science specifically because it “violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation”. (page 64 of this decision)So science is only science if God is not allowed to be a part of it? Puu-leez. Talk about your blinders and intolerance! Who’se afraid of who here?

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

The man is called Adam, Man, precisely because he is not an individual, but the representative of a race. This ridiculous interpretation of the adam as an individual, has no foundation in the text. It is a blunder which is treated as true…

Gobbletygook.

Aside from the obvious fact that no one ever taught Adam was a “group of folks” anywhere in history prior to our glorious modern era, there is no indication anywhere in Scripture of Adam being a group of folks - plural. In addition to the OT writers who we can forgive for their prehistoric unenlightened intellects, those blundering inspired writers of the New Testament should have known better! -

(Luke 3:38) “the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”

Should read “Adams” I suppose - obviously a translational error.

(Romans 5:14) "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Adam in the singular again - doh! Perhaps the “one” who was to come is plural also? Hmmmm. Not too far fetched an interpretation for this day and age.

(1 Corinthians 15:21-22) For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
Should be obvious to all that the first “man” was “men” and the second “man” was “man” - I mean it’s as plain as the noses on our face - I mean nose on our faces - I mean the noses on our faces - whew!!

(1 Timothy 2:13-14) For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Maybe what the inspired author meant to say was the the group of “Adams” was formed first, then the second half, the “Eves”, were formed from the first Adams - evolution and all - then the first Eves were deceived (odd, since they were further up in the evolutionary ladder and should have been smarter) but they then tricked the first Adams - (being evolutionally superior to the Adams they could easily dupe that group of prehistoric blunderers). But then we’d have a multitude of original “sins” as opposed to Original Sin. Hmmmm. Yes, the science does make it all crystal clear. I feel so enlightened now.

Just having fun with ya - Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[steveandersen]

I’ll chime in on this one, myself being a newcomer to this thread. …

One non-scientist layman’s opinion. Take it for what it’s worth.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Answering many of your points would kind of get us off topic. If you wish to start another thread we could or you could PM me.

Suffice it to say that your criticisms are not new and are based on a misunderstanding of what evolution actually says.

To paraphrase Fulton Sheen, there are very few people who don’t agree with evolution but there are millions who disagree with what they think evolution is.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…

Just as an example on the latter item there. In defeating Intelligent Design inclusion in a public school curriculum, U…S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III stated in his conclusion that “intelligent design” is not science specifically because it “violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation”. (page 64 of this decision)So science is only science if God is not allowed to be a part of it? Puu-leez. Talk about your blinders and intolerance! Who’se afraid of who here?

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

What I’m afraid of is the baneful influence of anti-intellectual Christians whose zeal for God outruns their understanding of the methods proper to various disciplines. One Scopes Monkey trial is one too many. It’s frightening that Catholics are (apparently) beginning to hasten back to the 13th century - that, is why I am shocked and appalled when the Church makes a fool of herself by intervening in matters of which she shows, with almost every breath, that she knows nothing. Such goings-on do nothing but bring the Gospel into discredit.​

I’m delighted & relieved to hear that ID was not included, because:

1. ID is not science, for a very good reason - it’s a view of the universe; not a method for dealing with phenomena in it. It has no more place in the teaching of science than Plato or Spinoza would have; they are at home in their place, which is the teaching of philosophy. That is the place for ID. It is not being uniquely picked on, but kept out of what is an inappropriate environment for it. No one complains that Plato is not taught in a science syllabus - so why must ID be taught in a science syllabus ? To expect it to be, is grotesque.
2. No one is wearing blinders or being intolerant. Again, it is inappropriate to bring God into science, because if He exists He is already present in it anyway. That does not mean it is appropriate to the methods of the sciences to turn science lessons into theology lessons - all disciplines have methods appropriate to them. Studying maths does not give skill in NT Greek, nor do aspiring cooks study astronomy.

For example, New Testament study requires knowledge of Greek; not of geometry or anatomy, because it’s the study of the NT, not of mathematics or medicine, but of NTGreek. And one learns NT Greek by the study of texts and grammar, not by praying or going to Church or swimming or abseiling; those are too remote from the character of the discipline to be appropriate as methods proper to it.

As with that discipline so with others: one learns biology, not by learning NT Greek or by abseiling, useful as they doubtless are in their places, but by adopting methods appropriate for gaining knowledge of what biology studies - & believing in God is not formally relevant to studying biology, or any other academic discipline. God has no function to play in these disciplines, so He is ignored - as is entirely appropriate.

Scientific papers are to be about scientific matters - if the author is a Christian, fine; she can be Christian by behaving as one; which will have an indirect influence on her science, by influencing her relations with her colleagues: but it has no direct relevance to scientific data. Bad biology is bad biology, whether one is Christian or not. A biology paper is supposed to be about biology - not the religion of the author.
Without a common set of methods for studying an academic discipline, there could be no growth in learning, because people would not have agreed on how to study what they meant to study. Science is about causes which can be discussed without appealing to the supernatural - & Christians are not agreed as to what the word denotes. So it would be calamitous to give the supernatural a function within science.

If every scientist has to be Christian, where does that leave all the scientists who are not Christians ? Scientific study would become a Christian ghetto, to the great loss of the wider community. Science is for studying scientific topics, not Christianity or God. It is not a purely Christian topic, & must not become one.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gobbletygook.

And that conclusion is based on…?​

Aside from the obvious fact that no one ever taught Adam was a “group of folks” anywhere in history prior to our glorious modern era,

How does that make what was said gobbledygook ?​

In many respects the modern era is a golden age. I see no reason to be ashamed of saying this. Modernity is
in many ways a great blessing to the Church. ##

There is no indication anywhere in Scripture of Adam being a group of folks - plural.

Except that Adam = “mankind”. That people did not realise the meaning of the name is probably to be explained by the Church’s ignorance of Hebrew.

I refer you to Claus Westermann’s (superb) commentary on Genesis, volume 1 (which covers chapters 1 to 11, AKA the “Primeval History”).

Adam is mankind - not an individual human being called Adam. It is not the author’s fault if readers of his text centuries later than he do not understand his meaning. The author is concerned with how man reacts to God - not with how an individual man named Adam reacted to God in 4004 BC (or whatever date one chooses) ##

In addition to the OT writers who we can forgive for their prehistoric unenlightened intellects, those blundering inspired writers of the New Testament should have known better! -

Your words, not mine. The error is not with the authors, but with their readers.​

…continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…cont’d & ended]

(Luke 3:38) “the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”

Should read “Adams” I suppose - obviously a translational error.## No, nor Addams; there is a misunderstanding of Genesis as a result of the loss of contact in Judaism with the character of Genesis 1 to 11 as primeval history.

What Luke makes of Genesis 5 tells us nothing about what Genesis 5 means - only how Luke used the passage. To understand Genesis 5, we must read it in its context as part of the primeval history.

The genealogy is not giving genealogical information, but making a theological point about the significance of Jesus in the form of a family tree. It’s unwarranted to read Luke 3.23-38 as though it were a revealed truth that Jesus was the son of Joseph, the son of Heli…son of Shem son of Noah son of Lamech…son of Seth son of Adam. What is important is not that Reu was the son of Arphaxad son of Shem…son of Seth, son of Adam; but the universality of Jesus: He is for all men, not the Jews only.

BTW - saying an interpretation of the Bible is wrong, is not tantamount to saying the text interpreted is wrong. ##

(Romans 5:14) "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Adam in the singular again - doh! Perhaps the “one” who was to come is plural also? Hmmmm. Not too far fetched an interpretation for this day and age. ## See my explanation above please ##

(1 Corinthians 15:21-22) For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Should be obvious to all that the first “man” was “men” and the second “man” was “man” - I mean it’s as plain as the noses on our face - I mean nose on our faces - I mean the noses on our faces - whew!!

1 Corinthians 15 is not a commentary on Genesis - so it would be obtuse to expect of it the qualities expected of a commentary. Such as paintaking analysis of the nuances of the words in the text commented on. Don’t expect of St.Paul what he does not profess to give​

Just having fun with ya - Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

OK - understood​

 

[PhilVaz]

Hey Gottle, you’re pretty good with this stuff. What do you do with the statements of the Catechism that very strongly imply Adam was a literal historical individual. I’m thinking particularly of paragraphs 359 (two literal, historical men: Adam and Christ), 375-377 (“our first parents, Adam and Eve,” “the first couple,” “the first man”), 379 (“our first parents”), 388 (“we must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin”), 390-392 (“our first parents”), etc.

I can understand taking Genesis 1-3 by itself as figurative, but I don’t understand taking paragraphs 359, 375-377, 379, 388, 390-392 of the Catechism as figurative.

Though the Catechism admits Genesis contains symbolical or figurative language (paragraphs 337-338, 362, 369, 375, 390, 396, etc) it strongly implies Adam/Eve were literal historical individuals. Am I wrong?

Phil P

 

[mich2]

On the faith side, one threshold is that Adam and Eve weren’t the first man and woman - that the first humans were really a group of human beings. …

I personally agree with you; although Adam can indeed be used for a more general description for what we call humanity, it is first used, in identifying a human person. However, I must add that I personally believe the man Adam was also very different in nature from us, since he was living in Paradise, the latter being a Spiritual place.

On the science side, my threshold is would be the concept that evolution involves species popping out from other species due to random mutations

Again, I agree. Would you, however, accept the possiblity of the DNA code as having a “developing gene” responsible for the evolution of Life?

• I’ll allow for evolving traits or characteristics within a given species, but to hop from one species to another because some cosmic rays happened to genetically alter in a positive way and in the exact same positive way two of the same species into two of another species …sorry,

What if those cosmic rays weren’t random at all, but were part of the equation involved in the development of life? What if Macro Evolution was simply a Macro “life development process”,in the same way a feotus developes (evolves) into a full grown human person?All of the informational code genes needed to cause such an evolution, existing from the very beginning when Life first began?

I just ain’t bying it. From my limited reading of it - the statistical probabilities of such an occurance happening by chance are just too astronomical - and for such a change to occur for species hopping, it wouldn’t just be one positive change genetically, but bunches of 'em occuring exactly the same way in two critters of the same original species. Something like that.

I also do believe the same, in that, such an evolution cannot be due to random chances. Too many informational codes exists in the nucleus for me to simply expect it to having come from random chance probabilities, without an exterior, intellectual force behind.

Too me it’s just too simple. Science folks look at similar traits - DNA and what not - between different species and see that as “proof” that all evolved from the same single celled animal. I say, well, why is it so hard to consider that God created all our physical bodies with similar traits, etc. Why the leap to such a bizzare and improbable theory - unless one wanted to take God out of the equation in the first place.

My problem with the above, would be God creating the first of every creatures by simply making them miraculously appearing…I’m not saying that such an hypothesis is an impossibility, but that God’s natural laws are so awe inspiring, that, to see His creating act as being simply the appearance of a species from nothing, actually seems to take away from His Greatness.In my opinion, the laws of the “genesis of Life” will one day be discovered, and will be such a powerfull law, that it could be used as a proof for the existance of God…especially if they could find within the DNA of the earliest lifeforms, a dormant code for evolution.

Which is the only logical explanation behind these folks attacking Intelligent Design folks - all the latter group is saying, in a nutshell, is that such mutations could not be “random”, they are too complex and there must be an intelligence behind it. To this the atheistic evolutionists cringe and condemn the “heretics” as cranks and what not. Too obvious.

.

I personally support ID, at least until proof against it could be shown. As for creationism, my only objection would be that, all evidence, for now, seems to point to an old earth, not young.

As for the age of the universe - I’m undecided. It’s like the Adam analogy I used earlier. Looking at Adam a moment after his creation, and he’d look like he’d been around for a few decades. Look at the universe a few thousand years after it was created, and it may appear to be millions of years old. Simple as that. Interesting - but I wouldn’t go condmning “creationists” and “young earth” folks as simple minded heretics. They may be on to something that the learned folks have “educated” out of their system.

I agree, although since the creation of Adam is explained with such simple imagery, I believe that his life might also have had to mature, or evolve, somehow…just a thought.

One non-scientist layman’s opinion. Take it for what it’s worth.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Interesting post, Dustin…thanks for responding to my post

Andre

 

[hecd2]

Macroevolution is faith, it is speculative science.

This statement is a powerful demonstration of why those who value truth and reason should be adamant in opposition to the tenets of the Kolbe Center and those like PoG who support its fundamentalist programme. While I was a practising catholic, and afterwards, indeed until quite recently, I thought that the Roman Catholic Church stood for truth and was distinguished by its respect for reason, science and scholarship. Indeed, even now, I believe that the Church can be a beacon for the intellectual life, for the exercise of reason in our search for truth, for scholarship and learning. But I have been distressed and puzzled in the last few years by a growing fundamental literalist movement within the church that is all but indistinguishable from bible belt young earth creationism of the grossest and most uneducated kind. This fundamentalism, the kind of literalism that allows only one literal interpretation of scripture and that is promoted by the Kolbe Center and by PoG is quite alien to the theology and exegesis that the Church has maintained for almost two millennia. Willingness to entertain more than one interpretation of Scripture is apparent in the writing of the earliest Church fathers who have offered non-dogmatic interpretations of their own, and a willingness to interpret Genesis in more than purely literal terms (see my posts #73 and #74 in this thread).

With regard to the specifics of PoG’s erroneous claim, that evolution and common descent are speculation and require faith, it is quite clear to anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the evidence that has accumulated in the last century that claims like these are based either on ignorance or misrepresentation. Work in the fields of comparative anatomy, genetics, natural history, biogeography, palaeontology, geology, molecular biology, cell biology, bacteriology and virology, palaeoclimatology, systematics and cladistics, biochemistry, developmental biology, population genetics and theoretical biology over more than a hundred years have resulted in such a vast interlocking and self-consistent body of evidence that the fact of common descent is beyond reasonable doubt. Those who make claims like those of PoG invariably have an anti-intellectual fundamentalist axe to grind. There are those in the Church, who, while claiming to defend what they regard as its most precious teachings, are instead walking in the shadow of Ellen White, Henry Morris and Kent Hovind. As Michael and simonadams have so eloquently pointed out, by doing so, they are bringing a long and distinguished heritage of reason and scholarship into disrepute and the Church into ridicule.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[PoG]

Posted by hecd2
While I was a practising catholic, and afterwards, indeed until quite recently, I thought that the Roman Catholic Church stood for truth and was distinguished by its respect for reason, science and scholarship.

Your sophism doesn’t work. If you believed that the Church stood for truth you would not have separated yourself from the Mystical Body of Christ. If you believed in truth you would not have either lied or calumniated Guy Berthault.

I’ve investigated your claim that his research has not been published in any mainstream French literature, especially not by the Academy of Science. Your public statement attacking his reputation is utterly false and detestable. I have found nothing yet to indicate whether the Chinese journal is connected to their Academy of Science, so if this is my mistaken impression I apologise in advance. Your further statement that the Russian journal that he has been published by is not connected to the Academy of Science is also utterly false.

You do not have any faith, I know, but if you have any natural decency or honour you are obliged to withdraw your false claims that serve to destroy the man’s reputation, and inform all those who you have made them to.

Here are the details, for all to see, and for any to check. For anyone interested in Berthaults experimental work on sediments - work that Academies of Science believe is valuable enough to publish - you can go here: www.geology.ref.ac/berthault

Guy Berthault, C.R.Acad. Sc. Paris, t.303, Serie II, No17, 1986 and t.306, Serie II, pp. 717-724, 1988.

P. Julien, Y. Lan, G. Berthault, “Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures,” Bull. Soc Geol. France (1993 t.164 N°5, pp 649-660).

G. Berthault, “Analysis of the Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data,” Journal of Lithology and Mineral Resources, Institute of Geology, Russian Academy of Sciences (Vol. 37 September/October 2002, pp 442-446).

“Geological Dating Principles Questioned—Paleohydraulics a New Approach,” Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics, China (Vol. 22, no. 3 August 2002, pp. 19-26).

“Sedimentological Interpretation of the Tonto Group Stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado River),” Journal of Lithology and Mineral Resources, Institute of Geology, Russian Academy of Sciences (Vol. 39, no. 5, 2004).

Lithology and Mineral Resources
ISSN: 0024-4902 (print version)
ISSN: 1608-3229 (electronic version)
Journal no. 10987
MAIK Nauka/Interperiodica
Online version available

Description
Lithology and Mineral Resources (Litologiya i Poleznye Iskopaemye) reviews a wide range of problems related to the formation of sedimentary rocks and ores. Special attention is devoted to comparison of ancient sedimentary rock and ore formation with present-day processes, as the idea of actualism has always constituted one of the bases of the scientific philosophy of lithologists. A major part of the journal is devoted to comparative analysis of sedimentary processes on continents and in oceans, as well as the genetic aspects of the formation of sedimentary and hydrothermal-sedimentary mineral resources. The journal was founded in 1963 by Academician N. M. Strakhov. It will be of interest to lithologists, petrographers, geochemists, mineralogists, ore geologists and metallogenists, as well as to other geologists, ecologists, researchers of experimental and analytical laboratories, and graduate students.

Please also check maik.ru/
Abstracted/Indexed in:
Chemical Abstracts Service, Current Contents/Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences, ISI Alerting Services, Science Citation Index Expanded, SCOPUS

Editor-in-Chief:
Vladimir N. Kholodov
Academy of Natural Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Deputy Editor-in-Chief:
Galina Yu. Butuzova

Editorial Board:
P. Chamov; Anatolii N. Dmitrievskii, Russian Academy of Sciences and Academy of Natural Sciences; Yurii O. Gavrilov; Igor I. Volkov; Boris P. Zolotarev, Academy of Natural Sciences; Aleksandr I. Konyukhov; Anatolii A. Makhanch, Belarus Academy of Sciences; Grigorii A. Mashkovtsev; Ivar O. Murdmaa; Nataliya G. Patyk-Kara; Svetlana A. Sidorenko; Petr P. Timofeev, Russian Academy of Sciences; Oleg V. Yapaskurt, Academy of Natural Sciences; Mikhail D. Khutorskoi; Rostislav I. Nedumov; Aleksei A. Yaroshevskii

Staff Editor:
Tatyana A. Denisova

Editor of the English Translation:
Dibya R. Sakya