Many Adams and Eves?

[NHInsider]

The Biology textbook does not support the view that God was a causal agent in any development that may have taken place.

Nor can it, since God is not a hypthesis to be proved or disproved by any scientific method or model!

 

[buffalo]

Completely true - and, as has been pointed out (whether in this thread or the parallel one I don’t have a clue) the scientific cutting-edge now indicates a single “Adam” (male ancestor). . . . although not contemporary with the previously-postulated single female ancestor “Eve” . . . .

Thanks be to God, our salvation does not depend on getting this right!

Here is why:

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam Diagrams

 

[jcrichton]

Where did I say it is fictitious?

I know that you did not employ the term “fictitious:”

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrichton
Have you checked the site that claims that a large number of Scientist are opposed to the evolution theory (the link is found a few post above on this thread)?Angel

I know that list well. It was put together by a creationists group. It has zero influence on science, and no influence that I know of on theology.

Yet you made the claim that you were aware of the list, and you further stated that it was “put together,” this, from my perspective, sounds very much as if you have said: ‘that list is fictitious since no real scientists have endorsed it.’

If this is not what you meant, I apologize!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[edwest2]

Nor can it, since God is not a hypthesis to be proved or disproved by any scientific method or model!

Perhaps then, you can explain the constant attempts here to apply scientific conclusions to Biblical events. If the Bible is not a science book then the Science book cannot comment on the Bible.

The current attempt to “scientifically” explain Biblical events rests on the premise that it can do so. It cannot.

Yet, there are those who consistently use the same ‘mountains of evidence’ to lead people astray, including billboards: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

The idea here is that slime became alive, grew brains, went through a delusional belief/God period because that’s just how things go, but we can safely abandon all that now.

God forbid,
Ed

 

[ThomasToo]

Perhaps then, you can explain the constant attempts here to apply scientific conclusions to Biblical events. If the Bible is not a science book then the Science book cannot comment on the Bible.

That doesn’t quite follow. The fact that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of the thousands of gods mankind has believed in doesn’t mean that science cannot, for example, show that the sun is not the wheel of Helios’s chariot. This is a scientific hypothesis in that it is an attempt to describe the physical state of the world and offer an explanation for observable (and purely natural) phenomena. Do you disagree with this? Do you think the Helios hypothesis is dependable on the same grounds as you’re defending the Bible as immune from criticism? Should this controversy be taught in our classrooms too?

 

[jcrichton]

What are these “holes”? Have you written about them or presented conference papers on them so that scientists can be made aware of them?

…here are some:

"…a long long long long long long time ago… then when things got *just right *this one smaller mass cooled to just the right temp… then after zillions of almost incidents an ooze churned at the just right thickness and composition… amaaazingly electrical stoms seized the opportunity and bombarded the ooze with the just right electrical charge… then life emerged and divested itself of its limited existence as a single-celled micro-organism and became the millions and millions of diverse complex lifeforms that populate this planet…

…mean while… the planet itself underwent through myriad of climatic changes and just so conditions to allow the cycle of life to coexist in the various interdependent and independent eco systems…

Wow, you are right, there’s not a single hole in the whole evolution proposition!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

And I’m offended that people thing that the Bible–written between 1600 and 2500 years before the advent of science of an epistemological tool–can be used to answer legitimate scientific question. If the Bible were to be taken absolutely literally the earth would be square and flat and pi would exactly equal 3.

.

…can you expand on this? I have not come across a flat earth in the Bible are you sure you are not confusing metaphor with science?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Oh Lord help us now. First, StA believes the April fool article about pi=3, and now is slandering home schooling.

Off the deep end?

…I don’t think the argument is against those of intellectual and atheist parents since those are approved by the government–it’s those Christians that must be stopped from removing their children from the homogenizing public school system that proposes tolerance for everything except anything Christian.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

There is no research based on evolution. None. Genetic knockout experiments where they remove something.

The organism lived. Write that down.

The organism died. Write that down.

Nothing happened. Write that down.

The hunt for new medications is still a trial and error process where hundreds of tubes of bad stuff are injected with hundreds of chemical combinations to see what happens.

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

God bless,
Ed

…say it ain’t so Ed… science is based on guess work and repetitious trials… you think that they would use the terms “theory” and “hypothesis” more often, rather than pronouncing exact and conclusive plausibility…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I’ll bet you’ve actually used 3.2 at some times in the past. Back in my early days before electronic calculators were invented (not quite back to 1897), school tests which required an actual numerical answer involving pi often allowed rounding to 3.1 or 3.2, so long as you said what it was you were rounding to.

It seems to me that StA (and now you?) are attempting to mock religious people. As I’ve mentioned to StA in the past, when you start to use mockery, it means you’re out of real ammunition.

…or the truth about how a person feels about the other/s belief system is disclosed…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Which belief system should be maintained in the science classroom? Jewish? Christian? Islamic? Hindu? Buddhist? Agnostic? Deist? Atheist?

Or should this be by majority vote in the individual community?

…I think that “sacred” was the hidden value.

I.e.: growing up in NYC I never came across a text book on tolerance for “blacks” or “latinos;” yet, somehow billy’s two dads and sandy’s two moms must be taught from elementary levels; conversely, it was determined that sex education had to be mandatory and everything except abstinance (the only true method of preventing pregnancy and stds) was approved as the means to educate stds and teenage preganancy out of society… that’s the godless belief system inculcated the mind of the “future:” knowledge without discipline (same as power corrupts…); we continue to have a problem with stds and pregnancy (ditto on passing “clean needles”) yet those in the know simply choose to ignore their failures!

…so yes… there’s a problem with those who believe that we are less insignifican than science paints us… but there’s a greater problem with those who continue to ignore the truth in spite of their limitations and choose to redefine all parameters whenever a new argument must replace an old one.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[diggerdomer]

I’ve read that more than once. He refers to “theories,” not just one. He also mentions certain indisputable points.

Communion and Stewardship clarifies his comments (in continuity with Humani Generis):

“Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

The Biology textbook does not support the view that God was a causal agent in any development that may have taken place.

God bless,
Ed

Yes of course. So you agree, then, that a “theory of evolution” without further qualification cannot be said to be contrary to Catholic faith.

No idea what you meant by referring to “The Biology textbook” but if it’s relevant please clarify.

 

[Benadam]

Dissent to what, specifically?

Dogma? No.

Other teachings? Maybe.

Can you be more precise?

You wrote catholics are free to interpret in the statement below. I was wondering if that extended to the freedom to believe.

quote=diggerdomer:
Catholics are free to interpret Adam and Eve as either two historical individuals or as symbolic representations pointing to the truth that God created humans. Or both.

To be more specific I ask;
Free to dissent from the belief that Adam and Eve are real people who are the parents of the entire human race?

 

[grannymh]

Yes of course. So you agree, then, that a “theory of evolution” without further qualification cannot be said to be contrary to Catholic faith.

No idea what you meant by referring to “The Biology textbook” but if it’s relevant please clarify.

Theory of evolution has about as much meaning as raining cats and dogs in that the only meaningful thing is that water is wet.

 

[grannymh]

Good point. Saying “evolution” by itself, with no further explanation, does not in and of itself adhere to or deny Catholic faith.

Melting ice cream does not in and of itself adhere to or deny Catholic faith.

 

[ricmat]

Yes of course. So you agree, then, that a “theory of evolution” without further qualification cannot be said to be contrary to Catholic faith.

It depends on what the listener hears. And what the speaker intends. Most people, when they hear the term, associate it with a series God-not-involved random events. Most professional biologists (70% of whom are atheists or agnostics), when they use the term associate it with a series of God-not-involved random events.

You’re trying to get around this by saying that technically speaking, the exact definition of evolution doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Maybe not, but the real definition of evolution is what scientists mean when they say it, and what people interpret when they hear it.

 

[StAnastasia]

…I think that “sacred” was the hidden value. l

Angel, which sacred system should be taught in public schools? We have numerous ones in a pluralistic culture such as you find in most modern democracies.

 

[StAnastasia]

Yet you made the claim that you were aware of the list, and you further stated that it was “put together,” this, from my perspective, sounds very much as if you have said: ‘that list is fictitious since no real scientists have endorsed it.’ If this is not what you meant, I apologize!

Angel, Webster’s dictionary is a word list that was “put together,” yet it is not fictitious.

I accept your apology in advance.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

The idea here is that slime became alive, grew brains, went through a delusional belief/God period because that’s just how things go, but we can safely abandon all that now.God forbid,Ed

Ed, did you just make that up, or has someone (apart from science fiction writers) actually argued that slime grew brains?

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you think the Helios hypothesis is dependable on the same grounds as you’re defending the Bible as immune from criticism? Should this controversy be taught in our classrooms too?

ThomasToo, since Genesis 19:26 is imprecise, chemistry teachers should spend more time helping students to discern whether Lot’s wife was turned into sodium chloride or magnesium sulfate.