Many Adams and Eves?

[StAnastasia]

A perfect example of double-speak. Just act as if the list doesn’t exist. Or matters.God bless,Ed

It’s not doublespeak at all. The list is meaningless to both science and theology.

 

[edwest2]

It’s not doublespeak at all. The list is meaningless to both science and theology.

Apparently, you have made a dogmatic statement that denies the reality of statements made by these scientists. This then, counts as only your opinion.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Apparently, you have made a dogmatic statement that denies the reality of statements made by these scientists. This then, counts as only your opinion.
God bless,Ed

How does it deny “the reality of statements made by these scientists”?

 

[edwest2]

How does it deny “the reality of statements made by these scientists”?

You have no way of knowing how much influence this is having on anyone. Second, their statements against the theory exist. Period.

This is important to me, and others who have come to realize how radically distorted some claims, supposedly based on science, have become. It only takes a few people to overturn something. The Wright Brothers did so regardless of what Lord Kelvin said.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

You have no way of knowing how much influence this is having on anyone.

Of course. But I’ve never heard of anyone on this list discussed at either scientific or theological meetings. I have no way of know whether or not anyone listens to them.

Second, their statements against the theory exist. Period.

Certainly.

This is important to me, and others who have come to realize how radically distorted some claims, supposedly based on science, have become. It only takes a few people to overturn something. The Wright Brothers did so regardless of what Lord Kelvin said.

True. When will evolutionary theory be overturned?

 

[ricmat]

This is important to me, and others who have come to realize how radically distorted some claims, supposedly based on science, have become. It only takes a few people to overturn something. The Wright Brothers did so regardless of what Lord Kelvin said.

God bless,
Ed

Go Wright Bros!!!

 

[edwest2]

There is this citation:

In light of this passage, it is not seeing evolution as some random thing which happened. When we see evolution as a testament to God, we are given more evidence of His existence. God and evolution stop being in conflict with each other. Rather, God is the architect of evolution.

sulkow82 SFO

Really? That’s not what kids get in biology textbooks.

Since God has been banned from the public school, He has been replaced by a new belief system. I will point out that most of the conclusions made in the following cannot be demonstrated by science and amount to pure propaganda that denies to God any causal role in the development of life.

"Evolution is defined as a blind, undirected process built mainly on randomness. There is no plan or purpose for evolution – this contradicts the claim that “everything is designed” and that there is design to be found in nature.

We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Go Wright Bros!!!

It’s really “Go Wright Sisters!!!” Sorry. I couldn’t resist.

 

[NHInsider]

I’ve done no such thing. Look at the recent nonsense about the Exodus account. The Old Testament is part of the Bible. Some scientists woke up one day, and said “nope, never happened.” If you wish to ignore the constant attempts here to reduce this or that part of the Bible to myth or legend because someone who thinks they know something about science said so, I won’t stop you.

I haven’t cited a single scientist, only Popes and Councils.

And I don’t believe we were talking about Exodus?

What Dogmatic Constitution? Have you read Communion and Stewardship?

Yes, I have (although it is NOT a Dogmatic Constitution.
Funny you should ask:

from Communion and Stewardship (emphasis mine)

1. Science and the stewardship of knowledge

1. The endeavor to understand the universe has marked human culture in every period and in nearly every society. In the perspective of the Christian faith, this endeavor is precisely an instance of the stewardship which human beings exercise in accordance with God’s plan. Without embracing a discredited concordism, Christians have the responsibility to locate the modern scientific understanding of the universe within the context of the theology of creation. The place of human beings in the history of this evolving universe, as it has been charted by modern sciences, can only be seen in its complete reality in the light of faith, as a personal history of the engagement of the triune God with creaturely persons.

1. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, **there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. **Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

1. 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.

Have you read Dei Verbum?

 

[jcrichton]

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.

…so the claim of the over 800 scientists that support the movement is fictitious?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Sorry, but I don’t understand what you are arguing in this post. Science seeks plausible explanations for facts. Biologists – including Catholic biologists – accept evolution as the most plausible explanation for biological diversity on earth.

“Catholic” is a relative term (Obama was supported by many “Catholic” in spite of his infamous support of killing the children that survived the abortion process); yet, even if Catholic biologists support evolution and state it as a fact they are wrong since a “plausible explanation” means that it is a belief/idea orchestrated to surmize that what is known and unkonwn is best understood by man’s mind though this mechanism; it does not mean that there is hard evidence of actual findings or factual data proven through actual experimentation that demonstrates that what was deemed as possible was actually proven as a visible/palpable accident (as the law of gravity).

My point is that if evolution is stated as a theory not a fact/evidenced by science it would demonstrate that science (those actively involved and those sharing on the belief/findings) is honest; conversely, when “plausible” replaces “fact” as “proof” we enter into a “faith” system:

i.e.: some time in the near past there was all this talk about the age of the universe; the claim made was that the universe was so old that it was folding upon itself–though some of the people I knew were equating this “folding of the universe” to the Biblical "end of times. I cannot recall a single scientist speaking (in the media) against that thought which was being passed as fact; once the hubble telescope sent back its images everyone spoke about the still exapanding universe–interestingly enough I did not see or hear of a single media coverage where science recanted its previously flawed view of what was taking place with the universe.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Really? That’s not what kids get in biology textbooks.

Since God has been banned from the public school, He has been replaced by a new belief system. I will point out that most of the conclusions made in the following cannot be demonstrated by science and amount to pure propaganda that denies to God any causal role in the development of life.

"Evolution is defined as a blind, undirected process built mainly on randomness. There is no plan or purpose for evolution – this contradicts the claim that “everything is designed” and that there is design to be found in nature.

…wait, Ed, are you saying that it is not only the common pedestrian thinker that sees a whole mess of holes in the evil ution theory?

…but if they take away evolution would that not leave us with Yahweh God as the Creator?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jeffinjapan]

Scientific evidence supports the conclusion that all humans did not descend from just one pair of humans, but a small group of humans with the population at lowest being 1000.

This is not true. Scientific theories may support this but the actually evidence doesn’t.

Offiial Church teaching contradicts this, and says that the faithful must accept that we are descended from a literal Adam and Eve.

True.

Is this a contradiction between faith and reason?

No, because true science (reason) and religion can not contradict each other.

 

[StAnastasia]

…so the claim of the over 800 scientists that support the movement is fictitious?

Where did I say it is fictitious?

 

[sulkow82]

Really? That’s not what kids get in biology textbooks.

I don’t see how that proves anything. There is a difference between the truth and how well the truth is taught.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Ed, are you saying that it is not only the common pedestrian thinker that sees a whole mess of holes in the evolution theory?

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

 

[edwest2]

I don’t see how that proves anything. There is a difference between the truth and how well the truth is taught.

God bless,
Ed

Another example of double-speak. If you are willing to ignore the obvious, I won’t stop you.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

I don’t see how that proves anything. There is a difference between the truth and how well the truth is taught.

Quite true, and it’s rendered more challenging in the educational context of a pluralistic culture. In the US there are many religious traditions represented among school students, and if religion were allowed in the science classroom, the question would be which one? Whose tradition, whose version of religious “truth” will we privilege? Or should we teach only science in science classrooms, and perhaps in other classes provide a forum for students to integrate with with religious truth? In my sons’ Catholic school this integration is done very nicely in religion class, with due respect paid to the non-Catholic students in class (we have Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jews).

StAnastasia

 

[sulkow82]

Another example of double-speak. If you are willing to ignore the obvious, I won’t stop you.

In one way, I cite your response to me as an example of why my statement is true. You have claimed my statement is “double-speak.” Let us take this as an example of a “truth.” You have attempted to “teach me this fact” by stating it. However, you have not walked me through the logic to support your claim. Therefore your effectiveness on proving your statement is poor. Am I to take your statement as fact based purely on the fact that you bothered to post it?

I just thought to post this as a comment. I’m not trying to derail the discussion. However, I wonder if it is starting to get derailed.

sulkow82 SFO

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, but I don’t understand what you are arguing in this post. Science seeks plausible explanations for facts. Biologists – including Catholic biologists – accept evolution as the most plausible explanation for biological diversity on earth.

Granted there is a lot of biological diversity on earth. But there is only one human species with the same human nature since its two first parents. This human nature is spirit/matter. Spirit does not evolve from matter. So the most plausible explanation for the non-diverse human species is that it had to arise from two first parents.