Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[reggieM]

The genetics interpretation that posits a minimal human population of 1,000 to 10,000, or whatever is the best interpretation, does not address the question of what man is…

Granny brought this point out earlier - and I’ll offer this. “The genetics interpretation” which is the so-called science of Darwinian theory does claim to address “the question of what man is.” This is why we hear the absolutist assertions of evolutionists regarding the smallest minimum population of humans possible.

This provides a nice insight on the arrogance of Darwinism. It claims to know what human life is – as defined in strictly materialistic terms. Humans are distinguished from animals only by a different genetic composition, brain size and modified body-type. Some mutations and adaptations caused human beings to emerge from non-human ancestors, according to this view.

The 10,000 breeding pairs are the ancestors of semi-humans. Some of those were mostly animal, others more human. Consciousness (a function of the soul in Catholic terms) supposedly emerged gradually through step-by-step mutations. Free-will does not exist in this view, but theistic evolutionists might claim that God created the illusion of free-will in these apelike products of evolution.

In the end, God had nothing to do with this and human beings are not a special creation, desired and designed by God as radically unique from anything in the animal kingdom (by virtue of the immortal soul that separates human from animal).

The effects of the soul (in classic, orthodox Catholic theology) are visible in the world. Free-will, rationality, imagination, abstract-thought – and as itinerant1 mentioned “language” itself can all be observed in their effects. Every conversation among humans requires countless free-will decisions, improvisations and expressions of abstract thought. Evolutionists claim that all of this is tied to deterministic physical laws acting on matter.

So, our resident “Catholic theologian” (who has never given any documented evidence that he is what he claims to be) merely takes the mainstream view on evolutionary theory. For him, human beings are defined by how they emerged from the evolutionary process – they are distinguished from animals merely by their mutations and adaptations. Since they emerged in a population of semi-humans there is no “ontological leap” (that Pope John Paul II taught there is). Humans are slighly modified chimps – nothing more.

Thus, the Catholic-evolutionist openly denies formal Catholic doctrine on monogenism, and denies the Catholic teaching on the immortal soul as the major distinguishing factor between human and ape.

I don’t think we should be surprised either that the “Catholic” theologian runs away when challenged on the quality of his belief or the orthodoxy of his teaching. That hit-and-run tactic has been used for several decades among dissident theologians. They like to hide in rectories or theological institutes where they don’t have to face the Catholic faithful directly.

They’ll deny official doctrine with their smirks and ridicule, but suddenly we’ll hear how faithful they really are if ever their job security is threatened.

In this case, our “theologian” had to suddenly run off after being asked about whether or not he believes in an immortal soul. Supposedly he had to write a paper on Intelligent Design. He won’t reveal his identity or which Catholic institution he supposedly works for. It’s certainly convenient to be able to reinterpret any Scriptural passage to favor your own advantage – so Jesus’ condemnation of hiding one’s lamp with under a basket does not mean that a theologian should let his writings and works for God be known to the public, but rather perhaps, that one should provide adequate reading light for students.

Even though the discussion ends in a stalemate with each side retreating to its own certainty, I hope it was informative for those Catholics who think that Darwinism is simply a benign intellectual force, bounded strictly by scientific evidence.

Our Catholic theologian claims that he knows no theologians or priests who accept the Church’s teaching on monogenism.

Are they wrong about the implications of evolutionary science? Or should those who want to embrace and uphold orthodox Catholicism rethink their beliefs and begin to join the dissenting Catholics?

Are we permitted to reject Darwinian claims about “the question of what man is”? Or would that mean that we’re evil “anti-science creationists” who are almost as bad as Michael Behe?

Perhaps we ought to swallow the entire Darwinian package like our evolutionary masters want us to?

 

[SonofMonica]

I figure if God gave us the capacity to use reason and gather knowledge and information about the natural world, then he certainly intended for us to use it to its full potential. Thus, using a simple Pascal’s wager, I can deduce that it is a virtuous thing to practice science. The idea that the complete account of the universe is spelled out in a few words in Genesis is quite silly to me–I prefer to think of it as a theological overview or summary about the important points of our origins. I don’t deny its truths, but I am not going to use it to supplant what we can know about the universe by observing it. Given the amount of information that we have learned, I can only suppose that we have much left to learn. I haven’t learned one thing in evolutionary science that contradicts the truths I must glean from Genesis.

Catholic theology does not deny the physical realm or its processes. Catholics celebrate matter; it is the stuff of sacraments. Matter is the tool that Jesus used to heal, forgive, and reveal himself to us. Catholics are big on life. Why then should we be surprised at the lengths life forms will go to in order to survive? We see the cycles of rebirth all around us, and we see gradual changes that make it possible to keep that cycle of rebirth going.

I see no reason why a Catholic cannot stand back with an evolutionary biologist and exclaim, “My, the world we see is the most amazing thing possible! Let us give thanks that we are alive at this point in history to see it and to understand it as best we can!” The only difference should be who we are giving thanks to, and the Catholic should not be brow-beating the ‘who’ into the biologist. He should be living his life in a way that demonstrates to the biologist the impact of God. God still acts through matter–us.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, your usual hit and run. It’s a pattern with you.

Maybe someday you will stand your ground and attempt to support your theological opinions with some argumentation. Bye for now.

Peace

another conference to run off to or a paper to write…

 

[SonofMonica]

No, really. Genesis says that plants and animals came first, and even says man was formed from dust. Where is the conflict?

 

[grannymh]

Granny,

Didn’t you get the memo about checking your brain at the door? You know as well as any that Catholics do not think for themselves. We are simply Catholic robots.

 

[StAnastasia]

Have you met Jesus Christ?

Of course. Have you?

 

[StAnastasia]

I see no reason why a Catholic cannot stand back with an evolutionary biologist and exclaim, “My, the world we see is the most amazing thing possible! Let us give thanks that we are alive at this point in history to see it and to understand it as best we can!” The only difference should be who we are giving thanks to, and the Catholic should not be brow-beating the ‘who’ into the biologist. He should be living his life in a way that demonstrates to the biologist the impact of God. God still acts through matter–us.

SonofMonica, this is a brilliant post. May I quote you?

My friend Fr. George Coyne is an astronomer who says that his discoveries about our evolving cosmos give him more to pray about.

StAnastasia

 

[Touchstone]

answer to one. Reexamining evolutionary evidence is the path to take.
answer to two. Please recheck what the Catholic Church teaches about Adam and Eve and you may understand why Noah and his wife are different from Adam and Eve.

What’s not clear to me are the reasonable expectations towards the evidence, known and future, here. It seems to me this is a good opportunity for a pass/fail for a religious proposition, something like the fundamentalist claims made a century ago, and revived by Henry Morris in the 1960s that the earth was young because (his interpretation of) the Bible said so. For Morris, fair enough, there’s the claim, and that’s great because it affords some adjudication by looking at the evidence.

That didn’t go well, of course, as the evidence repudiates Morris’ claim at every turn. Many were persuaded by the evidence, and have come to adopt interpretations of Scripture that hold it to be generally false, or true but in true in a way that is different than the young earth creationist interpretation.

Genetics would appear to provide a practical, evidence means of testing the validity of one’s belief. If you believe that one pair of mates was the genetic “root” of all mankind, here you have the opportunity for some faith-promoting validation, no? Or, alternatively, a valuable opportunity to be corrected by the evidence, as young earth creationists have been.

What I cannot understand is the “re-examine the evidence” response. As a skeptic, I’m all for critical review, and re-review of data and analysis for any reason, especially in cases where there is some reasonable basis for suspicion about the evidence. But in terms if the genetics here, at the end of day, after as many “re-examinations” as you’d like, I think you’ll find that the evidence does not support a “Genetic Adam & Eve”, and more than that, makes it very difficult to see how it’s even possible, let alone likely or indicated by the data.

Is that a problem worth confronting, or are those problems, like the dismaying evidence for young earth creationist, sufficient only to just question reality at a more fundamental level? Is that what “re-examining the evidence” means – “re-examining whether evidence has any bearing on my beliefs”? As you may know, young earth creationists have had to “re-examine the evidence” in such a way that they return with proposals that suggest that the speed of light constant was perhaps wildly variable, on the order of dozens of orders of magnitude.

Is the idea of a genetic Adam & Eve potentially falsifiable by the evidence?

If not, why bother to even examine in the first place, let alone “re-examine”?

-TS

 

[buffalo]

SonofMonica, this is a brilliant post. May I quote you?

My friend Fr. George Coyne is an astronomer who says that his discoveries about our evolving cosmos give him more to pray about.

StAnastasia

Sure it did and then he was livid:

Darwin’s Divisions

• The Pope, the Cardinal, the Jesuit & the Evolving Debate About Origins*

…

** The Fertile Universe**
Coyne’s third scientific category may come as a surprise to many working scientists: the fertility of the universe. This is not chance or necessity. This is not a particle or field. It is an expression of faith that the universe as created by God has so much inherent potential in it that it produces the most complex forms without divine intervention. This is Coyne’s attempt to give the universe an intrinsic value and dignity, but with the result that he effectively asserts that God could neither know it perfectly nor guide it to achieve his ends: hardly a philosophically and theologically neutral scientific category.
Further insights into the “fertility of the universe” may be gathered from the end of the article. Modern science “provides a challenge, an enriching challenge, to traditional beliefs about God,” he claims.
God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves. Is such thinking adequate to preserve the special character attributed by religious thought to the emergence not only of life but also of spirit, while avoiding a crude creationism? Only a protracted dialogue will tell.
Although he acknowledges that theologians have the concept of “continuous creation” with which to explore God’s relation to the universe, this last paragraph suggests that he has attributed to the universe too much power and autonomy. He holds out the possibility that the world in its continuous evolution could bring about the emergence of spiritual realities without divine intervention.
This is precisely what Catholics are not to believe, as John Paul II said in the address that Coyne thought was a model of sensitivity: “It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God.”
In Coyne’s scenario, the “fertility of the universe” takes over God’s role. An impersonal creative force—a creative chaos—accounts for the most amazing elements of the universe, while at the same time doing away with a Personal Designer. In refusing to adopt Coyne’s vision of the “fertility of the universe,” the church need not worry that it is closing the door on “the best of modern science.” Rather, it is rejecting a nebulous philosophy that claims for itself the mantle of science.

 

[reggieM]

This is Coyne’s attempt to give the universe an intrinsic value and dignity, but with the result that he effectively asserts that God could neither know it perfectly nor guide it to achieve his ends: hardly a philosophically and theologically neutral scientific category.

True. In order to protect and advance evolutionary speculations, he denies the Catholic teaching on the nature of God.

In refusing to adopt Coyne’s vision of the “fertility of the universe,” the church need not worry that it is closing the door on “the best of modern science.” Rather, it is rejecting a nebulous philosophy that claims for itself the mantle of science.

In rejecting Coyne’s false notions about God, the Church need not worry about dismissing authentic science. Rather, it is rejecting childish evolutionary conjectures and the heretical notions that follow from them.

 

[StAnastasia]

God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves. Is such thinking adequate to preserve the special character attributed by religious thought to the emergence not only of life but also of spirit, while avoiding a crude creationism? Only a protracted dialogue will tell…

What a brilliant man!

 

[reggieM]

Wilhelm Boelsche (*Evolution of Man *, p. 55) offers the kind of evidence and certainty that we have come to expect from evolutionary theory. I hesitate to suggest that we might want to “re-examine his evidence” because science has spoken and we know that evolution is a fact.

“For we find the instructive law on the resemblances of the youthful forms to their ancestors gives us a very satisfactory clue to our original ancestor: the body of the human being in the mother’s womb is also, in its first stages, covered with thick woolly hair. Even the face is covered just as we see it to-day in the case of the adult gibbon, and only the inner surfaces of the hands and feet are left free. Evidently these free places were uncovered, even in the ancestor which this human embryo copies for a short time. This Esau-like covering of the human being does not disappear until immediately before birth, and in a few exceptional cases, this covering has even been retained during life. This is the origin of the renowned men with dog faces.”

 

[buffalo]

What a brilliant man!

Heretical too.

** The Continuous Preservation and Governing of the World **

1. 
   *] God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
   *] God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
   *] God through His providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De fide.)

 

[grannymh]

Of course. Have you?

This was regarding a real Adam and Eve. The life and death of Jesus Christ is the reparation for the original sin of the real first parents of humanity.

 

[grannymh]

What I cannot understand is the “re-examine the evidence” response.
-TS

First of all, I am not a young earth person nor a creationist nor an ID proponent so my answer will skip most of your post. As for some kind of religious proposition, that is a different ball game.

There are a number of interesting things when one reads “evidence” from an analytic point of view. I have found that the actual experimental research which in itself was valid did not match the popular interpretation. There has been hedging in research. At times,the research was so limited, that it would be difficult to apply it universally.

When a scientific abstract refers to Cartesian dualism, there is some wondering if there might be another agenda. Also, it is very interesting to translate percentage of such and such into real numbers.

I am extremely interested in the nature of the human species. And I do find that two sole parents of humanity accounts for the uniqueness of the human being.

In a sense, I wear two hats. One is my belief in Catholicism which includes the real explanation for having two sole parents of humanity. However, there are plenty of posters who can do a better job explaining Catholic beliefs than me.

My second hat is that of an evolutionist. This hat is one of scientific curiosity more than anything. Natural science should not contradict human nature. It looks like it contradicts because it is limited by its own philosophy. Re-examining evidence can help make up for this limitation.

There is a lot to learn about evolution and genetics. You used a phrase “a genetic Adam & Eve.” I am interested in knowing where that came from.

Currently, I am traveling. But this is my last night in a hotel with a granny-friendly computer. So, I don’t know when I will return to CAF.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[SonofMonica]

SonofMonica, this is a brilliant post. May I quote you?

My friend Fr. George Coyne is an astronomer who says that his discoveries about our evolving cosmos give him more to pray about.

StAnastasia

You’re too kind. I was simply expressing the inner sense of awe I have, but you are of course free to quote as you wish.

 

[pzona]

Wilhelm Boelsche (*Evolution of Man *, p. 55) offers the kind of evidence and certainty that we have come to expect from evolutionary theory. I hesitate to suggest that we might want to “re-examine his evidence” because science has spoken and we know that evolution is a fact.

“For we find the instructive law on the resemblances of the youthful forms to their ancestors gives us a very satisfactory clue to our original ancestor: the body of the human being in the mother’s womb is also, in its first stages, covered with thick woolly hair. Even the face is covered just as we see it to-day in the case of the adult gibbon, and only the inner surfaces of the hands and feet are left free. Evidently these free places were uncovered, even in the ancestor which this human embryo copies for a short time. This Esau-like covering of the human being does not disappear until immediately before birth, and in a few exceptional cases, this covering has even been retained during life. This is the origin of the renowned men with dog faces.”

I do hope you realize that this was written in 1905. One of the main reasons evolution sounds like nonsense to creationists is that they like to cite outdated resources which are no longer recognized as evidence for evolution. The Evolution of Man was written when the theory of evolution was in its infancy, and since its writing we have drastically increased our comprehension of it. This passage is clearly not consistent with what we know about human development, and the scientific community readily admits this.

 

[Touchstone]

First of all, I am not a young earth person nor a creationist nor an ID proponent so my answer will skip most of your post. As for some kind of religious proposition, that is a different ball game.

I brought up young earth creationism precisely because other comments I’ve read from you indicated to me that you were NOT a young earth creationist. If you were, my comments would have been pointless, as you would not get my point. But since you are not, I suggest the example of young earth creationism is a sobering negative example to look at, given the line you appear to be taking here.

As I said, “re-examining the evidence” is a good and needed process, done in earnest. It has become a bit of a euphemism for denialism in some quarters, though, and that was the point I was raising with respect to young earth creationism. I was trying to get a sense for the “euphemistic” quality of your commitment to “re-examine”, if any.

There are a number of interesting things when one reads “evidence” from an analytic point of view. I have found that the actual experimental research which in itself was valid did not match the popular interpretation. There has been hedging in research. At times,the research was so limited, that it would be difficult to apply it universally.

I think you will find that “Adam and Eve are genetic roots” is the popular opinion in our culture (here in America, anyway), and the more scholarly one gets in one’s analysis, the more doomed your understanding becomes. So I encourage getting right below popular science media, and going to the primary literature, by all means. The more immersed you get in that, the more compelling the case against a “genetic Adam & Eve” – and here, it’s good to make clear that by that I mean an actual couple of humans who had offspring together – there’s good evidence for a “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-Chromosome Adam”, each of which every human being alive can claim as a genetic ancestor, but who lived something like 100,000 years apart from each other, and therefore quite likely never met, let along had kids.

The cool thing about the science is that it’s only as good and trustworthy as it is open. In the papers you read, you will see they discuss the precise methodology deployed, the controls, the data, the analytical results and the method used to derive them, as well as the conclusions, including the basis for those conclusions.

So, whatever one may read in the abstract and be concerned about, the write up itself will make the details available, so you can perform your own analysis. One can perform a separate study to attempt to (dis)confirm the results. The quality of the study obtains not from the presence or absence of “dualism” in the abstract, but from the documented design and execution of the study itself.

I am extremely interested in the nature of the human species. And I do find that two sole parents of humanity accounts for the uniqueness of the human being.

Yes, but 10,000 “roots” accounts for the uniqueness of each human being just as well, and arguably better. Having one set of parents would make us less unique – more similar and genetically isomorphic. So while a single set of genetic parents is quite compatible with human uniqueness, it is actually the least unique configuration possible. This should be apparent just by looking at a family with lots of bio-kids. They tend to resemble their parents and each other more than the rest of the population, which is both predictable and explainable because they have more genes in common.

In a sense, I wear two hats. One is my belief in Catholicism which includes the real explanation for having two sole parents of humanity. However, there are plenty of posters who can do a better job explaining Catholic beliefs than me.

I was asking about the corrigbility of such a belief as “genetic Adam & Eve” – if it is indeed a formally Catholic belief, which I believe it is (this is what is meant by RCC use of “monogenesis”, correct – in terms of natural evidence we might uncover.

If a broad and deep body of genetic evidence points overwhelming to the implausibilty of a “genetic Adam & Eve”, does the doctrine stand and the evidence get dismissed – er, “re-examined”, or does the doctrine fall in light of the evidence? It’s not clear to me based on the Church’s corrigibility on other matters, historically.

My second hat is that of an evolutionist. This hat is one of scientific curiosity more than anything. Natural science should not contradict human nature. It looks like it contradicts because it is limited by its own philosophy. Re-examining evidence can help make up for this limitation.

Why would the absence of a genetic Adam & Eve contradict human nature. If we are to discoer that’s the case, it would seem to broaden our understanding of human nature.

There is a lot to learn about evolution and genetics. You used a phrase “a genetic Adam & Eve.” I am interested in knowing where that came from.

I think I must have picked it up here. The terms I recognize outside of this forum are ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ and ‘Y-Chromosomal Adam’, two interesting individuals in terms of our genetic history, but not connected in a social or personal way, according to the evidence we have. The reason we use the terms ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ and ‘Y-Chromosomal Adam’ in science is of course, a nod to the historical cultural/religious ideas about the first humans.

-TS

 

[reggieM]

I do hope you realize that this was written in 1905.

The things that you’re reading today are written in 2009. They’ll be outdated next year.

The Evolution of Man was written when the theory of evolution was in its infancy, and since its writing we have drastically increased our comprehension of it.

We’ve reviewed the evidence and found it was lacking. Sounds like a good plan for today’s versions of the facts.

This passage is clearly not consistent with what we know about human development, and the scientific community readily admits this.

They more readily admit that their claims today are true, just as Mr. Boelsche did back then.

In fact, here’s more from his Evolution of Man, 1904, pg. 97-99 (others have seen this already, but it’s too good to reserve for just one prior thread). Let’s notice how insistent he is. This great evolutionary fact is “the most remarkable proof” of evolution yet. The fact that humans are born with gills and fins is “universally accepted” by evolutionists. In fact, “no man with the least respect for the truth can deny this fact”. “Every university book” contains this factual proof of evolution.

Where does that all sound familiar? … oh yeah, evolutionists say exactly the same thing today about their new claims. Then, next year, they’ll claim that we have “better knowledge now” as they refute their previous “facts” – hoping that the public will forget their ridiculous claims just the prior year.

should not the embryo of mammals, reptiles and birds show at least traces of a tadpole or fish stage in the mother’s womb, or in the egg? It is the most remarkable proof of the reliability of the biogenetic law that this is actually the case… The embryo of human being at a certain stage is likewise provided with traces of gills on its neck and with fin-like disks in the places where arms and legs develop later on. This is as universally accepted as the fact first stated by Copernicus that the earth revolves around the sun. No man who has the least respect for truth can deny this fact. Nevertheless, there are people who find this very plain fact of embryology very little to their liking, and who therefore frequently attempt to brand it as a “falsification.” But every university text-book in the hands of every student of medicine, which is used as a basis for the state examinations, contains a statement of this simple fact, and if any student were to deny it during his examination he would be severely reprimanded by the state examiner. People who still refer to such undeniable and scientifically recognized facts as falsifications place themselves outside the pale of all moral premises and scientific research.

 

[SonofMonica]

Does either the Bible or Catholic dogma dictate that God created only 2 humans, and that all the procreation descended from them? I sorta had it in my head that they were the first humans to be “created,” but not the only ones. Else, why would Cain be afraid that the rest of humanity would bring retribution against him for murdering his brother? He didn’t have any children until a later verse… Aren’t more humans (non-descendants from Adam & Eve) implied in Genesis by the fact that there were other lands named Nod and such, and other people which might kill Cain?

Also, the Bible doesn’t say that God created only two plants, only two cows, only two fish. Even under literal creationism, I thought everyone sort of assumed he “populated” the Earth with more than two of these creatures. Why wouldn’t the same apply to humans? Isn’t the 10,000 root theory compatible with Genesis?

Maybe I do have a misunderstanding about Original Sin, but I don’t think so. Is it necessary that it is “passed down” (inherited in a genetic sense), or are we free to believe that the committing of the sin changed humanity such that all humans are born with it, regardless of common descent with Adam & Eve? I think we are–I believe that we are free to believe that Original Sin is not “passed down” but rather a common characteristic of the human race, thus erasing the need for Adam & Eve to be the sole initial set of humans. It came into the world and affected all men, but it is not necessarily something inherited in the way we might talk about traits and genes…

From the Catechism:

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin ***came into the world ***through one man and death through sin, and so death ***spread to all men ***because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."29

---

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand.