G
Ghosty
Guest
Yeah, for some reason I typed Steve Anderson and not Steveereno, and it won’t let me edit my post 
- Status
C
Chris_W
Guest
Yes, I know…the “god of the gaps” right? Well, I’m thinking there could be a possibility that does not fly in the face of science nor Catholicism:
Evolutionists argue that they can see in the scientific evidence a progression of man, or evolution. They say there were no less than 10,000 or so hominiods roaming around at one point in history. And they say we cannot trace our roots to just one pair of those hominoids.
Then, on the Catholic teachings side of things we see that the Church has spoken infallibly regarding Eve not being the result of evolution (unless someone has actually come up with a rebuttal of Fr. Harisson’s work). And the Church saying we need to believe we are all descendents of Adam.
So my suggestion is this: Perhaps hominoids did evolve, as evolutionists say they did. Perhaps there were 10,000 of them at some point. And perhaps they all died out. Perhaps, as a separate event, God created Adam and Eve by special creation (before or after the extinction of the brutes) and we are in fact all descendents of that initial pair.
My question really, is whether or not this idea contradicts any scientific evidence?
I really object to that line of reasoning. I’ve heard it before and it is just not a viable argument, in my opinion. I could just as easily argue that Genesis is written in pretty clear and straight forward language, seeming to pretty clearly state that God created Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed life into this first man’s body, and subsequently created Eve from the man’s side.
By your logic, why would God inspire the authors to write this in such a literal sounding description if God really performed these events over millions of years, without any direct involvement, using only the laws of nature and unguided changes in populations of ever changing species, and Adam wasn’t really the first man, in fact there were thousands of other hominiods running around with whom Adam and Eve would interact, or even mate with, as some people suggest (repulsive as that thought is), Original Sin didn’t happen like it is described, etc, etc. It would have been much clearer if God had inspired the authors to simply state that God created all the laws of nature that have resulted in the abundance of life we see before us, and that God elevated mankind to a state in which he was made into the image and likeness of God, wouldn’t it? And that “mankind” sinned thus putting us in need of a Savior.
Evolutionists present the “evidence” as so clear that evolution absolutely must be what happened, or else God is a deceiver by allowing this evidence to exist.
Yet these same evolutionists argue that the Bible, (perhaps the most significant and detailed way in which God reveals Himself to us), doesn’t even remotely mean what it so clearly seems to say, and the traditional understanding of thousands of years is entirely wrong. Gimme a break! Sorry, but that argument really annoys me.
But getting back to the topic - Is there any scientific evidence that would refute the idea that perhaps everything else evolved, and perhaps hominoids evolved, but perhaps human beings are the result of the miraculous special creation of Adam and Eve from whom we all descended?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Chris W:
Let’s assume that there was a miraculous creation of Adam and Eve. How would you prove that scientifically?
C
Chris_W
Guest
Science cannot prove. That’s why I asked if there is any evidence to disprove it.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Chris W: It’s not a matter of evolutionary theory that we come from a pool of 10,000 at the smallest, but a matter of pure genetics. There is too much genetic variation to account for us drawing our biological forms from just two people. Furthermore, the Church does not teach that we must have drawn our biological forms from just two people, but only that we all share descent from those two people.
There is, quite simply, no way to rectify Adam and Eve as the sole biological ancesters of all humanity with the genetic evidence we ALL carry within us. Thankfully the Church doesn’t say this is a problem in need of rectification.
There is, quite simply, no way to rectify Adam and Eve as the sole biological ancesters of all humanity with the genetic evidence we ALL carry within us. Thankfully the Church doesn’t say this is a problem in need of rectification.
S
Stevereeno
Guest
You are using very poor reasoning here. Do you believe that the Bible contains the Word of God? If so, why would he deliberately deceive us as to our origins with his own Word? And, please, don’t try to argue that the Almighty God was incapable of properly explaining to the Genisis author what the truth of our origin is (anything is possible with God).
B
buffalo
Guest
Stevereeno is on to it. God has transmitted throught the Bible his Revelation. He did not create a puzzle ( based on others arguments of not being deceived) for us to solve over several thousand years.
Why wouldn’t he use direct and simple language through the author?
The standing position is He deliberately confused the issue until we were bright enough to figure it out? Or that he deliberately filtered his language so as not to include any true historical facts? So that now in our enlightened years we can take a gnostic approach to understanding scripture?
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Certainly, God was quite capable of dictating a textbook on quantum mechanics() and a textbook on general relativity() to the author of Genesis. I just don’t see what good that would have accomplished. The people of the time would not have the education to understand the science involved, and it would detract from the important point of the creation story, which is that the universe and mankind are creations of God.
As a practical matter, it would have been much more useful for God to dictate a table of contents for the Old Testament, so the Protestants would know that there are actually 46 and not 39 books in it. So why didn’t God do that?
(*) Note: Or whatever the true and final theory of physics will turn out to be.
C
Chris_W
Guest
No one is suggesting that God should’ve created a textbook on quantum mechanics. What is being suggested is that if in fact evolution of men occurred as it is presented by evolutionists, then it would have been very logical, and much less confusing, if God had merely indiacted that He set the natural laws in place that have resulted in the diversity of life we see today, and that he elevated mankind to a supernatural state, and that man sinned against Him thus putting us in need of a savior. This would not have been difficult for the early folks to grasp, and it would have prevented the contradictions evolutionists claim exists between a literal reading of Genesis and the Theory of Evolution.
BTW, this response is only in reply to those who use the fallacious argument that the evolution of man must have occurred or else God is a deceiver through scientific evidence. That argument just does not stand up to reason.
C
Chris_W
Guest
I guess that is where I am lacking in information (I am admittedly not learned on genetics). I am assuming (perhaps in ignorance) that the genetic evidence is in the form of DNA. And my question is whether or not God could have created Adam and Eve in such a way that their DNA was so complex that it could have resulted in the variations observed today. We certainly cannot know what Adam and Eve, nor their immediate offspring’s DNA looked like, can we?
Addionally, I was told by an evolutionist in a previous thread that some think the bottle neck could’ve been as small as 57. Any thoughts on that?
I am unclear on that statement. Are you saying that it cannot be accounted for with what we can observe scientifically today? Or are you saying that *even if God created Adam and Eve in a miraculous way * with DNA unlike what is known to scientists, that the variation still could not have occurred?
Thanks for bearing with me in my ignorance.
G
Ghosty
Guest
God could only have done so if Adam and Eve’s DNA was of a completely different nature from ours, and not just complexity. It would have to be different to such a degree that they weren’t biologically human as we understand it (or any life form, for that matter), because their DNA would have to recombine in a way completely foreign to how we know DNA works now. In fact, their DNA couldn’t even be DNA as we know it, as the proteins that make it up recombine in a very specific way that precludes such an arrangement. In simple terms, if they were like us bodily, there is no possible way for their DNA to account for an apparent 10,000 person bottle-neck.
Incidently, we can know what their DNA looked like to a certain degree, at least in general outline. DNA is DNA, and there is no mistaking human DNA for, say, chimp DNA under proper examination. We can’t really extrapolate what their exact genetic code was, but if they were the same species as us and we didn’t “evolve” from them, then they would have had the exact same “DNA type”.
Perhaps because God doesn’t care if we know how we got here physically, but rather wants us to know how we got here spiritually? There was a quote on these forums by some professor, I believe, which went something like, “I’m not interested in whether or not the snake could talk. I’m interested in what the snake said.” Our biology matters not one bit to our relationship with God, but our Creation and Fall means everything. Furthermore, it’s much simpler to layer meanings and multiple messages when your Word isn’t set up like an encyclopedia entry.
Augustine said it best:
Besides, as Catholics, we know that Scripture isn’t set up in such a clear-cut manner, otherwise we wouldn’t need the Magesterium and Sola Scriptura would be self-evident. If Scripture is self-evident, why did God establish the Magesterium, and the Pharisees before that? God did forsee the potential problems in such a design of Scripture, and so gave us the Church to keep us from error. The Church has said there is no apparent doctrinal error in believing in certain theories of evolution, and I’m not on a high enough spiritual level, nor am I haughty enough, to argue with it on this point.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Chris W:
Science can’t disprove the Virgin Birth, but, again, the preponderance of the scientific evidence indicates that a birth (in humans, and most vertebrates) needs both male and female genetic contributions.
If you’re asking the more general question, of “Can science disprove that something “miraculous” occurred sometime in the past”, then no, science can’t disprove it, but it can look at the evidence and draw reasonable conclusions about the probability of such a miracle. From the perspective of the bulk of the scientific community, a miraculous creation of a single Adam and Eve, from whom all of us descend exclusively, is not considered very probable.
Science can’t absolutely disprove that God created a single Adam and a single Eve, but the preponderance of the evidence suggests that such a creation did not happen (at least regarding our physical bodies).
Science can’t disprove the Virgin Birth, but, again, the preponderance of the scientific evidence indicates that a birth (in humans, and most vertebrates) needs both male and female genetic contributions.
If you’re asking the more general question, of “Can science disprove that something “miraculous” occurred sometime in the past”, then no, science can’t disprove it, but it can look at the evidence and draw reasonable conclusions about the probability of such a miracle. From the perspective of the bulk of the scientific community, a miraculous creation of a single Adam and Eve, from whom all of us descend exclusively, is not considered very probable.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Ahimsa: In all fairness, preponderance of evidence means all of nothing when it comes to miracles, and science as a practice recognizes this. Science does not speak on miraculous events, other than to say that such events fall outside the “preponderance of evidence” yet also occured. We see this all the time in medicine when people are “cured” of ailments that, by all natural reason, should be.
So, in short response to:
So, in short response to:
We agree, and that’s why it’s called a miracle. Nobody claimed that the pregnancy and birth were like the rest of humanity’s, in fact the point is that they weren’t. Science has nothing more to say on the matter other than indicating how children are normally produced, to which we can simply say, “Thanks for the info, we knew he was special!”
4
4_marks
Guest
Pope Pius XII was not a molecular biologist. He could only be aware of the scientific postulations concerning evolutionary theory of his day. There have been numerous scientific advances and developments in the field of molecular biology since he had spoken. The author(s) of the Genesis accounts, too, seemingly believed that the cosmology to which they held was factual science, and employed this cosmology in the telling of these intriguing and familiar stories. While these accounts are contained in what is considered to be the Word of God, the Bible, does this mean that they are also scientifically and historically free from error? In the same way, while Pope Pius XII spoke on these matters, must what he said regarding them be considered to be scientifically and historically infallible? I think not. While a Pope may speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals, at the same time, and in the same declaration, he may be speaking erroneously on matters of science or history.
Ontological questions abound…What exactly is it that distinguishes human beings from other creatures on Earth? Is there a unique or perhaps a series of unique physical attrubutes that is found in all modern humans that is not found in primordial humans? Are humans simply to be understood in terms of their existence as highly evolved organic matter. Are brain function and consciousness what defines a person as human? Why is biological life “pro-generative” in the first place?
What is evident is that people of all ages and cultures consistently quest for meaning, significance, purpose, happiness. They look beyond the present and toward the future.
I have yet to observe such profound existential expressions even among the most intelligent of animals.
C
Chris_W
Guest
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Ghosty. As may be apparrent, I am still unsettled about how evolution theory and Catholicism fits together, and so I ask questions to explore the possibilites. What you replied makes sense, so I’m back to the drawing board, so to speak.
Speaking only for myself, I do not argue that Genesis is a literal account. I think it could be, but it isn’t necessarily, and there is certainly a bunch of scientists who believe the evidence says not. My (name removed by moderator)ut on that subject in this thread, has simply been to counter the rediculous argument that if evolution isn’t true, then God must be a deciever…for the same could be said about the words of Genesis. I certainly do not mean to suggest the reading must necesarily be literal. At the same time I don’t think it is all symbolic metaphorical myths either. And as you rightly point out, the Church has not precisely defined the proper interpretation (in good prudence).
There remain questions for which we cannot be sure of the answers. My approach is to explore how evolution could be understood to fit into Catholicism…not to see how Catholicism
could be understood to fit into evolution.
The tone early on in this thread seemed to be that the Church’s teaching (on Original Sin for example) is “at stake”. I disagree with this notion completely. The truths guaranteed by God, as taught by the Church are not at stake…I think Catholics need to view it as evolution that is at stake because of the difficulties.
B
buffalo
Guest
Chris W:
I agree Chris. Syncretism is exactly what has been happening as our faith shifts from God to science…
S
Stevereeno
Guest
Chris W:
“From the moment that it is accepted that man is not born from the finger of God, but evolved progressively from the animal state, the way of understanding the existence of evil, sickness and suffering in the world must be revised. Keeping up with the demands imposed by the scientific community, leaves the Church with an abyss opening under its feet.”
I don’t see how problems will not snowball when one tampers with Original Sin or it’s effects.
Chris, there is alot more at stake than you may think. Take, for example, the Sacred Tradition that death and suffering are a direct result of Original Sin. Clearly, if we accept the evolution of man, this Catholic dogma will need to be thrown out along with the Book of Wisdom (which states that God did not make death). France’s prestigious newspaper ‘Le Monde’ states it more eloquently than me:
“From the moment that it is accepted that man is not born from the finger of God, but evolved progressively from the animal state, the way of understanding the existence of evil, sickness and suffering in the world must be revised. Keeping up with the demands imposed by the scientific community, leaves the Church with an abyss opening under its feet.”
I don’t see how problems will not snowball when one tampers with Original Sin or it’s effects.
S
Stevereeno
Guest
Look, the point I was trying to make was that it is a poor argument to say that since evolution seems possible, then it must be true because God would not try to fool us. If this were true, then there would be allusions to evolution in the story of Genisis.
G
Genesis315
Guest
The order in which the Genesis story says God created everything, does loosely follow the same order that evolution says things appeared on earth, especially if birds came from dinosaurs. In Genesis 1, first there are plants, then there are creatures in the sea, then birds, then cattle and wild animals (mammals), finally humans. Sounds similar to what evolution says, no?
S
Stevereeno
Guest
No. It is the creation of man we are discussing here and which has the only bearing on the rest of Catholic theology. Consider what Pope Leo XIII said:
“We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept.”
Apparently, Pope Leo does not think God chose their bodies from brute-stock, as you suggest. If that were the case, why doesn’t Genesis say that God formed their bodies from the wild beasts?
- Status