Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

[Renton405]

Rent << I myself lean towards more a creationism. I don’t believe we came from monkeys, i think that is absolutly ridiculous… >>

Of course monkeys, the great apes, and us all had a common ancestor. We didn’t come from modern monkeys. And the evidence is at your local bookstore or public or university library:

The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells (Randon House paperback, 2004)
Bones, Stones, and Molecules: “Out of Africa” and Human Origins by David W. Cameron and Colin P. Groves (Elsevier, 2004)
The Human Fossil Record (volume 1, forthcoming in 4 volumes) by Schwartz / Tattersall (John Wiley and Sons, 2002)
Extinct Humans by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Westview Press / Perseus Books, 2000)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution edited by Steve Jones, Robert Martin, David Pilbeam (Cambridge Univ Press, 1992)
The Search for Eve by Michael H. Brown (Harper and Row, 1990)
Guide to Fossil Man by Michael H. Day (Univ of Chicago Press, 1986, 4th edition)
Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey (Simon and Schuster, 1981)

I’ve checked these out from U.S.F. (Tampa). Two TalkOrigins sources provide all the evidence you need:

Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Phil P

Im sorry I just can’t believe we came from Monkeys or apes… There is nothing ape-like about humans…A dog always remains a dog no matter how long, a cat a cat, a fish a fish. There might be some changes along the way, but the core feature is still always the same… I don’t believe a monkey can just morph into a human all of a sudden…

We are the only ceatures on earth that have a self-conscious,reasoning and a free-will… Apes don’t feel things like guilt, love, emotion, or consider their choices, they all act on instinct, not free will…

 

[Montalban]

Im sorry I just can’t believe we came from Monkeys or apes… There is nothing ape-like about humans…A dog always remains a dog no matter how long, a cat a cat, a fish a fish. There might be some changes along the way, but the core feature is still always the same… I don’t believe a monkey can just morph into a human all of a sudden…

We are the only ceatures on earth that have a self-conscious and a free-will… Apes don’t feel things like guilt, love, emotion, or consider their choices, they all act on instinct, not free will…

Pro-evolutionists always crow about evidences, but they keep discarding ‘missing-links’ that come and go every couple of years, and with all these gaps, they still cling to hope that there will one day be one.

The dumbest thing I found about Darwin is that he chose to describe his theory by a tautology - ‘survival of the fittest’

 

[Renton405]

well if we truely came from monkeys they would have the same traits as us mentally. The theory of mind including such faculties as mental state attribution, empathy and even empathetic deception is a controversial criterion distinguishing the adult human alone among the hominids. Humans acquire this capacity at about four and a half years of age. Monkeys and apes do not, they act on instinct all their lives…all these fossils that are found are just probably different species of apes that lived thousands/millions of years ago, maybe a little different features than the apes of today, but still an ape. Not some half-ape half-human breed…

 

[Montalban]

well if we truely came from monkeys they would have the same traits as us mentally. The theory of mind including such faculties as mental state attribution, empathy and even empathetic deception is a controversial criterion distinguishing the adult human alone among the hominids. Humans acquire this capacity at about four and a half years of age. Monkeys and apes do not, they act on instinct all their lives..

I started to put together a theory on the issue of evolution based on instinct - and language, or more precisely ‘complex language’

I have noted that a chimp will, if it finds food, instinctively make certain sounds, even if this is not a positive thing to do (for it; as it alerts other chimps it has food, and they could steal it from it). But it can’t help this. It acts on instinct

 

[Steve40]

The problem of Seth’s and Cain’s wives does not admit to an easy solution. Either incest or bestiality, take your pick.

rossum

I’ll choose incest thank you. Even if I did have an attraction to my cat his claws can be nasty. Incest is not intrinsically immoral, beastiality is.

I don’t believe in the separation of the meaning of pro-creation from the meaning of original creation. It’s a dumb idea.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Do you accept the earth is 4.5 billion years old (or at least billions, the exact number is not important) ?

Phil P

Last I saw in a museum or somewhere it was 4.6 billion. I suppose a 100 million years here or there is not important, who’s counting anyways?

 

[Steve40]

Last I saw in a museum or somewhere it was 4.6 billion. I suppose a 100 million years here or there is not important, who’s counting anyways?

Evolutionist have needed to increase the number of years because the mathematical probability of forming another species by mutation is impossible. Mathematicians have likened it to the probability of a whirlwind going through a junk yard and coming out with a jumbo jet.

They need a lot of years because it is a theory without a valid mechanism. My brother doesn’t believe in evolution he believes the aliens planted us. It’s just as valid a faith as evolution. As more information comes out, evolutionist are going to have to choose between the Bible and aliens. My guess is that many will choose the aliens, anything but the Bible.

 

[PhilVaz]

RR << Last I saw in a museum or somewhere it was 4.6 billion. I suppose a 100 million years here or there is not important, who’s counting anyways? >>

It is between 4.5 and 4.6 billion:

“We now know, to within 1% or better and from a variety of evidence, that the age of the Earth-Moon-meteorite system is about 4.51 - 4.55 Ga [billions of years old].” (G. Brent Dalrymple, from “The Age of the Earth in the Twentieth Century: A Problem (Mostly) Solved” in The Age of the Earth From 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell [Geological Society, 2001], page 219)

Case Closed and has been for 50 years. Geologists and geochronologists keep getting this number more precise. It is now known to within a few decimal places.

In my opinion it is useless discussing the subject with folks like Montalban until they want to narrow down what it is they do accept. Random arguments against evolution taken from AnswersInGenesis won’t get us anywhere. However beginning here and seeing if your objection has already been dealt with is a better start. That’s not arrogant, we have to start at a proper starting point, find what we have in common, then argue about where we do disagree, not about what we already agree on.

Phil P

 

[Reformed_Rob]

RR << Last I saw in a museum or somewhere it was 4.6 billion. I suppose a 100 million years here or there is not important, who’s counting anyways? >>

It is between 4.5 and 4.6 billion:

Case Closed and has been for 50 years. Geologists and geochronologists keep getting this number more precise. It is now known to within a few decimal places.
However beginning here and seeing if your objection has already been dealt with is a better start. That’s not arrogant, we have to start at a proper starting point, find what we have in common, then argue about where we do disagree, not about what we already agree on.

Phil P

Hey Phil,

That seems very reasonable. And that answers my question of who is counting. I should have known

Take care,

Rob

 

[mgrfin]

For people who believe solely in the literal word of God, this is a problem. I never read the Pope’s words, but he used to be the head of the “Holy Office”. Literal Protestants got into the Stokes monkey trial because of their hardened position.

This is not new for us. I heard it decades ago in Catholic elementary school.

The Church will accept any theory of creation, whether it becomes scientific fact or not. All we believe, is that at some point in the beginning of time, God stepped in and laid the groundwork for mankind. The big bang theory is just fine if you find it irrestible. God’s hand stepped in at some point; that is what we believe.

God created the world in six days, and on the seventh day he rested. This is a story written by Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not a scientific text book. It is a book to move us in faith to God. The people in Moses day needed a simple story about Creation and God. Also, that he set aside a day of rest, to be dedicated to God. So, if God rested, so should we.

Those who hold to the literal interpretation of the bible worry. If there is not literal understanding of everything in the bible, then maybe Catholic are right, and interpretation suits us better.
The bible is infallible: when it comes to faith and morals. When it comes to historical or scientifc fact, that is another matter
mgrfin

 

[PhilVaz]

OK I have gone through ALL of Montalban’s posts in this thread. There is not one single argument against evolution that is not answered in good detail on this Index to Creationist Claims. He is certainly a tenacious defender of literal creationism. Only person I remember more tenacious is Rheins2000 (see some creation-evolution threads from late 2005) and abcdefg (went by a couple handles, debated in a bunch of threads, eventually banned I think).

He wanted me to go through his posts. I have now done that. To sum up Montalban’s case: see posts #147, #148, #149, #157 from 8/2/2007 and post #181 from 8/3/2007

His primary arguments FOR creationism are: Jesus says we were created not evolved (Matthew 19:4), the Church Fathers say we were created not evolved, and the Pope may very well disagree with Jesus, since the Pope doesn’t realize that Jesus says we were created, not evolved.

The answer: there is no positive scientific evidence offered FOR creationism in his posts. The early Church Fathers were not scientists, they did not give us a correct scientific description of the world and its creation. They knew nothing of modern astronomy, biology, physics, medicine, etc. They believed the Earth stood still, a few of them that it was flat, the Sun and stars orbited the Earth, and any number of obsolete or superseded science. They passed on the faith correctly, but they did not know science.

Genesis is not a science textbook, it’s purpose is not to give us a correct scientific description of the world. Though some like Glenn Morton (former creationist) argue even Genesis teaches God used evolution or development of plants and animals, and not instantaneous creation. The universe was created ex nihilo, but not life on this planet which evolved.

Jesus was not giving science lessons either. All the Bible and the Fathers say is we were created by God, and theistic evolutionists like myself believe that. But evolution is the method God used. We know that because ALL the scientific evidence points to an old earth and macroevolution, NONE points to a young earth and special creation. The last few Popes and sources like Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 92-93) all agree we were created AND evolved.

– the creation of the world and the biblical hexahemeron (the “six days” of creation) of Genesis need not be taken literally or scientifically
– the Fathers who spoke on the “six days” were acting as private scientists, not passing on infallible dogmas on faith and morals
– both the Fathers and the Bible authors wrote in a pre-scientific age and need not be taken literally when speaking on science matters
– theistic evolution as guided by God is not opposed to the biblical text nor Catholic faith
– the creation of man can be seen in a symbolical or non-literal sense concerning the mode and manner of the formation of the human body
– reason (science) and faith (doctrine) cannot conflict since God is the source of both

Montalban’s other arguments that evolution is natural and therefore Atheistic was answered in this thread (see replies by myself, SteveAnderson, Rossum, Contarini, and others) and is dealt with by any number of books by theistic evolutionists who are Christians or Catholics:

Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller (no relation)
Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk
The Language of God by Francis Collins

Finally, besides these there is the AUDIO on my site. If you really care about being informed on this topic, you WILL read these books, and you WILL listen to all my MP3 audio. Thanks.

Phil P

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Finally, besides these there is the AUDIO on my site. If you really care about being informed on this topic, you WILL read these books, and you WILL listen to all my MP3 audio. Thanks.

Phil P

Phil,

For a guy who wanted a good intro to this topic without haveing to spend a week of vacation reading and listening to you talk, , what one resource/book/audio would you recommend?

Interested because this is an issue worthy of learning about, but not a top priority for me. And I believe most people are in the same situation, worthy of a little learning but not pressing.

-Rob

 

[Montalban]

"Rossum:

The problem of Seth’s and Cain’s wives does not admit to an easy solution. Either incest or bestiality, take your pick.

rossum

I’ll choose incest thank you. Even if I did have an attraction to my cat his claws can be nasty. Incest is not intrinsically immoral, beastiality is.

I don’t believe in the separation of the meaning of pro-creation from the meaning of original creation. It’s a dumb idea.

Rossum’s objection is one based on an idea that only people named in the Bible existed.

Cain quite clearly, upon receiving the ‘mark of cain’ points out his fear of being dealt harshly by other (un-named) people. They existed.

Whether God created them too, or they were born of union of people with Neraphim, or whatever is pure speculation. As is the idea that Adam’s people were incestuous.

Who knows what happened.

 

[Montalban]

Last I saw in a museum or somewhere it was 4.6 billion. I suppose a 100 million years here or there is not important, who’s counting anyways?

This is the problem with their argument; it keeps changing, except the bit where they’re so damned sure we’re wrong!

 

[Montalban]

For people who believe solely in the literal word of God, this is a problem. I never read the Pope’s words, but he used to be the head of the “Holy Office”. Literal Protestants got into the Stokes monkey trial because of their hardened position.

This is not new for us. I heard it decades ago in Catholic elementary school.

The Church will accept any theory of creation, whether it becomes scientific fact or not. All we believe, is that at some point in the beginning of time, God stepped in and laid the groundwork for mankind. The big bang theory is just fine if you find it irrestible. God’s hand stepped in at some point; that is what we believe.

God created the world in six days, and on the seventh day he rested. This is a story written by Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not a scientific text book. It is a book to move us in faith to God. The people in Moses day needed a simple story about Creation and God. Also, that he set aside a day of rest, to be dedicated to God. So, if God rested, so should we.

Those who hold to the literal interpretation of the bible worry. If there is not literal understanding of everything in the bible, then maybe Catholic are right, and interpretation suits us better.
The bible is infallible: when it comes to faith and morals. When it comes to historical or scientifc fact, that is another matter
mgrfin

Fr Seraphim Rose said this about Genesis “Some Protestant fundamentalists tell us it is all (or virtually all) 'literal.” But such a view places us in some impossible difficulties: quite apart form our literal or non-literal interpretation of various passages, the very nature of the reality which is described in the first chapters of genesis the very creation of all things) makes it quite impossible for everything to be understood ‘literally’; we don’t even have words, for example, to describe ‘literally’ how something can come from nothing. How does God “speak”? - does He make a noise which resounds in an atmosphere that doesn’t yet exist?”
Fr Seraphim Rose, (2000) “Genesis Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision”, (Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood; Platina, CA), p69
However “We (Orthodox) believe that the created world itself is a ‘mystery’ originating in the sovereign will of God accomplished by the action (energia) of the Holy Trinity. We confess in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed (325/381) that the Father is the “Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible”, the Son “He through whom all things were made”, and the Holy Spirit, the “Creator of life” (zoopion).” goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8050.asp

Genesis is the account of what happened. It is not a scientific description. But it is accurate. We were created. God says so, that is enough for me.

Some wish to repeat Adam’s sin of questing to have knowledge of these matters - and this has lead them to theories that are devoid of God.

 

[Montalban]

OK I have gone through ALL of Montalban’s posts in this thread. There is not one single argument against evolution that is not answered in good detail on this Index to Creationist Claims.

That is false. I raised the issue of mutually exclusive theories. You didn’t respond to that, instead you demanded from me answers to a list of your own questions. You are being dishonest by in effect claiming victories over arguments you’ve not even bothered addressing. I know it’s far easier to take the path you’ve taken, but it doesn’t contribute to honest discussion.

He is certainly a tenacious defender of literal creationism.

That’s also false. See my post above re: Fr. Seraphim’s words.

I already cited this St. Basil the Great in his Hexatemeron says “Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written.”

These mistakes of yours occurred when you decided to stop discussing this with me, and setting up your own demands. However, now lets look at your claim that this site properly deals with things I’ve raised - when it matches with something I’ve actually raised.

One thing I stated was that ‘survival of the fittest’ is a tautology.
Your site claims many things. However it ignores the fact that “Darwin used the term “natural selection” in his book “On the Origin of Species” but was persuaded that Spencer’s phrase ”survival of the fittest” was probably ‘more convenient’ “
perceptions.couk.com/genes1.html#rst
“Darwin did not believe that the environment was producing the variation within the finch populations. He correctly thought that the variation already existed and that nature just selected for the most suitable beak shape and against less useful ones. Darwin and his supporters ultimately described this process as the ”survival of the fittest.” This is very different from Lamarck’s incorrect idea that the environment altered the shape of individuals and that these acquired changes were then inherited.”
anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

The best twist on this is…
The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ was not even Darwin’s. It was urged on him by Wallace, the codiscoverer of natural selection, who hated ‘natural selection’ because he thought it implied that something was doing the selecting. Darwin coined the term ‘natural selection’ because had made an analogy with ‘artificial selection’ as done by breeders, an analogy Wallace hadn’t made when he developed his version of the theory. The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ was originally due to Herbert Spencer some years before the Origin
talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
That is, it doesn’t argue that he didn’t use it, just that he didn’t ‘coin’ it.

However, they are just plain wrong…
Look at this chapter from Darwin’s own book
On the Origin Of Species (1859)
Chapter IV: Natural Selection; Or ** the Survival of the Fittest **
infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/Chapter4.html
From the same source
This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the ** Survival of the Fittest.**

In fact Darwin says he preferred it…
But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.”

from the 6th edition of “Origin of the Species”

infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/Chapter3.html
con’t.

 

[Montalban]

…from previous post…

Is it in fact a tautology. One of my biology texts says so, although they too make a meal of defending him…

“From time to time, attacks on neo-Darwinism are mounted, usually by persons who either see evolutionary theory as antireligious or who basically misunderstand Darwin’s theory. One attack, entitled “Darwin’s Mistakes,” by Tom Bethell, was published in Harper’s magazine.

Bethell began by pointing out that Darwinian theory is a tautology rather than a predicative theory. (The term tautology means a statement that is true by definition.)* That is, evolution is the survival of the fittest. But who are the fittest? Obviously, the individuals who survive. Thus, without an independent criterion for fitness, other than survival, we are left with the statement that evolution is the survival of the survivors. This indeed is a tautology. But it is possible to assign independent criteria for fitness. Darwin wrote extensively about artificial selection in pigeons, in which the breeders’ choice was the criterion for fitness. (Many novel breeds of pigeon have been created this way.) Artificial selection has been practiced extensively by plant and animal breeders. Here too, survival is not the criterion for fitness, productivity is.”

Robert H Tamarin, (1996) “Principles of Genetics” (5th ed), p571.

So, why are they still teaching this rubbish?

The example used is of artificial survival! Where in nature does nature produce a cow that would die, unless it was milked twice a day? It doesn’t because the cow would die!

“Possible to assign criteria…” where does nature do this?

In other words their proof of survival of the fittest not being a tautology comes not from nature, but from creative and intelligent design!

Only person I remember more tenacious is Rheins2000 (see some creation-evolution threads from late 2005) and abcdefg (went by a couple handles, debated in a bunch of threads, eventually banned I think).

He wanted me to go through his posts. I have now done that. To sum up Montalban’s case: see posts #147, #148, #149, #157 from 8/2/2007 and post #181 from 8/3/2007

And look at what you’ve missed!

oh…!

Montalban’s other arguments that evolution is natural and therefore Atheistic was answered in this thread (see replies by myself, SteveAnderson, Rossum, Contarini, and others) and is dealt with by any number of books by theistic evolutionists who are Christians or Catholics:

Rossum isn’t Catholic nor Christian - a small point.

 

[Montalban]

Interested because this is an issue worthy of learning about, but not a top priority for me. And I believe most people are in the same situation, worthy of a little learning but not pressing.

-Rob

Don’t loose faith yet. PhilVaz’s main point is to bombard with irrelevant information, to distract with volume - and then to claim victories (contained somewhere in the mass of information) - such as his claims ALL my points have been met on one evolutionist’s FAQ site.

And he’s misrepresented my arguments in order to help fit them into his debate

 

[PhilVaz]

ReformedRob << For a guy who wanted a good intro to this topic without haveing to spend a week of vacation reading and listening to you talk, what one resource/book/audio would you recommend? >>

Hee hee. I would find and read at least Darrel Falk’s book Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology (2004). It is written at a simpler level. He works at a Nazarene college so deals with this issue all the time. The term he uses is “gradual creation” rather than “theistic evolution.”

More technical are the Millers, and slightly less technical is the Francis Collins book. For the one talk you should listen to:

Francis Collins on Genetics, Evolution, and Christian Faith, a talk at the American Scientific Affiliation last year, there is a video available

But anything on my audio page is nice, I’ve screened them all so they’re all good.

Phil P

 

[Steve40]

RR << Last I saw in a museum or somewhere it was 4.6 billion. I suppose a 100 million years here or there is not important, who’s counting anyways? >>

It is between 4.5 and 4.6 billion:

“We now know, to within 1% or better and from a variety of evidence, that the age of the Earth-Moon-meteorite system is about 4.51 - 4.55 Ga [billions of years old].” (G. Brent Dalrymple, from “The Age of the Earth in the Twentieth Century: A Problem (Mostly) Solved” in The Age of the Earth From 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell [Geological Society, 2001], page 219)

Case Closed and has been for 50 years. Geologists and geochronologists keep getting this number more precise. It is now known to within a few decimal places.

In my opinion it is useless discussing the subject with folks like Montalban until they want to narrow down what it is they do accept. Random arguments against evolution taken from AnswersInGenesis won’t get us anywhere. However beginning here and seeing if your objection has already been dealt with is a better start. That’s not arrogant, we have to start at a proper starting point, find what we have in common, then argue about where we do disagree, not about what we already agree on.

Phil P

I don’t see the evidence and I don’t see a lot of Geology as an empirical science (meaning observable and repeatable). Scientists still can not explain how Granite was formed. It’s all theroy. There is no “scientific” explaination for the polonium radiohalos in the granite. The existance of these halos seems to say that the granite was formed instantaneously, just like the Bible says.