Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’

[FollowChrist34]

Yes, but does evolution fall within the area of a ‘scientific theory’?

*Evolution, fact and theory[edit]
Evolution has been described as “fact and theory”, “fact not theory”, “only a theory, not a fact”, “multiple theories, not fact”, and “neither fact, nor theory”.[2] The disagreements among these statements, however, have more to do with the meaning of words than the substantial issues and these are discussed below.

However, in science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”*[24] Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them. In the case of evolution through natural selection, Darwin conceived the hypothesis around 1839, and made a first draft of the concept three years later in 1842. He discussed this widely with many of his intellectual companions, and conducted further research in the background to his other writings and work. After years of development, he finally published his evidence and theory in On the Origin of Species in 1859.[25]

The “theory of evolution” is actually a network of theories that created the research program of biology. Charles Darwin, for example, proposed five separate theories in his original formulation, which included mechanistic explanations for:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Is evolution far beyond reasonable doubt?

*By Darwin’s own requirements for his theory,the proof beyond reasonable doubt does not exist. *Charles Darwin wrote “The Origin of Species” in 1859 and included two chapters concerning the missing evidence he would need in order to prove his theory to be truth. His suggestion was that the future would produce a fossil record with the “Innumerable” transitional species that were required by Darwin himself in order to prove the theory.

It has been over 150 years since Darwin wrote that book and thus birthed evolutionary theory and the Innumerable transitional fossils have never been found.

What do you think happened to the Neanderthals? You believe they existed and went extinct, correct? They were human like, not apes, a cousin of us both I think, but were wiped out. We survived. I believe “theory” is that they were some sort of parallel lesser version of man compared to us. (I personally think we had something to do with their demise.)

But I actually agree nothing has really been proven to transition or progress or evolve. That is a little problematic. So you think we were just as we are now, hundreds of thousands of years ago? As cavemen?

 

[estesbob]

Very good point. I don’t have a problem with people believing young earth creationism. I do defend against and debate with those who seem to think believing in evolution is anti Christian or undermining God.

That’s what I don’t understand-why people of Faith would feel threatened by Evolution. If God chose to use evolution in the creation process why is that a problem?

 

[pepipop]

It can be proven (or as Rin would say more accurately, demonstrated to be probable beyond reasonable doubt) quite easily, by genetics; for a particularly striking example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

If you understand genetics, you will immediately say, wow!

(But then you better know something about centromeres, telomeres etc.)

But it could be said that this depended upon the underlying knowledge available to geneticists at that time - not saying it is proof or not proof. The link refers to research carried out, pre-2012, for example prior to the discovery that 98% of DNA which had been dismissed as ‘junk DNA’, was actually not ‘junk’ at all. Not inferring this would make any difference to the referenced chromosomal observations, but is does indicate the field of genetics is only scratching the surface.

Needless to say other researchers debunk the chromosone 2 theory.

icr.org/article/new-research-debunks-human-chromosome/

*Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion” of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1 However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.

The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.

Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7*

theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode

Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as “junk” are in fact crucial to the way our genome works, an international team of researchers said on Wednesday.

 

[Seamus_L]

1. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema. Pope Pius IX ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#4

 

[Jon_S_1]

1. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema. Pope Pius IX ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#4

No one here has remotely gone against this.

 

[estesbob]

1. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema. Pope Pius IX ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#4

The theory of evolution does not conflict with this.

 

[RGCheek]

Interesting point of view.

It is an interesting topic.

If we are made in God’s image and likeness, and we evolved from apes, then apes too would be in God’s image and likeness.

No, because our physical form is not what makes us ‘in God’s image’ but the fact that we can think, have a wit, a conscience and moral responsibility makes us like God, not the way our arms, legs and torso look, etc.

The problem is… our DNA is more similar to pigs, and pigs are smarter than apes.

Factoids like ‘Our DNA is more similar to…’ is kind of subjective. Pigs are more like us in their adaptation to their environment, but we are part of the scientific family of Hominidae, the Great Apes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

 

[pepipop]

What do you think happened to the Neanderthals? You believe they existed and went extinct, correct? They were human like, not apes, a cousin of us both I think, but were wiped out. We survived. I believe “theory” is that they were some sort of parallel lesser version of man compared to us. (I personally think we had something to do with their demise.)

But I actually agree nothing has really been proven to transition or progress or evolve. That is a little problematic. So you think we were just as we are now, hundreds of thousands of years ago? As cavemen?

Neanderthals and the other pre-historic men in the evolutionary scale are obviously all extinct, as it was with the evolutionary timeline for horses. That side of evolution is most likely completely correct (I personally do not care either way), as proven through fossil evidence.

However, I’m now not sure that humans should be classified as primates with apes and monkeys - as it seems a bit off to me. (IMO) The reasons originally were because we have similar anatomy and behaviour - and that was before the DNA ‘evidence’.

Is it not possible that God created animals that could walk upright, use their hands, etc… rather than having to place humans into that grouping. - But who knows.

*How Do We Know Humans Are Primates?

Besides similar anatomy and behavior, there is DNA evidence. It confirms that humans are primates and that modern humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor between 8 and 6 million years ago. There is only about a 1.2 percent genetic difference between modern humans and chimpanzees throughout much of their genetic code.*

 

[buffalo]

There are two different creation accounts in Genesis, anyway. So I don’t know how you think you can square those. Is one of them lying? Are both? Or maybe they’re just a different style of text than you think they are.

But I’m trying to grasp why anyone would reject evolutionary theory when both 1) mainstream science supports it, and scientific developments have resulted from it and 2) the Church does not detect any problems with it.

Man, I love the U.S., but there’s something seriously wrong with our education system if there’s such widespread disbelief in basic science. It’s not like we’re talking about wild, highly speculative multi-universe stuff here. This came up a few months ago in another thread and I actually had to convince people that no scientist actually believes that man “came from monkeys.” I mean, wow… come on.

There is no empirical proof for macro evolution, that is, observable, repeatable and predictable. No one doubts micro evo, aka adaptation.

 

[buffalo]

So you would hold that God said “poof a tiger” “poof a lion” “poof an amoeba” “poof a man”.

Interesting

How about - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

 

[buffalo]

Thats not what theistic evolution is…theistic evolution is Gd creates each creature, and then once created, lets them evolve…

So, did God know what Adam and Eve would look like?

 

[buffalo]

Only humans have an eternal soul made in the image of God.

and a rational soul.

 

[buffalo]

I believe that human beings are classified as apes.

Genesis tells us moral truths about the beginning and some science truths also that we can accept by faith, no? or not, but biological evolution does not contradict that notion that God created the universe at all.

By humans.

Polygenism does contradict the Catholic faith and is the issue with theistic evolution. It is also a problem for original sin.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution within a species is fact more than theory.

We know that human beings today are far more evolved than 100,000 years ago.

I side with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in that he believed that mankind evolved biologically quickly up until about 10,000 years ago. Then the biological evolution slowed down.

However, intellectual and spiritual evolution began to speed up and we’re still evolving today.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a scientists and was on the team that discovered Peking Man,.

Jim

Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”

"the human race is degenerating at 1-5% per generation"

 

[buffalo]

:bigyikes:

This is generally covered in elementary school level evolutionary theory

No scientist anywhere says we evolved from modern apes.

In a nut shell. They say that like apes we are primates and we descend from a common ancestor.

Here is a visual that may help.

http://cdn1.stuff4crafts.com/catalo...f78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/2/0/208333.jpg

The Tree of Life has fallen and is now more of a bush.

 

[pepipop]

How about - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

I’ll go with this ‘theory’.

 

[buffalo]

This is generally covered in elementary school level evolutionary theory

No scientist anywhere says we evolved from modern apes.
In a nut shell. They say that like apes we are primates and we descend from a common ancestor.

Here is a visual that may help.

Yes, I studied it as a 13 yr old and remember v little now. However this image is normally displayed to indicate the evolution of man with the ape trundling along at the start of the evolution of mankind. Other similar evolution timelines, e.g. the horse, indicate the earlier species died out.

Either way, how can it be proven that man and apes came from a common

ancestor, i.e. primates - that in itself seems just as strange.

Like everything else with this area of science, fossil dating,fossil interpretation, ancestral species determination, etc., none of it is provable, it is a theory.

http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/template.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/engrade-myfiles/4040431555446249/Evolution_of_the_horse.png

Yes, they still put these pictures in the textbooks even though they have been debunked.
[/quote]

 

[buffalo]

It can be proven (or as Rin would say more accurately, demonstrated to be probable beyond reasonable doubt) quite easily, by genetics; for a particularly striking example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

If you understand genetics, you will immediately say, wow!

(But then you better know something about centromeres, telomeres etc.)

A major argument supposedly supporting human evolution from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is the “chromosome 2 fusion model” in which ape chromosomes 2A and 2B purportedly fused end-to-end, forming human chromosome 2. This idea is postulated despite the fact that all known fusions in extant mammals involve satellite DNA and breaks at or near centromeres. In addition, researchers have noted that the hypothetical telomeric end-to-end signature of the fusion is very small (~800 bases) and highly degenerate (ambiguous) given the supposed 3 to 6 million years of divergence from a common ancestor. In this report, it is also shown that the purported fusion site (read in the minus strand orientation) is a functional DNA binding domain inside the first intron of the DDX11L2 regulatory RNA helicase gene, which encodes several transcript variants expressed in at least 255 different cell and/or tissue types. Specifically, the purported fusion site encodes the second active transcription factor binding domain in the DDX11L2 gene that coincides with transcriptionally active histone marks and open active chromatin. Annotated DDX11L2 gene transcripts suggest complex post-transcriptional regulation through a variety of microRNA binding sites. Chromosome fusions would not be expected to form complex multi-exon, alternatively spliced functional genes. This clear genetic evidence, combined with the fact that a previously documented 614 Kb genomic region surrounding the purported fusion site lacks synteny (gene correspondence) with chimpanzee on chromosomes 2A and 2B (supposed fusion sites of origin), thoroughly refutes the claim that human chromosome 2 is the result of an ancestral telomeric end-to-end fusion. Jeffrey Tomkins

 

[latin_rite]

Church interpretation of Scripture trumps personal interpretation.

The Church is the authority on teaching scripture to the faithful.

Jim

But on this subject the Bible is clear. Even to us “uneducated rabble”.

 

[Monkey1976]

But on this subject the Bible is clear. Even to us “uneducated rabble”.

So I should listen to your private interpretation of the words of Scripture rather than the statements of multiple popes, saints, and doctors of the Church?

Who knew Martin Luther had an account here?