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

[buffalo]

It’s pretty well established that they weren’t human. Recent genetic testing shows they interbred with humans about 50,000 years ago. So we do, or some of us do carry tiny bits of Neanderthal DNA in us, but we and Neanderthals are distinct species

They were isolated humans.

Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human

 

[boar2roar]

This just isn’t true. Perhaps you enjoy boxing God in and limiting his abilities, but I do not.

We aren’t talking about Godless evolution, we are talking about God setting a course of events. God treating biology like physics with laws and cause and effect.

Why God can’t be intimately involved in that is beyond me. He of course can. It displays his majesty.

I would argue that to have such detailed and complex life as we have is proof of Gods intimate involvement with the evolutionary process

God like evolution can’t be compatible with Catholicism. It would make no sense. Evolution by definition is changing due to natural selection based on the environment, again humans are just a big opportunistic coincidence in terms of evolution. If god truly has a personal relationship with humanity why would he make them come about in a random process. Again a deist could possibly square the two but evolution contradicts catholic belief in gods special relationship with man.

 

[buffalo]

Stephen Barr, The Design of Evolution (Communion and Stewardship is the document that I just cited in my post above):

"But Communion and Stewardship also explicitly warns that the word “random” as used by biologists, chemists, physicists, and mathematicians in their technical work does not have the same meaning as the words “unguided” and “unplanned” as used in doctrinal statements of the Church. In common speech, “random” is often used to mean “uncaused,” “meaningless,” “inexplicable,” or “pointless.” And there is no question that some biologists, when they explain evolution to the public or to hapless students, do argue from the “randomness” of genetic mutations to the philosophical conclusion that the history of life is “unguided” and “unplanned.” Some do this because of an anti-religious animus, while others are simply careless.

"When scientists are actually doing science, however, they do not use the words “unguided” and “unplanned.” The Institute for Scientific Information’s well-known Science Citation Index reveals that only 48 papers exist in the scientific literature with the word “unguided” in the title, most having to do with missiles. Only 467 have the word “unplanned,” almost all referring to pregnancies or medical procedures. By contrast there are 52,633 papers with “random” in the title, from all fields of scientific research. The word “random” is a basic technical term in most branches of science. It is used to discuss the motions of molecules in a gas, the fluctuations of quantum fields, noise in electronic devices, and the statistical errors in a data set, to give but a few examples. So if the word “random” necessarily entails the idea that some events are “unguided” in the sense of falling “outside of the bounds of divine providence,” we should have to condemn as incompatible with Christian faith a great deal of modern physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy, as well as biology.

“This is absurd, of course. The word “random” as used in science does not mean uncaused, unplanned, or inexplicable; it means uncorrelated. My children like to observe the license plates of the cars that pass us on the highway, to see which states they are from. The sequence of states exhibits a degree of randomness: a car from Kentucky, then New Jersey, then Florida, and so on”because the cars are uncorrelated: Knowing where one car comes from tells us nothing about where the next one comes from. And yet, each car comes to that place at that time for a reason. Each trip is planned, each guided by some map and schedule. Each driver’s trip fits into the story of his life in some intelligible way, though the story of these drivers’ lives are not usually closely correlated with the other drivers’ lives.”

What do they mean by random mutations? They do not claim mutations are directed.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

First, answer this question - Did God know what Adam would look like?

One’s inability to answer an irrelevant question is not an argument against evolution.

 

[buffalo]

One’s inability to answer an irrelevant question is not an argument against evolution.

I thought so… But, I never had anyone refuse to answer this one.

 

[Al_Moritz]

God like evolution can’t be compatible with Catholicism. It would make no sense. Evolution by definition is changing due to natural selection based on the environment, again humans are just a big opportunistic coincidence in terms of evolution. If god truly has a personal relationship with humanity why would he make them come about in a random process. Again a deist could possibly square the two but evolution contradicts catholic belief in gods special relationship with man.

I just cited a Church document, Communion and Stewardship, on this topic. What do you make of it then?

 

[sallybutler]

Perhaps God did not feel that the people that Genesis was written for needed or wanted a complete detailed description of how He created everything.

Job was, I am quite sure, very familiar with the account of creation written in Genesis. Yet God chastises him for acting as if he (Job) knew anything about creation or even the world that Job existed in (see Job 38-41).

We do not know exactly how the world was created. We do not know if God set something in motion or was busy for seven days and then stopped. I’m inclined to believe in the former, as I find it difficult to view God as a kind of Loki. By that I mean that in order to believe in the latter, I also have to believe that God put stuff in the ground to mess with us, such as fossils and decaying atoms, that the speed of light is not a trustworthy measurement, that we can’t use natural rock formations in the Grand Canyon to determine what happened there, Ice Ages didn’t really happen, etc.

 

[sallybutler]

I am willing to listen to your view on how He did it.

First, answer this question - Did God know what Adam would look like?

Of course. That is why we call Him All-Knowing.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Discuss the points made in the paper.

The minutiae of chromosome 2 is tangential to the original topic, but, heck, yeah, let’s discuss it. First, I agree with Al Moritz on the credibility of Tomkins’ research insomuch as it hasn’t been published in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. “Answers in Genesis”? RUS? Next, Tomkins’ ideas about Chromosome 2 are being questioned, and have themselves been debunked.

The fusion site does not have a functioning gene sequence, per Tomkins’ contention. The functioning gene of which he speaks is over 1,300 bases away from the fusion site.

motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution

“Evolution makes testable predictions,” observes Brown University’s [Kenneth] Miller, who has been a leading defender of evolution, and whose testimony about chromosome 2 played a prominent role in the 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania, trial over the legality of teaching “intelligent design” in public schools. When it comes to chromosomes, Miller explains, the prediction of evolution is that if we have 46 chromosomes and our closest cousins have 48, then “somewhere in our genome should be a chromosome formed by a recent fusion, and that chromosome should have telomere DNA, and it should have two centromeres. That is a prediction made by evolution, and bingo, you look and there it is.”

Tomkins naturally finds all kinds of supposed problems with the genetic evidence; perhaps his biggest claim is that at the alleged site on human chromosome 2 where the fusion occurred, there’s actually a functioning gene, rather than the remnants of fused 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,” Tomkins writes at another creationist site, the Institute for Creation Research.

But that’s just wrong, according to Miller. The fusion site is “more than 1,300 bases away from the gene,” he says, based on a review of major gene databanks. “These increasingly desperate efforts to ‘debunk’ the chromosome 2 story have failed before, and they’ve failed this time, too,” Miller concludes. “Once again, we can see that the story of human evolution is written not only in the language of bones and fossils, but in the far more eloquent script of the human genome.”

Also, recent gene sequencing studies support the fusion theory.

motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/evolution-creationism-bonobos-neanderthals-denisovans-chromosome-two

So in sum: Genetic evidence shows clearly that while orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos have 24 chromosome pairs, humans and our closest extinct ancestors (Neanderthals and Denisovans) have 23. And we know why that is: In modern humans and these other hominins, chromosome 2 shows clear genetic evidence of a fusion event that must have happened after our lineage split from chimpanzees and bonobos, but before our divergence with Neanderthals and Denisovans. The proof is right there in the DNA.

In the video on the first link, Professor Miller exclaims: “I’m a Roman Catholic; I’m a theist; in the broadest sense, I would say that I believe in a designer but I don’t believe in a deceptive one.”

Nor do I.

 

[Faxero]

we are not required to believe in Darwin’s humans came from apes theory. I don’t believe in it and I certainly wouldn’t tell my nieces and nephews that they are just evolved apes with souls.

:yup:

Each human is unique in the fact that they were created in the image and likeness. We are not animals, we are human.

We human beings are indeed animals, mammals to be exact. What makes us different from all other animals is the ability to think rationally. Our rational thinking is a direct result of being made in God’s image and likeness. Without that, we would be like any other creature.

We ourselves are animals. We’re just the only animals who think like God and have the salvational connection with him.

---

It is an interesting topic.

:yup: Agreed. I gave it a 5 stars rating.

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

You probably misunderstood my point. I’m trying to say that we can’t possibly have been direct descendants of apes, simply because apes are not as intelligent as we are.

The parent is naturally more intelligent than the children. If we, who are made in God’s image and likeness, are smarter than apes, than apes themselves cannot possibly be made in God’s image and likeness, let alone be our parents.

---

Thought provoking debate. Hopefully it remains civilized.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I am willing to listen to your view on how He did it.

First, answer this question - Did God know what Adam would look like?

Of course

 

[Al_Moritz]

The minutiae of chromosome 2 is tangential to the original topic, but, heck, yeah, let’s discuss it. First, I agree with Al Moritz on the credibility of Tomkins’ research insomuch as it hasn’t been published in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. “Answers in Genesis”? RUS? Next, Tomkins’ ideas about Chromosome 2 are being questioned, and have themselves been debunked.

The fusion site does not have a functioning gene sequence, per Tomkins’ contention. The functioning gene of which he speaks is over 1,300 bases away from the fusion site.

motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution

Also, recent gene sequencing studies support the fusion theory.

motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/evolution-creationism-bonobos-neanderthals-denisovans-chromosome-two

In the video on the first link, Professor Miller exclaims: “I’m a Roman Catholic; I’m a theist; in the broadest sense, I would say that I believe in a designer but I don’t believe in a deceptive one.”

Nor do I.

Thank you for this, NeedsMercy. I knew that the alleged ‘debunking’ was a lie. I had planned to ignore Buffalo’s request to discuss the paper, because it is a sensitive topic.

But now that it’s out: Atheists have a nasty name for this:

Lying for Jesus

And guess what: I agree with the atheists on this one. It is shameful, and it discredits our faith. These are dark souls who feel they have to resort to this. Disgusting.

---

PS: I am not acccusing Buffalo of this practice, he is just naively believing this nonsense. It is those alleged ‘researchers’ who are “lying for Jesus”. Creationists do that all the time; their quote mining (deliberately quoting out of context) is another deceptive practice that falls under this category. Again, plain disgusting.

 

[pepipop]

The minutiae of chromosome 2 is tangential to the original topic, but, heck, yeah, let’s discuss it. First, I agree with Al Moritz on the credibility of Tomkins’ research insomuch as it hasn’t been published in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. “Answers in Genesis”? RUS? Next, Tomkins’ ideas about Chromosome 2 are being questioned, and have themselves been debunked.

The fusion site does not have a functioning gene sequence, per Tomkins’ contention. The functioning gene of which he speaks is over 1,300 bases away from the fusion site.

motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution

Also, recent gene sequencing studies support the fusion theory.

motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/evolution-creationism-bonobos-neanderthals-denisovans-chromosome-two

In the video on the first link, Professor Miller exclaims: “I’m a Roman Catholic; I’m a theist; in the broadest sense, I would say that I believe in a designer but I don’t believe in a deceptive one.”

Nor do I.

Yes, but then whose to say the debunking of Tomkin’s theory is the correct answer. No-one knows as they are all theories. No-one was there millions of years ago to see these genetic mutations into new species, in addition to the fact we are no doubt scratching the surface in relation to genetics - considering up until 2012, scientists assumed 98% of it was ‘junk’ and had no purpose!

Personally, I don’t care either way, but it is fascinating to assume that a so called ‘common ancestor’ - who/whatever that was as it’s never been discovered, then genetically mutated off into chimps, orangutans and ‘humans’.

*Dr. Miller’s enthusiasm about this chromosomal rearrangement may be tied to the older notion that such mutations are the basis for speciation. 8 This belief was shown to be overly simplistic decades ago when papers appeared describing chromosomal variations which were not eliminated by selection. One intriguing example is a single species of rodent (Holochilus brasiliensis) where 26 different karyotypes were identified in the 42 individuals tested.9 Chromosomal rearrangements have been identified within many ruminant species. There are examples in both goats and sheep where individuals with one or more centric fusions are phenotypically indistinguishable from other animals.10 One researcher who studied sheep carrying up to three different centric fusions concluded, “It is now considered that there is little or no evidence to suggest that centric fusions in a variety of combinations affect the total productive fitness of domestic sheep.”11 So, the bottom line is that centric fusions themselves do not inevitably result in a new species.

Although Ken Miller’s story does not properly consider current scientific understanding of chromosomal fusions or significant genomic differences between apes and humans, he promotes it enthusiastically to support his belief that humans descended from apes. 15 He appears to be blind to the fact that the belief that humans descended from apes is a religious (atheistic) one; such changes have never been observed.*

answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/a-tale-of-two-chromosomes/

Also, an excerpt from evolution lectures taught at Berkeley University.

**To begin with, let’s take a step back. Although the evolution of hominid features is sometimes put in the framework of “apes vs. humans,” the fact is that humans are apes, * just as they are primates and mammals. A glance at the evogram shows why. The other apes — chimp, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon — would not form a natural, monophyletic group (i.e., a group that includes all the descendants of a common ancestor) — if humans were excluded. Hominid evolution should not be read as a march to human-ness (even if it often appears that way from narratives of human evolution). Students should be aware that there is not a dichotomy between humans and apes. Humans are a kind of ape.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07*

 

[pnewton]

The Holy Father said that it** is** possible, something the last few popes have also confirmed. Some people may not understand how they can be compatible, but that does not mean all most think this way. Others are able to understand this teaching. Whether one has a simple faith, or steeped in education and intellect, one can believe in direct creationism or evolution.

Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

If creation did not happened like it is stated in Genesis its one of two things, either God is a liar or the ones saying it did not happened as Genesis tell us it did are calling God a liar.

I hope the Pope and those who call themselves Christians who believe in evolution do not think God is a liar.

The Church doesn’t hold that the Bible must be taken literally or that it is a science/history book.

 

[estesbob]

Common sense? That doesn’t sound like common sense to a lot of people.
There is no reason for those who understand the facts of evolution to “acknowledge up front that a Creator had to have done it”…since there is no reason for them to think this is true.
You can believe it of course–it is a theological belief of many religions that there is a God who created people and the world and people have all sorts of beliefs.
But there would be no reason for a scientist or biologist etc to mention this, never mind say it “up front”…since there is no physical or historical proof of this at all.

I do become amazed when people insist a God “had to have done it” when there is no way they can know this.
We don’t have all the answers yet, but think of how much we have learned in the last 50, 100 years about the earth and science and people.
The answers and details we will figure out in the next 50 years will most likely knock people’s socks off.

.

I doubt if they are going to find out how something came from nothing and how life came from non-life and how both these events occurred exactly once.

I accept micro-evolution but have serious doubts about macro-evolution. However being I am a Catholic how evolution works is irrelevant to my faith and being a CPA it is irrelevant to my work.

BTW-I think it is funny you use the term “knock your socks off” Bet you doing know where the phrase comes from(hint-it is tied to pornographic movies)

 

[buffalo]

The minutiae of chromosome 2 is tangential to the original topic, but, heck, yeah, let’s discuss it. First, I agree with Al Moritz on the credibility of Tomkins’ research insomuch as it hasn’t been published in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. “Answers in Genesis”? RUS? Next, Tomkins’ ideas about Chromosome 2 are being questioned, and have themselves been debunked.

The fusion site does not have a functioning gene sequence, per Tomkins’ contention. The functioning gene of which he speaks is over 1,300 bases away from the fusion site.

motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution

Also, recent gene sequencing studies support the fusion theory.

motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/evolution-creationism-bonobos-neanderthals-denisovans-chromosome-two

In the video on the first link, Professor Miller exclaims: “I’m a Roman Catholic; I’m a theist; in the broadest sense, I would say that I believe in a designer but I don’t believe in a deceptive one.”

Nor do I.

Good. I am glad to discuss the issues no matter the “credentials” etc. I am disappointed everytime ICR or others presents a paper it is trashed because of who it is. In any case, when these papers are presented they should get a proper response from challengers based on the proposition of the paper. What have they to lose?

Your measure of truth is simply peer reviewed? But OK, do you accept the peer reviewed papers on ID?

Looking at the similarities of chromosomes and other feature I look at it this way: They are like pianos, they are all very similar, but the player can play all sorts of different tunes. I am not surprised the “hardware” is similar at all. It is the "programming: that differentiates.

A deceptive designer? What to make of Richard Dawkins observation “that life looks designed, but it is an illusion” (paraphrasing)

God does not deceive. It is our human reasoning of our limited observations that we can deceive ourselves. Methodological naturalism has an a priori bias. That eliminates a lot of good research possibilities.

Miller got it wrong. This is even before the paper I cited.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=560

This animated gif shows how even if the empirical genetic evidence mandates a chromosomal fusion event, this doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not humans share ancestry with apes. The “Separate Ancestry” slide shows that the chromosomal fusion event may have simply taken place in a separately-designed basic type which, initially, had 48 chromosomes. The “Common Ancestry” slide shows how the chromosomal fusion event may have also taken place in a line which led back to a hypothetical common ancestor of humans and modern apes. The point is that all we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading.

 

[buffalo]

Of course

Did Adam look as God had planned?

 

[Monkey1976]

I doubt if they are going to find out how something came from nothing and how life came from non-life and how both these events occurred exactly once.

Biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution simply describes how life - however it came into being - changed over time into the forms we see today.

I accept micro-evolution but have serious doubts about macro-evolution. However being I am a Catholic how evolution works is irrelevant to my faith and being a CPA it is irrelevant to my work.

The distinction between “micro” and “macro” is something invented by Young-Earth Creationists. What they call “macro” is nothing more than “micro” adaptations accumulating and carrying forward through time. The idea of a “species” in real terms is nothing more than a somewhat arbitrary bucket that we put life-forms into to classify them. For example, we call coyotes and wolves different species, but we’re seeing a quickly growing population of fertile hybrids appearing - coywolves. A similar case is happening with grizzly and polar bears: Two different species who are birthing fertile hybrids because of an increasing overlap in their native ranges. This new population is being called “Grolar bears”.

BTW-I think it is funny you use the term “knock your socks off” Bet you doing know where the phrase it comes from(hint-it is tied to pornographic movies)

I thought that phrase was from boxing… Mythbusters did a couple episodes about it - turns out that the pressure needed to knock a person out of their socks without actually touching either sock or leg (>100 PSI) has an unfortunate side effect of instant death. Myth busted.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This animated gif shows how even if the empirical genetic evidence mandates a chromosomal fusion event, this doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not humans share ancestry with apes. The “Separate Ancestry” slide shows that the chromosomal fusion event may have simply taken place in a separately-designed basic type which, initially, had 48 chromosomes. The “Common Ancestry” slide shows how the chromosomal fusion event may have also taken place in a line which led back to a hypothetical common ancestor of humans and modern apes. The point is that all we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading.

On the contrary, the case for separate ancestry requires special pleading, for the following reason: The separate ancestry claim requires an explanation of the “separately-designed basic type” which had 48 chromosomes and more similarity in the fusing parts than could be justified by functional need or by random chance. How did these separate instances of the “basic type” get to be so similar in the first place? This exact structural form of chromosomes is not a necessary part of life in general, as most species do not have it. Sure, you could say that God (or some intelligent designer) looked ahead and realized that this basic type of chromosomes would be useful in both apes and man, and so economized on His design effort and designed it only once. But this assumption flies in the face of the evidence of God’s extravagance in having so much diversity in the forms of life in general. Or it suggests again a deceptive God who smiled as He separately created two similar structures that had no functional need of being so similar. The more reasonable assumption is that the similarity in structure is evidence of a common ancestor somewhere.