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

[pepipop]

Catholic dogma says nothing about the genetic makeup of Adam and Eve. Nobody knew about genes until quite recently in human history. So it is quite amusing to see you claim that long-standing Catholic dogma implies anything at all about the state of Adam and Eve’s DNA

No, but death came into the world after original sin along with illnesses, hereditary diseases etc., the latter being associated with genetic disorders.

 

[tomarin]

QUOTE =Monkey1976:12452501}

All I can state is that universities I have worked with in the UK/Ireland and elsewhere Archaeology was a Department within the Art Faculty and not the Science Faculty. The qualifications awarded were a BA or MA, i.e.Arts qualifications not BSc, MSc, for example.

I can only assume in some instances it may be a Department within the Science Faculty of a university?

artandarchaeology.princeton.edu/

classics.berkeley.edu/programs/graduate/classical-archaeology

That’s because there are two achaeologies: classical archaeology which can be a part of art history departments and the archaeology which is a subdiscipline of anthropology and regards itself as a scientific discipline. Classical is historic and regular archaeology is prehistoric.

 

[buffalo]

That is not the definition of empirical evidence.

It isn’t? I would like to see your defintion.

 

[tomarin]

Catholic dogma is:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)…
   
   Here we see Adam and Eve had the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality, freedom of sickness, etc. They were genetically pristine. We are not. And now science is agreeing.

1. 
   This is the part I don’t get. And the 1.5%? Where does that figure come from? You make it sound like a scientific fact but I can’t imagine how science could even investigate such a claim?
   
   Anyway, I’m pretty sure there is no such thing as devolution as far as evolutionary biology is concerned.

 

[Monkey1976]

Anyway, I’m pretty sure there is no such thing as devolution as far as evolutionary biology is concerned.

There isn’t. The idea of “devolution” was discredited long ago. When the ancestors of whales began to lose their legs, that could be seen as “devolution” in one sense, but it was simply an adaptation which allowed them to better fit their niche, leading to some of the most amazing creatures on the planet.

 

[buffalo]

Catholic dogma says nothing about the genetic makeup of Adam and Eve. Nobody knew about genes until quite recently in human history. So it is quite amusing to see you claim that long-standing Catholic dogma implies anything at all about the state of Adam and Eve’s DNA

Longstanding Catholic dogma states Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts. God withdrew this feature or protection if you will when they sinned. This is carried forward by generation.

So, Adam and Eve were superior to us. Science tell us we are carrying more deleterious mutations than each successive past generation. Working backwards, past generations had less mutations, until we work our way to Adam and Eve and they were pristine. Science leads us to truth.

Bottomline - science has reinforced Revelation.

 

[buffalo]

This is the part I don’t get. And the 1.5%? Where does that figure come from? You make it sound like a scientific fact but I can’t imagine how science could even investigate such a claim?

Anyway, I’m pretty sure there is no such thing as devolution as far as evolutionary biology is concerned.

It is 1-5%. Call it genetic entropy…
**Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”

Highlights

**over 90% of the genome is actively transcribed"

** “the genome has multiple overlapping messages”**

** “data compression on the most sophisticated level”**

** “more and more the genome looks like a super super set of programs”**

** “more and more it looks like top down design”**

** “the reality is everybody is mutant”**

** “the selection process really has nothing to grab hold of”**

** “so it’s kind of a trade secret amongst population geneticists,any well informed population geneticist understands man is degenerating”**

** “so in deep geological time we should have been extinct a long time ago”**

** “the human race is degenerating at 1-5% per generation”**

 

[buffalo]

Here I can agree with you. Science all by itself is insufficient for a complete reasoning human being. We are made to know God too, and to know His law. And I am quite content to think of science as being limited as you say, for even within its limitations, science can say significant things about the physical universe - one of those things being the way in which life forms developed through time.

But ignoring Revelation does it come to the correct conclusion. I say no.

Science should work in the illumination of Revelation otherwise it is unreliable.

 

[pepipop]

That’s because there are two achaeologies: classical archaeology which can be a part of art history departments and the archaeology which is a subdiscipline of anthropology and regards itself as a scientific discipline. Classical is historic and regular archaeology is prehistoric.

That is only in the 2 examples given, for the USA.

Archaeology departments are usually based within the Arts, or related faculties. in UK/Irish and European universities not Science faculties. E.G.

College of Arts
ucd.ie/archaeology/

School of History, classics and archaeology
ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/history-classics-archaeology/archaeology/

 

[on_the_hill]

The question is did Adam look as God planned?

Yes! I got tired of seeing the same question repeated, so I asked him. God said he knew what Adam would look like. He fed a nearly infinite number of variables in to the supercomputer “Universe” and it returned a result that was an exact match to what he had in mind.

 

[buffalo]

Yes! I got tired of seeing the same question repeated, so I asked him. God said he knew what Adam would look like. He fed a nearly infinite number of variables in to the supercomputer “Universe” and it returned a result that was an exact match to what he had in mind.

Hardly, unless he did a targeted search.

 

[tomarin]

It is 1-5%. Call it genetic entropy…
Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"

I’ve never heard of ‘genetic entropy’ before but it appears to be less than established science.

Biologists don’t consider evolution to be a goal-directed process so the idea that evolution could move backwards would be pretty much incomprehensible to them. A horseshoe crab is very primitive in that it hasn’t changed its basic model in millions of years but it survives to this day because it is perfectly suited to its environment.

 

[tomarin]

That is only in the 2 examples given, for the USA.

Archaeology departments are usually based within the Arts, or related faculties. in UK/Irish and European universities not Science faculties. E.G.

College of Arts
ucd.ie/archaeology/

School of History, classics and archaeology
ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/history-classics-archaeology/archaeology/

My knowledge of these things is limited to American universities; over here you wouldn’t find an archeologist in an art history department unless he or she were a classical archaeologist studying attic vases and the like. The other kind of archaeologist (the ones that study the origins of agriculture for example using many of the same methods as paleobotanists and paleontologists) would be in his or her own department or sometimes in the anthropology department due to an administrative throwback to when archaeology was considered a subfield of anthropology (they’ve gone their separate ways all but administratively at this point).

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So I have a question for those who believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis.

It’s probably been asked before and debated to death but here goes.

Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons ?

Keep in mind, they were created, not born from mother’s of their own.

Jim

 

[John_Lazarus]

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”.

I think they missed a great opportunity: they should have called them “pizzlies”.

 

[buffalo]

I’ve never heard of ‘genetic entropy’ before but it appears to be less than established science.

Biologists don’t consider evolution to be a goal-directed process so the idea that evolution could move backwards would be pretty much incomprehensible to them. A horseshoe crab is very primitive in that it hasn’t changed its basic model in millions of years but it survives to this day because it is perfectly suited to its environment.

That would be called stasis. That pretty much is the entire fossil record. Abrupt appearance, stasis, with limited variation within.

 

[buffalo]

So I have a question for those who believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis.

It’s probably been asked before and debated to death but here goes.

Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons ?

Keep in mind, they were created, not born from mother’s of their own.

Jim

Not sure, but they wouldn’t really have needed them.

 

[on_the_hill]

Hardly, unless he did a targeted search.

I’m pretty sure God knew what to do to get the results he was expecting.

 

[Kephart]

I said earlier they evolve within their “kind.”

Which is exactly the phrase used by Fundamentalist Creationists. This phrase came about when Henry Morris, et.al. started writing multiple “Young Earth” books. It’s shocking to me how many Catholics have bought into this theory.

The idea of taking Genesis literally came from the Seventh Day Adventists and was made popular by Dr. Morris-- who by the way has a PhD in Civil Engineering-- not the best area of expertise to write a book on Evolution/Creation.

Personally, one of the many reasons I came back to the Church is because of their understanding that Science and the Bible do not contradict each other. Specifically, the intellectually bankrupt theories of young earth creationists is one of the factors that led me back. I’ve had to read a lot of material put out by the Institute for Creation Research and I’ve even visited their museum.

The Catechism quotes Dei Filius 4S 3017;

Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.

It has been my experience that those who insist on taking Genesis literally have not done any serious study on the subject other than reading material put out by the Young Earth Creationists. I think most people do this because it’s the path of least resistance. After all, the material they put out doesn’t require any serious analysis of actual science.

And it absolutely shocks me that some Catholics would rather take the opinions of Fundamentalist Young Earth Creationists over the Pope.

The Pope may not have a scientific background, however he does have a plethora of Priests who are substantially more scientifically and theologically qualified than any of the Young Earth Creationist advocates.

So… who do you want to trust? The Pope and his Army of Priests/Scientists or the Fundamentalists?

Here are two articles I found very helpful:

Darwinism, Fundamentalism and R.A. Torrey by Michael N. Keas

Adventist Origins of Young Earth Creationism by Karl Giberson

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Science tell us we are carrying more deleterious mutations than each successive past generation.

That is absolutely contrary to evidence and any scientific understanding I have every heard of. If anyone has deleterious mutations that make that individual less suited to survival and procreation, then that mutation will die out and those that do not have that mutation will increase in numbers. That is the direct consequence of micro-evolution, which apparently even you believe in.