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

[pepipop]

I’m surprised that Dr. Lightner played so fast and loose with the genetics terminology. She has used “chromosomal rearrangement” and “centric fusions” as if they are indistinguishable. They are not, making this paragraph a little suspect. A centric fusion is just one type of rearrangement. There are also deletions, translocations, etc. I don’t know all the papers about “chromosomal variations which were not eliminated by selection” to which she is referring; therefore, I can neither agree nor disagree with what she is saying about Dr. Miller’s ideas on chromosome 2 fusion. Bottom line: centric fusions may still result in a new species.

Where exactly did Miller say that humans “descended from apes”? In what paper or lecture does Dr. Miller not consider the current science? Lightner never mentions which paper or lecture of Dr. Miller’s that she is talking about. The one footnoted video does not contain the first statement and doesn’t support her second. I guess she thinks this tact makes it easier for lazy people to agree with her.

I find it hilarious that Lightner says here that “[Miller] makes the ludicrous claim that the only way creationists can respond to this evidence is: ‘That’s the way the designer made it’” when the fact of the matter is that she does exactly that!

Ummm, humans **are **considered to be apes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

That’s the crux of my scepticism re: evolution, ‘humans ARE considered to be apes’, not all of it, i.e. prehistoric man and the human timeline and other species timelines - but the fact humans were thrown in along with other ‘primates’, in the first place.

Initially, because apes and men walked upright, used their hands, etc… followed by the controversial DNA chromosome 2 evidence. As genetics is not a very advanced science ATM and the evolutionists, I assume, would wish the DNA analysis to match their initial clinical observations, it could be seen to fit that purpose. Just my opinion.

Time will tell if it is correct.

Why would God require humans, in his evolutionary design, to be derived from the same common ancestor as apes, which ‘common ancestor’ needless to say has never been discovered. I suppose, it could be said why not, but it does not seem to fit well considering animals were created separately from man, in Genesis.

Could God possibly just have created upright animals that could use their hands.

*The difficulty with this idea is that there is no obvious advantage to having 46 chromosomes instead of 48. What matters is our DNA, not how it happens to be packaged.

It is possible that there was some advantage to fusing the chromosomes together. For example, maybe a new gene was created at the fusion point. Or maybe genes that were shut off before were now turned on in the new fused chromosomes.

There isn’t any evidence of these kinds of things. And even if there were, a designer who can easily put in the 60 million or so differences between humans and chimpanzees should be able to accomplish whatever results a chromosome fusion gives more elegantly than sticking two ape chromosomes together.

Also, when you look at the fusion point, you can see that the DNA isn’t exactly what you would expect if a fusion happened in the last 10,000 or even 100,000 years. The results look more like an event that happened millions of years ago.*

science.kqed.org/quest/2008/05/12/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design/

 

[estesbob]

Agree. It is also scary to see the growing numbers of people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who are buying-in to a “let’s mock science” mentality.

Why is it scary that some Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? Is belief in evolution a requirement of being a good Catholic? It is interesting to debate evolution but we should not fall in the trap of believing ones stance on evolution has any significance in our spiritual or physical life.

 

[truetofaith]

I don’t believe that Catholics have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve.
Do you have an authoritative reference that says otherwise?

Catholics believe that Jesus is the “new Adam” & the Blessed Mother is the “new Eve!”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Cardinal John Henry Newman (recently beatified by the Church), said in 1868 (3 years after Darwin’s publication):

As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. **Mr. Darwin’s theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. **Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that ‘the accidental evolution of organic beings’ is inconsistent with divine design—It is accidental to us, not to God.

Keep in mind that Blessed Henry Newman would’ve accepted the known science of his time, even if it was incorrect.

The Church accepted the science before Galileo that the earth was the center of the solar system and the sun revolved around it.

Of course it was false science, but the Church accepted the information Scientists provided. She then accepted the true science as the experts proved that the earth was not the center of the solar system, but the sun was, and all the planets revolved around the sun.

So, the Church can change it’s position on science, as science reveals truth.

Science is not dogma, which the Church can never change, so don’t confuse the two.

Jim

 

[Monkey1976]

Why is it scary that some Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? Is belief in evolution a requirement of being a good Catholic? It is interesting to debate evolution but we should not fall in the trap of believing ones stance on evolution has any significance in our spiritual or physical life.

It’s scary because it’s something that flies in the face of reason. Even St. Augustine - way back in the early 5th century - saw a completely literal reading of Genesis as something that could keep people from converting to the Faith, because even the science of that day argued against it. He expressed this using fairly strong language:
St. Augustine:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

When a Doctor of the Church calls something idiotic, it ought to make one refrain from proclaiming it as truth. Holy Scripture records the history of Salvation, not the universe.

 

[buffalo]

It is not **my **measure of truth. This has been standard practice for the sciences since…forever. Some peer-reviewed scholarly journals covering the biological sciences would be Cell, The Journal of Molecular Biology, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, etc. etc. etc.

If “ID” stands for “intelligent design”, I’m not discussing this. Let’s not stray from our subject–Tompkins.

You’re not discussing the contents of the “paper”. Your opinion about how genetics works is not the issue. You wanted to discuss Tompkins’ work—let’s discuss it.

No one said that God deceived. Don’t know where you got that from. If you viewed the video that I cited on the links given, you would have understood what Miller’s quote meant.

I am not discussing any Dawkins’ quotes. I am discussing Tompkins and Miller.

Science is “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”. It is NOT the study of the paranormal or the supernatural. That’s for the ghostbusters. You can come up with all the supernatural hypotheses for evolution that you want. It just wouldn’t be science, which is what the Holy Father is talking about.

A bunch of people live in a box. They are convinced there is nothing outside the box. There is writing on the wall that claims there is something outside the box. The people deny the writing and continue to live and think inside the box. They conclude that they can given enough time close their gaps of knowledge through inside the box reasoning. They are not dismayed at all that their science is provisional and subject to change tomorrow. The writing on the wall never changes, but they still deny it.

One day some decide to investigate the writing. The others disparage them and mock them. The one’s who investigate the writing see things in a new light and begin to take them more seriously. The others mock them claiming their way is the better way.

One day a hole in the box is cut and everyone is amazed. There are still some though who deny what they see.

 

[buffalo]

It is not **my **measure of truth. This has been standard practice for the sciences since…forever. Some peer-reviewed scholarly journals covering the biological sciences would be Cell, The Journal of Molecular Biology, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, etc. etc. etc.

If “ID” stands for “intelligent design”, I’m not discussing this. Let’s not stray from our subject–Tompkins.

You’re not discussing the contents of the “paper”. Your opinion about how genetics works is not the issue. You wanted to discuss Tompkins’ work—let’s discuss it.

No one said that God deceived. Don’t know where you got that from. If you viewed the video that I cited on the links given, you would have understood what Miller’s quote meant.

I am not discussing any Dawkins’ quotes. I am discussing Tompkins and Miller.

Science is “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”. It is NOT the study of the paranormal or the supernatural. That’s for the ghostbusters. You can come up with all the supernatural hypotheses for evolution that you want. It just wouldn’t be science, which is what the Holy Father is talking about.

Recently it has been brought to light the peer review failures.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t believe that Catholics have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve.
Do you have an authoritative reference that says otherwise?

It is dogma.

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

 

[buffalo]

Ummm, humans **are **considered to be apes.

By a human classification system. By God?

 

[buffalo]

Agree. It is also scary to see the growing numbers of people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who are buying-in to a “let’s mock science” mentality.

When it rises to storytellling it deserves to be mocked.

 

[dixieagle]

Agree. It is also scary to see the growing numbers of people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who are buying-in to a “let’s mock science” mentality.

I think that, because some scientists are openly mocking of anything resembling faith, some believers feel compelled to, in turn, denigrate science. Which gets us back to Aquinas and a number of recent Popes and their assertions that truths of science cannot contradict truths of faith. We need not fear anything that scientists - even those who vigorously deny God - can discover.

 

[franklinstower]

I would not (and it won’t happen anyway, thank God). See a previous post of mine in this thread:

I have read your posts and a good deal of information on evolution and like I said am in this camp-- I just think it would be wonderful to discover once again the profound limits of human reason.

I can also see the great beauty and grand majesty of a God who works invisibly but effectively over vast amounts of time and countless seemingly random acts to bring his will about-- it is astounding and the more scientific discoveries show us about our own origins and about the universe itself the more amazing it becomes. I would not want to lose all of that, and I would not want a universe that does not stand up to reasoned investigation either.

Having said that though it would still be wonderful to find some evidence of miraculous intervention in creation, evidence that we could all agree upon-- possibly the discovery of some aspect of the “Uncreated Energies” of the Orthodox Church working in the world and effecting both physical creation and the realm of created beings. Something like this is bound to happen eventually and I suppose I want this most just because it could help to heal the rift between dogmatic atheists and dogmatic Christians.

Of course basic spirituality like poverty of spirit and the ability to see how our own biases and emotional investment in issues blinds our reason could also accomplish the same thing but then-- that would be the greater miracle wouldn’t it?

 

[Kephart]

Catholics believe that Jesus is the “new Adam” & the Blessed Mother is the “new Eve!”

Thank you-- but that doesn’t quite fit my question.

 

[Kephart]

We have to believe in an original parental pair because of the doctrine of original sin.

But Feser describes an elegant solution to this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8931157&postcount=1327

Yes, I misstated that sentence. It should have been. I have no idea of what I was thinking and will rely on the statement that I’m an idiot!

I was trying to say that I don’t think we’re required to believe Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs-- although I guess if God wanted to do that, He could have.

Again-- I have no idea of why I screwed that up.

Regarding Feser-- I first came across that in the third edition of a book originally published in 1965: *The Faith Explained *by Leo J. Trese.

For me, it has reconciled the idea of a literal Adam and Eve with the facts of science.

And you’re right-- it is an elegant solution in every way.

 

[Kephart]

Why is it scary that some Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis?

I can give you four reasons from my perspective:

1. It is a new doctrine that had it’s roots in Seventh Day Adventists-- I consider that a cult. Until then, the idea that the earth was very old was accepted by most Protestants. Indeed, most of the mainline Protestant sects still have no problem with evolution.
2. The idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is scientifically incorrect. That means that those who believe it are contradicting truth. Remember the quote from Thomas Aquinas that was given earlier?

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.

I do not want the Catholic Church to be a matter of ridicule.

1. After studying nearly all the Creationist literature, I find their theories and their science to be intellectually bankrupt. I have discussed this via correspondence with both Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson. I find the wedge theory to be dishonest and duplicitous.
2. The push to teach Creationism in public schools undermines our young people’s education, critical thinking ability and their knowledge of science.

Having said all of that, I don’t think that anyone in this thread is going to even consider changing their mind, so I will bow out of the conversation. I say this so y’all know that I’m not trying to be rude by not responding.

 

[pepipop]

Quite interesting, at least he didn’t ‘evolve’ into yet another species.

science.kqed.org/quest/2010/03/01/and-then-there-were-44/

Missing two chromosomes but doing fine. A partial karyotype of a man with 44 chromosomes.

*A doctor from China contacted me through this blog with some exciting news. He had found a patient with 44 chromosomes instead of the usual 46. And the patient was perfectly normal as far as anyone could tell.

The doctor contacted me because the story of how this patient ended up with 44 chromosomes mirrored my story of how humans may have gone from 48 to 46 chromosomes a million or so years ago. The idea that human chromosome reduction could happen this way was theoretical when I wrote about it. Now we have living proof that it can and does happen.

As I said before, a big reason why this is all so interesting is because it provides confirmation of one way that humans may have gone from 48 to 46 chromosomes so many years ago. The first step might have been similar to what happened to our patient. Two closely related parents with the same translocation have a child together that has fewer chromosomes.

Back then, chromosomes 12 and 13 fused together to create what we now call human chromosome 2. The fused chromosome then slowly spread through the community. And then, for some reason, the group of humans with 46 chromosomes eventually supplanted the group with 48.

We can’t know for sure, but this may have happened through some random event where the 48 chromosome humans were mostly wiped out and the humans with 46 chromosomes were spared. Humanity has nearly been wiped our before with the most recent case being a volcanic eruption 75,000 years ago.*

 

[Al_Moritz]

I do not want the Catholic Church to be a matter of ridicule.

Yes, and that is the gravest problem with creationism: it is a serious impediment to apologetics, to reaching out to non-believers. It is one of the main reasons atheists and other non-believers do not take the Catholic Church seriously, even if it may not be justified since fundamentalists are only a (too large though) minority group among believers.

If we want to spread the word of Christ, we cannot hang on to ridiculous beliefs that the Church does not adhere to.

Creationists do great harm to the Faith – not their own, perhaps, but that of others. Even if it is without the slightest bit of bad intentions, and even if they are not aware of it.

---

Repeating from an earlier post on this page:

From** St. Augustine**, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I wonder if any of us have evolved after reading the debates in this thread ?

Jim

 

[buffalo]

I think that, because some scientists are openly mocking of anything resembling faith, some believers feel compelled to, in turn, denigrate science. Which gets us back to Aquinas and a number of recent Popes and their assertions that truths of science cannot contradict truths of faith. We need not fear anything that scientists - even those who vigorously deny God - can discover.

as long as correctly reasoned.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, I misstated that sentence. It should have been. I have no idea of what I was thinking and will rely on the statement that I’m an idiot!

I was trying to say that I don’t think we’re required to believe Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs-- although I guess if God wanted to do that, He could have.

Again-- I have no idea of why I screwed that up.

Regarding Feser-- I first came across that in the third edition of a book originally published in 1965: *The Faith Explained *by Leo J. Trese.

For me, it has reconciled the idea of a literal Adam and Eve with the facts of science.

And you’re right-- it is an elegant solution in every way.

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS? - A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS? - A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART II