Question for Evolution-believing Catholics

[Orogeny]

Nullasalus:

Maybe my problem is needing to understand everything as a precursor to believing it - not a recipe for success even if there truly is a God and if Christ was who He is believed to have been. I really need to find a site where the very learned talk about their faith and why they believe in it. Not that religion is more valid when it comes from someone with a PhD, but in a world where many intellectuals and scientists seem to have their guns squarely aimed at religion in general and Christianity in particular, I feel particularly unarmed. That’s what I get for majoring in political science.

You need to read “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller. Dr. Miller is a devout Catholic and a biologist who is pretty prominent in the evolution/ID public discourse. His book is written for non-scientists and is very easy to read.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

You need to read “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller. Dr. Miller is a devout Catholic and a biologist who is pretty prominent in the evolution/ID public discourse. His book is written for non-scientists and is very easy to read.

Peace

Tim

This is quite interesting too:

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

That’s not quite as easy to read for a non-scientist. Dr. Miller’s book was written for the non-scientist. Dr. Meyer’s essay was written for a technical journal.

Peace

Tim

 

[Nullasalus]

Interesting - I was wondering what the take would be by some on the Discovery Institute. I’ve only just learned about them, and have a lot more to look into.

Thank you for the book recommendations - Finding Darwin’s God looks to be of particular interest, especially after reading about Darwin’s own problems with faith after his discoveries.

 

[Orogeny]

Nullasalus:

Interesting - I was wondering what the take would be by some on the Discovery Institute. I’ve only just learned about them, and have a lot more to look into.

Thank you for the book recommendations - Finding Darwin’s God looks to be of particular interest, especially after reading about Darwin’s own problems with faith after his discoveries.

It is a very good book. I think you will get a lot out of it because Dr. Miller talks about how he reconciles his faith and science.

Peace

Tim

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace be with you all,

Can anyone address the question of ‘death’ entering into creation with the sin of Adam?

It appears that ‘if’ evolution is an acceptible interpretation of Genesis we have a few theological issues to address.

First we have to reconcile the issue of ‘death’ entering into creation as an effect of sin entering into creation.

Can anyone address how the Catholic Church addresses this issue if theologians are going to hold the evolutionary position?

Thanks great topic!

Peace.

 

[Nullasalus]

chrisb:

Can anyone address the question of ‘death’ entering into creation with the sin of Adam?

It appears that ‘if’ evolution is an acceptible interpretation of Genesis we have a few theological issues to address.

First we have to reconcile the issue of ‘death’ entering into creation as an effect of sin entering into creation.

Can anyone address how the Catholic Church addresses this issue if theologians are going to hold the evolutionary position?

Thanks great topic!

Peace.

Heya. I’m still trying to research information on exactly that. The Wikipedia does have an entry on Evolution and the Catholic Church though:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

Hopefully this will be a good starting point for learning.

 

[AquinaSavio]

Orogeny:

You need to read “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller. Dr. Miller is a devout Catholic and a biologist who is pretty prominent in the evolution/ID public discourse. His book is written for non-scientists and is very easy to read.

Tim,

Here is an article published in the Atlantic Monthly, which offers a review of Charles Darwin’s Biography (written by his son, Francis Darwin, I believe). Here it is:

The blank page in this charming biography is the page of spiritual life. There is nothing written there. The entire absence of an element which enters commonly into all men’s lives in some degree is a circumstance as significant as it is astonishing… Darwin lived as ife there were no such thing. Darwin’s insensibility to the higher life-for so men agree to call it- was partly, if not wholly, induced by his absorption in scientific persuits in the spirit of materialism.

I’ve never read the book you mentioned, but it made me remember this article that I’d seen. Just some interesting reading.

 

[Orogeny]

AquinaSavio:

I’ve never read the book you mentioned, but it made me remember this article that I’d seen. Just some interesting reading.

You ought to read Dr. Miller’s book. It is very readable and relevant to the topic of this thread.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

melbourne_guy/AiG (post #71):

But this does not support the idea of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information has been added.

I have some problems with this. AiG are saying that “no new information has been added”. They have never provided any data to back up this assertion. In order to do so they first need to define exactly what they mean by “information” in enough detail that it can be measured. We have sequenced a number of genomes so it should be possible for AiG to apply their measure of information to a genome and to a mutated version of the same genome. Measures of information such as Kolmogorov or Shannon have been used in just such a way and it can be shown that by those measures information can increase under mutation.

A second problem I have is reverse mutations. A mutation can change an A to a C. A later mutation can change that same C back to an A. If one of these is a loss of information then the other must be a gain, because the end result is back where we started. AiG, and the other creationists who use this argument, have never proposed any mechanism to stop reverse mutations.

A third problem is gene duplication. One of the errors that can happen during the copying of DNA is that parts get duplicated. This means that parts of a gene, a whole gene or groups of genes can be duplicated. An example is Downs’ Syndrome where a whole chromosome is duplicated. Once a gene is dupplicated then one of the copies is redundant and can mutate to perform a slightly different function. An example is the haemoglobin/myoglobin complex which is a number of duplicated genes which perform similar functions to do with oxygen transport in blood, muscles and embryos. This process starts with a protein X, duplicates it to give X X and then one of the copies mutates to give two proteins X Y. Where there was one protein there are now two. How is this not an increase of information?

AiG’s assertion about no increase in information has no evidence supporting it and there is evidence against it. For more details see here with plenty of references to the scientific literature.
melbourne_guy/AiG:

Selection by itself gets rid of information

That depends on how you define “information”. There is a quote from Edison to the effect that every time he failed to get a working lightbulb he learned more about how not to make a lightbulb. Every mutation weeded out by natural selection can be seen as increasing information about how not to survive in that particular environment. Since AiG and the other creationists have never given a definition of information then it is impossible to make statements about whether it increases, decreases or stays the same. “I don’t know what it is, but I know that it can never increase” is not a very convincing argument.

rossum

 

[melbourne_guy]

rossum:

A second problem I have is reverse mutations. A mutation can change an A to a C. A later mutation can change that same C back to an A. If one of these is a loss of information then the other must be a gain, because the end result is back where we started. AiG, and the other creationists who use this argument, have never proposed any mechanism to stop reverse mutations.

how can this be adding new information if no new information is being created,its just reverting back to the old genes.

rossum:

This process starts with a protein X, duplicates it to give X X and then one of the copies mutates to give two proteins X Y. Where there was one protein there are now two.

rossum

that sounds like copying to me

 

[zian]

melbourne_guy:

answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp

melbourne_guy,
Let’s look at the article you quote from here, by Catchpoole and Wieland. In it,

"The speed of these changes bewildered evolutionists, because their standard millions-of-years view is that the guppies would require long periods of time to adapt.

Now lets look at what the article actually says -
Reznick et al says:

Natural populations of guppies were subjected to an episode of directional selection that mimicked natural processes. The resulting rate of evolution of age and size at maturity was similar to rates typically obtained for traits subjected to artificial selection in laboratory settings and up to seven orders of magnitude greater than rates inferred from the
paleontological record. Male traits evolved more rapidly than female traits largely because males had more genetic variation upon which natural selection could act. These results are considered in light of the ongoing debate about the importance of natural selection versus other processes in the paleontological record of evolution. {article summary} …

We analyzed the response to selection for just the age and size at maturity in males and the age and size at first parturition in
females because these traits responded to the manipulation in both experiments. For each trait, we estimated the response to
selection (R) as the difference between the mean of the trait for lab-reared guppies from the control and experimental populations
(9) (Table 1). We then used R to quantify the relative rate of evolution in terms of darwins (10, 11). The estimated rates of
phenotypic evolution range from 3700 to 45,000 darwins (Table 1). They are similar in magnitude to rates that have been obtained
by artificial selection and four to seven orders of magnitude greater than those observed in the fossil record …

If evolution can be so fast, why does it appear to be so slow in the fossil record? First, evolution is only sustained in response to a changing environment (18); when a new optimum is attained, no more evolution is expected [El Cedro River males in this study (19)]. Second, if environmental conditions vary erratically, so will patterns of evolution, as seen in Gala´pagos finches (20). Evaluating evolution with the fossil record averages across intervals of no change, intervals of rapid change, and possibly
includes reversals in the direction of change, yielding an estimate of rate averaged over the entire interval (11). The net effect could well be no measurable change in morphology, or “stasis.” On the other hand, sustained directional selection can support far more rapid directional change than seen in the fossil record.
The evidence from studies of microevolution (19, 20) bears on the current debate over micro- versus macroevolution and the patterns of change recorded in the fossil record. In the fossil record, there is a wellestablished pattern of periods of little or no change (stasis) punctuated by brief intervals of rapid change associated with the origins of new taxa. Some have argued that selection
among individuals within populations (natural selection) cannot account for these large-scale trends in evolution (21). Specifically,
Gould and Eldredge argue for the necessity of bursts of speciation followed by species selection to sustain the rapid change associated with punctuations in the fossil record (21). Our work cannot address the efficacy of mechanisms other than natural
selection, but it extends our understanding of what is attainable through this process. It is part of a growing body of evidence that
the rate and patterns of change attainable through natural selection are sufficient to account for the patterns observed in the
fossil record (18) …

(all bold emphases mine)

btw - you can register for free at sciencemag and download a full copy of this article for your own reading pleasure.

I’d just like to point out that nowhere in this article do Reznick et al say they are “bewildered”. Reading the article indicates that they are not even amazed. Indeed, they indicate a perfectly reasonable rationale for why long terms rates of evolution (in darwins) yield lower numbers than rates evaluated over much shorter periods. So, I ask you, why is it that Catchpoole and Wieland make this unfounded assertion about the **bewildered **evolutionists?

 

[rossum]

melbourne_guy:

how can this be adding new information if no new information is being created,its just reverting back to the old genes.

Yes it is reverting but before it reverted there were a number of generations with the modified protein. If we apply our measure of information to the original protein we get one measure of information - say I1. Applying the same measure of information to the modified protein we get a different measure of information - say I2. If there can be no increase in information then the first change tells us that I2 <= I1. The second change tells us that I1 <= I2. The only way that these can both be true is if I1 = I2. That means that the measure of information AiG are using measures any two reversibly related proteins with the same amount of information. To me this implies that the measure they are using is useless - every protein can mutate into every other protein by a series of small reversible changes: point mutation, point insertion or point deletion. The only way I can see out if this problem is some sort of mechanism to prevent reverse mutations and AiG have not proposed any such mechanism or provided any evidence for its existence.

melbourne_guy:

that sounds like copying to me

The initial part of the process is copying: (X) → (X, X). But the second part of the process is not copying but a mutation in one of the copies: (X, X) → (X, Y). The X gene is present throughout the process functioning normally, the Y gene is new and performs a different function. For example an embryo has to get its oxygen from the mother’s blood in the placenta. The oxygen in the mother’s blood is bound by standard haemoglobin. The embryo has slightly different versions of haemoglobin which ensure that it gets enough oxygen. After being born the embryo reverts to standard haemoglobin. Embryonic haemoglobin is made by just such a duplicated and modified gene, it sits next to the adult gene on the same chromosome. It is not a copy because it is not the same. For more details see here.

rossum

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace be with you all,

I still can’t find any Catholic Position on the entry of ‘death by sin’ into the world and it’s apparent contradiction with Theistic Evolution. An Old Earth View demands the existence of ‘death’ before the sin of Adam in the Garden.

Can any of your learned Catholic Apologists help me out with the Catholic Position on this?

Thanks a bunch.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[vern_humphrey]

chrisb:

Grace and Peace be with you all,

I still can’t find any Catholic Position on the entry of ‘death by sin’ into the world and it’s apparent contradiction with Theistic Evolution. An Old Earth View demands the existence of ‘death’ before the sin of Adam in the Garden.

Can any of your learned Catholic Apologists help me out with the Catholic Position on this?

Thanks a bunch.

Peace and God Bless.

The “death” in question relates to the death of those who have immortal souls. The death of non-humans is not at issue.

 

[chrisb]

vern humphrey:

The “death” in question relates to the death of those who have immortal souls. The death of non-humans is not at issue.

Grace and Peace be with you vern humphrey,

Wouldn’t this lead to a nilihist view of damnation? I was not under the impression that the immortal soul could ‘die’. Is there any ‘official’ articulation on this anywhere? Are there groups in the Church which offer alternatives to this view? Is this dogmatic?

Thank you.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[vern_humphrey]

chrisb:

Grace and Peace be with you vern humphrey,

Wouldn’t this lead to a nilihist view of damnation? I was not under the impression that the immortal soul could ‘die’. Is there any ‘official’ articulation on this anywhere? Are there groups in the Church which offer alternatives to this view? Is this dogmatic?

Thank you.

Peace and God Bless.

Where would you get the idea that the immortal soul dies?

Adam and Eve, our first ancestors with immortal souls also had immortal bodies, until they sinned and brought death upon themselves.

 

[naturalfidelity]

I know I’m not a practiced Catholic, however, the way I see evolution and the Bible is that noone knows how long God’s days are. For all we know, his day is like a million years to us. Therefore, evolution and the Bible’s story of Adam and Eve can coesist because if the sun wasn’t created, how could our days be the same?

 

[JSmitty2005]

naturalfidelity:

the way I see evolution and the Bible is that noone knows how long God’s days are. For all we know, his day is like a million years to us.

“For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject” (Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).

 

[chrisb]

vern humphrey:

Where would you get the idea that the immortal soul dies?

Adam and Eve, our first ancestors with immortal souls also had immortal bodies, until they sinned and brought death upon themselves.

Grace and Peace vern humphrey,

Please correct me if I am taking your the wrong way but are you suggesting that death was in the World in plant and animal life but ‘not’ in man until Adam sinned?

I’ve never heard this from anyone. Is this your opinion or are you saying that this is a ‘teaching of the church’?

My understanding of Theistic Evolution is physical death was designed into creation but ‘damnation’ wasn’t until Adam sinned.

What is your take on this and does ‘anyone’ have a handle on any ‘official’ Catholic position on this?

Peace and God Bless.