Questions about evolution and origins

  • Thread starter Thread starter amaxiner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, to some extent the Church earned that through the Galileo affair. While Galileo’s evidence of heliocentrism was probably a little bit premature (he was extrapolating from his observations of the Jovian satellites), one thing is certain, the Copernican model was far more parsimonious than the increasingly tortured Ptolemaic model.

But whether the Church’s censure was entirely deserved or not, it gained a reputation, particularly during the Counter-Reformation and the Enlightenment of being a byzantine and backwards institution that intellectually enslaved its adherents (this of course, ignores that the Jesuits produced some very fine scientists, though the Catholic World spent as much time distrusting Jesuits as did the Protestant world).
 
Yes. I know this history. In the present, people are watching the Church like a hawk to make sure it does not say the “wrong” thing regarding scientific questions. If it does - it hears about it.
 
I think I am. I am not the one using the word “when” with regards to God’s actions.
 
edwest211 said:
Yes. I know this history. In the present, people are watching the Church like a hawk to make sure it does not say the “wrong” thing regarding scientific questions. If it does - it hears about it.
Click to expand...
Is that a bad thing though? The Church wield significant “soft” power, and I think both those inside the Church and outside it have a right to some transparency. I find my modest understanding of Catholic theology and philosophy doesn’t fill me with much trepidation. I do not see the Church as being any friend to Creationists, not necessarily because of it’s modest approval of science, but more because most forms of Creationism invoke Sola Scriptura, which, so far as I can see, is nearly heretical as it effectively denies the authority of the Magisterium to interpret scripture.
 
I am very aware of the worldview that involves only power and politics. The Church is seen as a political entity and a shaper of opinions. It cannot have the “wrong” opinions because some people might believe the Church is right.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
I am very aware of the worldview that involves only power and politics. The Church is seen as a political entity and a shaper of opinions. It cannot have the “wrong” opinions because some people might believe the Church is right.
Click to expand...
I think the Church is right on many things. I also think it’s wrong on some things. I also think it’s a strong enough institution to weather an external criticism. It’s troubles are primarily within. But at any rate, none of this has much to do with science. The Church certainly insists that God is the causal agent, but it has made no requirement of stating when and where any specific causal event occurred.
 
That will always be my point: God is a causal agent in the development of life.
 
  1. Evolution is only a theory. A very recent theory. As to “evidence for”, many an innocent man has been imprisoned - some executed - based on the leading of “evidence.”
  2. Randomness is a concept based on our extremely limited knowledge and imaginations. “If” is a huge word, and hypotheticals are often corrosive to the truth.
  3. Everything has a purpose. But - it is all on a need-to-know basis. When we are in God’s presence, we will know. Until then, we are pilgrims journeying with limited information.
  4. You have answered your own question. Unless your thoughts are infused from some external source, they are your own. You intentionally ponder and have asked questions. That is neither random nor unintentional.
“Evidence” indicates that mankind alone has this ability, and a huge, impassable chasm separates us from all other animated creatures.

Rather, why is there beauty? Why is there symmetry? Why is there complementarity? Why is there love? Why does mankind alone possess the ability to wonder about creation, Creator, self and others. Where is the evidence that other species ponder past, present and future? That they plan for contingencies? Only mankind forms criminal intent, or accomplishes self-sacrificing acts of great love.

Are there exceptions to all of this? Of course!

Once again, the exceptions prove the rule.
 
Last edited:
And stated that way I take no issue with the claim. I don’t accept it, but I have no means or desire to debate it. I do have problems with specific claims like IC, and I think a sensible theologian should too.
 
I might dispute some of these claims. Tool use in some other animals suggests some degree of planning. As to recognition of criminal activity, well that’s highly culturally dependent. I find the human sacrifices that some civilizations practiced horrifying, but apparently many of the people of those cultures didn’t. Even our own civilization has done some pretty awful things, and I don’t think those exceptions prove your rule, but rather prove that morals are pretty culturally-dependent.
 
  1. Of course you will dispute my opinions.
  2. Some cultures are criminal. The mafia is a culture. MS13 is a culture.
  3. If there are no moral absolutes, if all is culturally dependent, then is it OK if I take your life for my pleasure? I mean, it’s culturally dependent…
  4. Tool use? I have yet to see the most witty animal produce something using a CNC machine. Or to mine and refine titanium, for but one example. How many animals know that Iridium, the most erosion-resistant metal known, is deposited in two thin layers over the surface of the earth?
We can lower ourselves to the animal, but animals cannot raise themselves to the human.
 
Last edited:
But that’s rather the problem. We impose out standards of moral conduct on those cultures, so calling them criminal appears to be subjective. I think the Aztecs were a vile, murderous civilization (as did a number of surrounding tribes, which is why they helped the Spanish conquer them), but by Aztec standards human sacrifice was not only moral, but a demand of their gods. That’s an extreme example, but the same applies to the Atlantic slave trade, where the British decided, under public pressure to at first ban slaves in Great Britain, and then use the Royal Navy to kill the trade entirely. But prior to that, the use of indentured slaves, was not seen as problematic by many in English society, and that extended to English colonists in North America, leading ultimately to the Abolition movement and finally to the US Civil War and the 13th amendment.

As to “humanness” , I believe it is a quantitive difference, not a qualitative one. We are not the only creatures on the planet who have a sense of fairness, for instance.
 
I do not practice the religion of relativism. It strikes me as uncaring and unloving. It allows for all manner of practices - even priestly abuse - as a matter of “belief.”

Does that sound right?
 
I’m a student of history. I’m only telling you what I’ve observed. Humans have found a good many justifications for being horrible to each other, sometimes even using holy books like the Bible. I subscribe to Bentham-style utilitarianism; laws should strive towards the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, as well as the principle of people being afforded as much liberty as possible.
 
Last edited:
You left out the part that this “reputation” was largely driven by people who held the Church in contempt not because of anything that the Church did, but because they opposed the church on philosophical grounds.
 
Who defines “good”?

Each and every practice in human history has been for some perceived good.

Either ther is an absolute, or there is chaos. Which do we prefer?
 
Do not our faiths teach us that humans CANNOT qualitatively lower themselves to the animal because they were created with a body AND a soul in the likeness and image of G-d? Perhaps they can do so quantitatively by means of their deeds, but not qualitatively, because of their essence.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by quantitative? That typically is defined as a measure, as in a volume or length, or weight, ie a quantity.

ETA: I think you are on the right track, but I question the exact wording. If I had something better, I would say.
 
Last edited:
True! And therein lies their angst. They would love to manufacture that missing link since one has never been found. In the realm of pharmaceutical research, of which I have 11 years experience (on the receiving end 😬), Many drugs - the majority of experimental drugs - fail to make the efficacy leap from even the highest primates to human testing.

That chasm, that missing link would have to be absolutely huge, involving several successive stages of evolution. “True believers” in random/accidental/Darwinian evolution can lower their standards, lower their behavior, maybe even diminish their thoughts (no puns regarding politics!), but their essence - their substance will always and everywhere remain as unique and uniquely identifiable human DNA.

Ah, the simplicity, beauty and truth that derives from the G-d of Israel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top