Reconstructed discussion whether belief in literal Adam & Eve is warranted

[Texas_Roofer]

…
In answer to a question about the need for oxygen, Alec responded: “Most animals, whether land or marine, need oxygen. While it is consistent with a common ancestor, it is not particularly strong evidence for it.” (post 64)

From my point of view, the need for oxygen goes back to a common source of building blocks or whatever the scientific name is for the first gathering of components which are life. I am operating on the principle that the evolutionary theory does not explain the source or the “creating origin” of life itself. So, at this point, I am not addressing the theistic or non-theistic original origin of life. I am looking for the lowest common denominator of life.

Well, the need for oxygen isn’t it, because there was a time when the earth’s atmosphere contained little or no oxygen. The oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere was produced by photosynthesising bacteria (known as cyanobacteria), or by methanogens something over 2 billion years ago. The need for oxygen found in most animals is not therefore fundamental to life.

Actually, if you’d asked me the question about lowest common denominator rather than about oxygen use I might have been able to be more helpful. In my view, it is the fact that all life uses the same DNA molecule (consisting of nucleotides arranged on a double helix with a sugar phosphate backbone, ten per right hand turn, and containing sequences of the same four nucleotides), and the same twenty amino acids (even though others could potentially be used) in only their left handed, and not their right handed configuration (even though the exist in a right handed form). There are some very basic things which differ between major domains of life (the archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes) but are common within the domains such as the tRNA to protein translation machinery called ribosomes. But the DNA itself and the amino acids are common across all domains.

…

Amazing simply amazing, what a lack of scientific understanding. Just as our ancestors could not have had access to this information our posterity will surely dismiss this. There is nothing wrong with understanding current theory (known as hypothesis) however to assume it cannot be advanced (specifically until you personally advance it) is to misunderstand the fundamentals of science.

 

[grannymh]

Amazing simply amazing, what a lack of scientific understanding. Just as our ancestors could not have had access to this information our posterity will surely dismiss this. There is nothing wrong with understanding current theory (known as hypothesis) however to assume it cannot be advanced (specifically until you personally advance it) is to misunderstand the fundamentals of science.

I am not sure who is the you, you are addressing. If you are addressing me with my lack of scientific understanding ---- I’m interested in advancing an hypothesis for a literal Adam and Eve but I certainly don’t want to mess up the fundamentals of science.

Blessings,
granny

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am not sure who is the you, you are addressing. If you are addressing me with my lack of scientific understanding ---- I’m interested in advancing an hypothesis for a literal Adam and Eve but I certainly don’t want to mess up the fundamentals of science.

Blessings,
granny

I understand. The bigger issue is if a person (does not matter who) believes they can prove a man lived 1 million years ago, that does not prevent a literal Adam and Eve. That person if truly understanding science would know 1) The “million years” is estimated based on many assumptions actual dates could be shorter or longer, 2) Any belief Adam and Eve could not have exist at those dates is simply a personal belief with no science base. And thus the problem both threads are built 100% on the philosophy that fossils plus DNA understanding in 2009 make the human race older, and having something common with non-humans, so one person believes they can make a personal leap of faith that this disproves the Church. That leap is a personal leap not based in science.
I hope that clarifies my post

 

[grannymh]

I understand. The bigger issue is if a person (does not matter who) believes they can prove a man lived 1 million years ago, that does not prevent a literal Adam and Eve. That person if truly understanding science would know 1) The “million years” is estimated based on many assumptions actual dates could be shorter or longer, 2) Any belief Adam and Eve could not have exist at those dates is simply a personal belief with no science base. And thus the problem both threads are built 100% on the philosophy that fossils plus DNA understanding in 2009 make the human race older, and having something common with non-humans, so one person believes they can make a personal leap of faith that this disproves the Church. That leap is a personal leap not based in science.
I hope that clarifies my post

Yes it does. Thank you.

 

[anthony022071]

Apart from the fact that the genomic data goes way beyond “genetic similarities” (how about explaining those shared syntenic non-functional sequences), it is improbable that the 30 million or so species currently in existence plus the estimated billion plus extinct ones came into being separately throughout the history of the world.

I didn’t say all species came into being separately – many are species of species. Science tends to gloss over the reality of general species like “horses” or “cats” in which each variety (or sub-species) is capable of interbreeding with another variety,but none can interbreed with another general species. This makes it seem like only the varieties of horse and cat are real,not the general species of horse and cat,which are defined by their reproductive boundaries. By ignoring the obvious reproductive boundaries between general species,science can speak of species as if they were all links in a fluid genetic chain in which no boundaries are permanent.

Why is it improbable that the lines of humans and apes should have come into existence separately? If one species at all can come into existence,what is to prevent many other species with similar genetic material from coming into existence separately from the one?
What law of nature determined that there could be only one kind of genetic origin from which all creatures would evolve?

Unless, of course, one is ultimately relying on miraculous explanations, in which case one quickly descends into omphalism.

Omphalism doesn’t necessarily follow from the Catholic doctrine of creation. Life is supernatural,because it is spirit. But it isn’t a miracle that different species should have many genetic similarities and yet have separate origins. It shouldn’t even be considered something that needs to be accounted for,as if it were problematic or amazing.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…

Omphalism doesn’t necessarily follow from the Catholic doctrine of creation. Life is supernatural,because it is spirit. But it isn’t a miracle that different species should have many genetic similarities and yet have separate origins. It shouldn’t even be considered something that needs to be accounted for,as if it were problematic or amazing.

“Life is supernatural, because it is spirit” - how come ? ​

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

“Life is supernatural, because it is spirit.”

What is supernatural sounds like it is anything “above” the natural, but theologians and philosophers distinguish two type of things “above” the natural: the preternatural and the supernatural. Anything “above” the natural is preternatural, but the term “supernatural” is technically reserved for God alone. Thus, angels and fallen angels (demons) belong to the preternatural order and can cause preternatural phenomena, whereas the strictly supernatural can be caused by God alone. Angels and demons can move physical objects and cause apparitions, and so forth, but God alone can cause actual creation or resurrection of the dead. Thus, to be certain that a given effect is truly supernatural, it must be evident that God alone could have caused it. Since God can also cause preternatural effects, such effects can be determined by the Church to have a supernatural origin if it is determined that, in fact, God was the cause, and not some lesser spiritual agent.

People often get confused by the fact that man has a spiritual soul, and say simply that man is distinguished from beast because he has a “soul.” “Soul” means any substantial form of a living body. Thus carrots have souls, dogs have souls, men have souls. But man alone is “animated” by a spiritual soul. The term “animated” is from the Latin “anima,” meaning soul or mind. To document usage, consider what we keep in the zoo, namely, animals. “Zoo” itself is derived from a Greek word meaning “alive,” and what we keep in the zoo is the “animals,” meaning things with souls. We do not keep men in zoos. They have souls and are “animated,” but are essentially above the animals in the zoo because they has spiritual souls.

The first man, Adam, was essentially distinct from all previous animals because he had a spiritual soul. Since mere matter cannot produce spiritual being, and since the spiritual soul cannot be transmitted or produced by any merely organic or material substance, it must have been directly created by the only Cause able to actually create, namely, God. Thus, by whatever scenario we envisage, God must have directly created the first man, Adam. This entails radical transformation of the material substance into the body of a living human being, and thus we can say that God created man: body and soul.

Dr. Bonnette

 

[buffalo]

I didn’t say all species came into being separately – many are species of species. Science tends to gloss over the reality of general species like “horses” or “cats” in which each variety (or sub-species) is capable of interbreeding with another variety,but none can interbreed with another general species. This makes it seem like only the varieties of horse and cat are real,not the general species of horse and cat,which are defined by their reproductive boundaries. By ignoring the obvious reproductive boundaries between general species,science can speak of species as if they were all links in a fluid genetic chain in which no boundaries are permanent.

Why is it improbable that the lines of humans and apes should have come into existence separately? If one species at all can come into existence,what is to prevent many other species with similar genetic material from coming into existence separately from the one?
What law of nature determined that there could be only one kind of genetic origin from which all creatures would evolve?

Omphalism doesn’t necessarily follow from the Catholic doctrine of creation. Life is supernatural,because it is spirit. But it isn’t a miracle that different species should have many genetic similarities and yet have separate origins. It shouldn’t even be considered something that needs to be accounted for,as if it were problematic or amazing.

In other words, phylogenetic reconstruction is sheer fantasy …

William Dembski

 			 			Here’s some research done 100 miles down the road from me. Note the sentence highlighted. The actual phylogenies here were experimentally known and yet standard evolutionary theory drew completely wrong conclusions. Oh, but it was a small population, small genomes, and intense selection pressure. Spare me.

“Exceptional Convergent Evolution in a Virus”
Bull JJ, Badgett MR, Wichman HA, Huelsenbeck JP, Hillis DM, Gulati A, Ho C, Molineux IJ.
Department of Zoology, Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Austin 78712, USA. bull@bull.zo.utexas.edu

more…

 

[grannymh]

Why is it improbable that the lines of humans and apes should have come into existence separately?

The theory that humans and apes came into existence separately is not an impossible choice.

Living in the trenches as I do, I rarely subscribe to the “mutually exclusive or”. Therefore, my theory on Adam and Eve should be regarded as a possible choice among the many which both theists and non-theists can review. Challenges are beneficial.

From what I am learning, it is possible for humans and apes to come into existence separately once two things are recognized:

1. There are some very basic things which differ between major domains of life and there are things which are common within the domains.
2. DNA itself and the amino acids are common across all domains.

Remembering how one of my kids used play dough may be a beginning idea for a Gedanken experiment. Play dough was the common material. He began by dividing all the play dough into two undetermined lumps. Next, he chose to work on lump one dividing that into lumps three and four. Lump three was discarded. Lump four became a recognizable figure. This could be continued; however, the idea can be seen that figure four or forty evolved from lump one. It is also distinct from lump two.

At this point, my kid turns to lump two which is available in its original state. The common source of original building material, the play dough, still accounts for shared properties with figure four or forty. The question arises: can lump two evolve in different ways than lump one? The answer would be yes, since the clay has the ability and the history to evolve in any number of ways.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[anthony022071]

“Life is supernatural, because it is spirit” - how come ? ​

Because life itself is something extrinsic to the natural world. Not everything in nature is alive,and everything which is alive in nature is mortal. Life comes and goes from nature. If a person dies of natural causes and an autopsy is done,all the necessary physical elements that were there when the body was alive would still be found in the body. All that would be missing would be that “unknown quantity” commonly known as spirit or soul (anima),which animates what science calls the “mechanisms” of the body into action.
A system of mechanisms can’t move itself into action,it must be moved by some power outside of itself. So life itself is a quality,substance and power that is really is super-natural,because it is “above” and prior to nature. Since science is naturalistic,it can only define life in terms of biological functions like metabolism and reproduction. But these functions do not define life itself,just the natural effects of the creaturely state of being alive. These functions are made to happen by something,and it cannot be self-acting mechanisms.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

True evolution requires “transformism,” moving across from one species to another. But the very notion of “species” has confused the discussion greatly. There are several “biological” species concepts, based on such notions as morphology, cladistics, reproductive isolation, and so forth. Traditional philosophers have a different notion of species: The natural philosophical species concept is directed to those properties of organisms which are not accidental, but essential. Traditional philosophy holds that things are diversified essentially by the presence or absence of certain powers and their activities. Thus, vegetative life is essentially superior to non-living things because plants have powers of nutrition, growth, and reproduction. Animals are superior to plants because they have various sense powers, whereas plants do not. Man is superior to animals because he has intellective powers absent in brute animals. The biological species concept addresses accidental differences, whereas the philosophical species concept deals with essence itself. Unless evolution, transcending natural philosophical species, can be demonstrated, all examples of evolution may serve merely to document intra-specific evolution. True inter-specific evolution would have to show that a plant became an animal or that an animal became a man.

Traditional philosophy holds that man possesses intellective powers that make him essentially superior to lower primates. On the other hand, most evolutionists maintain that man is merely a highly-developed animal, differing in complexity from lower animals, but not in kind. That is why so much fascination exists about higher animal “mental states,” as evinced by the great interest in recent ape-language studies. An essential line of demarcation must be proven to exist between merely sentient animal cognition and human intellective cognition, or else claims that man is essentially superior to brute animals are unfounded. Such essential superiority can be demonstrated. Those interested in details can read in full the article on recent ape-language studies on my web site at www.drbonnette.com as well as chapter six of my book, Origin of the Human Species, where several demonstrations of the spirituality of the human soul are given.

Since man is by his very nature superior to brute animals – even to higher subhuman primates, at some point in any hypothetical evolutionary scenario, evidence of specifically intellective human activities must appear, activities which cannot be explained by merely sentient abilities. At least by that point, true man (with a spiritual soul) must be present. (He might be there earlier, but fail to leave unequivocal evidence of his presence.) At the point of first genuinely human presence, Adam must be present. This does not answer the question about whether there is a single pair of first human parents for all of us, but it does mean that some truly first human being or beings must suddenly appear in any evolutionary scenario. Moreover, since it takes God’s direct intervention to create the human spiritual soul, there is no particular reason to believe that many true men had to appear simultaneously.

I realize that any committed Darwinian will have none of this, but that is because he fails to see the essential distinction between merely sentient powers and intellective powers, which distinction establishes the essential distinction between purely physical organisms and the spiritual-souled primate, true man. This may not demonstrate the presence of a literal Adam and Eve in prehistory, but it does at least show that natural reason alone – not simply Genesis – demands that a literal Adam must have been created by God at some definite point in prehistory.

 

[anthony022071]

The question now raised is not which classification system is to be used but rather is it time to separate out some of the species from their original classification? Like booting Pluto out of the planetary category.

If lines of descent is what we’re looking for,we should only use a classification system that vertically traces the reproductive histories of species. Of course,there will be huge gaps in those histories that will never get filled in. And it is cheating to refer to structural and genetic similarities between species that no one has seen to be related in order to fill in these gaps. Science arbitrarily tries to connect the dots laterally even though descent is vertical.

My observation so far is that there are various stages along the evolutionary theory trail. These need to be revisited with the question – Is there more than one viable way of dealing with this stage?

The question should first be asked,whether the theory as a whole is logically valid.
Evolutionary theory extrapolates macro-evolution from the known instances of speciation,which has never been observed to go beyond hybrid breakdown,partial reproductive isolation,and polyploidism. It’s a Hegelian view of the history of organisms,wherein “all is process”.

Here’s one more question. Should we be tracing Adam and Eve’s lineage forward?

That would make the human race about 6 thousand years old,if we went by biblical geneologies. I don’t think there’s any way to reconcile biblical geneologies with the age of the oldest civilizations,like Sumer,much less the evidence from pre-history. I don’t mean to say that scripture is wrong about history,just that there’s no way to reconcile it with what we know about the age of the oldest civilizations.

In conclusion. There are many ways to warrant belief in the literal Adam and Eve. An approach using the philosophical discipline is an excellent one. However, I have yet to read a flat out, straight forward philosophical presentation centered on Adam and Eve. Maybe I have missed it. Most everything I read is more a defense of the philosophical method or some other kind of defense or an attack on evolutionary theory or an attack on science.

The belief in Adam and Eve can’t be justified by philosophy alone or a philosophical method (although it can be justified by natural reason,as Dr. Bonnette pointed out). It should be justified with reference to belief in the Church,and to knowledge of spirit and physical matter.

My belief in Adam and Eve is based upon my belief in the divine origin of the Church,and therefore the truth of its teachings,and of scripture. And my belief in the Church is based in turn upon my observing the saints,like Mother Teresa,Padre Pio and Saint Francis,who belonged to the Church,and who could only have been as they were if what the Church teaches about Christ were true. The saints are the proof that Christ is risen and that his Spirit is with the Church. The saints give credibility to the Church,which in turn upholds the divine inspiration of the scriptures.

At this moment in time, my personal approach is based on the idea that the truth of science does not contradict the truth of Divine Revelation. Therefore, I am looking for the truth in science first. Just because I am interested in evolutionary theory does not mean that I am excluding God.

But evolutionary theory does exclude God,because it is naturalistic. So if you accept the theory,you accept an explanation that disallows for (not just avoids mentioning) God to be originating species. As far as the theory is concerned,natural causes are the only causes.
The supernatural is not mentioned because the supernatural is not considered necessary to the natural world. If you believe in the doctrines of Creation and divine providence,its a kind of intellectual heresy to accept evolution theory. It’s not a matter of two equally valid approaches to the origins of species,its a matter of two fundamentally opposed world-views.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To anthony022071:

You write, “That would make the human race about 6 thousand years old, if we went by biblical geneologies. I don’t think there’s any way to reconcile biblical geneologies with the age of the oldest civilizations,like Sumer,much less the evidence from pre-history. I don’t mean to say that scripture is wrong about history, just that there’s no way to reconcile it with what we know about the age of the oldest civilizations.”

Most Catholic scholars for the last century or so have concluded that the patriarchal genealogies do not provide an absolute time frame for Adam’s origin. The problem with these genealogies is that the “begots” do not necessarily mean that the next person named was born at the time of the “begetting.” Rather, it indicates that the line of generation leading to the next person began at the age designated. In Matthew 1:8, we read, “And Joram begot Ozias.” It turns out that there were several generations between Joram and Ozias. The genealogies are not continuous, and you cannot determine the length of time from Adam to Abraham by merely adding up the years between the “begats.” Thus, a much older time from for the birth of Adam is possible.

You also write: “But evolutionary theory does exclude God, because it is naturalistic. So if you accept the theory, you accept an explanation that disallows for (not just avoids mentioning) God to be originating species. As far as the theory is concerned, natural causes are the only causes.
The supernatural is not mentioned because the supernatural is not considered necessary to the natural world. If you believe in the doctrines of Creation and divine providence, it’s a kind of intellectual heresy to accept evolution theory. It’s not a matter of two equally valid approaches to the origins of species, its a matter of two fundamentally opposed world-views.”

I am fully sympathetic with your desire to defend Christian belief against the errors of naturalism. Still, evolution is a biological theory, not a philosophy. Naturalism is a philosophy which excludes God. Darwinism is a naturalistic interpretation of evolutionary theory, and, as such, embraces atheism. But it is possible to be an evolutionist without being thereby also a naturalist. “Theistic evolution” is a pejorative term to many people, since they think that it rejects basic Christian beliefs. But many Catholic scholars today are theistic evolutionists. In a homily given some twenty years ago, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger held that scientific evidence suggests some sort of biological evolution. He said, "Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth.” (In the Beginning…: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), paragraph 63.) Does this mean that the present Holy Father was speaking then as a Darwinist? Of course not. First, “mounting support” is not proof positive, and “some theory of evolution” does not say its exact form. Christians as such need not embrace any particular scientific theory. But they may allow that some sort of evolutionary scenario was used by God to achieve His purpose in creating this world. God still exists to create the cosmos and sustain all its physical natural laws, including those needed to support any possible evolutionary mechanisms. The Biblical Commission insists on certain doctrines which must be held that touch on any evolutionary scenario, including the special creation of man and the unity of the human race. In my book, Origin of the Human Species, I attempt to show how central Christian tenets remain compatible with evolutionary theory, but not with Darwinism.

I am not saying evolution must have occurred, and I realize that “scientific creationists” argue it did not. My point is that good Christians might be able to hold either viewpoint as long as basic Christian tenets are not violated. Needless to say, true Darwinists reject all Christian interpretations of the scientific evidence. But we must recall that “evidence” is not the same thing as “proof.” Moreover, it is curious that these same Darwinists view Christian dogma as pure myth, while proclaiming infallibly their own scientific dogma. Christians know the miraculous signs which support their belief system, and are thus assured that sound science will eventually be found to harmonize with the Church’s authentic teaching magisterium.

 

[anthony022071]

Most Catholic scholars for the last century or so have concluded that the patriarchal genealogies do not provide an absolute time frame for Adam’s origin. The problem with these genealogies is that the “begots” do not necessarily mean that the next person named was born at the time of the “begetting.” Rather, it indicates that the line of generation leading to the next person began at the age designated. In Matthew 1:8, we read, “And Joram begot Ozias.” It turns out that there were several generations between Joram and Ozias. The genealogies are not continuous, and you cannot determine the length of time from Adam to Abraham by merely adding up the years between the “begats.” Thus, a much older time from for the birth of Adam is possible.

Yes,I was aware of that solution to interpreting the geneaologies. If we go with that solution,the creation of Adam may be far back enough in time for biblical history to be reconcilable with the age of the oldest civilizations,but it may still be too recent in reference to the earliest signs of human intelligence. I can easily trust what archeologists say is the age of Sumer,because with civilization we have human records and dates to work with. But for anything before the earliest civilizations,human history becomes inarticulate. We have to rely on the archeologists’ estimated datings from wordless human artifacts.

I am fully sympathetic with your desire to defend Christian belief against the errors of naturalism. Still, evolution is a biological theory, not a philosophy. Naturalism is a philosophy which excludes God.

The theory itself is naturalistic,since it explains origins guided by methodological naturalism,which says that natural causes and scientific laws are adequate to account for all natural phenomena. The theory therefore excludes God where God is logically necessary to explain things. The naturalistic theory is like a doctrine unto itself,to which all educated,intelligent people are supposed to defer. Authoritative explanations become doctrine.

Darwinism is a naturalistic interpretation of evolutionary theory, and, as such, embraces atheism. But it is possible to be an evolutionist without being thereby also a naturalist. “Theistic evolution” is a pejorative term to many people, since they think that it rejects basic Christian beliefs. But many Catholic scholars today are theistic evolutionists. In a homily given some twenty years ago, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger held that scientific evidence suggests some sort of biological evolution. He said, "Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth.” (In the Beginning…: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), paragraph 63.) Does this mean that the present Holy Father was speaking then as a Darwinist? Of course not.

I’ve read that document. It is not a defense of the theory of evolution and it doesn’t try to reconcile the scientific account of origins with Catholic doctrine. It upholds the traditional teachings of the Church. The pope is generous and diplomatic with science,in the spirit of “dialogue”,but at bottom he is deeply suspicious of its underlying naturalism and he doesn’t believe in macro-evolution.

Theistic evolutionists simply accept the naturalistic theory of evolution as it is,saying: “God created man,and the theory of evolution shows how he did it”. But the theory itself does not allow for God to be doing anything. Nature is viewed as self-sufficient. Theistic evolutionists are not thinking about all the implications of creation and divine providence,nor do they see the non sequiturs of the theory.

First, “mounting support” is not proof positive, and “some theory of evolution” does not say its exact form. Christians as such need not embrace any particular scientific theory. But they may allow that some sort of evolutionary scenario was used by God to achieve His purpose in creating this world. God still exists to create the cosmos and sustain all its physical natural laws, including those needed to support any possible evolutionary mechanisms.

But that’s what science won’t allow for,because of its methodological naturalism.

The Biblical Commission insists on certain doctrines which must be held that touch on any evolutionary scenario, including the special creation of man and the unity of the human race. In my book, Origin of the Human Species, I attempt to show how central Christian tenets remain compatible with evolutionary theory, but not with Darwinism.

Natural selection is a fundamental concept in evolutionary theory.

I am not saying evolution must have occurred, and I realize that “scientific creationists” argue it did not. My point is that good Christians might be able to hold either viewpoint as long as basic Christian tenets are not violated.

It is an intellectual heresy to accept a naturalistic explanation of the origins of species while also believing in the doctrines of creation and divine providence. If we know that God continually creates life and sustains it,then it does not make sense to accept a naturalistic explanation for the origin of species,because the supernatural is necessary to explain it. The doctrines and all that they logically imply should be our guide to explaining the origin of species,not methodological naturalism. That would be “sound science”. It is not sound science to exclude the supernatural where reason demands that it is necessary. For example,abiogenesis theory says that life emerged from amino acids and proteins,through a series of mechanisms. Scientists have even invented intermediate mechanisms leading to biotic life where none have been observed. But there is no reason to believe that chemicals by themselves have the power or properties to order themselves into functioning organisms which grow and reproduce. The purposeful functioning of a cell is a completely other and higher reality from the cell’s physical components. It is a phenomenon which shows a guiding,sustaining power over the physical components,not just It can’t be logically explained in mechanistic terms. It has to be explained in terms of power and properties

 

[anthony022071]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

See paragraphs 64,68 and 69.

The document says that reductionist and materialist theories of evolution are incompatible with the Catholic faith. But those are the only theories of evolution that science teaches!

See also paragraphs 26-30 on the unity of body and soul. With this in mind,it doesn’t make sense to believe that the human body has developed from another creature while believing that souls are created immediately by God.

 

[grannymh]

Suggestion –
Regarding what is and what isn’t evolutionary theory

The best place to get a definition of Evolutionary Theory is to go to “Understanding Evolution” which is a non-commercial, education website, teaching the science and history of evolutionary biology. This site is a collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education.

According to this source, the definition is:

"Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin.

"Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory.

"Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes."

www.evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To Anthony:

I can understand your skepticism about whether the patriarchal genealogies of Genesis can be “stretched” far enough for human origins even hundreds of thousands of years ago. All I can say is that most scholars insist that no time frame whatever may be deduced from the genealogies.

Concerning the Holy Father, you write: “… at bottom he is deeply suspicious of its [evolution’s] underlying naturalism and he doesn’t believe in macro-evolution.” You are absolutely correct on both grounds. Still, that does not eliminate the possibility of “some form” of evolution. As I have pointed out in previous entries, even intra-specific evolution might entail transitions quite great in terms of biological species concepts, while still not going beyond a natural philosophical species.

You write: “The theory [evolution] itself is naturalistic, since it explains origins guided by methodological naturalism, which says that natural causes and scientific laws are adequate to account for all natural phenomena.” I think our problem here is a matter of terminology. I do not understand “methodological naturalism” as meaning the same thing as “metaphysical or philosophical naturalism.” My understanding of methodological naturalism is just what it says: seeking natural explanations as a matter of methodology. Method is NOT metaphysics. It simply means that scientists should always seek to find natural physical explanations for observable phenomena where possible. If they did not do so, they would cease to be competent natural scientists. It is quite another matter to insist that any and ALL explanations for observable phenomena MUST be “natural” or physical in nature. The latter is what I understand by the terms, “metaphysical naturalism” or “philosophical naturalism.” If you think that every scientist working on evolutionary mechanisms must be a die-hard materialist, then I can see the cause of your concern. But I do not think that need be the case.

The reasons for your concern are understandable. A 1998 National Association of Scientists survey found that only 10% of its members believed in God and immortality, with only 5% of biologists doing so! That is cause for alarm. But that finding arises because most of these scientists are also Darwinists, not just because they are scientists. The 10% who believe in God and immortality are also members! Do they all reject evolution? I doubt it. Moreover, I am speaking not just about scientists, but also philosophers and theologians – especially genuinely Catholic ones.

We do not serve well the cause of either science or religion by insisting that science must be essentially atheistic. Methodological naturalism is simply the proper modus operandi for good scientists. Metaphysical naturalism is an unwarranted philosophical presupposition superimposed by atheistic materialists upon their work as scientists.

Lest I have now scandalized you excessively, let me point out that I have just had an article entitled “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution” accepted for publication later this summer (hopefully). And, I note that the terms, “Darwinian” and “Naturalistic,” are redundant – but placed there to avoid any possible doubt that I am talking solely about the purely materialistic theory, and not about theistic evolution, which many genuine Catholics consider possible (but not necessarily necessary!). I do not personally accept a “naturalistic explanation of the origin of species,” but rather insist that God must directly intervene to introduce the next higher natural philosophical species. Thus, God and divine providence continue their essential roles in creation. Still, this does not eliminate the possibility that God has employed some sort of evolutionary scenario in creating life and man.

The texts from the International Theological Commission that you cite actually are speaking as if some sort of evolutionary theory is acceptible, but that Darwinian ones are not. That is what I am saying. As for the unity of soul and body, I have explained earlier that God’s direct creation of the human soul entails radical transformation of any matter derived from a subhuman primate, so that one might properly say that God has created man – both soul and body.

 

[grannymh]

Thus, God and divine providence continue their essential roles in creation. Still, this does not eliminate the possibility that God has employed some sort of evolutionary scenario in creating life and man…

In “Communion and Stewardship” # 68 & #69 cited in post 95, Can the following quote about the difference between necessity or contingency, be considered the basis for a possible acceptance of the evolutionary theory as defined in post 96?
If you have already addressed that, my apology for missing it. Please let me know which post and which thread. Thank you.

#69.According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (*Summa theologiae, *I, 22,4 ad 1)."

I recognized this statement from one of your previous posts: Traditional philosophy holds that things are diversified essentially by the presence or absence of certain powers and their activities." It was taught as part of my Catholic high school biology class as science with addtional characteristics.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[anthony022071]

To Anthony:

I can understand your skepticism about whether the patriarchal genealogies of Genesis can be “stretched” far enough for human origins even hundreds of thousands of years ago. All I can say is that most scholars insist that no time frame whatever may be deduced from the genealogies.

I agree. Or at least,no certain time frame.

Concerning the Holy Father, you write: “… at bottom he is deeply suspicious of its [evolution’s] underlying naturalism and he doesn’t believe in macro-evolution.” You are absolutely correct on both grounds. Still, that does not eliminate the possibility of “some form” of evolution. As I have pointed out in previous entries, even intra-specific evolution might entail transitions quite great in terms of biological species concepts, while still not going beyond a natural philosophical species.

Evolution happens to the extent that there is obviously speciation within a general species (as I call it) such as cat or horse. But it has never been observed to go farther than hybrid breakdown,partial genetic isolation,and polyploidism. Now,since hybrids are a reproductive dead end,we could not have evolved from hybrids. And we are totally genetically isolated from apes. Polyploids are totally genetically isolated from their diploid parents,but they have the same genetic information,copied over more than twice. Genetic mutation has not been observed to cause major changes in the structure of a species.

I think our problem here is a matter of terminology. I do not understand “methodological naturalism” as meaning the same thing as “metaphysical or philosophical naturalism.”

Neither do I. Naturalism is the belief that nature is all there is. Methodological naturalism is a policy of science in which natural phenomena must be explained as if nature is all there is. It is the professional application of naturalism to the study of nature.

My understanding of methodological naturalism is just what it says: seeking natural explanations as a matter of methodology. Method is NOT metaphysics.

I never said it was. But M.N. is not a method either,it is a policy which determines how things are explained. The scientific method is just experimental. Since the supernatural can’t be experimented upon anyway (and no one in their right mind would say otherwise),M.N. is not needed to safeguard experimentation itself. It is used to prevent scientists from bringing in supernatural causation to explain natural phenomena. But when it comes to order,origins,and life,supernatural power is logically necessary.

It simply means that scientists should always seek to find natural physical explanations for observable phenomena where possible. If they did not do so, they would cease to be competent natural scientists.

I agree with that,but scientists often attribute the impossible to natural causes.

It is quite another matter to insist that any and ALL explanations for observable phenomena MUST be “natural” or physical in nature.

But that is how science explains everything in the natural world. It doesn’t necessarily amount to philosophical naturalism,it’s a professional attitude and policy which is bound to lead science to attribute to natural causes abilities that are properly attributed to God,where it concerns order,origins,and life.

The latter is what I understand by the terms, “metaphysical naturalism” or “philosophical naturalism.”

Naturalism isn’t necessarily philosophical,it can just be the simple belief that nature is all there is.

If you think that every scientist working on evolutionary mechanisms must be a die-hard materialist, then I can see the cause of your concern. But I do not think that need be the case.

When they are explaining natural phenomena,they do have to be materialist.

Methodological naturalism is simply the proper modus operandi for good scientists.

How can it be good science when natural phenomena are explained in such a way that natural causes are attributed with the ability to create order and life?

 

[grannymh]

As for the unity of soul and body, I have explained earlier that God’s direct creation of the human soul entails radical transformation of any matter derived from a subhuman primate, so that one might properly say that God has created man – both soul and body.

Dear Dr. Bonnette,

I’m not exactly sure how to word this question. It’s kind of a Walter Mitty thing…

Suppose there was another animal-type (example 1) which evolved along side the primates (example 2) from similar building blocks of life. Suppose both existed in the same kind of environment and had the same kind of challenges. They could even look alike. At some point in the development of both, God chose to directly create a soul in example 1, the animal-type who became Adam. The transformation would not be from any matter of the companion subhuman primate. The transformation would be of Adam’s matter into something that would not be dependent on the same evolutionary track as the others.

In other words, Adam and a primate shirt-tail cousin would be related but not the same. The difference would be the soul and the ability to commit sin. Personally, since evolutionary theory looks at the process of evolving over time and not at the actual start or cause of life, I believe there is a case for a separate Adam that would have followed the normal evolution pattern up to a point. Question – could this Walter Mitty scenario be seen from a philosophical view?

Blessings,
granny

Human beings are the joy of creation.