Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[reggieM]

However, you have claimed that the soul is a proper subject of empirical science (natural explanations for natural phenomena).

Nope. Again, nope.

You have observed natural phenomena (the physical effects of the soul),

The subject of science.

but you haven’t offered natural explanations for them.

I see the effects. I don’t close my eyes to them.

From a scientific perspective (in accordance with a proper subject of science), how do you demonstrate this causality?

You’re changing the topic now. The effects are from an immateral source – call it the soul or whatever you want. You’re claiming that science cannot factor in observable evidence because it doesn’t know what the origin of that evidence is.

 

[Michaelo]

You’re changing the topic now. The effects are from an immateral source – call it the soul or whatever you want. You’re claiming that science cannot factor in observable evidence because it doesn’t know what the origin of that evidence is.

And now we come full circle–science permits us to observe these physical effects, I’m certainly not denying that, but (from a scientific perspective) we cannot attribute them to the soul. As Arandur and I have said all along, we must enter other disciplines of thought to explain their metaphysical origin.

 

[reggieM]

And now we come full circle–science permits us to observe these physical effects, I’m certainly not denying that,

This is good progress - thank you.

We can see the physical effects of the immaterial soul. Evolution claims that human beings evolved from physical laws alone. It cannot or does not factor in the effects of the soul in the process. The soul cannot be matter or mutations or natural selection – so how does evolution deal with that? The soul actually “selects” events from free-will decisions. These are not determined by physical processes but by an immaterial power (we call it the soul). Some evolutionists try to claim that the soul is composed of matter and chemicals – I was grateful to see that Arandur rejected this false notion, and I believe you do also. But evolutionary theory cannot simply hide from the visible, observable, empirical and measurable effects of the soul on human development.

but (from a scientific perspective) we cannot attribute them to the soul. As Arandur and I have said all along, we must enter other disciplines of thought to explain their metaphysical origin.

As you’ve both said – it is better to switch the topic and try to argue about something that I never said, rather than deal with the real argument at hand.

Why bother to argue with me for days when you claim that you don’t deny the point I’ve been making repeatedly?

Again, the soul produces visible, observable effects. These cannot come from mutations, natural selection, genetic properties or any material forces. But they have observable results.

Or better yet, I will put it in your words:

science permits us to observe these physical effects, I’m certainly not denying that

 

[Arandur]

Where in the scientific literature does it state that science is incapable of fully explaining human beings? What, precisely, are the limits acknowledged by science in this matter?

Reggie, I’ll ask again, have you read the sources I posted about the definitions of science, scientific method, and philosophy of science? This is I think at least the FIFTH time I’ve directed you to them. Why should I continue talking to you if you go on as if I haven’t answered my question and won’t do me the courtesy of reading my posts (where I did excerpt and explain those things, so you didn’t even have to follow the sources) or follow the sources?

You speak, correctly, about the “effects and powers of the soul”. We can observe those effects empirically. Why is this not the proper subject of science – since some of the effects of the soul influence the development of human life (and thus, so-called evolution)?

It’s not the proper subject of empirical science because of the aforementioned limitations. Buffalo gets it. Why can’t you? Science is limited to physical things observable with the senses.

… I am assuming that you accept the perennial Catholic teaching on the nature and faculties of the soul (e.g. consciousness, free-will, imagination, memory).

We’ve been through this a half dozen times as well. Yes I do. I have acknowledged so explicitly many times.

 

[reggieM]

Why can’t you?

I find your posts difficult to understand?

We’ve been through this a half dozen times as well.

Well, it took about 10 posts for me to get through to Michaelo so perhaps we should keep trying.

Read this post and it may help:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5333147&postcount=747

 

[Arandur]

If that is true, then science can claim to fully explain the entire origin and development of human beings – as most mainstream evolutionists do today. Evolution, the study of life, is considered to be not significantly different than chemistry or physics. Therefore, the subject area of “human life” is essentially the same as that of chemistry – according to this view (as you state here).

Wrong. Did you miss where I referred to origins of nature and such? Chemistry and physics can’t explain how the physical universe came to be, how or why the laws and processes work they way they do. In the same way, neither can evolution.

By default, that is a materialist view of human life – just as chemistry takes a materialistic view of chemicals. Nothing is lacking in chemistry’s analysis of chemicals. Thus, nothing is lacking in evolution’s attempt to explain human life.

Wrong again. You’re lumping in the spiritual side of being human in your term “human life.” As explained so many times, science doesn’t deal with the spiritual, by virtue of its limitations. It is a variable that has influence, but science can’t understand that variable. The other variables it can. In the same way, chemistry and physics can’t account for miracles, or for the actions of angels (as some Catholic theologians have posited that angels are “in charge” as “overseers” of natural forces).

This ignores the soul and reduces human life to the materialistic level.

If you make a distinction here about the soul – and that is united to, and has profound influence on the subject matter of evolution – then you should stop comparing evoution with chemistry.

God made that which chemistry and physics study, He works miracles that defy chemistry and physics, and the angels may play a role in those things that chemistry and physics study. Further, the human soul has psychosomatic impacts on the body poorly understood by science, and ultimately unexplainable because the soul cannot be put under a microscope. Yet science and medicine go on and find more and more truth about creation.

The soul does not necessarily have a “profound influence” on evolution in the natural world beyond humans, and may not even impact humans much. What data do you have that says it does?

Once again, ANSWER THE QUESTION: How does science’s inability to account for one variable among many (the soul) totally invalidate every other little fact and true law or process discovered by science?

I will not speak to you again until you answer this question and acknowledge what I have posted about the definitional limits of science and the philosophy of science, explicitly stated.

 

[Michaelo]

We can see the physical effects of the immaterial soul. Evolution claims that human beings evolved from physical laws alone. It cannot or does not factor in the effects of the soul in the process. The soul cannot be matter or mutations or natural selection – so how does evolution deal with that? The soul actually “selects” events from free-will decisions. These are not determined by physical processes but by an immaterial power (we call it the soul). Some evolutionists try to claim that the soul is composed of matter and chemicals – I was grateful to see that Arandur rejected this false notion, and I believe you do also. But evolutionary theory cannot simply hide from the visible, observable, empirical and measurable effects of the soul on human development.

Up until now we’ve been talking in generalities with regards to the physical effects of the soul, so can you specifically describe these effects and how they pose a problem for the theory of evolution?

I believe Arandur would also like you to elaborate:

The soul does not necessarily have a “profound influence” on evolution in the natural world beyond humans, and may not even impact humans much. What data do you have that says it does?

 

[Arandur]

The discussion has returned to the either/or question. If you don’t believe ‘this’ about science then you must want to throw it all out.

I’ve explained why YOU create this situation. Either respond to my argument or admit that it is valid.
Put simply again, you claim that if science cannot describe a supernatural variable, then all else that it figures out with all other variables is false. Is this or is this not what you are saying?

Too many people are missing the obvious. Just look out the window: Man created God on the sides of buses. Do the people who put that there have anything to back it up? Yes. Science.

Again, people will hide behind whatever they can for materialist beliefs. another favorite hiding place is the existence of evil in the world, and another is the historical view that religion has caused much misery. It’s the materialist belief that is the problem, not the underlying data they hide behind.

And then there is the general secular power struggle. Reason, also known as Science, also known as Evolution, must replace religion in life and politics.

That’s one materialist philosophy, yes (Scientism I believe it’s called).

But, what about the science? What about it? As explained, neo-Darwinism explicitly excludes God from the equation. The engine of evolution runs by itself. And the followers of Stephen Jay Gould have bought the assumption that if the process could be rewound then a different result would occur. We could have an entire planet of non-sentient animals. No architecture, no complex tools and no culture.

Neo-Darwinism as you describe it is a philosophy not an empirical science, though it draws its inspiration from empirical science.

That’s all that’s going on here. An increasing level of investigation into human behavior is only revealing mechanical function, according to those who study evolutionary psychology. We are born, grow up, learn stuff, are programmed to reproduce, perform adaptive (or not) behaviors and die. That’s it.

Another philosophy. Now that I’ve looked it up, it’s not just materialism that you’re railing against, it’s specifically Scientism. I agree. Scientism is false. No one here is disputing that.

If people don’t want to bother reading the encyclical by Pope Leo XIII that states Eve was formed from Adam’s side, I ask, why not? If you are Catholic, do you believe God can perform miracles? Do not idolize science. It is only a tool.

I just asked that you locate and post the quote for me. That’s common forum courtesy–we don’t refer to long articles without directing people to parts of them (which is why I provided direct links to small sections when I posted sources, and even quoted some of the most relevant passages). As I have said many times, I believe God performs miracles. No one here disputes that. No one here is idolizing science or putting it above faith.

In our mission to evangelize the world, we are not passing along an idea, or a scientifically unprovable list of events but a reality. God knows our lack of belief. God knows about the ultra-orthodox religion of science that exists for some. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is in vain. How much clearer can I say it? It Actually Happened. Got that?

Who are you talking to? You’re preaching to the choir.

But, you might ask, isn’t the science behind evolution true? You might say, Hey, you can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Here, on this forum, we can talk about the whole thing. Science is not knowledge that exists in a vacuum. Example: a man invents a pick ax in 38 B.C. but he doesn’t tell anybody what it’s for. Two guys see it. One asks the other, What is that? The other one says, I don’t know. And they walk away.

I don’t see your point.

Today, followers of science go on Christian forums and say, Look. We’ve got science! And we say, What do you use it for? And then we’re given excerpts from the Biology textbook that tells us about the engine of evolution and how it made us. We are then warned, Don’t you dare get God or the supernatural within miles of the science classroom or the public schools for that matter.

That didn’t happen here. Again, who are you talking to?

This is not about science. I am convinced that according to the Biology textbook, the process of evolution runs by itself. Runs by itself.

You must have missed the basic lessons in what science is.

 

[Arandur]

I find your posts difficult to understand?

I’m sorry for you. What is the impediment? I’ve explained things in dozens of different ways, with analogies, with reference to other sources, in logic progression format, in outline format… I don’t think it’s that you don’t understand these. I think that your view of things is so deeply entrenched that you are blinded by it and unwilling to consider any other viewpoint.

Well, it took about 10 posts for me to get through to Michaelo so perhaps we should keep trying.

Read this post and it may help:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5333147&postcount=747

Don’t flatter yourself. As Michaelo said, we’ve been there “all along.” We’ve even explicitly agreed several times before. But you don’t seem to get that. You claim we’re changing the subject or arguing against something you never said, yet you don’t see that the arguments you are using, if you are to be consistent, must be applied to things other than evolution. You want to accuse a whole discipline of science and body of scientists of holding to a philosophy and basing science off of it (rather than basing a philosophy off of science, which is what SOME are actually doing), despite the clear references we’ve posted that our own views of science and its limitations are what is mainstream, not your distorted view.

You say:

We can see the physical effects of the immaterial soul. Evolution claims that human beings evolved from physical laws alone. It cannot or does not factor in the effects of the soul in the process. The soul cannot be matter or mutations or natural selection – so how does evolution deal with that? The soul actually “selects” events from free-will decisions. These are not determined by physical processes but by an immaterial power (we call it the soul). Some evolutionists try to claim that the soul is composed of matter and chemicals – I was grateful to see that Arandur rejected this false notion, and I believe you do also. But evolutionary theory cannot simply hide from the visible, observable, empirical and measurable effects of the soul on human development.

We answer: Of course the soul is not the result of anything natural. Yes, SOME effects of the soul can be observed, but we only know they come from the soul because of faith. Science can’t tell us that. Science just sees something happening and looks for a natural cause. It will always miss the supernatural variable, but that doesn’t make it wholly erroneous, nor does it make it “hiding.” It can still describe all sorts of other, natural variables with a high degree of accuracy.

 

[edwest2]

There is no “one size fits all” theory of evolution. All I’m seeing is the defense of the public school classroom and please keep your religion out of it.

Oh, I understand science. It’s been explained to me many times here, but I still don’t accept the machine that runs itself scenario. It requires a massive string of lucky events and millions of years to get from point A to point B. The more I hear about it the less I’m inclined to believe it works as advertised. Plus the constant steering I keep getting, which boils down to: quit mentioning religion or philosophy and stick to the science.

What I’m hearing here boils down to two different realities:

1. Evolution runs itself - accept it.
2. Evolution, if it happened, did not run itself.

– OR –

1. Man created God.
2. God created Man.

Here is Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII: vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html

See Part 5.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Yes, SOME effects of the soul can be observed, …

It’s unfortunate that it took this long to finally get you to admit this (or understand it).

Observation - empirical evidence - effect on human evolution - the powers of the soul (or immaterial forces).

When you put the pieces together I think it can provide some new insights.

 

[reggieM]

Up until now we’ve been talking in generalities with regards to the physical effects of the soul, so can you specifically describe these effects and how they pose a problem for the theory of evolution?

How about the specific effects of free-will decisions based on memory? How does it change evolution that an organism can make a decision that goes against natural laws (by free-will) or choose things based on memories – the motive is an immaterial power, not mutations, not natural selection?

At some juncture, I think you need to think about the implications yourself.

When an organism is moved, changed, influenced and directed by non-material powers (the souls faculties – memory, free-will, imagination, memory) – this changes the direction of evolution in ways that cannot be explained by physical laws.

Again – evolution claims to explain the development of human beings – as if the only influences on human development are natural selection, mutations and environmental conditions.

What affect does free-will decison-making have on the survival of a species?

Those decisions do not emerge from material causes – not from mutations, not from genetics, not from matter, not from physical laws.

So, evolutionists are claiming to explain the origin and development of human life while also ignoring the effect of the soul on the human body, human survival and human adaptation.

That’s actually explaining a non-human organism since there is a refusal to look at how the powers of the soul change the direction of human development.

You can’t pretend that physical laws alone are responsible for human evolution – when you admit that the soul has empirical and observable influence on human beings.

What influence do these effects of the soul have on the origin and development of human life? Has it been factored in, or measured by evolutionary science? What evolutionists look at this at all?

You might be surprised that the most prominent evolutionists in the world claim that the human soul is merely the product of material forces – matter and physical laws.

Fortunately, you have rejected that error. But again, what effect did the human soul have on evolution and how would you answer that question? Human beings, by definition, possess free-will. They can choose things – they are not driven by survival alone.

They can survive or die because they followed a spiritual inspiration, for example, a dream, a memory, an imagination – these are products of the soul and not of mutations or genetics.

When a human community survives or dies off – this has an obvious effect on so-called evolution. What caused the community to survive and die off? The materialist explanation is that it was all about “survival advantage” – as if humans are driven by natural compulsions alone and do not possess free-choice or a spiritual nature.

 

[Michaelo]

How about the specific effects of free-will decisions based on memory? How does it change evolution that an organism can make a decision that goes against natural laws (by free-will) or choose things based on memories – the motive is an immaterial power, not mutations, not natural selection?

Human actions do comply with the physical laws, so I’m not sure what your point is here.

When an organism is moved, changed, influenced and directed by non-material powers (the souls faculties – memory, free-will, imagination, memory) – this changes the direction of evolution in ways that cannot be explained by physical laws.

Changes the direction of evolution? You’re going to need to be a little more specific.

Again – evolution claims to explain the development of human beings – as if the only influences on human development are natural selection, mutations and environmental conditions.

No, evolution explains the development of the human body and rightfully leaves the metaphysical aspect to philosophy.

So, evolutionists are claiming to explain the origin and development of human life while also ignoring the effect of the soul on the human body, human survival and human adaptation.

Am I ignoring the soul by seeking appropriate means of explaining its influence? Absolutely not.

You can’t pretend that physical laws alone are responsible for human evolution – when you admit that the soul has empirical and observable influence on human beings.

I’ve never pretended that science can provide a complete explanation for the development of the human being.

But again, what effect did the human soul have on evolution and how would you answer that question?

You tell me as you’re the one claiming that it’s an obstacle for evolution.

 

[reggieM]

Am I ignoring the soul by seeking appropriate means of explaining its influence? Absolutely not.

You’re defending evolutionary theory as the appropriate means of explaining the observable, empirical evidence of the soul on the origin and development of human life.
Evolutionary theory can either:

1. Ignore the evidence that an immaterial force (the soul) affects human behavior, development, survival, movement, etc. (by free-will decisions which are not driven by materialistic causes)
2. Explain the observable evidence in materialistic terms (a direct conflict with Catholic teching and with the truth).

I’ve never pretended that science can provide a complete explanation for the development of the human being.

I think we should just agree to disagree at this point and move on to other topics.

 

[Arandur]

It’s unfortunate that it took this long to finally get you to admit this (or understand it).

Reggie, once again you demonstrate that you do not even bother reading our posts. You are being EXTREMELY disrespectful, dishonest, or disingenuous.

I have included in I would bet at LEAST 10 POSTS that I agree that SOME effects of the soul can be observed on the body, though it is only through faith that it is clear that these things come from the soul (science doesn’t know it’s the soul doing it and can’t determine that).

In fact, I don’t think anyone has EVER claimed otherwise here in this thread. Rather, we have all immediately agreed with you.

For you to claim that “it took this long to finally get you to admit this” is such a ridiculous and INSULTING statement that it’s almost unbelievable.

Really, Reggie, why are you so disrespectful? Why don’t you bother to read anything we write? Do you really want me to go back and copy all the instances where I’ve talked about the soul before?

Now, I’ll respond to your other posts IF YOU FINALLY RESPOND TO THESE QUESTIONS that I’ve asked before:

**"Once again, ANSWER THE QUESTION: How does science’s inability to account for one variable among many (the soul) totally invalidate every other little fact and true law or process discovered by science?

I will not speak to you again until you answer this question and acknowledge what I have posted about the definitional limits of science and the philosophy of science, explicitly stated."**

For a link to those posts on the philosophy of science and the definitions of science, see post #641, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5305987&postcount=641
While I was looking at that, I found the post where I linked up on natural selection, and also happened to talk AGAIN about the soul question–post #651, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5307844&postcount=651

Now, please show me that you are open to a discussion and review these things and answer those questions. Otherwise you will force me to conclude that you are totally uninterested in discussion, honesty, or truth, and that you have a complete lack of respect for anyone who doesn’t agree with you. There is no point in talking to such people, short of pointing out such an uncharitable position in the hopes that you will repent of it and stop representing the Church so poorly.

 

[Arandur]

There is no “one size fits all” theory of evolution. All I’m seeing is the defense of the public school classroom and please keep your religion out of it.

“All” you’re seeing? Hardly. The discussion about public school classrooms has been a TINY side discussion on this thread. And it can be summed up with the question “do you insist that ONLY the Catholic position on creation can be taught in public classrooms?” If not, then shouldn’t we limit it strictly to natural, empirical sciences?

Oh, I understand science.

No, you don’t. Not as long as you merge philosophy with science. Want to know what the Church says about it, and how much you apparently disagree with the Church about it?
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
“The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18). "

Catechism 159:
"159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason,** there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.**"37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38 "

Catechism 284:
“284 The great interest accorded to these studies [questions of ultimate origins and purpose] is strongly stimulated by a question of another order,** which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences.** It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called “God”? And if the world does come from God’s wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?”

Note that the Church recognizes LIMITS on science!!! EVERYTHING I have been saying ALL ALONG is absolutely and wholly consistent with what the Church teaches in EVERY way. Yours has NOT been consistent with the Church. You MUST recognize the limits that I have been talking about, among other things I will show you from what the Church teaches later in this post and in following posts that explains that when I say “EVERYTHING” that I’ve said is actually what the Church teaches, I mean “EVERYTHING.”

Also note that evolution as described by empirical science (not its philosophical extensions) is NOT a “universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity.” Evolution makes no such judgments! “Random” is only a description of a pattern; if we knew all the data, all the variables, “random” would not be “unknowable.” Evolution is not directed by chance; the mutations part of it is subject to laws governing the chemical interplay of molecules during reproduction and recombination of DNA.

It’s been explained to me many times here, but I still don’t accept the machine that runs itself scenario. It requires a massive string of lucky events and millions of years to get from point A to point B. The more I hear about it the less I’m inclined to believe it works as advertised.

NO ONE here has said that evolution is a “machine that runs itself” without God. EVER. So quit your complaining and address people here on the forum!

Plus the constant steering I keep getting, which boils down to: quit mentioning religion or philosophy and stick to the science.

Please, recognize the difference between science and religion, science and philosophy. Science does (see those links I provided), and SO DOES THE CHURCH.

What I’m hearing here boils down to two different realities:

1. Evolution runs itself - accept it.

In the sense that it exists without God? No one here has ever said that since I’ve joined the conversation.

1. Evolution, if it happened, did not run itself.

In the sense that God created it and sustains it, yes, this is what we’ve been saying. It runs like other natural laws and processes, however, seemingly without miraculous intervention, though God knows all laws, processes, and events and they all work to His purpose.

 

[Arandur]

– OR –

1. Man created God.

1. God created Man.

There is no “OR.” There has been no dispute whatsoever on these points here. There is also NO conflict between the idea of evolutionary creation of the human body (created and intended to be so by God) and the truth that God created Man. He did. He created man’s body through evolution, and His spirit immediately through special creation. See my following posts–the Church EXPLICITLY accepts this possibility, though it has not dogmatically defined evolution.

Let me quote that Catholic Answers section again:
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
" These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others. "
Note the distinctions, when you want to blur everything together!

"People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone. "
Again, note the distinctions, when you want to blur everything together! These are mainstream distinctions!

"Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions. "
Note how age is independent from atheistic evolution! We can accept the age of the universe.

"Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. "
WHOLLY consistent with what I have been saying all along.

“Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36)."

So one what basis do you still claim that evolution of the body is unacceptable to the Church?!?!?!?!
This is absolutely, completely, and wholly consistent with what Michaelo and I have been saying all along! WE have been giving you the Church’s teaching, and you keep telling us we’re wrong–why?!

 

[Arandur]

Here is Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII: vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html

See Part 5.

Thanks for the more specific reference. You are wrong. This document is speaking about marriage; everything that it states about creation is meant as a support for marriage. It is NOT a dogmatic definition of the SCIENCE of how God created. Let me expand on this by quoting the Catechism and popes and Augustine about how the Bible should be interpreted. You seem ignorant of the Church’s teachings on how the Bible should be read.

First, see my previous post and my reference to Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18. There Pope Leo XIII talks about how the Bible is written and that the authors of Scripture did not write scientifically.

CCC 337:
“Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337)

"Pope Pius XII warned us, “What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East” (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

CCC 110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. **“For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”**7

I suggest reading all around CCC110, as that chapter describes how Scripture is to be interpreted, and why a modern literal interpretation of 6 day Creation or Instantaneous, Special Creation, or even some details about Adam and Eve (aside from essential truths of individual and the Fall) are not necessarily or even likely to be what Scripture is actually telling us.

I hope I have now CONCLUSIVELY settled the fact that you MUST make the distinctions I have talked about for the past 20 pages:

1. about science and philosophy,
2. that science has definite limits that the Church agrees with (you cannot attempt to break down those limits!),
3. science explicitly limits itself and explicitly defines where it bleeds over into philosophy, 4. that the Church sees several important distinctions in evolutionary philosophies
4. that the Church accepts science as a valid and beautiful exploration of the Creator through His creation and a source of discovering truth
5. that Scriptural details in the Creation story are not meant to be scientific and thus science can freely provide those details.

Do you agree on all counts?

Now, later today I will post for you the Catechism sections on Creation, taking the most relevant passages from paragraphs in the 200s and 300s ranges. Hopefully this will end the debate on whether evolution is acceptable to the Church, because these passages show that the Church accepts what science discovers about the age of the universe, the interdependency of organisms (through ecology and by extension evolution), and even that what the Church teaches about creation SUPPORTS evolution much more than any other form of creation, due to the interdependency of creatures, the fact of secondary providence, and so forth.

 

[edwest2]

To Arandur and Michaelo,

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

**"Once again, ANSWER THE QUESTION: How does science’s inability to account for one variable among many (the soul) totally invalidate every other little fact and true law or process discovered by science?
**

I will not talk to you again until tell me when you are going to stop beating your wife.

What? Oh, you never said anything about that topic?

Well, I’m still not going to discuss anything with you until you answer that question.

If you fail to answer it, you’re obviously dishonest and not interested in the truth.

… You’re free to conclude what you want, Arandur. For my part, I’m going to agree to disagree with you and leave it at that.

Thanks for the discussion.