Should Christians embrace evolution ?

[StAnastasia]

Now, this argues two things: 1. Either the universe was created for mankind or 2. Mankind was created by the universe. I, of course, favor the first argument…I also submit that their book does present evidence and proof that we are the pinnacle of physical Creation…Just my two cents worth.

Donsnow, thanks for your two cents. My two questions:

(1) Why do your two options constitute an exhaustive list? Could no other conclusions be drawn?

(2) What evidence do Gribbin and Rees present to support the idea that humans are “the pinnacle of physical Creation”?

StAnastasia

 

[donsnow]

Privileged Planet is a good book on this subject, as is A Meaningful World.

One example that sticks in my mind is the force of gravity. Imagine that you had a long enough tape measure marked in inches and stretched it the 14 billion light years from one side of the universe to the other. If the force of gravity is marked on one of the inch indicators, and it were to have varied by only one inch in either direction, our universe would not have come into existence.

All the fundamental forces of nature have that same level of “fine tuning.” That’s one heck of a design!

BTW - “Fine Tuning” is NOT as Fr. Geoge Coyne imagines it - as a cook adding salt to some soup in a repeated fashion so as to eventually get it right. It’s actually exactly the opposite, setting the absolutely correct parameters in the first place.

Back from lunch.
Thanks for mentioning the other two books; I hadn’t heard of them until now. This is one thing I love about our Catholic fellowship here…new (name removed by moderator)ut (Got that word from the movie “Short Circuit”.

Thanks for spelling out the context for “fine tuning”. Reminds me of fine tuning the frequency dial on a radio,before you can hear it or transmit on it.

 

[PEPCIS]

Not to culturally sensitive and enlightened people.

But of course!

 

[PEPCIS]

Excuse me, ma’am,

Since I have reference to a work of science which I think responds to your #1 and #2 points, my conscience obliges me to step in, here. I’m an amateur astronomer ans so I was attracted to and read what I thought was an astronomical book.
John Gribbon and Martin Ree in their book Cosmic Coincidences (Bantaam Books, New York, NY) devoted the book to one thesis. They contended that if any of the values of electromagnetism, gravity, and weak and strong nuclear forces were different, that humankind could not exist. Now, this argues two things: 1. Either the universe was created for mankind or 2. Mankind was created by the universe. I, of course, favor the first argument.

It is with that deliberately chosen first argument that I approach your first point. I believe that the universe was made for us as a place to live, and Gibbon and Ree provide the evidence and proof.

I also submit that their book does present evidence and proof that we are the pinnacle of physical Creation.

Since I believe the monotheistic religion of Christ in the Holy Trinity, then of course, I think they encourage both rational and emotional response to God’s love.

Just my two cents worth.

Those were some pretty shiny pennies!! Good post.

 

[PEPCIS]

God is love

Yes. God is love, and so much more.

 

[donsnow]

Donsnow, thanks for your two cents. My two questions:

(1) Why do your two options constitute an exhaustive list? Could no other conclusions be drawn?

(2) What evidence do Gribbin and Rees present to support the idea that humans are “the pinnacle of physical Creation”?

StAnastasia

StAnastasia, thank you for your response.

Now, those are two fair questions.
Answering the first, the book focused my mind, while reading it, on their thesis. While focused, I was ingesting some very technical information. I was in the astronomical frame of mind…my interest in picking up the book in the first place. So, I wasn’t considering any philosophical inferences.
Since you mention it, I have picked up another inference, from the book’s thesis. Putting aside whether the universe was made for, or whether it made, humankind; the fact remains humankind appears to be a life type favored by the universe; subsequently I have come to the unproven speculation that the most likely intelligent life-form in the entire universe would be humanoid. to say that, because it makes me look so provincial. But, that’s what I think.

Answering your second question, Gibbon and Ree do not plainly state that we are the pinnacle of physical Creation. However, I have inferred that from my unproven speculation that the universe’s structure favors humanoid life forms.

Okedoke, there’s another two cents in these here posts

 

[donsnow]

Those were some pretty shiny pennies!! Good post.

And I thank ye kindly, PEPCIS:yup:

 

[donsnow]

Yes. God is love, and so much more.

Yes, PEPCIS -

God is love
And God’s love
Is good love.

God is life
And God’s life
Is good life.

Etc.

Those and others like them can be sang to any tune. Any and all of you are welcome to 'em. No registered copyright and willing to share writer’s copyright with the community.

 

[donsnow]

Donsnow, … Could no other conclusions be drawn?

StAnastasia

Ummm…missed that.

An exhaustive list of what?

I hadn’t looked for other conclusions, because I’m so pleased to have found technical evidence and proof for my faith system. Can you infer other conclusions on my brief report of their thesis?:newidea:

 

[StAnastasia]

Ummm…missed that.

An exhaustive list of what?

I hadn’t looked for other conclusions, because I’m so pleased to have found technical evidence and proof for my faith system. Can you infer other conclusions on my brief report of their thesis?:newidea:

'ang on, guvna; emergency interrupt. Back in a few hours.

StA

 

[donsnow]

'ang on, guvna; emergency interrupt. Back in a few hours.

StA

Okedoke, little lady, it’s time for me to feed the dogs, anyway.
Don

 

[StAnastasia]

Putting aside whether the universe was made for, or whether it made, humankind; the fact remains humankind appears to be a life type favored by the universe; subsequently I have come to the unproven speculation that the most likely intelligent life-form in the entire universe would be humanoid. to say that, because it makes me look so provincial. But, that’s what I think.

Answering your second question, Gibbon and Ree do not plainly state that we are the pinnacle of physical Creation. However, I have inferred that from my unproven speculation that the universe’s structure favors humanoid life forms.

Donsnow, thanks for your post. I hope your dogs are viscerally satisfied! My comments:

(1) This side of the eschaton I don’t think there is any way for us on this little planet to know what the universe was made for. A hundred billion galaxies averaging a hundred billion stars each is a lot of stars and potential planets. We may speculate theologically as to what it’s all about, but we really have no clue.

(2) Humankind does appear to be favored on earth; so do bacteria and viruses, as they seem to do very well. Penguins are favored, as are sharks, coelacanths, and fungi.

(3) You echo a great lecture by Simon Conway Morris at the Notre Dame conference two weeks ago: he argued that because of convergent evolution it is likely that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would be more or less humanoid. It might be marsupial or reptilian, but it would probably be warm-blooded, large brained, bipedal with hands and opposable digits, verbal, highly evolved in the senses, etc. In other words, even if Gould’s “rewinding” of the tape of evolution took place, it is likely that whatever evolved as the dominant species with intelligence would have recognizably humanoid characteristics.

(4) “Pinnacle of physical Creation” is an awfully ambitious title to claim when all we know is our one little planet and a bit about the moon and Mars, and nothing even of the rest of our galaxy, much less of the other hundred billion galaxies.

(5) None of this means that we shouldn’t regard ourselves as special, as representing creation to God in our own human way, and therefore as holding an awesome responsibility for our world.

StAnastasia.

 

[PEPCIS]

Yes, PEPCIS -

God is love
And God’s love
Is good love.

God is life
And God’s life
Is good life.

Etc.

Those and others like them can be sang to any tune. Any and all of you are welcome to 'em. No registered copyright and willing to share writer’s copyright with the community.

Hmmmm…I’ll have to try that. Now, which tune would you recommend?

 

[ricmat]

Donsnow, thanks for your post. I hope your dogs are viscerally satisfied! My comments:

(1) This side of the eschaton I don’t think there is any way for us on this little planet to know what the universe was made for. A hundred billion galaxies averaging a hundred billion stars each is a lot of stars and potential planets. We may speculate theologically as to what it’s all about, but we really have no clue.

(2) Humankind does appear to be favored on earth; so do bacteria and viruses, as they seem to do very well. Penguins are favored, as are sharks, coelacanths, and fungi.

(3) You echo a great lecture by Simon Conway Morris at the Notre Dame conference two weeks ago: he argued that because of convergent evolution it is likely that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would be more or less humanoid. It might be marsupial or reptilian, but it would probably be warm-blooded, large brained, bipedal with hands and opposable digits, verbal, highly evolved in the senses, etc. In other words, even if Gould’s “rewinding” of the tape of evolution took place, it is likely that whatever evolved as the dominant species with intelligence would have recognizably humanoid characteristics.

(4) “Pinnacle of physical Creation” is an awfully ambitious title to claim when all we know is our one little planet and a bit about the moon and Mars, and nothing even of the rest of our galaxy, much less of the other hundred billion galaxies.

(5) None of this means that we shouldn’t regard ourselves as special, as representing creation to God in our own human way, and therefore as holding an awesome responsibility for our world.

StAnastasia.

It would do you much good to read Privileged Planet.

 

[PEPCIS]

(1) This side of the eschaton I don’t think there is any way for us on this little planet to know what the universe was made for.

That depends on whether or not you are willing to consider the Bible as an authority on Creation. My experience with you is that you are NOT willing to do so.

StAnastasia:

A hundred billion galaxies averaging a hundred billion stars each is a lot of stars and potential planets.

So, if I take your opening statement, and couple it with this statement, I can only surmise that you conclude that one MUST accept the possibility that there is life elsewhere in the universe. At the very least, you seem to consider it a personal defect in your own persona to arrive at any other conclusion that does not consider life elsewhere in the universe as a fact of life.

StAnastasia:

We may speculate theologically as to what it’s all about, but we really have no clue.

There are two ways to consider the matter:

1. 
   *]The Bible gives clear indication that creation culminated in the creation of man, and I build a philosophy which reflects those Biblical teachings.
   *]The Bible gives clear indication that creation culminated in the creation of man, but I personally reject that indication, and I instead construct a contrary philosophy which claims that the Bible can only be interpreted allegorically.
   
   I accept the first, while you appear to have latched onto the second.
   
   quote=StAnastasia Humankind does appear to be favored on earth; so do bacteria and viruses, as they seem to do very well. Penguins are favored, as are sharks, coelacanths, and fungi.
   [/quote]
   
   Out of the two ways to consider the matter (as I’ve given above), the first understands and accepts the Biblical teaching that man was, specifically, given jurisdiction over all the Earth, and everything that was in it, being commanded to subdue it.
   
   The second rejects any consideration that man is special, and considers him as the equal of a deadly virus or bacteria, having equal “right” to exist. Of course, the second way also is an atheistic philosophy.
   
   quote=StAnastasia “Pinnacle of physical Creation” is an awfully ambitious title to claim when all we know is our one little planet and a bit about the moon and Mars, and nothing even of the rest of our galaxy, much less of the other hundred billion galaxies.
   [/quote]
   
   And please tell us where this other life that exists outside of our planet - where is it located that we may put away such “foolish” thoughts about our pinnacality.

 

[donsnow]

Donsnow, thanks for your post. I hope your dogs are viscerally satisfied!

Yep, StAnastasia, and nice and content.

My comments:

(1) This side of the eschaton I don’t think there is any way for us on this little planet to know what the universe was made for. A hundred billion galaxies averaging a hundred billion stars each is a lot of stars and potential planets. We may speculate theologically as to what it’s all about, but we really have no clue.

Well, my Websters American Dictionary College Edition had ‘eschatology’, which gave me the clue I needed for ‘eschaton’. All that being said…My best guess is that since He created it, it could be for Him.

(2) Humankind does appear to be favored on earth; so do bacteria and viruses, as they seem to do very well. Penguins are favored, as are sharks, coelacanths, and fungi.

O…K…, 'fraid I see what you mean. But, if I get my choice of which I think is most favored, I’d choose us humans.

(3) You echo a great lecture by Simon Conway Morris at the Notre Dame conference two weeks ago: he argued that because of convergent evolution it is likely that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would be more or less humanoid. It might be marsupial or reptilian, but it would probably be warm-blooded, large brained, bipedal with hands and opposable digits, verbal, highly evolved in the senses, etc. In other words, even if Gould’s “rewinding” of the tape of evolution took place, it is likely that whatever evolved as the dominant species with intelligence would have recognizably humanoid characteristics.

Wow :bounce: I’m honored to find out that my unproven speculation has such a person to apparently justify it.

(4) “Pinnacle of physical Creation” is an awfully ambitious title to claim when all we know is our one little planet and a bit about the moon and Mars, and nothing even of the rest of our galaxy, much less of the other hundred billion galaxies.

Hmm, no I didn’t qualify that, did I. I thought it went without saying that I think we’re the pinnacle of physical creation on this planet. If there’s other humans out there, though…would we have to include Dr. Morris’ humanoids on our part of pinnacle?

(5) None of this means that we shouldn’t regard ourselves as special, as representing creation to God in our own human way, and therefore as holding an awesome responsibility for our world.

Amazing, that through completely different processes of thought, we both come to a like position about us here on Earth. That includes humans on any other planet.

StAnastasia.

Been my pleasure, ma’am.

 

[donsnow]

Hmmmm…I’ll have to try that. Now, which tune would you recommend?

Uh…I think a variation of “Unchained Melody” would do it. Maybe sang a tad quicker than the melody was played:shrug:.

 

[Julian0404]

The last teaching I read on the Church’s position of Creation vs Evolution was that, regardless of which position you held, and you could hold to either, you MUST hold that the source of either was/is God. That God is the FIRST CAUSE of all things.
I personally hold to creation for the simple fact that the evidence is more reasonable, not just for creation but for other Biblical stories, eg “The Flood”. And on more than one occassion, “evolutionists” have been caught in lies and falsefying evidence to support their theory. And because Darwin himself in his establishment of the evolutionary theory declared that if evidence supporting his theory could not be discovered, then it was not true. Somehow, this basic principal of how a theory works, which Darwin was keenly aware of, never gets mentioned by people lieing and falsefying evidence to support Darwin.

 

[StAnastasia]

And on more than one occassion, “evolutionists” have been caught in lies and falsefying evidence to support their theory. And because Darwin himself in his establishment of the evolutionary theory declared that if evidence supporting his theory could not be discovered, then it was not true. Somehow, this basic principal of how a theory works, which Darwin was keenly aware of, never gets mentioned by people lieing and falsefying evidence to support Darwin.

Do you have any evidence to support this accusation of lying and falsification?

 

[StAnastasia]

Yep, StAnastasia, and nice and content…Amazing, that through completely different processes of thought, we both come to a like position about us here on Earth. That includes humans on any other planet.Been my pleasure, ma’am.

Donsnow, I’m glad your dogs are content – life is good!

I assume you mean “humanoids” on another planet; humans are biologically part of the terrestrial evolutionary story; another planet might have a very different story.

Which brings us to another interesting question raised by Simon Conway Morris and others: the necessity of DNA. Some exobiologists (i.e., biologists who study the possiblit of extraterrestail life) wonder whether DNA is universal.

That is, could another biochemical process for the transmission of what we call “genetic” information have evolved on a planet with slightly different biochemistry. Or is biochemistry built into the fine-tuning of the universe to bring about life? If God instantiated an evolving cosmos with the fine tuning we seem to observe in the anthropic argument (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle), would the universe be constrained to use more or less the same biochemical method (i.e., DNA) for the transmission of information?

Interesting question.

StAnastasia