Should Christians embrace evolution ?

[itinerant1]

This is an extract from a long talk.origins post by Aron-Ra:You are a mammal.
You are homeothermic [warm-blooded], follicle-bearing and have lactal nipples. And of course, not all synapsids are or were mammals, but all mammals are synapsid, implying common descent.

You are eutherian.
Or more specifically, you are a placental mammal, like most other lactal animals from shrews to whales. All eutherians are mammals, but not all mammals are eutherian. There are six major divisions in mammalia, only three of which still exist; those that hatch out of eggs like reptiles, (monotremes) Marsupials, that are born in the fetal stage and complete their development inside the mother’s pouch, and those that developed in a shell-like placenta and were born in the infant stage, as you were, and all the other animals you appear to be related to. Your own fetal development seems to reveal a similar track of development from a single cell to a tadpole-looking creature, then growing limbs and digits out of your finlike appendages, and finally outgrowing your own tail. Some would consider this an indication of ancestry. Especially since fetal snakes, for example, actually have legs, feet, and cute little toes, which are reabsorbed into the body before hatching, implying common descent.

You are a primate.
You have five fully-developed fingers and five fully-developed toes. Your toes are still prehensile and your hands can grasp with dexterity. You have only two lactal nipples and they are on your chest as opposed to your abdomen. These are pointless in males, which also have a pendulous penis and a well-devoloped ceacum or appendix, unlike all other mammals. Although your fangs are reduced in size, you do still have them along with some varied dentition indicative of primates exclusively. Your fur is thin and relatively sparse over most of your body. And your claws have been reduced to flat chitinous fingernails. Your fingers themselves have distinctive print patterns. You are also susceptible to AIDS and are mortally allergic to the toxin of the male funnel web spider of Australia, (which is deadly to all primates, but only dangerous to primates, which is why you’d be better beware of these spiders.). And unlike all but one unrelated animal in all the world, your body cannot produce vitamin-C naturally and must have it supplemented in your diet, just as all other primates do. Nearly every one of these individual traits are unique only to primates exclusively. There is almost no other organism on Earth that matches any one of these descriptions separately, but absolutely all of the lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, apes, you, and I match all of them at once perfectly, implying common descent.

You are an ape.
Your tail is merely a stub of bones that don’t even protrude outside the skin. Your dentition includes not only vestigial canines, but incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, and distinctive molars that come to five points interrupted by a “Y” shaped crevasse. This in addition to all of your other traits, like the dramatically increased range of motion in your shoulder, as well as a profound increase in cranial capacity and disposition toward a bipedal gait indicates that you are not merely a vertebrate cranial chordate and a tetrapoidal placental mammalian primate, but you are more specifically an ape, and so was your mother before you.We are classified with the Hominidae (Apes) because we meet all the criteria for that classification.

rossum

Thanks. I am aware of the biological facts, but I am taking a different angle on the matter, which is in my last post.

 

[itinerant1]

Question?

How does the additional human criteria classify me? The criteria which Occam’s Razor removed.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

Just remember that God has not agreed to always abide by Occam’s Razor.

 

[edwest2]

For those interested in Dr. Berthault’s findings, this splendid documentary allows you to attend the experiments and judge for yourself.

As for uniformitarian geology, evolutionists don’t want you to see this or this. These studies prove uniformitarian geology, like evolution, is a philosophical position, and not a scientifically verifiable theory. See for yourself.

Thank you, Catholic Johnny, for those splendid photographs. Similar polystrate trees have been found in Australia. It may well occur, in the not too distant future, that some geologists will take note of the existence of these. They point to a much younger age for the earth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

Visit Golden & Glitter on Facebook.

“They are the only set of twins in Gombe National Park, and the oldest known set of wild chimpanzee twins in existence. Goldi is seen as the “tomboy” of the two, often the more playful; Glitter is more independent.”

 

[itinerant1]

"Polystrate" fossils not a problem for conventional geology

 

[donsnow]

Here’s hoping that you’re eventually able to move beyond a 1st-grade articulation of science, and further educate yourself regarding what evolutionary science actually maintains. Here’s a good place to begin:
Francisco J. Ayala, Darwin and Intelligent Design (Fortress Press, 2006); ISBN 0-8006-3802-6

Brian & Deborah Charlesworth, EVOLUTION: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford U. Press, 2003); ISBN 0-19-280251-8

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Hi, Cruciform -

I can be taught only what I want to learn. That goes for any adult student. And, the other things I want to learn take priority over what other people think I need to learn. In short, I don’t have time to add evolution to my choices of what to study. Thank you, anyway.

 

[grannymh]

The Family Hominidae includes all the existing Great Apes - Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans and ourselves. It also includes all the extinct ancestors of the current species back to when the Hominidae split from the Hylobatidae (Gibbons).

The other criteria, such as a very large brain put us in Genus Homo, rather than say genus Australopithecus. The formation of our noses, skull shape, mitochondrial DNA and other points indicate that we are Homo sapiens rather than Homo neandertalensis.

rossum

From what I read in this post and in #587, everything is material or physical matter which is similar to just about everything on the earth in one way or another. To me, this indicates unity in creation. If there is any kind of common descent it would have to go back to the major domains. Putting a larger cranium into one genus and wings into another, etc., says nothing about the difference between a human being and brute animals. Other criteria are why we have the internet instead of swinging from trees or living in a zoo.

 

[donsnow]

Typical. When a scientist dissents on the basis of empirical evidence (Berthault’s experiments which disprove uniformitarian geology) then he is a crank. When a Monsignor criticizes the works of Teilhard which are under the Papal monitum and whom John XXIII called ‘dangerous’, then the Monsignor is vicious.

This is instructive, fellow Catholics. For you see that when the modernist is overtaken by truth and compelling evidence, he will respond with ad hominem attacks upon the sources of evidence.

Thanks, Catholic Johnny -

That’s a big help. Reminds me when in public school during the '40’s and '50’s and '61 we became aware of the big Commie repeated lies vs what was true for our Republic. The whole Cold War was a war of ideas, back up by nuclear missiles. The thing is, those of us who lived through that war learned to listen for the message, compared to the truth.
Science has data, math, hypothesis and theories, but little truth, imho.
The arts play too much with the truth, imho.
The Catholic Church takes the truth very seriously and has the truth, imho.

Your (name removed by moderator)ut really helped at this time, sir, to remind me of where I’ve been and where I’m at.
Bless you.

 

[itinerant1]

From what I read in this post and in #587, everything is material or physical matter which is similar to just about everything on the earth in one way or another. To me, this indicates unity in creation. If there is any kind of common descent it would have to go back to the major domains. Putting a larger cranium into one genus and wings into another, etc., says nothing about the difference between a human being and brute animals. Other criteria are why we have the internet instead of swinging from trees or living in a zoo.

Do you mean this kind of difference?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=4715

 

[grannymh]

Do you mean this kind of difference?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=4715

Yes. Absolutely.

 

[donsnow]

Dude you ARE an ape,…

By the grace of God in Jesus Christ, I have transcended the carnal nature and am a Christian, which is NOT an ape. Apes don’t operated computers. So, you are not an ape, either.

a great ape just means a hominid, which is any member of the biological family Hominidae, WHICH CONTAINS HUMANS.

This is the “it’s all semantics” arrangement of information by evolutionists, to which I have earlier referred. It’s all semantics, not truth. I refuse to be deceived. I am made in the image of God. You are supposed to be made in His image, if you haven’t thrown it away for a bunch of Darwinist propaganda. Uniformtarianism is a Nineteenth Century urban myth, imho. Just because you swallow it, don’t expect others to.

BTW, quit dumping your ‘ape’ baggage on me. You carry that, without my encouragement.

 

[MindOverMatter]

This is the “it’s all semantics” arrangement of information by evolutionists, to which I have earlier referred. It’s all semantics, not truth. I refuse to be deceived. I am made in the image of God. You are supposed to be made in His image, if you haven’t thrown it away for a bunch of Darwinist propaganda. Uniformtarianism is a Nineteenth Century urban myth, imho. Just because you swallow it, don’t expect others to.

BTW, quit dumping your ‘ape’ baggage on me. You carry that, without my encouragement.

Why is it a problem that our biological bodies are evolved from apes? So long as God created the soul there is no reason to view ones self as being anything less than what is true of being a person made in the image of God. I think it is you that is being semantically deceptive.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I believe the biological facts are that when an evolutionist calls you an ape, then you are one. If you reject what evolutionary science teaches – then you’re ignorant and opposed to science. Evolution is more certain than gravity – thus, you are an ape. This is all very simple for those who accept the facts of science.

The fact is, whether we were created directly by God or not, we share in the same biological soup as every other animal. We are animals. We are physical beings. None of these facts tell us that we are nothing but animals or physical beings. Science deals with what is physically true. Christianity deals with what is ultimately true about reality. So what is the problem? It seems to me that you don’t want science to just be about physics. You don’t want it to be objective. You want it to conform to your world-view. That is what it looks in the eyes of science, and this makes religion look foolish, when in reality it doesn’t have to be like that.

 

[edwest2]

By the grace of God in Jesus Christ, I have transcended the carnal nature and am a Christian, which is NOT an ape. Apes don’t operated computers. So, you are not an ape, either.

This is the “it’s all semantics” arrangement of information by evolutionists, to which I have earlier referred. It’s all semantics, not truth. I refuse to be deceived. I am made in the image of God. You are supposed to be made in His image, if you haven’t thrown it away for a bunch of Darwinist propaganda. Uniformtarianism is a Nineteenth Century urban myth, imho. Just because you swallow it, don’t expect others to.

BTW, quit dumping your ‘ape’ baggage on me. You carry that, without my encouragement.

See, here is where “science” oversteps its bounds regarding true human origins and true human identity. We were created to be in communion with God. To form relationships with others that include the spirit of God. Animals do not marry.

It is worth pointing out the struggle the United States was going through with Godless Communism in the late 1950s and 1960s. First, the Godless part was important. Second, Christian values were more important during that time period for the country as a whole. People lived these values. Now, using tactics similar to the Communists, some post here degrading the human person by claiming something supposedly coming from science. If science is silent about God, and cannot study God, it is ignorant of what Christians know and understand about God and our relationship to Him.

Peace,
Ed

 

[MindOverMatter]

See, here is where “science” oversteps its bounds regarding true human origins and true human identity. We were created to be in communion with God. To form relationships with others that include the spirit of God. Animals do not marry.

We were also created to communicate the love of God within the framework of a physical reality governed by laws and principles.

 

[AlbertBall]

By the grace of God in Jesus Christ, I have transcended the carnal nature and am a Christian, which is NOT an ape. Apes don’t operated computers. So, you are not an ape, either.

This is the “it’s all semantics” arrangement of information by evolutionists, to which I have earlier referred. It’s all semantics, not truth. I refuse to be deceived. I am made in the image of God. You are supposed to be made in His image, if you haven’t thrown it away for a bunch of Darwinist propaganda. Uniformtarianism is a Nineteenth Century urban myth, imho. Just because you swallow it, don’t expect others to.

BTW, quit dumping your ‘ape’ baggage on me. You carry that, without my encouragement.

Ok, i have explained exactly what an ape is…a member of the Hominoidea family, this includes HUMANS!!!

So if you dont agree PLEASE PLEASE tell me, WHAT IS AN APE???

 

[donsnow]

Why is it a problem that our biological bodies are evolved from apes? So long as God created the soul there is no reason to view ones self as being anything less than what is true of being a person made in the image of God. I think it is you that is being semantically deceptive.

Good evening MindOverMatter -

Good to hear from you.

First, as another member has shown, we are not evolved from apes, but allegedly from some creature way back when, which includes all the simians.

Since, in my mind, you stated more succinctly than I, what I have been writing about being transcended from carnal nature to become in the image of God, how am I semantically deceptive when I’ve been writing the same thing, in other words, that you just wrote, about becoming made in the image of God?

 

[itinerant1]

Why is it a problem that our biological bodies are evolved from apes? So long as God created the soul there is no reason to view ones self as being anything less than what is true of being a person made in the image of God. I think it is you that is being semantically deceptive.

 

[donsnow]

See, here is where “science” oversteps its bounds regarding true human origins and true human identity. We were created to be in communion with God. To form relationships with others that include the spirit of God. Animals do not marry.

It is worth pointing out the struggle the United States was going through with Godless Communism in the late 1950s and 1960s. First, the Godless part was important. Second, Christian values were more important during that time period for the country as a whole. People lived these values. Now, using tactics similar to the Communists, some post here degrading the human person by claiming something supposedly coming from science. If science is silent about God, and cannot study God, it is ignorant of what Christians know and understand about God and our relationship to Him.

Peace,
Ed

and thank you, sir.

 

[MonFrere]

Why is it a problem that our biological bodies are evolved from apes? So long as God created the soul there is no reason to view ones self as being anything less than what is true of being a person made in the image of God. I think it is you that is being semantically deceptive.

My reading of Pope Benedict is saying that in the beginning God set the whole universe in a process that for the most part did not need his constant intervention at all. The earth came to be according to the process he set in motion. Man came to be through the process he set in motion. The “soul” of man came to be according to the process he set in motion. There wasn’t even the need for a “special intervention” for that according to Pope Benedict. It’s just the way things work out in our space-time universe – the mind of God working His will from the beginning.

As far as the “soul” in concerned Pope Benedict says that there are certain elements of Platonic dualism - man = body + immortal soul that needs to be reshaped and defined. The soul is NOT a non-material yet objective something within a man that is immortal UNLESS there is within that man a dialogue with God. The soul is a spiritual dynamism and a dynamic spirituality that see God as “thou”. When man realized God as “thou” is when man is said to have possessed a “soul”. This dialogue between God and man is what brings us to eternal life. Only God can give man his deepest desires of an eternal relationship with Him. Man cannot do this on his own. When God loves a man it is that love that brings a man to eternal life. The concept of an immortal soul isn’t biblical in the Platonic sense because eternal life is a relationship with God and Jesus Christ. It’s not until that communication is established that one is in possession of immortality or eternal life.

So, in reading this book of Pope Benedict’s lectures - Credo for Today - I can see he is well beyond questioning the validity of evolution. He is taking this information and developing our ideas contained in the articles of the Creed so that they properly reflect the ramifications of that understanding as well as move away from some of the non-biblical concepts that may have not been totally accurate; e;g; platonic dualism. For me, this is no different that when the Church had to refocus its understanding of a geocentric universe to a heliocentric universe. This caused the Church to have to change some of her philosophic points and even though this type of change is difficult, I think we are in a similar crossroads today. As always, the Church will guide us through this accurately but it will take very astute people as Pope Benedict (and certainly the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to move us intellectually forward but this move forward is necessary so the Church can take her leadership position in the world we find ourselves in in the 21st century.

I’m certainly no philosopher or theologian so I hope I stated the above accurately; but the gist is certainly correct. Perhaps more schooled CAF members can fill in the details better than I just presented them. This book was a paradigm shifter for me.

MonFrere