Sometimes mistakes can happen in apologetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I read the article and am not sure how you find it mistaken. What is your understanding of the Science of Human Evolution?
 
Beryllos said:
I read the article and am not sure how you find it mistaken. What is your understanding of the Science of Human Evolution?
Click to expand...
An entirely new unique human species does not drop from the sky as a couple of fully-formed, fully-complete individuals. A new species (Science of Human Evolution) follows the evolution process as a significant population evolving from a previous large (polygenesis) population(s) descending from the Homo/Pan split which is known as a speciation event.

Interesting link.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07

From the article.
"we have nothing to fear in any scientific theory about how matter and energy evolve over time."

Is the rational soul of a human being reduced to matter and energy?

Does the Science of Human Evolution substantiate the Original Sin and the Divinity of the Reconciler?

Do true Catholic doctrines have their foundation in evolutionary science?

Is there a serious omission of truth according to the Catholic Church?
 
This conflation of the scientific facts (insofar as they may be called such) with the materialist interpretive narrative it is, admittedly, often presented in is tiring. The science of evolution need not be paired with materialist or reductionist philosophy.

As we can distinguish Saint Thomas Aquinas’ sound metaphysical principles from his outdated Aristotlean cosmology and examples, so can we with this.
 
My quote button is not working with post 5.

I will repeat the questions in post 4. The actual answers are in post 5.
  1. Is the rational soul of a human being reduced to matter and energy?
It was answered correctly. No.
  1. Does the Science of Human Evolution substantiate the Original Sin and the Divinity of the Reconciler?
The answer is in post 3 which gives the process of the Science of Human Evolution. I do not mean to be rude; but Catholics need to read the fine print. The evolution link in post 34should help in understanding basic evolution.
  1. Do true Catholic doctrines have their foundation in evolutionary science.
It was answered correctly. No.
  1. Is there a serious omission of truth according to the Catholic Church?
The answer is that the possibility may exist.

Sometime ago, I detailed that possibility and sent it to the proper people in Catholic Answers. No one sent an acknowledgement. If I were wrong, would I be notified?

Being charitable, I prefer thinking that who ever opened the letter, accidentally threw it in the trash.
 
grannymh said:
  1. Does the Science of Human Evolution substantiate the Original Sin and the Divinity of the Reconciler?
The answer is in post 3 which gives the process of the Science of Human Evolution. I do not mean to be rude; but Catholics need to read the fine print. The evolution link in post 3 may help in understanding basic evolution
Click to expand...
And we may as well throw all of Aquinas’ inquiry into metaphysics in the trash because he gives incorrect physical and cosmological examples and applications, no?
 
grannymh said:
  1. Does the Science of Human Evolution substantiate the Original Sin and the Divinity of the Reconciler?
The answer is in post 3 which gives the process of the Science of Human Evolution. I do not mean to be rude; but Catholics need to read the fine print. The evolution link in post 34should help in understanding basic evolution.
Click to expand...
So your contention is that the information in the link from Berkley is NECESSARILY inconsistent with original sin and the divinity of the reconciler? Not just about whether it substantiates it, which is irrelevant, but that it can ONLY be inconsistent with it?
 
The article cited in the Original Post expresses well the faith of many scientists, not faith in the laws of nature, not faith in the scientific method, but faith that God is the author of nature, and all that that implies. The faithful scientist perceives beauty and order at many levels in nature. If at one level there is a random process, it is because God created it in its proper place in the overall order of Creation.

The author of the article says “The truth is that there is no absolute randomness or chance in a universe created and held in existence by God.” This is not incompatible with teachings in the Catechism on faith and reason (CCC 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.” “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.”
 
I am not so sure about that one, Deacon. I have seen too much greasy food at some roadside diners… 😃
 
Beryllos said:
The article cited in the Original Post expresses well the faith of many scientists, not faith in the laws of nature, not faith in the scientific method, but faith that God is the author of nature, and all that that implies. The faithful scientist perceives beauty and order at many levels in nature. If at one level there is a random process, it is because God created it in its proper place in the overall order of Creation.

The author of the article says “The truth is that there is no absolute randomness or chance in a universe created and held in existence by God.” This is not incompatible with teachings in the Catechism on faith and reason (CCC 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.” “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.”
Click to expand...
From the article.
“The truth is that there is no absolute randomness or chance in a universe created and held in existence by God. And presto! The false dichotomy is gone.”

Thank you for adding CCC 159
“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.”

For general information, there is Divine Revelation in addition to moral laws. 🙂

A good start to understanding the unique Human Species is CCC 355-421. And, of course, the first three amazing chapters of Genesis contain essential information. Unfortunately, there are many people who do not like the Catholic doctrine that the Human Species originated as a population of two, Adam and Eve. Those who understand the depth of the Science of Human Evolution automatically know that an originating population of two is a huge no-no in basic evolution.
 
Here is an important statement from the article in post 1.
What You Absolutely Need to Understand About Evolution
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

“If God can resurrect the body and grant life everlasting, then He surely can design the material of the universe to become all it is meant to be. To believe anything less of Him is heresy.”

In my childhood neighborhood, one might consider that quote as bait without the switch. I hope not to be so rude. However, the article title includes Evolution. This means that at some point there should be a switch to a clear explanation of basic evolution principles.

Certainly, we should glorify God. From a Catholic point of view, we can say that the “wonders” of evolution glorify God. However, when the basics of evolution are in plain sight, there is an undeniable conflict between evolution’s pronouncement that the human species is a large population evolving from a previous large population and the Catholic doctrine that two, sole, true, fully-complete humans, known as Adam and Eve are the complete founders of the human species.
 
grannymh said:
… Catholic doctrine that the Human Species originated as a population of two, Adam and Eve. Those who understand the depth of the Science of Human Evolution automatically know that an originating population of two is a huge no-no in basic evolution.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a tricky point. I have a bit of trouble with that one.
 
grannymh said:
However, when the basics of evolution are in plain sight, there is an undeniable conflict between evolution’s pronouncement that the human species is a large population evolving from a previous large population and the Catholic doctrine that two, sole, true, fully-complete humans, known as Adam and Eve are the complete founders of the human species.
Click to expand...
If you approach the topic of evolution with a strictly materialist philosophy, maybe. But why would you as a Catholic do that?
 
grannymh said:
… there is an undeniable conflict between evolution’s pronouncement that the human species is a large population evolving from a previous large population and the Catholic doctrine that two, sole, true, fully-complete humans, known as Adam and Eve are the complete founders of the human species.
Click to expand...
A tricky point, as I earlier wrote, but not an undeniable conflict. It is possible that there could have been a population bottleneck of two original humans at some point. It is also possible that the original two ensouled hominids or their children at some point “cross-bred” with soulless hominids. I don’t find such ideas entirely satisfying, as they seem to force science to fit Scripture.
 
Beryllos said:
A tricky point, as I earlier wrote, but not an undeniable conflict. It is possible that there could have been a population bottleneck of two original humans at some point. It is also possible that the original two ensouled hominids or their children at some point “cross-bred” with soulless hominids. I don’t find such ideas entirely satisfying, as they seem to force science to fit Scripture.
Click to expand...
A population bottleneck actually refers to a sharp reduction in the size of an existing population. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
There has to be a [population] bottle before there can be a bottleneck reduction in size. And yes, when I was learning, I thought a bottleneck was a new species. :o Unfortunately not.

However, there is merit to your suggestion. There is the question regarding the survival of only two persons in a population such as that of Adam and Eve. It should be obvious that an expert in agriculture, Genesis 2: 15, has the tools, food, needed for survival. 😃
 
grannymh said:
A population bottleneck actually refers to a sharp reduction in the size of an existing population. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
There has to be a [population] bottle before there can be a bottleneck reduction in size. And yes, when I was learning, I thought a bottleneck was a new species. :o Unfortunately not.

However, there is merit to your suggestion. There is the question regarding the survival of only two persons in a population such as that of Adam and Eve. It should be obvious that an expert in agriculture, Genesis 2: 15, has the tools, food, needed for survival. 😃
Click to expand...
A population bottleneck is an event that occurs today in many endangered or critical populations of fauna and flora.

A population bottleneck does not describe a sharp reduction in the existing population.

A population bottleneck describes extremely limited genetic diversity. Or as your link says, limited or virtual non existent variation in the gene pool means less genes available to future generations. You can read your link to understand the results then of this.

Basically , unless very cleverly managed , and with a modicum of healthy genetic material in the bottleneck, that population will come out of the bottleneck and survive, or become extinct.

This is a huge issue in critically endangered species today. We are in the 6th mass extinction today. Google for different rates. 10, 000 species per year extinct today, is a conservative estimate.

One example of a successful ( at this point) bottleneck breeding program is the Mongolian Wild Horse.
This population is micromanaged and the wild herd is guarded 24/7 by armed guards.

Each breeding in this herd is decided on, and orchestrated to maximise and attempt to widen genetic diversity as much as possible.
 
A bottleneck also occurs where breeders use popular sires.

For example a racehorse that is a great progenitor. He produces winners. Everyone uses him. He is found in line breeding, over and over in pedigrees. But then, the inbreeding /linebreeding genetic weaknesses are also magnified down through the pedigree, as well as the qualities that make a horse run fast. That’s why so many thoroughbreds are explosive nutcases if not racing.

A show winning poodle sire used a lot as a sire will lead to bottlenecks in the show poodle population.

Working police and military dogs- Belgian shepherds, The lines that produce the most active, bold, unstoppable, determined dogs are being very successfully condensed down to breed a litter of super working dogs, They will go to war or bring down the crook , kill and thrive on it. You can parachute them out of choppers and onto a live staging ground no worries. They land and are eager to get on with catch and kill.

But this is producing a bottle neck in a working line that’s going to bite us in the butt (pun intended) in a decade or so.
 
Roseeurekacross said:
A population bottleneck is an event that occurs today in many endangered or critical populations of fauna and flora.

A population bottleneck does not describe a sharp reduction in the existing population.

A population bottleneck describes extremely limited genetic diversity. Or as your link says, limited or virtual non existent variation in the gene pool means less genes available to future generations. You can read your link to understand the results then of this.

Basically , unless very cleverly managed , and with a modicum of healthy genetic material in the bottleneck, that population will come out of the bottleneck and survive, or become extinct.

This is a huge issue in critically endangered species today. We are in the 6th mass extinction today. Google for different rates. 10, 000 species per year extinct today, is a conservative estimate.

One example of a successful ( at this point) bottleneck breeding program is the Mongolian Wild Horse.
This population is micromanaged and the wild herd is guarded 24/7 by armed guards.

Each breeding in this herd is decided on, and orchestrated to maximise and attempt to widen genetic diversity as much as possible.
Click to expand...
The lack of genetic diversity as a bottleneck was described in a major paper some years ago. Genes, in order to exist, have to have a previous source in an existing population. Over time, genes can mutate (good and bad)and that is a situation which can increase or decrease succeeding populations. Obviously, environment changes can also produce a “bottleneck”.

Personally, I am very concerned about critically endangered species. When violins are taken away from an orchestra, the symphony is damaged.
 
From the article. catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

“then *we have nothing to fear” *in any scientific theory about how matter and energy evolve over time." occurs in the section “Pray the Creed, and mean it”

“Pray the Creed, and mean it” is something we should do. However, the Catholic Creed is not about basic Science of Human Evolution. It is the word “Evolution” in the article’s title that we should consider first.

The computer ate my original draft for this post. That is probably a good thing. :o

Every author is entitled to free speech. Thus, I cannot insist that Stacy Transancos explain the challenges of the Science of Human Evolution and how these will “attack” some basic doctrines like Original Sin and the ultimate full Divinity of Jesus Christ. (CCC 389, last sentence) Still, the quote “then *we have nothing to fear” * is a demanding proposition which, in my personal opinion, has its own goal.

The question on my mind is – could “Pray the Creed” be a mistake in creation apologetics?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top