F
Faith1960
Guest
I’ve gotten the answers to my questions so I think ill bail out of the thread, thanks Gorgias, Hans and Noel
- Status
I’ve gotten the answers to my questions so I think ill bail out of the thread, thanks Gorgias, Hans and Noel
F
Faith1960
Guest
Does he discuss this very topic?
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
The Catholic Encyclopedia is a century old. While it’s often useful as a source of information, it is also a century behind the times in regard to science.
From Wikipedia -
I find it a bit hard to believe that all the species of animals that couldn’t survive in water managed to squeeze onto an ark, along with all the necessary provisions to keep them alive.
Then there’s the question of what might be called differentiation between continents. Australia, where I live is noted for having a large number of marsupials, far more than any other continent. In fact, as far as I know, prior to human “invasion” whether aboriginal (who brought the dingo with them - native dog) or later Europeans (who introduced a large number of domestic animals and some pests), all the mammals in Australia were either marsupials or monotremes (Echidna and Platypus - these are mammals which lay eggs). There were no other mammals.
From Wikipedia -
So why did we end up with so many marsupials if all the animals dispersed from a common point, allegedly Mount Ararat?
From Wikipedia again -
With the exception of the possum, “opossum” in North America I believe, all these animals above are restricted to Australia. New Guinea has a tree Kangaroo, and the Cuscus, which is just another possum as far as I can make out. But Australia has a predominance of marsupials.
Why? That doesn’t gel with a flood theory, or animals dispersing from a common point.
W
womanatwell
Guest
Please forgive me for not answering sooner. I’m glad to see you are still thinking about this. Yes, I’ve read the article (fourth link below). It is written by Ann Gauger, a biologist (BS in biology from MIT and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington) who studies biology with a viewpoint of Intelligent Design Theory. She believes Adam and Eve could have produced the genetic variety we see today, while others say two persons is too small a bottleneck. Though this is not Young Earth Creationism, I thought you might be interested because of your concern with bottlenecks.
Many Young Earth Creationists are using the information concerning biological complexity to make their own cases, but of course they do not want to rely on long time periods. Some work is being done by Dr. Georgia Purdom, (PhD in molecular genetics from Ohio State University in 2000), on genetics of animal types after the flood. I also found an AIG link to an explanation of the human bottleneck due to the flood (first link below). I don’t know how satisfying it will be to you, but I believe an open mind can widen your horizons and lead you to facts you might not otherwise encounter.
Some people are very resistant to the idea of God supernaturally, directly creating persons even though they allow that He could directly create the whole material universe. It is true that the Church made some mistakes about science in the past, but as Pope Francis says, let yourself be surprised by God. The Lord does as He sees fit. He may have ordained at the beginning of the universe for natural laws to form the planets and their orbits. But Thomas Aquinas said in Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 92, Article 4:
I answer that…the natural generation of every species is from some determinate matter. Now the matter whence man is naturally begotten is the human semen of man or woman. Wherefore from any other matter an individual of the human species cannot naturally be generated. Now God alone, the Author of nature, can produce an effect into existence outside the ordinary course of nature. Therefore God alone could produce either a man from the slime of the earth, or a woman from the rib of man.
In the next line he says: This argument is verified when an individual is begotten, by natural generation, from that which is like it in the same species.
(Second link below).
I have my own hypothesis about GAPS on my blog. If you are interested, see third link below.
answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/four-women-a-boat-and-lots-of-kids/
newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm#article4
womanatwell.blogspot.com/2013/11/gaps.html
evolutionnews.org/2014/07/on_human_origin087341.html
H
Hans_W
Guest
Yes, John Haught (professor of theology and a Catholic) specialises on the interface between science and religion. I only have three books by him - he has written many more - which I can highly recommend:
Code:
- Making Sense of Evolution - Darwin, God and the Drama of Life
- Science and Faith - A new Introduction
- God and the new Atheism - A critical response to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchins
Code:
- The Big Questions in Science and Religion
- The Evidence for God
- Why there is almost certainly a God - Doubting Dawkins
- A Guide for the Perplexed
H
Hans_W
Guest
I think you need to make up your mind if you want to be a Young Earth or an Old Creationist or a GAP Theorist or if you want to side with the Intelligent Design creationists.
A few weeks ago we had the doubtful pleasure of having Stephen Meyer, one of the founders of ID, here with us in Auckland, New Zealand. These guys ridicule a 6,000 year-old universe and they deny the Worldwide Flood. But he was happy to answer a question from the audience on how starlight reached the earth on Day 4 of Creation Week! When it comes to fighting evolution they all stick together. And they all dislike the concept of Theistic Evolution - and that’s exactly what we Catholics accept and believe. That’s what the Church officially accepts. That’s what all the popes since Pius XII in 1950 have accepted. That’s what our current Pope Francis reiterated in October last year.
What is the problem???
W
womanatwell
Guest
There are several problems. The most glaring for anyone who studies biology is the extreme complexity of biological systems. Those who accept “billions of years” as an answer are ignoring the scientific revelations of the last few decades and the simple mathematical analysis that says they are extremely improbable. Theological evolutionists sound like secular evolutionists–they do not address this complexity, and say that materialistic forces are all that was necessary. I never see a discussion about what place God had in the changes in the DNA and cells within living parents to explain how the progeny became the way they are. And yes, I understand about mutation and natural selection. There was no natural selection to form the cell in the first place–that was chemistry. Even if the Earth is old, we wouldn’t have gotten started yet with a simple cell due to the specific nature of DNA and proteins. This is a mathematical problem that is not answered and why prominent biologists are saying that Darwin is falsified. Though the biologists listed in “The Third Way of Evolution” still want to believe in evolution, they have only tentative theories which have not been proven. As the natural laws stand now, evolution at this time is not a fact.
thethirdwayofevolution.com/people
There are many problems with the science of origin and evolution which Stephen Meyer brings out in his book, Darwin’s Doubt. Another which he hasn’t even mentioned is that scientific research is showing that after one or two mutations, a protein becomes unstable and is unable to function due to thermodynamic instability.
weizmann.ac.il/Biological_Chemistry/scientist/Tawfik/papers/%2872%29TokurikiTawfikCurrOpinStrucBiol2009.pdf
As far as the age of the Earth, both old and young Earth advocates have explanations, and I am open-minded and still learning. Many people have attitudes of knowing everything. Unfortunately, they profess to know different things.
H
Hans_W
Guest
Correction to my previous post: Don’t waste any time on deciding between Young-, Old-Earth, Gap- and ID theories. You first need to learn about the distinction between science and pseudoscience. I can recommend Massimo Pigliucci’s book “Nonsense on Stilts”. Any introductory text on philosophy of science should help.
Are you serious?? How stupid do you think biologists are when they say that evolution is the foundation of all biology?
Some people simply cannot handle the idea that we are related to all living things. They will go to great length arguing it away. They even go as far as denying what the Pope has affirmed.
N
Nick44
Guest
This is an interesting thread and shows the difficulty some have in reconciling true science and true religion. It’s a shame that some lose faith altogether when asked to choose between the two. Baha’is are taught that science and religion always go hand-in-hand.
“Among other principles of Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings was the harmony of science and religion. Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in reality. If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination. Innumerable doctrines and beliefs of this character have arisen in the past ages.”
“Consider the superstitions and mythology of the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians; all were contrary to religion and science. It is now evident that the beliefs of these nations were superstitions, but in those times they held to them most tenaciously. For example, one of the many Egyptian idols was to those people an authenticated miracle, whereas in reality it was a piece of stone. As science could not sanction the miraculous origin and nature of a piece of rock, the belief in it must have been superstition.”
“It is now evident that it was superstition. Therefore, we must cast aside such beliefs and investigate reality. That which is found to be real and conformable to reason must be accepted, and whatever science and reason cannot support must be rejected as imitation and not reality. Then differences of belief will disappear. All will become as one family, one people, and the same susceptibility to the divine bounty and education will be witnessed among mankind.”
-Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace
“Among other principles of Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings was the harmony of science and religion. Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in reality. If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination. Innumerable doctrines and beliefs of this character have arisen in the past ages.”
“Consider the superstitions and mythology of the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians; all were contrary to religion and science. It is now evident that the beliefs of these nations were superstitions, but in those times they held to them most tenaciously. For example, one of the many Egyptian idols was to those people an authenticated miracle, whereas in reality it was a piece of stone. As science could not sanction the miraculous origin and nature of a piece of rock, the belief in it must have been superstition.”
“It is now evident that it was superstition. Therefore, we must cast aside such beliefs and investigate reality. That which is found to be real and conformable to reason must be accepted, and whatever science and reason cannot support must be rejected as imitation and not reality. Then differences of belief will disappear. All will become as one family, one people, and the same susceptibility to the divine bounty and education will be witnessed among mankind.”
-Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
It’s not a case of reconciling science and religion, but a case of reconciling science and our understanding of the Christian Bible. That’s where the argument lies.
Within the Christian faith, there are all sorts of beliefs about origins, essentially based on the opening chapters of Genesis. Some believe in a literal 7 day creation a few thousand years ago, others believe in Theistic Evolution, with all sorts of variations in between. I think it would be fair to say they all believe there is a divine intelligence at work whatever their viewpoint, so in one sense all Christians are proponents of “Intelligent Design” in one way or another.
The fact is that we just don’t know what God did when He created the universe, nor do we understand His reasons for doing so, in the way He did.
For this reason the Catholic Church doesn’t oblige it’s members to believe in any specific Origins argument, even if the official line at the moment favours evolution as part of the origins argument.
This leaves the problem of Original Sin to be dealt with, and the question of suffering, if God is good. Why did God build in all the suffering that is a fundamental by-product of the theory of evolution, and how did Original Sin get into the equation if we are the product of evolution?
Ultimately our faith is in Jesus Christ. The Bible is a pointer to His personification in History as the Son of God. That’s what it’s about. The question of origins is a by-product of His revelation.
Bob Crowley,
many thanks for your contribution.
As a Catholic I felt discouraged with this thread.
Some seem to lack charity and behave in an arrogant way, and it is also difficult to read loyal Catholics having strange ideas.
So a bit of humility and real science is needed.
We have evolved and the earth is not flat.
So thanks again.
many thanks for your contribution.
As a Catholic I felt discouraged with this thread.
Some seem to lack charity and behave in an arrogant way, and it is also difficult to read loyal Catholics having strange ideas.
So a bit of humility and real science is needed.
We have evolved and the earth is not flat.
So thanks again.
G
grannymh
Guest
I have not read all the posts. However, my first reaction is similar to yours. I would suggest that it is not a case of reconciling science with Catholic doctrines. It is a case of determining the truth when a particular science position intersects with a particular Catholic doctrine and consequently denies the doctrine.
skip
The “problem” of Original Sin is soved by the fact that the original first human being disobeyed God and consequently destroyed humanity’s original relationship with Divinity. One of the results was that human nature lost the preternatural gift of not having to suffer or die.
CCC 374-379
G
grannymh
Guest
Original Sin is in the Bible. Please refer to the first three chapters of Genesis. The point where Original Sin intersects science is at the point of human origin. The point of human origin is both a Catholic doctrine and a scientific issue. The Catholic doctrine is that the point of human origin is a population of two. The scientific conclusion is that the point of human origin is a population of hundreds
Divine Revelation trumps.
H
Hans_W
Guest
Good post. I agree with all you say.
Some people have difficulties with the word “science” since it is regularly used by the atheist camp as a “proof” for the non-existence of God.
If somebody is inclined to see science as leaning towards atheism (which is not the case), I suggest to simply replace it with the word “nature”. Nature is all around us and God created it. Science simply looks at underlying regularities and explanation for what we see happening. And nature is what it is, if we like it or not. Most times it is counter intuitive. Who would have thought that the earth is moving, that solid matter is mostly empty space?
Evolution is a simple fact, if we like it or not. But as you said, the Catholic Church doesn’t force us to believe in it. By the way, we don’t “believe” in evolution - we accept it as the most plausible explanation for all the facts we have uncovered in the last 200 years. On the other hand, as Christians we “believe” in Theistic Evolution, guided by God. An atheist sees evolution as an unguided process.
- Status