The CC on Evolution: A Different Thread, I Hope

[Rbt_Southwell]

Hi, Robert. Let’s assume I am NOT going to check any “neo-Darwinian sources” to find the difference between common ancestor and common descent. (That assumption is very safe to make. ) But I still want to know the difference. What is it?

P.S. I know you were talking to PhilVaz. I just jumped in.

cpayne,

‘Common ancestor’ would be the missing proto-hominid (conjectured to exist by neo-Darwinists) which humans and apes evolved from via random mutations and natural selection, while ‘common descent’ would be classic (as promoted by Huxley: remember his horse chart??!!) Darwinism having changes across the phyla from fish to man.

Man is viewed as a special creation (hence the limited use of the Hebrew word for ‘create’ in Genesis). The Church has always taught this.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Phil,

Sorry for the hanging chad! My wife was getting the kids moving and I left before finishing the quotation.

It is,

“The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that 'the letter can not be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence and truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

Sorry again, Phil

Robert

 

[Jerry-Jet]

We believe in the resurrection of the body–why would we believe that God only used a hominid body and ddi not create a human body.

I still say that Adam and Eve were the FIRST Homo Sapiens.

Their souls were infused into the FIRST Homo Spien bodies–not later on down the road!

I don’t have any problem with them comiong from existing hominids if they were genetically unique mutations.

And why?

Because Man is Body and Soul!

The creation of a unique human soul while at the same time the creation of a unique human body just makes symetrical sense!

 

[Nullasalus]

“The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that 'the letter can not be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence and truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

The one thing I notice here is that everything seems to hinge on divine providence - and it stands to reason that a faithful Catholic can accept common descent and even a common ancestor, so long as they understand that such a physical development may be a mechanism employed by God.

I’m not sure if that’s being disputed in these posts. Either way, it seems to be less a matter of data or predicting data, and more a matter of interpreting data philosophically/theologically.

 

[PhilVaz]

Rob << I hope this clears up your misunderstanding, Phil, about the Church’s position as asserted throughout this thread. >>

I was well aware of all you’ve quoted. We had a pretty vigorous discussion in here on this when it was first published (July 2005). Schonborn was blasted by various scientists (including former Vatican astronomer Fr. George Coyne, Cardinal Paul Poupard, and Kenneth Miller / Lawrence Krauss / Francisco Ayala in an open letter to the Pope).

Excerpts:

“It is vitally important, however, that in these difficult and contentious times the Catholic Church not build a new divide, long ago eradicated, between the scientific method and religious belief. We are writing to you today to request that you clarify once again the Church’s position on Evolution and Science, that you reaffirm the remarkable statements of Pope John Paul II and the International Theological Commission, so that it will be clear that Cardinal Schönborn’s remarks do not reflect the views of the Holy See.” (Miller / Krauss / Ayala letter)

“The most recent episode in the relationship of the Catholic Church to science, a tragic one as I see it, is the affirmation by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in his article in the New York Times, 7 July 2005, that neo-Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Catholic doctrine and he opts for Intelligent Design. To my estimation, the cardinal is in error on at least five fundamental issues, among others…” (George Coyne, then he elaborates those points)

Both Cardinal Poupard, and later Fiorenzo Facchini (see the 2006 Jan 17 edition of L’Osservatore Romano), professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna has condemned the kind of “Intelligent Design” (uppercase ID) that Cardinal Schonborn seemed to endorse in his July 2005 NY Times editorial.

Schonborn later clarified (see especially his catechetical lecture from 10/2/2005) and said he has no problems with the science per se, but with philosophical ideas people put on the science. The science of “common descent” and “natural selection” (for which there is excellent evidence) Schonborn does not have problems with.

“…Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge…” (Schonborn, 10/2/2005 lecture)

What Schonborn objects to is a specific definition (his own) of “neo-Darwinism” which excludes God. Darwinism as science, and as Darwin and later defenders scientifically define it does not exclude God.

“…I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained. In the citations given above (from Julian Huxley, Will Provine, Peter Atkins), it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith.” (Schonborn, same 10/2/2005 lecture)

We’ll wait for the book Creation and Evolution series of talks to be published by Ignatius Press (it is already out in German).

Phil P

 

[Teflon93]

What I have in mind is a different kind of thread on evolution, and I hope it works out that way. I realize there have already been about 6,000 threads on evolution (or 16 billion, by some counts).

However, my question is more specific than arguing over evolution, young-earth creationism, and so on. All recent Popes have issued statements essentially supporting the ideas of evolution, the old earth, the old universe, etc. All recent Popes, in their statements, have also explicitly rejected any sort of scientific materialism, while still endorsing the central idea of long-term evolution.

So here’s the question: If the CC issues a proclamation that God’s creation of the universe used (and uses) the method of evolutionary processes—would you accept it?

Obviously, this question is addressed more or less only to Catholics in fellowship with the Church. I know non-Christians might not have any problem with this hypothetical proclamation. Further, I know non-Catholic Christians would not think a CC proclamation would be binding on them, anyway. So the question is really for Catholics. How many Catholics on this forum would reject the authority of the CC in this matter if it were to issue such a proclamation?

I presume you mean this to be dogma. I would accept it; Catholic dogma comes from God.

 

[Teflon93]

One caution I would offer to those inclined to believe what we know today of biology to be the truth of biology: Scientific American magazine has a feature where they reprint short excerpts from the magazine back in time—25, 50, 100 years, etc.

What is most illuminating is not how wrong these often were; it’s that the articles then were put forth with the same certitude that they are today.

Beware this certitude—it is the mark of someone who is exceeding their expertise. The universal truth is that those who have mastered their craft have far more questions than answers, and tend not toward sweeping claims.

How sure the Pharisee must have been before Christ came into the Temple!

 

[PhilVaz]

Jerry << PhilVaz: there’s only one real question really and it is this and I would like to hear your opinion: Did Adam and Eve have hominid parents? >>

OK I’ll give this a shot again. I’ve tried in the past several times, but its difficult. It would appear they did since I accept this science:

(A) the earth is very old, billions of years in fact;

(B) We have evolved through “common descent” along with the rest of the plants, animals, and life on this planet, from “common ancestors”;

(C) Adam/Eve, the first truly human beings with souls lived perhaps 5000-6000 years ago, but more probably 40000-50000 years ago, and therefore lived AFTER the earliest known hominids (which date millions of years ago);

(D) Conclusion: Adam/Eve’s ancestors, including their immediate parents, were hominids (or fully homo sapiens since our own species homo sapiens date back 150,000 to 200,000 years ago).

This article tries to address that. It basically places Adam/Eve at the time of the Upper Paleolithic (about 40000 years ago). To quote this article: “Genesis 1-4 would represent not the historical environment of Adam and Eve (who date to 40,000 years ago or more), but rather that of the writer of Genesis.” Genesis 4 especially refers to farming, animal and plant domestication, iron tools, and musical instruments that didn’t exist (so far as archaeology and paleontology tell us) until after 10,000 B.C. at the earliest. So the writer of Genesis thought Adam/Eve as historical persons lived when such things existed (5000-8000 B.C. or so).

The problem to reconcile with Catholic doctrine theologically is how could we all be descended from Adam/Eve, if Adam/Eve came from hominids, and in fact from a hominid population that goes back millions of years before they did. Also there wasn’t just Adam/Eve at the Upper Paleolithic, since the population never got down to just two people.

So now we have the problem, I don’t see an easy solution except some kind of polygenism. In a 2006 January 16 article in L’Osservatore Romano, biologist Fiorenzo Facchini states:

“The spark of intelligence was lighted in one or more hominids when, where and in the ways God willed it.”

In the 2004 ITC statement (again, endorsed by Ratzinger), there is reference to:

“…the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage…[and] the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.”

This document also mentions Adam:

“Every individual human being as well as the whole human community are created in the image of God. In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.”

So yeah, the most sophisticated theologians and scientists in the Church recognize the problem of trying to trace ourselves back to just two people. What I’m not gonna do in attempting to reconcile this is suggest the science is all wrong and totally misrepresent the science (as Montalban continually did in the other threads).

Phil P

 

[Teflon93]

Jerry << PhilVaz: there’s only one real question really and it is this and I would like to hear your opinion: Did Adam and Eve have hominid parents? >>

OK I’ll give this a shot again. I’ve tried in the past several times, but its difficult. It would appear they did since I accept this science:

(A) the earth is very old, billions in fact;

(B) We have evolved through “common descent” along with the rest of the plants, animals, and life on this planet, from “common ancestors”;

(C) Adam/Eve, the first truly human beings with souls lived perhaps 4000-5000 years ago, but more probably 40000-50000 years ago, and therefore lived AFTER the earliest known hominids (which date millions of years ago);

(D) Conclusion: Adam/Eve’s ancestors, including their immediate parents, were hominids (or fully homo sapiens since our own species homo sapiens date back 150,000 to 200,000 years ago).

This article tries to address that. It basically places Adam/Eve at the time of the Upper Paleolithic (about 40000 years ago). To quote this article: “Genesis 1-4 would represent not the historical environment of Adam and Eve (who date to 40,000 years ago or more), but rather that of the writer of Genesis.” Genesis 4 especially refers to farming, animal and plant domestication, iron tools, and musical instruments that didn’t exist (so far as archaeology and paleontology tell us) until after 10,000 B.C. at the earliest. So the writer of Genesis thought Adam/Eve as historical persons lived when such things existed (4000-5000 B.C. or so).

The problem to reconcile with Catholic doctrine theologically is how could we all be descended from Adam/Eve, if Adam/Eve came from hominids, and in fact from a hominid population that goes back millions of years before they did. Also there wasn’t just Adam/Eve at the Upper Paleolithic, since the population never got down to just two people.

So now we have the problem, I don’t see an easy solution except some kind of polygenism. In a 2006 January 16 article in L’Osservatore Romano, biologist Fiorenzo Facchini states:

“The spark of intelligence was lighted in one or more hominids when, where and in the ways God willed it.”

In the 2004 ITC statement (again, endorsed by Ratzinger), there is reference to:

“…the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage…[and] the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.”

This document also mentions Adam:

“Every individual human being as well as the whole human community are created in the image of God. In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.”

So yeah, the most sophisticated theologians and scientists in the Church recognize the theological problem of trying to trace ourselves back to just two people. What I’m not gonna do in attempting to reconcile this is suggest the science is all wrong and totally misrepresent the science (as Montalban continually did in the other threads).

Phil P

Well, let’s not go too far down the path that the science is right on this one either.

I’m a stats guy. Part of the reason we have so little certitude regarding Man’s lineage is that the physical remains available to us in the fossil record are very incomplete. It is impossible to know whether the samples we have are truly representative of the population they represent, and a lot of very smart people struggle with determining species for the samples we have. (I’m not arguing from evidence by absence, btw).

Do we know how “human” the hominids were? No.

Do we know what clearly distinguished the first homo sapiens from previous hominids? No.

Man being very creative, we try to analogize from primates in particular whenever possible, but this is not the kind of evidence one would risk one’s life (or afterlife!) on.

Proving Genesis wrong from biology is a fool’s errand based on the evidence we have. Perhaps one day we’ll have far more, but we thought we would with genome sequencing and the like, and we don’t (although it’s generated lots of fascinating findings to be sure).

 

[PhilVaz]

Teflon << Do we know how “human” the hominids were? No. Do we know what clearly distinguished the first homo sapiens from previous hominids? No. >>

I agree, those are the questions that need to be tackled before a “solution” can be made to the Adam/Eve question. One article on my site outlines what constitutes a fully human being:

1. Man has self-awareness.
2. Man has language.
3. Man has religion.

Which I think are good criteria. That article suggests Adam/Eve were actually Neandertals (or spelled -thals). A book by Glenn Morton (Adam, Apes, and Anthropology) attempts to address all the data (bible, cultural, and archaeological) and answer Who Was Adam? Morton concludes Adam/Eve were actually Australopithecines (dating to several million years ago).

It is a fact however, that Genesis 4, which speaks of Cain/Abel who are the immediate children of Adam/Eve, were involved in animal and plant domestication, using iron tools, playing musical instruments, things that didn’t exist until after (i.e. no earlier than) 10,000 B.C. (or after the “Stone Ages”). So taking Genesis literally and historically at least there, that places them after 10,000 B.C. when we know from science that homo sapiens go back at least 100,000 years.

The Genesis 4 text, and the science is not gonna change much at that point. So there is a lot of symbol / figure / allegory going on in Genesis if you want to reconcile the biblical text with history and science.

Phil P

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If Adam and Eve’s parents were hominids and had no souls did Adam and Eve speak to them about having a soul?

Did Adam and Eve tell them about God?

Did Adam and Eve think that their hominid parents were just dumb animals?

Did God tell them to stay away from their hominid relatives?

Did God wait for them to grow up before infusing them with a soul or did he infuse them with a soul at conception within the hominid parent?

See how ridiculous the hominid parent hypothesis is?

It’s as ridiculous as Jesus having uterine siblings!

And how can any Catholic fight to the death over the Body of Christ being present in the Eucharist or how fitting it would be for the Son of Man to be born of sinless Mary who is Immaculately conceived but then still maintain:

that infusing non-soul hominids with souls is fitting?

And IF those hominids from which Adam and Eve were supposedly descended–IF they indeed had sexual desire–

Exactly how was it that that disapperared in the Bodies of Adam and Eve to the point that they were both naked and not ashamed?

In other words why didn’t Adam just rape Eve if his body came from a hominid?

Isn’t that what cave men do?

Would the Body of a cave man enjoy sanctifying grace to the point that it would have no post concupiscence behavior?

Of course not!

The bottom line fact is that more than just the souls of Adam and Eve were different!

What I don’t understand about some people who style themselves as Catholic evolutionists–why it completely wrecks their entire world if God creates through BOTH evolution and through special creation?

Does it wreck their world when God perfroms miracles? Does it wreck their world when Jesus rises from the dead?

Why is it that God can violate natural laws in those situations and it is OK but it is absolutley required that He never break any natural law when He creates?

Why is that?

That question they will never answer–and the real reason is that many of them don’t really believe in the miracles or the resurrection!

I believe that Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapierns and porbably specially created but they could have came from another hominid if they were a completely different species.

If that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago–that’s cool–so what?

I’ll tell you this, too–if the Body of Chirst can be present substantially in the Bread and Wine without being seen are you going to tell me that the Garden of Eden could not also be present substantially in Iraq without being seen?

And if time runs differently in Heaven and purgatory than here on Earth are you going to tell me that time couldn’t also run differently in the Garden of Eden?

No–I don’t have all the answers–I just do disbelieve the answers of either the special creation only crowd or the evolution only crowd.

Everything I know of God from the scriptures and the witness of the Catholic Church is that He is quite capable of BOTH.

And that concept is quite Catholic!

 

[Ahimsa]

It is a fact however, that Genesis 4, which speaks of Cain/Abel who are the immediate children of Adam/Eve, were involved in animal and plant domestication, using iron tools, playing musical instruments, things that didn’t exist until after (i.e. no earlier than) 10,000 B.C. (or after the “Stone Ages”). So taking Genesis literally and historically at least there, that places them after 10,000 B.C. when we know from science that homo sapiens go back at least 100,000 years.

You’re assuming, of course, that Cain and Abel were real historical figures.

One can allow for the reality of individual Adam and individual Eve, even as Australopithecines, which would push back Adam/Eve millions of years. However, Cain, Abel, and Seth, might instead represent the process of human cultural history, up to about 12,000 YBP.

 

[PhilVaz]

Jerry << See how ridiculous the hominid parent hypothesis is? >>

I don’t deny you ask some interesting questions! Hee hee. I’m not sure about all that. John Haught’s view is there was a gradual evolution both in intelligence, mind, and the “soul” –

“Perhaps, then, Darwinian science compels us now to reconsider what we mean by the ‘soul.’ … But even in a scientific age it is not too speculative to attribute an interior aspect to each living being. Maybe all living organisms have an aspect of ‘subjectivity’ hidden from scientific objectification. In each of us this interiority would be associated with a distinctively human soul. But other living beings may possess a hidden ‘subjectivity’ – widely varying in the degree of experiential awareness – where they are intimately touched by and participate in the divine Spirit whom we may refer to as Life-Itself. Once we allow for this broader understanding of soul, we may interpret evolution as the momentous story of soul-emergence…This understanding allows us to move beyond the artifice of thinking that God abruptly ‘injects’ prefabricated ‘souls’ into our species or into our bodies at certain artificially defined points in evolution or embryogenesis. Instead we may understand the Spirit of God as present in all of life, animating each species in a manner proportionate to its characteristic mode of organic or informational complexity. The emergence of the human soul, then, would not be a glaring exception to this animating process, but instead a most intense exemplification of a general aspect of creation and evolution.” (Haught, Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution [Paulist Press, 2001], question 19, page 27-28)

In other words, the first souls were not created ex nihilo, but gradually evolved with the brain as well. I dunno, sounds like heresy but it’s something that theologians put out there. Maybe I’m too dumb to understand it. Another one from Haught on the definition of original sin:

“What exactly ‘original sin’ means, moreover, has never been made perfectly clear in the first place…Original sin, according to contemporary theological interpretation, refers not to a specific act committed by a parental couple in the remote past, but to the general state of our present human estrangement from God, from each other and from the natural world as well. We are all born into a world that is already deeply flawed, in great measure by human greed and violence. We have indeed ‘inherited’ environments, cultures and habits of being which mix bad with good. Thus the notion of ‘original’ sin points to the fact that, simply by virtue of our being born into this ambiguous world, we are conditioned not only by what is life-affirming, but also by a whole history of evil and opposition to life. The notion of original sin, in this sense, is important for constantly reminding us not only of our shared estrangement from our true Origin and Destiny, but also of our human incapacity to save ourselves from this state of affairs. It helps us realize that only God can rescue us, and that efforts toward self-salvation are futile. Thus the need for a savior is in no way diminished by our recent evolutionary knowledge. There is no contradiction between evolution and a realistic notion of original sin.” (Haught, question 58, page 80-81)

Compare with:

Catechism: By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin.” As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death; and inclined to sin (This inclination is called “concupiscence.”) “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, ‘by propagation, not by imitation’ and that it is…‘proper to each’” [citing Pope Paul VI, CPG 16]. (Catechism 416-419).

Jerry << What I don’t understand about some people who style themselves as Catholic evolutionists–why it completely wrecks their entire world if God creates through BOTH evolution and through special creation? >>

Both evolution and creation would be fine. Creation of the soul at least. But I don’t think our human body was specially created (nor Adam/Eve’s). Even given special creation of the body, the question is what to do with all the other homo sapiens (or earlier hominids) who looked exactly like Adam/Eve and who lived around the same time. If they show evidence of being human (see three criterion suggested in my previous post), then they had human souls too, just like Adam/Eve. Or so it would seem.

Phil P

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Or could it be that they really didn’t have souls and only later on were given souls and when it says in Genesis that Cain’s descendents married “the sons of men” that these hominids who were only later infused with souls after Adam and Eve were is who the scriptures are talking about?

If Adam and Eve were spontaneous mutations they could have indeed constituted a completely new species and they could have looked quite different from their hominid progenitors–maybe there actually was a definite break and even though Adam and Eve sprung form hominds they did constitue a new species and were the first homos sapiens.

Which would of course explain why they may have left together to start the human race and would explain why they would separate themselves from the other hominids if God specially Created and Infused in them souls.

 

[PhilVaz]

Ahimsa <, However, Cain, Abel, and Seth, might instead represent the process of human cultural history, up to about 12,000 YBP. >>

Ah ha, I think this answer was given to me before. I’ve been saying for three years I really need to get into some sophisticated Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox or other commentaries on Genesis, and see what is out there, and what has been said interpretation wise. I’m kind of “winging it” as far as Genesis goes. Plus I don’t read Hebrew of course.

Phil P

 

[Ghosty]

Would your answer entail that Adam and Eve were the first GENETIC Homo sapiens, or simply the first with a divinely infused rational soul? It seems they would have to be the first genetically, would it not?

I don’t see any reason why they’d have to be genetically distinct.

Think about it: most lab animals now have some amount of human DNA in them. We’ve grown human organ cells within other mammals, for example.

Human DNA is critical, but it’s not “uniquely human”, at least not anymore. We are indeed body and soul, but that doesn’t mean that the body, the DNA, must be unique to the rational soul. It just means that a human being is a body-soul combination by definition. Neither the body nor the soul requires the other for existence in an absolute sense, hence we have disembodied souls and corpses, so there’s no reason to believe that the human body couldn’t be animated by an animal soul rather than not animated at all. Only when combined with a human soul would it be a human being, however, just as we don’t call a corpse or a ghost human beings.

I see no reason at all to posit a completely unique genetic code, or a spontaneous mutation from a hominid line. We’ve already shown with science that such genetic boundaries don’t absolutely need to exist between species (hence we have rats with human brain tissue), but the soul that infuses the flesh does indeed still seem to be the formal element in what makes a thing what it is (the aforementioned human-tissue rats still behave like any other rat).

In other words why didn’t Adam just rape Eve if his body came from a hominid?

Isn’t that what cave men do?

Cave men were after the fall, not before it. As for pre-rational hominids, why presume they raped? The reason humans rape is because we are our-of-order, our animal side (concupiscence) rises up against our rational side (the human mind), but is still directed by a human will. We are an extremely disordered creature, built from very different parts that can only be held together by Grace, and in losing that Grace we began a terrible downward spiral that culminated in murder of innocents in the FIRST GENERATION after the Fall.

As for being naked and not ashamed, that’s not about avoiding lust per se, but rather shows that humans were perfectly balanced. We know they had a sexual inclination before the Fall because God ordered them to have sex and procreate; they just got busy disobeying God before they got around to having children. After the Fall they had lost the balance between the animal aspect and the rational, and that’s when they became ashamed of their bodies; their bodies no longer obeyed their will as they were supposed to, but went off on their own “whim”. This is the “will of the flesh” versus the “will of the spirit” that St. Paul talks about, or the “yetzer hara” versus the “yetzer hatov” (the two inclinations) to use the traditional Hebrew terms.

The parents of Adam and Eve would have had only the yetzer hara, the animal inclination, the concupiscence, just like all other animals alive. It wouldn’t have been sinful, however, because it would be properly ordered; there was no higher function that it should be subject to in them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nullasalus]

PhilVaz:

What Schonborn objects to is a specific definition (his own) of “neo-Darwinism” which excludes God. Darwinism as science, and as Darwin and later defenders scientifically define it does not exclude God.

Just to mention something…

The subtle shift between ‘evolution’ and ‘neo-Darwinism’ and ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Darwinism’ is incredibly difficult to keep track of, and I can’t help but think that many are confused, and many more still use this confusion to manipulate their own agendas. Sometimes I meet people who seem to consider ‘Darwinism’ a philosophy (Evolution without God), while evolution is just evolution, and they believe in evolution with God. Other people treat ‘evolution’ as not only a description of a process without God, but one that has no (even possible) place for God, and any creation - even of the Ken Miller variety - is either creationism, or intelligent design (Or both!)

This before realizing that there are a variety of ‘issues’ with evolution - about how the process works, rather than whether the process took place - and were before Intelligent Design entered the fray. The genes versus environment fight that apparently was had out between Dawkins and Gould. The question of epigenetics, which (I was surprised) it turns out that a good number of ‘neo-darwinists’ doubted the possibility of early on, and which they’re still coping with. Particular questions of the evolution of the human brain, made more difficult by some serious plasticity. And more, I believe.

Basically, the debate is loaded with terms that get shuffled around or generalized to a crazy degree. What a headache.

 

[Ahimsa]

Just to mention something…

The subtle shift between ‘evolution’ and ‘neo-Darwinism’ and ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Darwinism’ is incredibly difficult to keep track of…

Here’s a definitive, magisterial definition: (1) evolution: descent with modification – period; (2) (neo-)Darwinism: a particular theory of how evolution happens; (3) intelligent design: the direct, non-evolutionary, creation by an intelligent being (i.e., God) of “irreducibly complex” biological systems.

Note that (1) evolution does not inherently include, nor exclude, God; (2) particular theories of evolution may include, or may exclude, God; (3) (neo-)Darwinism is a scientific theory, and, thus, necessarily does not invoke the supernatural; (4) intelligent design does not exclude the possibility of evolution occurring as well (e.g., the “irreducibly complex” biological systems, once created, may indeed undergo evolution via completely non-supernatural means).

Make a copy of this, put it in your wallet, and refer to it when meeting rabid atheists or geocentrists.

 

[Nullasalus]

explanations

Actually, I’ve been able to keep track of the views personally. The is more in seeing how the subject is discussed with others; it feels as if many people play shell games with the terms, where neo-darwinism becomes evolution, etc. Epigenetics in particular seems like one heck of a topic, as well as the entire concept of certain genes turning ‘on’ and ‘off’ depending on environment.

Not that this is much of a big deal with regards to evolution as a whole. Just thought I’d mention some frustration with seeing these things discussed. It’s as bad as quantum mechanics sometimes.

 

[Teflon93]

It is a fact however, that Genesis 4, which speaks of Cain/Abel who are the immediate children of Adam/Eve, were involved in animal and plant domestication, using iron tools, playing musical instruments, things that didn’t exist until after (i.e. no earlier than) 10,000 B.C. (or after the “Stone Ages”). So taking Genesis literally and historically at least there, that places them after 10,000 B.C. when we know from science that homo sapiens go back at least 100,000 years.

The Genesis 4 text, and the science is not gonna change much at that point. So there is a lot of symbol / figure / allegory going on in Genesis if you want to reconcile the biblical text with history and science.

Phil P

Well, that is a great example of taking what limited information we have and going too far with it.

Here’s what I mean:

1. The fossil record is spotty and incomplete. Not having identifiable samples of domesticated plants and animals, iron tools, etc we can date to pre-10,000 B.C. does not mean they did not exist; it means we either haven’t found or can’t identify them.
2. Our dating methodologies vary in precision and application and are quite often subject to wide measurement variation as a result. It is a problem which is at its worst right now pre-history but late in geologic history. One can readily see the difficulties in comparing genetic evidence with physical evidence regarding human migration patterns.

I would therefore posit that we simply don’t know yet. Is it possible that there are anachronistic elements of the Genesis account? Sure—anachronisms are a function of later generations attempting to relate to earlier ones, and far-removed desendants of Adam and Eve might be expected to be more prone to it when reflecting back on them, injecting “color” into Scripture to better get the message across. We see it for example in medieval depictions of Biblical events with key figures wearing armor that hadn’t been invented yet.

The point is that the tools we currently have to peer into the past are scattershot and imprecise, and the folks who use them labor mightily to gain some consistent message from them. This is part of the reason it is so hard to gain consensus around such things as where and when massive asteroid impacts occurred and how these might have triggered mass extinctions. When it’s so hard to detect catastrophic events, it shouldn’t be too surprising that more subtle events of prehistory are much more nebulous.