The Problem of DARWIN'S EVIL

[Uriel1]

One of us is wrong, certainly. Let’s remember that this is a Catholic Website and that the 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis, which you quoted, made plain the Pope’s sincere hope that evolution will be shown to have been a mere transient scientific fad, and goes on to challenge those who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution …explains the origin of all things.”

Thomas Aquinas posits that an infinite chain will never accomplish its objective, so unguided life from natural causes is not possible.

God is distinguished from all finite beings. It follows that the world could only have come from God by creation

Not even by way of a miracle can a finite nature be given creative power

No created agent can in any way influence the being of any effect unless it has itself been moved by the first Cause.

Thomism is fundamental to Catholic Theology

We are made by God in His image.

Genesis and evolution are not bedfellows

 

[Aloysium]

Pope Pius XII was dealing with a less-developed version of evolution so it’s not surprising he held skepticism about it. But while he condemned polygenism (a different topic for a different thread as there’s a lot to be said on it) he was okay with evolution, a stance later popes have not reversed.

You are making some claims here that are not consistant with what I understand.

Could you support your statements that:

• Pope Pius XII was dealing with a less-developed version of evolution. What would be the better developed theory that is more consistent with the teachings of the church that include original sin and the fall?
• he was okay with evolution.

 

[Wozza]

One of us is wrong, certainly. Let’s remember that this is a Catholic Website and that the 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis, which you quoted, made plain the Pope’s sincere hope that evolution will be shown to have been a mere transient scientific fad, and goes on to challenge those who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution …explains the origin of all things.”

Thomas Aquinas posits that an infinite chain will never accomplish its objective, so unguided life from natural causes is not possible.

God is distinguished from all finite beings. It follows that the world could only have come from God by creation

Not even by way of a miracle can a finite nature be given creative power

No created agent can in any way influence the being of any effect unless it has itself been moved by the first Cause.

Thomism is fundamental to Catholic Theology

We are made by God in His image.

Genesis and evolution are not bedfellows

Well said. I don’t really have any argument with you on any of that. But as to the three specific claims you made earlier, you have been shown to be wrong. It would be good for you to acknowledge that. Especially as doing so would not conflict with anything you said above whatsoever.

So would you like to retract what you said, please? You wouldn’t want to develop a reputation for posting things that you know to be untrue.

 

[mVitus]

Could you support your statements that:

• Pope Pius XII was dealing with a less-developed version of evolution. What would be the better developed theory that is more consistent with the teachings of the church that include original sin and the fall?
• he was okay with evolution.

For the first one, back when he wrote Humani Generis people didn’t have the advancements we’ve had since then. For example the out-of-Africa theory wasn’t around yet. (So as opposed to a population of early humans from Africa spreading to the rest of the world it was thought that humans arose independent of each other in various places of the world.)
To be honest though, I’m not really sure what you want me to say. Science improves over time. So your questioning that statement strikes me like someone asking me to prove an assertion that a spoon held over a flame gets hotter the longer its held over the flame.

As for the second one, I already explained that. Whereas he condemned the idea of polygenism (and again, a full discussion on that is not for this thread) he made no such condemnation of evolution as a whole and neither he nor successive popes have condemned evolution as a whole.

 

[Uriel1]

Aloysium:

Could you support your statements that:

• Pope Pius XII was dealing with a less-developed version of evolution. What would be the better developed theory that is more consistent with the teachings of the church that include original sin and the fall?
• he was okay with evolution.

For the first one, back when he wrote Humani Generis people didn’t have the advancements we’ve had since then. For example the out-of-Africa theory wasn’t around yet. (So as opposed to a population of early humans from Africa spreading to the rest of the world it was thought that humans arose independent of each other in various places of the world.)
To be honest though, I’m not really sure what you want me to say. Science improves over time. So your questioning that statement strikes me like someone asking me to prove an assertion that a spoon held over a flame gets hotter the longer its held over the flame.

As for the second one, I already explained that. Whereas he condemned the idea of polygenism (and again, a full discussion on that is not for this thread) he made no such condemnation of evolution as a whole and neither he nor successive popes have condemned evolution as a whole.

As for the second one…
This is a Catholic Website and that the 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis , which many non-believers on this site love to quote, made plain the Pope’s sincere hope that evolution will be shown to have been a mere transient scientific fad, and goes on to challenge those who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution …explains the origin of all things.”

 

[Aloysium]

For the first one, back when he wrote Humani Generis people didn’t have the advancements we’ve had since then. For example the out-of-Africa theory wasn’t around yet. (So as opposed to a population of early humans from Africa spreading to the rest of the world it was thought that humans arose independent of each other in various places of the world.)
To be honest though, I’m not really sure what you want me to say. Science improves over time. So your questioning that statement strikes me like someone asking me to prove an assertion that a spoon held over a flame gets hotter the longer its held over the flame.

As for the second one, I already explained that. Whereas he condemned the idea of polygenism (and again, a full discussion on that is not for this thread) he made no such condemnation of evolution as a whole and neither he nor successive popes have condemned evolution as a whole.

Science if nothing else, does seem to evolve given that those theories that have merit survive, although new theories are hardly random, and involve a lot of hard work and creative thinking. There are other possibilities that involve the appearance of mankind as originating in the middle east, although ape-like creatures that preceded us were present in Africa before that.

I was asking because you seemed to imply that the Pope would have arrived at a different conclusion had he been privy to what science now claims. Your first point changes nothing in terms of the message the Pope was trying to convey.

Evolution deals with species, not the appearance of one individual. It fails if there is no polygenism. Mention monogenism at a symposium on evolution and see the response.

 

[William_Scott]

I believe in crazy things like God

Hello Roseeurekacross, I apologize for the confusion—but the X in X-mas is an abbreviation of “Christ” in the Greek and considered by many (myself included) to be a symbol of the Cross. It is a Christ-affirming shorthand for Christmas —although it is sadly true that some Christ haters have used it as a way to get around putting Christ in Christmas.

All that said, in view of your concerns on the matter I may have to reconsider my public use of the X-mas shorthand (although I’m still using it on our storage boxes for X-mas lights )

 

[William_Scott]

Rocks (plus time) became people. That sounds…improbable. No, that’s actually impossible. BUT…Darwin made it hip to believe in scientific impossibilities before breakfast. Now through the twin impossibilities of Abiogenesis + Molecules to People Evolution (which is inclusive of a dizzying array of lesser impossibilities) science has been freed from the unnecessary constraints of reality. Now scientists and lesser mortals everywhere can dream the impossible dream (e.g. that their forefathers were rodent-like creatures and fish).

Alice in Evolutionary Land
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”

“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Keep making the impossible possible everyone (through blind chance)…

I may check by in another couple of weeks to see if this thread has evolved into a more complex life form.

 

[IWantGod]

No, that’s actually impossible.

You don’t know that it’s logically impossible. But i would agree with you that such a possibility would not exist, let alone the rock, with out God. Also, nobody argued that our physical bodies are a direct result of rocks.

 

[BartholomewB]

… the X in X-mas is an abbreviation of “Christ” in the Greek

Yes, that is a known fact.

… and considered by many (myself included) to be a symbol of the Cross.

Unlikely, I think. The Greek alphabet, including the letter chi (Χ, χ) was already many centuries old in the time of Jesus.

 

[William_Scott]

You don’t know that it’s logically impossible. But i would agree with you that such a possibility would not exist, let alone the rock, with out God. Also, nobody argued that our physical bodies are a direct result of rocks.

It’s totally impossible–but it’s a fun idea. If you embrace abiogenesis and molecules to man evolution, why would you need God to exist in order for rocks to exist. I mean, if lifeless rock is able to become Newton and Beethoven by accident and without any need for an Intelligent Designer, why do we need an Intelligent Designer for the existence of something far simpler and dumber (like a rock).

As for theistic evolution–I have to give Richard Dawkins props on this issue:
‘Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic?! So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual? Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!’

‘The moderates’ [liberals’] position seems to me to be fence-sitting. They half-believe in the Bible but how do they decide which parts to believe literally and which parts are just allegorical?’

‘It seems to me an odd proposition that we should adhere to some parts of the Bible story but not to others. After all, when it comes to important moral questions, by what standards do we cherry-pick the Bible? Why bother with the Bible at all if we have the ability to pick and choose from it, what is right and what is wrong?’

Dawkins on compromising churchians

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

 

[IWantGod]

If you embrace abiogenesis and molecules to man evolution, why would you need God to exist in order for rocks to exist.

The point I’m making is that, within the realm of possibility, anything is possible with God. With God, i have no reason to doubt that abiogenesis is possible. Whether it happened and how it happened i suppose is up for debate.

Also, one thing that you are failing to recognize is that science cannot know that anything is in principle possible without God. That’s a philosophical question, and since i am a Theist and Catholic i think you can guess which side of that equation i am on.

 

[William_Scott]

Unlikely, I think. The Greek alphabet, including the letter chi (Χ, χ) was already many centuries old in the time of Jesus.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I’m not saying that “X” was invented to symbolize the cross. Rather, I’m saying that there is some evidence that Christians historically used the pre-existent “X” as a symbolic representation of the Cross–and this may be one of the symbolic meanings of the “X” in X-mas.

 

[William_Scott]

The point I’m making is that, within the realm of possibility, anything is possible with God. With God, i have no reason to doubt that abiogenesis is possible. Whether it happened and how it happened i suppose is up for debate.

So, random chance may not be enough to produce life. Saying that God might have to help blind chance out a little bit in order for abiogenesis to occur is a blatant contradiction to the orthodox scientific model. Thank you for joining us on the psuedoscientific side (I’ve got extra tin-foil hats available if your supply is running low )

 

[IWantGod]

abiogenesis possible when blind chance can’t is a blatant contradiction to the orthodox scientific model.

Blind chance alone cannot produce anything. No scientist would argue such a thing. What a scientist would say is that there was some degree of chance involved, just like there was chance involved in the formation of our particular planet including the fact of it being within the Goldilocks zone which is required for the formation of water. I personally don’t have a problem with that.

 

[William_Scott]

abiogenesis possible when blind chance can’t is a blatant contradiction to the orthodox scientific model.

I grant that scientists who hold faithfully to the dogmas of evolutionism often dislike the use of the term “blind chance”. For instance our friend Dawkins who says:
“It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe. Take, for instance, the issue of ‘chance’, often dramatized as blind chance.” (Ironically, from his book “The Blind Watchmaker”)

Interestingly, these same scientists are fine making statements affirming the blindness of the evolutionary process–such as Dawkins does elsewhere in The Blind Watchmaker:
"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye.

Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."

This will have to be my last post in this thread for the next couple of weeks (just too busy to discuss the mysteries of the universe for a little while). Have a great Advent Season everyone as you ponder the wonderful workings of the blind, unconscious, automatic process that brought you into existence.

 

[IWantGod]

blindness of the evolutionary process–such as Dawkins does elsewhere in The Blind Watchmaker:

Well, if the scientist wishes to remain firmly within the confines of the scientific process, all they can really mean is that physical objects are not conscious of a goal or a plan. All that really means is that there is some chance involved in the interaction of physical objects (and in that sense they are blind watchmakers), as such that they are not purposely interacting…That in it’s self would not mean there is no goal or plan and we all know that. But if you are an atheist, i imagine that one would want that to mean that there is no purpose to physical existence or physical behavior, which of course is overstepping the legitimacy of scientific statements and i would challenge you to find such a statement within a peer reviewed work…

 

[IWantGod]

This will have to be my last post in this thread for the next couple of weeks (just too busy to discuss the mysteries of the universe for a little while). Have a great Advent Season everyone as you ponder the wonderful workings of the blind, unconscious, automatic process that brought you into existence.

Thanks have a very merry Christ-mas.

 

[Wozza]

IWantGod:

The point I’m making is that, within the realm of possibility, anything is possible with God. With God, i have no reason to doubt that abiogenesis is possible. Whether it happened and how it happened i suppose is up for debate.

So, random chance may not be enough to produce life. Saying that God might have to help blind chance out a little bit in order for abiogenesis to occur is a blatant contradiction to the orthodox scientific model. Thank you for joining us on the psuedoscientific side (I’ve got extra tin-foil hats available if your supply is running low )

Why is this madness perpetuated?

If we are discussing scientific processes then God is not going to get a foot in the door as far as explanations go. Because…wait for it…science only deals with what we describe as the natural aspects of existence. That is, that which complies with natural laws and which we can understand based on those laws. Are you with me so far? Nothing too difficult to grasp yet?

Now this is a Catholic forum so we are going to continue on the basis tbat God is involved in EVERYTHING. Still with me?

So what we describe as being natural does not need an asterix after each decsription which does this:

• Bear in mind that despite not being able to reference God directly, scientific comments in reference to natural processes include the fact that God is involved in all aspects of existence.

Is that clear? Is that understood? The only objections to that could be that science must include the supernatural - which makes it not scientific, so we’ll skip that one. OR that God is not involved - which seeing as you are a Christian we can also skip.

So when science says ‘Random chance’ it means random as far as natural laws are concerned. Now here’s the $64,000 question: Does That Exclude God?

Yes, at the back?

No. It does not. Because despite scientific comments on any given process (by definition) cannot include the Abrahamic God or any other supernatural entity, the processes must be a result of God’s will.

Now is that absolutely clear or are there some here who’s first language is not English who might need further clarification?

Clear? Good. So we can move on.

Now having agreed that God is involved in ALL processes, if we are to discuss how we came to be, then any proposal CANNOT exclude God. And that will include evolution. And to repeat: Evolution CANNOT exclude God. So if it is proposed that it is the overwhelmingly accepted processes which He used to get us to where we are now, it DOES NOT exlude Him.

Please continue.

 

[William_Scott]

Wozza, you’ve forced me out of an early retirement from this thread. I’m afraid you’ve completely missed my point.

I’m a predestinarian like my theological gurus Augustine and Aquinas, so I have no disagreements with God being involved in everything that comes to pass in this world (including upholding moment by moment the natural laws which dictate the consistent workings of the physical world upon which modern science is built).

As hard as it is to fathom when you are speaking to someone as dense as myself, I actually agree that science-strictly speaking-only deals with what we describe as the natural aspects of existence. However, I propose (as your own Bible hints) that there was some point in the past when God just might have done something slightly supernatural in bringing about the universe and life itself. I might even go so far as to say that our scientific observations support (i.e. require) a supernatural origin for the universe and the complex forms of life that we observe around us.

My point in the quoted post is that according to the modern naturalistic origins myth, not only the present universe and all that it contains (including the unspeakable complexities of everything from the living cell to the human brain)–but also its origins–must be explained exclusively through natural processes without any intervening acts of supernatural creation. (Needless to say, I only call the naturalistic origins story a myth because observable natural processes show that abiogenesis and molecule to man evolution are myths)

IWantGod stated that even if “random chance” (i.e. events that happen as a result of the workings of natural laws alone) might not account for the origin of life, God would make it possible. From the standpoint of strictly naturalistic explanations for origins this is a self-evident “God of the gaps” and intelligent design cop-out, in which something outside of natural processes are appealed to in origins. It certainly appears that your faith in the naturalistic origin myths is more solid than that of our brother IWantGod. He may need to take some notes…

I’m out for real this time…may the forces of nature be with you as you prepare for Christmas.