Why evolution doesnt matter.

[Onyx88]

the teaching of mother church is that evolution is a physical theory and has no religious implications to us. Now when several “celebrity atheists" shove ideology into the mix then we have some problems. Evolution per se doesn’t matter in the slightest, and the church declares that this matter is not in her competence, and she tells us to look to the scientific community.

End of story:thumbsup:

this is the most succinct and best answer i’ve ever heard given to this question.

 

[edwest2]

this is the most succinct and best answer i’ve ever heard given to this question.

“this matter is not in her competence”? That is incorrect. Read what Pope Benedict has said:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

“this matter is not in her competence”? That is incorrect. Read what Pope Benedict has said:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

Peace,
Ed

Edwest’s source of information about the Church is the Timesonline. Gimme a break! LOL

 

[edwest2]

Edwest’s source of information about the Church is the Timesonline. Gimme a break! LOL

So the quotes are not accurate?

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjm190]

So the quotes are not accurate?

Peace,
Ed

Whether or not the Pope is convinced by evolutionary evidence is immaterial.

 

[Sair]

Even so, I think you are dismissing the problem in a very simplistic fashion. While I just affirmed that evolution and orthodox Christian doctrine are compatible, evolution is nevertheless quite toxic in many cases to support for Christian belief. Many Catholics, for instance, have maintained a kind of faithful theistic evolution throughout their lives, but for many others, evolution seriously undermines faith in God because it in a significant sense makes God superfluous, an afterthought, an unnecessary part of the explanation.

I think that explains why so many Catholics here militate against the evidence and the facts on the ground concerning evolution. The objection is NOT that evolution cannot be harmonized with Catholic doctrine – manifestly, it can be – but rather that evolution betrays a basic conceit many believers have about their status as humans. Christian theology exalts mankind in an ontological sense – only man is imprinted with the imago dei, only man has the reasoning faculties to apprehend natural law and the noetic facilities for knowing God in a spiritual sense.

Man is fallen, but that “fallenness” itself is proof of man’s ontological primacy in the world; there is hubris in supposing man had somewhere to fall from in the first place.

As Christian, I know I was guilty of this conceit. And while evolution does not and cannot discredit the idea that God made the universe, and utlimately designed the world so that man would be man, in such form that he might enventually be invested with a soul, fashioned in some dualistic way in God’s image, evolution as a mechanical, natural process really takes the pride out of human exceptionalism. Darwin’s dangerous idea was that we are animals in the most thoroughgoing sense, cousins of the chimpanzee and relatives of the lowly cabbage, or even the most virulent bacteria, if we are to trace our lineage back far enough.

I suggest to you that some of the draw of Christian faith – not all of it, but some – obtains from this intuitive desire to classify oneself, one’s kind as “special”. Not just special in some parochial sense, but “cosmically special”. Catholicism can still cater to this innate inclination, but it’s a lot harder to cater to through the filter of evolutionary theory. Evolution places man as an ordinary leaf, like all the other leaves, or a very large and ancient tree. Many have a conceit grounded in the idea that man was “formed from the dust” in some special, hands-on way – a custom job, or as they would say in the UK, “bespoke”.

Evolution works right against this conceit, and while doctrine and faith can be maintained in embracing it, evolution just kills a lot of the joy of the “specialness” many believers are enamored of. If evolution is true, God may still be the Creator, the one forming man with the imago dei, somehow, but it sure does look more remote and mechanistic than it used to. And of course, it continually provides the idea that this is just how things would look if God were imaginary, and that’s something many believers understand, and resist strongly on those grounds.

-TS

Hi, Touchstone - as usual, an elegantly expressed summation of why evolution does matter, not just scientifically, but culturally.

Not only does the scientific theory of evolution wield great explanatory power, but it also carries vast implications for our understanding of our place in the world, and the way we think of and relate to other animals.

Come to think of it, it’s no surprise that Warpspeedpetey, who is quite clearly wedded to an anthropocentric worldview, would so casually dismiss evolutionary theory. There is, however, a lot to be gained from realising that humans are not that different from other creatures. Personally I take great comfort from contemplating the fact that we are all fundamentally connected, rather than trying to maintain some sense of humans’ special separateness.

When I was a Christian, I certainly never found any difficulty in reconciling the theory of evolution with divine creation - after all, I figured someone had to start the ball rolling, at least, and perhaps guide the process. My thinking with regard to origins is rather different now, of course, but in any case, as an explanation for the nature and diversity of species, the theory of evolution is both vast in its scope, and elegant in its simplicity. So, in short, I think it’s difficult to maintain the case that evolution “doesn’t matter”. In the long history of ideas, it’s one of the most powerful ever formulated.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Touchstone - as usual, an elegantly expressed summation of why evolution does matter, not just scientifically, but culturally.

Not only does the scientific theory of evolution wield great explanatory power, but it also carries vast implications for our understanding of our place in the world, and the way we think of and relate to other animals.

Come to think of it, it’s no surprise that Warpspeedpetey, who is quite clearly wedded to an anthropocentric worldview, would so casually dismiss evolutionary theory. There is, however, a lot to be gained from realising that humans are not that different from other creatures. Personally I take great comfort from contemplating the fact that we are all fundamentally connected, rather than trying to maintain some sense of humans’ special separateness.

When I was a Christian, I certainly never found any difficulty in reconciling the theory of evolution with divine creation - after all, I figured someone had to start the ball rolling, at least, and perhaps guide the process. My thinking with regard to origins is rather different now, of course, but in any case, as an explanation for the nature and diversity of species, the theory of evolution is both vast in its scope, and elegant in its simplicity. So, in short, I think it’s difficult to maintain the case that evolution “doesn’t matter”. In the long history of ideas, it’s one of the most powerful ever formulated.

Hi Sair,

Long time no see. I agree with you about Touchstone’s post 10. And consequently, I can understand your comments. I also understand the truth in the OP.

On the other hand, I see extreme sadness in post 10 and post 226. And I see the needed “hope for humanity” in the OP. This is a personal reaction which comes from objective, analytical thinking.

Participants in old threads know that I distinguish between subjective thinking and objective thinking while at the same time recognizing the subjective influences of emotions and prejudices. And yes, I have heard all the arguments about the meanings of objective and subjective and how they are applied differently by different people. That is not the point here. The point is that evolutionary theory in regard to plants and brute animals is a valid theory as I see it. But when evolutionary theory becomes the means of demoting the human species, my objection is accompanied by sadness.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Sair]

The point is that evolutionary theory in regard to plants and brute animals is a valid theory as I see it. But when evolutionary theory becomes the means of demoting the human species, my objection is accompanied by sadness.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

Hi, Granny,

It has indeed been a while since I’ve posted, although I think I’ve overcome my rather petulant reaction to being told by another poster that my perspective wasn’t welcome here!

That aside, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding at work with regard to the way evolutionary theory affects our concept of the human condition. While it is possible to see this as a way of demoting humans to the level of ‘brute’ animals, there are numerous studies that have been done, and others that are currently being done, that would rather have the effect of elevating other species (although that is a culturally loaded term that should be used with extreme caution) to a level comparable with many of our assumptions about human nature. There are in fact studies of other social animals that have shown them to demonstrate behaviours that are akin to human notions of morality.

I guess what I am saying, essentially, is that a considered interpretation of evolutionary theory does not imply a negative reflection upon humanity - rather, it suggests that the scope of our understanding of morality and the purpose of life ought to be extended to include creatures other than ourselves. I, for one, see no problem in assuming an affinity with my dog, for example - he appears able to derive happiness from the simplest of experiences, and there have been many times I have wished I could achieve a similar level of contentment with my life. I truly believe that if we can embrace our fundamentally animal nature, we will discover a level of compassion and understanding that is presently lost to the anthropocentric worldview espoused by the majority of the human species.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Granny,

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding at work with regard to the way evolutionary theory affects our concept of the human condition. While it is possible to see this as a way of demoting humans to the level of ‘brute’ animals, there are numerous studies that have been done, and others that are currently being done, that would rather have the effect of elevating other species (although that is a culturally loaded term that should be used with extreme caution) to a level comparable with many of our assumptions about human nature.

I’m interested in those studies. I’ve started looking into sentience as being a common in humans and animals. Upfront, I consider the human species as different in kind from all other animals. In other words it is a separate and unique species. Yet, we share some of our natural aspects with other animals which is why evolutionists refer to the differences between us and my cousin chilly chimp as different in degrees. While I understand the OP position and the truth in what he is saying, I do believe that evolution does matter perhaps in a different way.

Regarding your concluding paragraph, I have started reading about Descartes and his view of animals. It makes me want to hug anyone’s dog. humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html – courtesy of a poster.

Correct me if I am mistaken. We both see that the evolutionary theory does matter.
We both feel that it is important to understand the animal species per se. Our differences will come when it is time to compare the complete human nature with the complete animal nature. You will see that evolution matters one way and I will see that it matters another. As far as I am concerned it is important to understand both our fundamentally animal material component and our spiritual rational component which are actually unified in one human being. Warning. I do not consider Cartesian dualism as describing the reality of human nature. We also need to understand how the evolutionary theory influences the way we look at ourselves and wonder about the meaning of our lives.

As far as I am concerned, since I need more info about current studies on animals and humans, I would like to see what you have and how you are interpreting the information.

This may be off topic. If you wish, we can move the discussion to the thread “Is there any difference between a chimpanzee and a human?” in Apologetics.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[edwest2]

Hi, Touchstone - as usual, an elegantly expressed summation of why evolution does matter, not just scientifically, but culturally.

Not only does the scientific theory of evolution wield great explanatory power, but it also carries vast implications for our understanding of our place in the world, and the way we think of and relate to other animals.

Come to think of it, it’s no surprise that Warpspeedpetey, who is quite clearly wedded to an anthropocentric worldview, would so casually dismiss evolutionary theory. There is, however, a lot to be gained from realising that humans are not that different from other creatures. Personally I take great comfort from contemplating the fact that we are all fundamentally connected, rather than trying to maintain some sense of humans’ special separateness.

When I was a Christian, I certainly never found any difficulty in reconciling the theory of evolution with divine creation - after all, I figured someone had to start the ball rolling, at least, and perhaps guide the process. My thinking with regard to origins is rather different now, of course, but in any case, as an explanation for the nature and diversity of species, the theory of evolution is both vast in its scope, and elegant in its simplicity. So, in short, I think it’s difficult to maintain the case that evolution “doesn’t matter”. In the long history of ideas, it’s one of the most powerful ever formulated.

It is the great hubris of modern man to dismiss God or to reduce Him to the kick-strarter role and innocent bystander. Evolution, as described here, matters not for its scientific merits, which appear to be few, but for its social engineering potential. After all, it forms the basis of billboards: “Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.” Quite clear. Evolve beyond belief. So what’s left? The mind of man. The mind of man has replaced God for some. But this is not new. A few sayings from the past are relevant here: “Man is the measure of all things,” and “Man invents himself.” Man is alone is a cold, uncaring universe, the result of chemical processes, processes as natural as star formation. Isn’t that wonderful? We’re told that it is wonderful, but as far the product being sold: The Theory of Evolution. I should point out that This Product contains No God.

And there are no peer reviewed, scientific papers commenting on or analyzing the Bible. But the amazing thing is people post here, armed with science which has no origin in actual, testable, repeatable science, to coment on theology. This confirms the marketing plan: get everyone to ‘accept’ evolution and every word that falls from the mind and mouth of man.

Beware my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Whether or not the Pope is convinced by evolutionary evidence is immaterial.

As a Catholic on a Catholic forum, it matters to me what the Holy Father says about this subject. And it matters to a lot of evolutionists who quote Pope John Paul II when they think it supports their case.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjm190]

As a Catholic on a Catholic forum, it matters to me what the Holy Father says about this subject. And it matters to a lot of evolutionists who quote Pope John Paul II when they think it supports their case.

Peace,
Ed

Again, the difference is-

Let’s say Pope says that football and the watching of football are not immoral. The Pope is qualified to make that declaration, hence it should be taken into account- it’s his “Professional opinion.” If the Pope were to add “And the Giants are a sure thing to win the Super Bowl this year,” that would not hold much weight at all since it is his ‘personal opinion.’

John Paul II’s statement that evolution and the Church are not in conflict was a professional statement that he was qualified to make- Benedictine XVI has no authority with respect to the scientific validity of evolution.

 

[ddonuts]

Hi, Touchstone - as usual, an elegantly expressed summation of why evolution does matter, not just scientifically, but culturally.

Not only does the scientific theory of evolution wield great explanatory power, but it also carries vast implications for our understanding of our place in the world, and the way we think of and relate to other animals.

Come to think of it, it’s no surprise that Warpspeedpetey, who is quite clearly wedded to an anthropocentric worldview, would so casually dismiss evolutionary theory. There is, however, a lot to be gained from realising that humans are not that different from other creatures. Personally I take great comfort from contemplating the fact that we are all fundamentally connected, rather than trying to maintain some sense of humans’ special separateness.

When I was a Christian, I certainly never found any difficulty in reconciling the theory of evolution with divine creation - after all, I figured someone had to start the ball rolling, at least, and perhaps guide the process. My thinking with regard to origins is rather different now, of course, but in any case, as an explanation for the nature and diversity of species, the theory of evolution is both vast in its scope, and elegant in its simplicity. So, in short, I think it’s difficult to maintain the case that evolution “doesn’t matter”. In the long history of ideas, it’s one of the most powerful ever formulated.

Of course evolution matters because it is a fact. (If you disagree google my good buddy Dr. Denis Lamoureux, one of the many examples of christians who has done evolutionary science and has the good sense fully accept evolution as a fact). A fact that impacts any theory regarding the origins of the universe, the origins of earth and life on earth, and the reason for the existence of humans.

I truly appreciated Touchstone’s reply. A rare bastion of rationality amongst this unholy see of ignorance. But as a fellow atheist, I disagree that you can reconcile Christianity and evolution.

**Evolution puts the nail in the coffin of traditional Christianity. **

Evolution forces one to question what this Yahweh sky-daddy could really have been up to. Was his plan really to allow 99% of the life forms that ever lived on this planet to go extinct just waiting for us to show up – can we be more self-centered??? Could Yahweh have picked a more brutal, inefficient, painful process than evolution wherein thousands of creatures with pain sensing nervous systems are viciously eaten alive at every moment for the past hundreds of millions of years. I can think of no more immoral a god than Yahweh if he chose to allow this scale of suffering.

Evolution shows us the fact that human beings as we know it have been around for at least 100,000 years, during which time the vast majority of us died very young with no chance for “salvation through Christ”. Humans lived primitively, with undue suffering, struggling to survive, many women dying in childbirth and the rest of us dying in our 20s or even younger. At then finally only some 2000 years ago Yahweh finally decides to step in a due something about it. I can think of no more immoral a god than Yahweh if he chose to allow this scale of suffering.

Evolution means that this myth about Elohim creating a man and woman who screwed it up for the rest of us, and thus eventually requiring Jesus to make things right again is utter nonsense.

Evolution means no Adam and Eve – which means there can be no such thing as original sin. At don’t give me this double-speak about re-interpreting the story as myth that speaks to our human “fallen” nature.

Evolution shows that we are risen apes, not fallen angels.

 

[grannymh]

ddonuts:
Please pardon me for intruding. In my humble opinion, one should separate one’s personal feelings from the empirical method. By the way, Harry Potter books are better than the movies. But then, I like to go to original sources for the real stuff.

 

[Sair]

I’m interested in those studies. I’ve started looking into sentience as being a common in humans and animals. Upfront, I consider the human species as different in kind from all other animals. In other words it is a separate and unique species. Yet, we share some of our natural aspects with other animals which is why evolutionists refer to the differences between us and my cousin chilly chimp as different in degrees. While I understand the OP position and the truth in what he is saying, I do believe that evolution does matter perhaps in a different way.

Regarding your concluding paragraph, I have started reading about Descartes and his view of animals. It makes me want to hug anyone’s dog. humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html – courtesy of a poster.

Correct me if I am mistaken. We both see that the evolutionary theory does matter.
We both feel that it is important to understand the animal species per se. Our differences will come when it is time to compare the complete human nature with the complete animal nature. You will see that evolution matters one way and I will see that it matters another. As far as I am concerned it is important to understand both our fundamentally animal material component and our spiritual rational component which are actually unified in one human being. Warning. I do not consider Cartesian dualism as describing the reality of human nature. We also need to understand how the evolutionary theory influences the way we look at ourselves and wonder about the meaning of our lives.

As far as I am concerned, since I need more info about current studies on animals and humans, I would like to see what you have and how you are interpreting the information.

This may be off topic. If you wish, we can move the discussion to the thread “Is there any difference between a chimpanzee and a human?” in Apologetics.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

It’s amazing what can be seen when we cast off the blinkers of anthropocentrism. Although certain posters here wax rabid on the subject of anthropomorphism, they tend not to notice that their own perspective is a least as limiting and truth-distorting. This is yet another reason that evolution matters - it’s important to realise how animals, including humans, are related to each other in order to understand more about their behaviours. Although it seems to be a very new field of research, I stumbled upon the following article, which contains links to other similar articles referencing research into animal behaviour and cognition:

chronicle.com/article/Moral-in-ToothClaw/48800/

Makes for enlightening and thought-provoking reading… Enjoy!

 

[grannymh]

It’s amazing what can be seen when we cast off the blinkers of anthropocentrism. Although certain posters here wax rabid on the subject of anthropomorphism, they tend not to notice that their own perspective is a least as limiting and truth-distorting. This is yet another reason that evolution matters - it’s important to realise how animals, including humans, are related to each other in order to understand more about their behaviours. Although it seems to be a very new field of research, I stumbled upon the following article, which contains links to other similar articles referencing research into animal behaviour and cognition:

chronicle.com/article/Moral-in-ToothClaw/48800/

Makes for enlightening and thought-provoking reading… Enjoy!

Thanks, I will. I’m traveling to a grandkid’s swim meet – speaking about enjoyment.

 

[grannymh]

there are a number of posts on evolution, and they seem to draw the most attention, which seems funny to me in that Catholics are free to accept or not the ideas of evolution. of course we are not biblical literalists, that is a feature of protestant Christianity. evolution represents a threat to their literal reading of Scripture and thereby their existence, in that the defining precept of protestantism is Sola Scriptura or only the information contained in cannonized Scripture, matters. this is their main seperation from us and therefore evolution is a threat to their very survival.

evolution is not however, a threat to us. it can be absolutely true and still have nothing to do with matters of faith, cosmogony, or Catholicism. ergo, our freedom to accept

that said, evolution in its entirety has several flaws, which i think people like to talk about, abiogenesis, holes in the fossil record, irreducible complexity. all of which make for interesting discussion. (yes, ive heard the arguments back and forth, and no, i dont care to hear more)

but in the end, evolution, one way or the other doesnt matter. **its 13.7 billion years too late. **it says nothing more interesting about faith than “wow, G-d works in mysterious ways”, it doesnt affect the issue of G-ds existence in any way at all.

so evolution simply doesnt matter.

When the rubber hits the road – that is when we approach death – what is it that really matters? At that point, evolution really, really doesn’t matter.

 

[hecd2]

So perhaps you (and other atheists) are incurring now the same mistake of pushing the polygenic view to public acceptance.

Perhaps so, but to be convincing you will have to point out just where the specific errors are in the current scientific consensus and put forward evidence for the alternative. Just saying that it could be wrong doesn’t cut the ice.

I have heard highly qualified people stating exactly the opposite: we might actually all descend from a single couple.

I should like you to give us references to these “highly qualified people”. Because I don’t know of a single population geneticist who specialises in palaeo-demographics who thinks we all descend from a single couple as sole parents.

Charles Darwin himself believed monogenesis was necessary for his evolution theory.

Not in the sense that the human species descend from two sole parents.

I agree with you that the Genesis view is perfectly compatible with polygenesis. So I think the best attitude is to let scientists discuss the topic and then accept the consensus if it ever emerges.

It already has done.

Anyway, I don’t think this question is really answerable and will remain in the immense gallery of questions impenetrable to human reason.

You are too pessimistic. The genomic evidence precludes the possibility of two sole parents in the specific human lineage.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[antunesaa]

Perhaps so, but to be convincing you will have to point out just where the specific errors are in the current scientific consensus and put forward evidence for the alternative.

It is difficult to have scientific consensus on mathematics and physics. Imagine in guys studying “paleo-demographics”. It is almost by definition impossible. (More on this below.) Anyway, the question seems to be of academic relevance only.

I should like you to give us references to these “highly qualified people”.

I can’t give references because I am a professional economist (I guess I am what you would call a “scientist” because my job requires publishing research papers in international peer-reviewed journals). If you are a “population geneticist who specialises in palaeo-demographics”, it’s pointless to waste time doing that because I’m too ignorant on the topic; if you’re not, than you’re just as ignorant as I am and there’s no point exchanging views about something we have no expertise on. The “highly qualified people” was a biology professor at a phd program who was citing research he was aware of. I had that conversation maybe 10 years ago.

Not in the sense that the human species descend from two sole parents.

Again, if you are one of the few “population geneticists who specialise in palaeo-demographics” please be more specific. I quote ipsis verbis from Wikipedia. There are no qualifications there.

It already has done.

I just don’t believe that. I have read scientific magazines like Scientific American or the French Science & Vie since I was 14 (I’m 39) and one thing you see is that theories are constantly being challenged and abandoned, sometimes to be retaken some years later. This is true in all fields without exception. It has happened to theories I have worked on! Now you’re trying to convince me that a “consensus” exists about some obscure topic which is relevant to a few researchers because it **seems **to be slightly more sympathetic to your particular (ir)religious view? I just don’t buy it.

You are too pessimistic. The genomic evidence precludes the possibility of two sole parents in the specific human lineage.

My view here is not pessimistic. Actually I think it’s quite optimistic. Uneasiness about unexplained facts is what draws scientists’ attention to those facts. In my own particular field there is no consensus beyond general principles. People interpret the exact same set of evidence in different ways despite using highly sophisticated mathematical and statistical tools. I would be surprised if they didn’t given the impossibility of replicating the phenomena under study. Now, it seems to me that “population genetics (paleo-demographics specialty)” is hardly a field where people can replicate phenomena. All they can do is interpret data not produced in controlled experiments. So your statement seems unwarranted.

I stress that personally I don’t care whether your statement “the genomic evidence precludes the possibility of two sole parents in the specific human lineage” is true or not. It doesn’t collide with things I hold dear. I just don’t take it too seriously because I am naturally (here “naturally” has more than one meaning) a skeptical guy. Your sentence just seems too assertive to be truly scientific.

 

[edwest2]

And once again, the “science which is silent about God and the supernatural,” ventures into territory it cannot study. Why? To promote atheism.

Peace,
Ed