I
itinerant1
Guest
I forgot the link to the article I quoted from: Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
What I really don’t understand is why there is all this back and forth about birds and bacteria evolving.
The only place that evolution does matter is how it is applied to the human species.
I would think that money and time would be better spent on understanding human nature within an evolving environment. Why don’t the creationist and ID people figure that out? And put pressure on scientists to work on the prime question?
Blessings,
granny
Human life is the apple of God’s eye.
The only place that evolution does matter is how it is applied to the human species.
I would think that money and time would be better spent on understanding human nature within an evolving environment. Why don’t the creationist and ID people figure that out? And put pressure on scientists to work on the prime question?
Blessings,
granny
Human life is the apple of God’s eye.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
All of this discussion – while lively – is irrelevant if we read the Genesis narrative as allegory and theological symbol.
E
edwest2
Guest
Hello granny,
Science is a business. Expensive equipment is required and results. No results in a given period of time and no more money.
Human nature? Evolutionary psychology tells us that our genes molded us to become the beings we are naturally.
Intelligent Design is concerned with the complex factories that exist in cells. It would appear that their origin cannot be explained by random events, especially when various parts need to be in place, working together, before a function can be performed.
Peace,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
On the other hand, I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition,
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
The only place that evolution does matter is how it is applied to the human species.
Relevant discussion should lead to understanding human nature within an evolving environment. Birds and bacteria are minor compared to soul and matter.
I can’t figure out why there is such a lack of interest in the key issue of the origin of the fully complete human being. Probably that is because it is so much easier to treat the human as corporeal anatomy. Allegory, symbols and especially limited genomic research based on interesting assumptions–all sound like a cop out to me.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I would qualify that statement. I am not sure if you would agree with this, but the interest of the Church in evolution is primarily that it involves man, and his nature.
Science has a it’s own interest, which includes explaining the origin of species, their biological relations, and so on.
What is relevant for research and discussion largely depends on one’s interests. For many of us the human being and his spiritual soul is more important both in itself and to those who understand man as a part of but also above nature.
For an extreme Darwinist, man is no more significant than any other species. Aside from the materialist philosophy behind such a view, I think the view is intellectually perverse.
It is a simplified approach to the subject. The whole purpose of the Descent of Man was to show how evolution theory could fully explain the human being.
I would say Darwin overextended his theory when he made his major attempt to attack what he called “the citadel,” the mind of man. There is something quite incoherent in using one’s mind to attack the mind.
Still, if one wants to understand just the pre-history of the human body in natural processes on the planet, then there will be a wider interest in evolution theory itself.
If evolution theory possesses any legitimacy, and I think there is a true ground for evolution, then it should be of interest just as any science is. How did we get to the top of the food chain despite the fact a simple, barely-living thing like a virus can knock us for a loop?
Aside from all that, evolution theory, cannot properly address the really interesting and the most important questions about man, even though materialist evolutionists, i.e. extreme Darwinians, always try. More than science is needed to fully explain the human being. I know there are certain folks on CAF that disagree with that statement, but I will repeat it anyway: More than science is needed to fully explain the human being as a person with an intellect, free-will, and reflective consciousness.
I was wondering whether this chart below is a reasonably accurate representation of the descent of man:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=4715
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Allegory and symbol are not cop-outs, at least not to Catholics. Witness the important symbolism of bread and wine, oil, light, ashes, palms, gestures, rings, mitres, croziers, vestments, crosses, altars, music…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
We’re not necessarily at the top of the food chain. In the sea to top niches would be occupied by sharks, killer whales, etc. As tertiary consumers, we’re up there, but we’re not alone.
I
itinerant1
Guest
True. I wasn’t speaking with exactness on the point. I don’t think the evolution chart is exact, either, but funny.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Yes, but no. Methinks you missed granny’s innuendo.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Italian suppository
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granted – you’re right about that! There are many such charts, each emphasizing some different aspect about the ramifying bush of life.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Certainly, bushes not ladders.
G
grannymh
Guest
Allegory and symbols are cop-outs when specific Catholic doctrine is distorted. This is far different than examples of croziers, ashes, vestments, etc which serve as support for beliefs.
G
grannymh
Guest
First, there is quite a bit more than the emergence of fully human cognition in regard to the human species. One could conceivably view the fully complete human being as macro evolution.
Possibility??
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Quite true.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Regarding human cognition, the classical philosophical arguments that demonstrate the non-material, spiritual nature of man’s intellect or intellective soul possesses a degree of certitude sufficient enough to logically warrant scientist to re-evaluate their interpretation of the genetics data in regard to human origins and the denial of primal human parents because the latter interpretation possesses less certitude.First, there is quite a bit more than the emergence of fully human cognition in regard to the human species. One could conceivably view the fully complete human being as macro evolution.
That is, the intellective or rational soul does not admit of a “gradual emergence.” It is an all or none reality. A primate is either human (rational animal) or it is not. There can be no middle ground or a being that is partially human. The intellective soul cannot partially exist. It either is or it is not.
Francisco Ayala gets around addressing this problem by his “believing” human consciousness to be an epiphenomena. That may appear to simplify some problems for science in his mind, but it only creates many more problems than the few it supposedly resolves.
This issue concerns the true nature of man, which when understood, at least in a reasonably accurate manner, discloses that hominisation does not fit neatly into a strict biological continuum with his ancestors.
In summary, I cannot take the latest scientific interpretation of human genetics as disproving a bottleneck or a primal pair of humans as anywhere near a certainty. Again, said interpretation creates many new and irresolvable problems while resolving none absolutely.
B
bluelake
Guest
petey,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.
It depends on which book you want to put your faith in, the Bible or a science book.
Read Gen.1
God bless,
bluelake
N
NowAgnostic
Guest
Not at all. Why is there a conflict between the non-material, spiritual nature of man’s intellect and the interpretation of the genetics data and the denial of primal human parents (I assume you mean by this a denial that there was a bottleneck of two)? Why is it a logical contradiction to accept both the genetics data and its implications and a non-material, spiritual nature of man?
Yeah, but wait a minute. Granted, either the capacity for rational thought is either there or it is not. But the physical conditions necessary for rational thought in humans do, in fact, admit of a gradual emergence, as we see clearly in brain development in early childhood. Even theologians themselves admit humans only obtain the “age of reason” by about age seven or so, as then the brain has sufficiently developed.
You, as a Catholic, of course, are bound to the position that a embryo or fetus has a soul. It isn’t really a position that can be rationally defended, for an embryo or fetus has no capacity for rational thought. In fact theologians in the past have hypothesized that perhaps the embryo is only “ensoulled” 40 or 80 days after conception.
I deny this. The capacity for intellectual thought clearly fits neatly into a strict developmental continuum when you look at the development of the brain. Therefore it can fit into an evolutionary continuum as well - that all life has the potential for rational thought, but it only arises in fact when there develops, through an evolutionary process, a necessary organ (such as the brain). This is in fact what we see when we look at the evolutionary development of the brain.
The only way you can refute this argument is to dogmatically assert that lower life forms don’t have the potential for rational thought because they just don’t. Now I’m sure you will dig in your heels and do just that but don’t pretend you’re using logic and reason - you’re just arguing by assertion.
It may create “irresolvable” problems for the Church but that’s just too bad. It doesn’t create irresolvable problems for science or reason.
- Status