Why evolution doesnt matter.

[grannymh]

Vincent, what is “directed evolution,” and is there a way to test for it? Would this be a biochemical, a genetic, or a morphological test?

StAnastasia

Directed, effective, defective, whatever one wishes to call materialistic evolution applied to humans… the real test is not biochemical, genetical, morphological or mathematical. Think lost or wandering souls who are turned away from true Catholicism.

Since there is no biochemical, genetical, morphological or mathematical test for soul, what explains its existence when the only knowledge available is materialistic evolution applied to humans which has to fit in with one’s microscope or microscopic view of life?

Fortunately, there are untested humans who have more common sense than some scientists or science groupies. Fortunately for all, Divine Revelation trumps!

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Detales]

rwaechter, you see, this is where we mix apples and oranges. The Word, which may not be entirely symbolized in the Bible, that book actually being a rather obscurantist presentation of that, IS, and has only one meaning. But as it is presented as translation, dogma, and practice by christianist churches, including the Catholic, over time like a millenial game of “telephone,” we are talking about many factors that intervene between The Word and your belief in your particular version of that. The state of awareness of the reader is primary among those. You see, even if you agree with a consensus belief, yours is a limited viewpoint adaptation of that in your own mental context and physical circumstance. So while the Bible may be a poor pointer to the Word, it itself is but a map, not the territory itself, and as is evident, has been interpreted in a myriad ways. Why, there are two religions that are even founded on two halves of the same verse! This confusion of fruits is a common mistake, I grant, (look at the membership of the churches!) but is nevertheless an error.

r~These change because Man changes (…with every wind) and we always want to make things relevant for the times. Are we not capable of only evil in the absence of God? How silly of Jesus not to set all that down in His omniscience at his first coming! You know, even if it was like the Fatima letter to be opened later. And all those poor people who went to hell for eating fish on Friday because the Pope had a friend in the Roman fish market… And it is a sad state for anyone to believe that we are ever without God.

Yes, there we are, that wonderful requirement that I adopt my perception to your limits regarding scripture in order to convince you. I have no need of convincing you. I just wish for you to wake up, and have maybe given some unwelcome hints. And my “ramblings” are in agreement with a system older than Catholicism, one which, in fact, it derived from. As of my own thoughts, my Mentor advised that “One thought thought to be your own is the wall between Heaven and Earth.” There is a scripture worthy of penetration.

And about the last thing I might want is your prayers. Please turn them on yourself and ask to be awake. Then we might discover something together. I would enjoy that!

 

[StAnastasia]

Since there is no biochemical, genetical, morphological or mathematical test for soul, what explains its existence when the only knowledge available is materialistic evolution applied to humans which has to fit in with one’s microscope or microscopic view of life? Blessings, granny

Grannymh, thanks for your post. I think you are right that there is no scientific test for “soul”; what I was asking is whether there is a scientific test for directedness in evolution, or for the intelligent design of the universe.

The problem as I see it is that

(1) if there is a test for design or “directedness,” and the test comes back negative, then either (a) we have disproven design, or (b) we postulate a new gap where we might locate “directedness.”

(2) If there is no test for design or “directedness,” we are left with a theological claim about this.

I rather favor the latter: avoid the god-of-the-gaps argument altogether by avoiding black boxes and irreducible complexities. Study the science and interpret its conclusions in light of our religious experience and our faith tradition.

StAnastasia

 

[S.J]

S.J., I like your post. But what do you mean by “God elevated man”? Does the evolutionary process stop at this point?

Meaning that man was once simply an animal, like a chimp. At some point in history, man was elevated to the special status that we now enjoy. Allegorically speaking, Adam and Eve marked the beginning of this elevation.

I think we will continue to evolve biologically.

 

[donsnow]

Meaning that man was once simply an animal, like a chimp. At some point in history, man was elevated to the special status that we now enjoy. Allegorically speaking, Adam and Eve marked the beginning of this elevation.

I think we will continue to evolve biologically.

Hi, S.J. -

If anthropologists are right, in that most people nowadays are bigger than folks in the Middle Ages and earlier, then we are evolving biologically as we discuss this.

 

[itinerant1]

Grannymh, thanks for your post. I think you are right that there is no scientific test for “soul”; what I was asking is whether there is a scientific test for directedness in evolution, or for the intelligent design of the universe.

The problem as I see it is that

(1) if there is a test for design or “directedness,” and the test comes back negative, then either (a) we have disproven design, or (b) we postulate a new gap where we might locate “directedness.”

(2) If there is no test for design or “directedness,” we are left with a theological claim about this.

I rather favor the latter: avoid the god-of-the-gaps argument altogether by avoiding black boxes and irreducible complexities. Study the science and interpret its conclusions in light of our religious experience and our faith tradition.

StAnastasia

Prior to any theological arguments, whose principles are derived from Revelation, for directedness, purpose, or design at the fundamental level of being, are philosophical demonstrations, whose principles are derived from natural reason alone.

 

[itinerant1]

Meaning that man was once simply an animal, like a chimp. At some point in history, man was elevated to the special status that we now enjoy. Allegorically speaking, Adam and Eve marked the beginning of this elevation.

I think we will continue to evolve biologically.

It always seems to me an awkward way to speak when anyone says that man was previously an animal, or, that any organism B was once an A.

B may have evolved from A, but B was never A. Likewise, man (in reference to his physical body) may have evolved from lower forms X,Y, Z, etc. but man was never an X,Y, or Z, etc. Obviously, man did not exist to be such prior to his appearance on the evolutionary scene.

 

[Detales]

Itinerant1, It seems to me that the way of movement has always been include and transcend. eg, atoms to molecules. Molecules include atoms, but transcend them in gestalt. It is an idea with some fascinating ramifications.

 

[itinerant1]

Itinerant1, It seems to me that the way of movement has always been include and transcend. eg, atoms to molecules. Molecules include atoms, but transcend them in gestalt. It is an idea with some fascinating ramifications.

Directedness: Lifeless matter, to living matter, to increasing complexity with greater and fuller possession of life: non-sentient life, sentient life, and finally rational life, which transcend the limitations of matter.

Matter is “will to live”, and not just survive; it is a striving for the greatest perfection of life possible for the organization of its being.

 

[Detales]

Yes, that view, coupled with the idea that time is only a factor in our type of ordering for our type of awareness limited to 4-D and certain frequency ranges, encourages me to view the Universe as an expression of God knowing Self. The philosophy that espouses that easily accommodates the limits of Catholicism, while Catholicism can’t stretch to the vast implications of that philosophy. I have more experiential reasons that satisfy my own inclination in this direction as well.

I would only differ in that I do not understand matter as being any more lifeless in mud than in Man, save for the level of interior awareness of organization. And we can’t reaaly speak to that from our limits either, not knowing what modes of awareness are accommodated by Consciousness itself.

It does say that "in the beginning was the Word (vibration) and the Word was “with” God, and the Word was God. For me that “with” is in the same sense as a woman is “with” child, the Universe being, perhaps, the Feminine of God.

There is a lot more to it, but I remember hearing such an idea in my childhood and dismissing it. But later, after a life changing experience and the discovery of a philosophy that, unlike the Church, accounted for my experience, I remembered hearing that idea. Ripeness and preparedness have much to do with hearing and seeing, I conclude.

I really like what Walt Whitman once said, and remember my Mentor who functioned similarly. Whitman said “I and mine teach not by discourse or argument, but by Presence.” Presence, that ineffable inclusion and communion that some carry with them as a fragrance like a Rose, is likely, I think, so far in our experience the highest level of that organization available to our mode of perceptions.

 

[rwaechter]

rwaechter, you see, this is where we mix apples and oranges. The Word, which may not be entirely symbolized in the Bible, that book actually being a rather obscurantist presentation of that, IS, and has only one meaning. But as it is presented as translation, dogma, and practice by christianist churches, including the Catholic, over time like a millenial game of “telephone,” we are talking about many factors that intervene between The Word and your belief in your particular version of that. The state of awareness of the reader is primary among those. You see, even if you agree with a consensus belief, yours is a limited viewpoint adaptation of that in your own mental context and physical circumstance. So while the Bible may be a poor pointer to the Word, it itself is but a map, not the territory itself, and as is evident, has been interpreted in a myriad ways. Why, there are two religions that are even founded on two halves of the same verse! This confusion of fruits is a common mistake, I grant, (look at the membership of the churches!) but is nevertheless an error.

r~These change because Man changes (…with every wind) and we always want to make things relevant for the times. Are we not capable of only evil in the absence of God? How silly of Jesus not to set all that down in His omniscience at his first coming! You know, even if it was like the Fatima letter to be opened later. And all those poor people who went to hell for eating fish on Friday because the Pope had a friend in the Roman fish market… And it is a sad state for anyone to believe that we are ever without God.

Yes, there we are, that wonderful requirement that I adopt my perception to your limits regarding scripture in order to convince you. I have no need of convincing you. I just wish for you to wake up, and have maybe given some unwelcome hints. And my “ramblings” are in agreement with a system older than Catholicism, one which, in fact, it derived from. As of my own thoughts, my Mentor advised that “One thought thought to be your own is the wall between Heaven and Earth.” There is a scripture worthy of penetration.

And about the last thing I might want is your prayers. Please turn them on yourself and ask to be awake. Then we might discover something together. I would enjoy that!

Apples and oranges will suffice. Take care.
Ryan

 

[Detales]

So you accept that your faith is based on confusion and mixed messages???

 

[rwaechter]

So you accept that your faith is based on confusion and mixed messages???

Quite the opposite, actually. I believe in sufficiency and inerrancy of scripture. I’ll leave you with these quotes. Please don’t send anymore long winded non-scriptural philosophy- it’s a waste of my time. They don’t mix with my apples

John 5:45-47 Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accused you- Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. but if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe Me words?”

Exodus 20:11 Moses wrote: “For in six days the Lord made the heavans and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it”

If your eyes are opened, you believe it, if God continues to harden you, you will hate it.

Ryan

 

[Detales]

Actually Ryan, I love it. I just read it with different eyes. Moshe and Ieshua were of the same school. What do you think the flight into Egypt was all about? And I know all that, just make something different of it than you believe it to be. The inerrancy you seek is not in a book, but much closer than your own nose. In the mean time your “sufficiency” will do nicely for you. Blessings and Best.

 

[StAnastasia]

Meaning that man was once simply an animal, like a chimp. At some point in history, man was elevated to the special status that we now enjoy. Allegorically speaking, Adam and Eve marked the beginning of this elevation.

I think we will continue to evolve biologically.

I don’t understand the words “simply an animal.” Nor do I understand what “elevation” means in this context.

 

[StAnastasia]

Hi, S.J. - If anthropologists are right, in that most people nowadays are bigger than folks in the Middle Ages and earlier, then we are evolving biologically as we discuss this.

Donsnow, I don’t know that a biologist would say about this. If a medieval child were to be plunked down in a family in 2009 and given the same nutrition and health care enjoyed by others in the family, she or he might grow to the same stature. I don’t disagree with you that everything is still evolving, but in this instance the change in stature might be more nutritional than genetic in cause.

StAnastasia

 

[donsnow]

Donsnow, I don’t know that a biologist would say about this. If a medieval child were to be plunked down in a family in 2009 and given the same nutrition and health care enjoyed by others in the family, she or he might grow to the same stature. I don’t disagree with you that everything is still evolving, but in this instance the change in stature might be more nutritional than genetic in cause.

StAnastasia

Hi, StAnastasia -

You’re right. I just always heard that environment was part of evolution. And, isn’t nutrition part of the environment?

 

[StAnastasia]

Hi, StAnastasia - You’re right. I just always heard that environment was part of evolution. And, isn’t nutrition part of the environment?

Donsnow, yes, both are relevant to evolution, depends on how they contributed to survival. In the Middle Ages, being big probably helped a knight best his foes and disseminate his genes more widely. On the other hand, being crafty and intelligent even if small of stature probably also helped to ensure dissemination of genes. One of the biggest factors in successful reproduction is being alive, so receiving adequate nutrition, having a strong immune system, and having the motivation to remain physically fit probably all contributed to passing on one’s genes to the next generation.

StAnastasia

 

[reggieM]

Let’s put it this way. The common element in the very diverse currents that are labeled fundamentalism here in the West is the search for a certain and simple faith. That is not bad, as far as it goes, for, in the end, faith—as the New Testament repeatedly tells us—was intended precisely for the simple and the little ones … But instead of simply hammering away at fundamentalism—whose definition keeps getting broader and broader—**theologians should ponder to what extent they are to blame **for the fact that increasing numbers of people seek refuge in narrow or unhealthy forms of religion. **When one no longer offers anything but questions **and doesn’t offer any positive way to faith, such flights are inevitable.
— Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger - Salt of the Earth, p. 137

 

[StAnastasia]

Let’s put it this way…When one no longer offers anything but questions

and doesn’t offer any positive way to faith, such flights are inevitable.— Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger - Salt of the Earth, p. 137

Quite right.