Why I consider evolution to be true

[Eucharisted]

1. Science. Science tends to be pretty good at scientific stuff. Granted, it’s not mathematics, but, still pretty accurate. Like gravity and stuff.

2. Human growth. Two organisms join to form a new organism; the egg and sperm join to form a human being. Also, the way the human being evolves in the womb.

3. Climate phases. “Global warming” and “global cooling” are political terms for the way our planet works and has always worked, from the very first days to today. The Earth evolves. It’s a necessary condition for life.

4. Human thought. Your thinking evovles, in the sense that you must go from one thought to another. And as you grow, so dose your mind. Some have defects, but God didn’t create a perfectly ordered world; He created a world on a journey to perfection.

5. Different species. There are a variety of different dogs, cows, fish, and bats, and it’s all because they benefit the ecosystem. If evolution wasn’t true, there wouldn’t be such a diversity. But what some creationists fail to understand is that an evolutionary diversity and God creating diverisity is the same thing; it was God who created the diverse species.

 

[Spiritoftruth]

1. Science.

Science tends to be pretty good at scientific stuff. Granted, it’s not mathematics, but, still pretty accurate. Like gravity and stuff. You could fill a truck where science has been wrong, and you don’t have to look farther then your internet to find a bucket load.

2. Human growth.

But they are still dogs, cows, fish and bats. They did not turn into rats, tigers, and bears… but don’t give up, you have at least convinced yourself…PEACE!

 

[Eucharisted]

But they are still dogs, cows, fish and bats. They did not turn into rats, tigers, and bears… but don’t give up, you have at least convinced yourself…PEACE!

Evolution isn’t a miracle. If you want a miracle, look at Cana and at the Eucharist.

 

[geometer]

Take a course in Biology. You will find that there is no hard science of evolution. Most biology text books make mention of evolution, but no science of it is ever described.

 

[kalt]

But they are still dogs, cows, fish and bats. They did not turn into rats, tigers, and bears… but don’t give up, you have at least convinced yourself…PEACE!

“Science” has been wrong, of course. How do you determine when it’s right? What specific (currently accepted) theories do you accept, and why do you accept them? What specific (currently accepted) theories do you refute, and why do you refute them?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The question I have is this:

If a Catholic (or any Christian really) believes in evolution, how can original sin be reconciled with that belief? In other words, Adam and Eve were the first parents, they sinned against God and the entire race sprang from them. Sin came from the first two and spread to EVERYBODY…

But to say that there were many humans on the earth evolving in different places at different rates in different times, where and how did original sin then infiltrate the human race? If there were no first parents, how did this occur? How can evolution be reconciled to Judeo-Christian understanding of sin?

If there is no original sin then there is no need for a Messiah…

 

[adstrinity]

The question I have is this:

If a Catholic (or any Christian really) believes in evolution, how can original sin be reconciled with that belief? In other words, Adam and Eve were the first parents, they sinned against God and the entire race sprang from them. Sin came from the first two and spread to EVERYBODY…

But to say that there were many humans on the earth evolving in different places at different rates in different times, where and how did original sin then infiltrate the human race? If there were no first parents, how did this occur? How can evolution be reconciled to Judeo-Christian understanding of sin?

If there is no original sin then there is no need for a Messiah…

No, the first human beings that evolved were given souls. There were only two who evolved and then they bred.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No, the first human beings that evolved were given souls. There were only two who evolved and then they bred.

So you’re saying that humanity evolved all over the world and then the first two that evolved were given souls (this all being your opinion of course, it is stated like it is fact lol) and then their decendents the same thing. But evolutionary theory shows humans at different levels of evolution living side by side. For example, Homo Habilis living at the same time as Homo Erectus. Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals also lived at the same time. And they did not all live in the same location. I find it hard to believe that only two developed to a state where they were given souls and the rest were discarded? I doubt that only two “evolved” and the rest all over the place never made it? And at what point were they evolved enough to merit a soul?

This is a tough concept to pin down.

 

[adstrinity]

No, I’m pretty sure the Pope (JPII) stated that the first humans were endowed with souls. We are not allowed to believe we have mulitple parents but, only Adam & Eve. Was evolution going on all over the world? Don’t know. The climate could have met other right conditions so that the first and only humans to evolve were in the middle east (NOT Africa). The moment that the first man and the first woman got souls was the instant they became human.

 

[Michelin]

The question I have is this:

If a Catholic (or any Christian really) believes in evolution, how can original sin be reconciled with that belief? In other words, Adam and Eve were the first parents, they sinned against God and the entire race sprang from them. Sin came from the first two and spread to EVERYBODY…

But to say that there were many humans on the earth evolving in different places at different rates in different times, where and how did original sin then infiltrate the human race? If there were no first parents, how did this occur?

Bear in mind that the creation account and the story of the Garden of Eden given in Genesis is not and never was intended by its divinely inspired author to be a scientific treatise. Several interpretations consistent with natural science and the sacred text are possible.

Among scientists who study human origins, the Multiregional hypothesis of human origins to which you refer has been supplanted by the Out of Africa hypothesis. This latter hypothesis, based on the latest fossil evidence and genetic research, proposes that all modern humans descend from a small ancestral group, possibly as small as a single pair. This view is consistent with our best scientific account today of human origins and it heartens those who prefer to believe that God made Adam and Eve separate from any physical ancestry to other creatures.

Some other equally pious believers prefer to believe that the Genesis account of God breathing onto Adam means that His creation of mankind occurred when He fused the souls of our first parents to their matter and the potential of self-aware consciousness was placed within them and then awakened. In this view, the non-human mud to which the second story of Creation refers as the matter He used to form Adam’s physical body is non-human matter that includes in some way the matter of earlier-created life. (Soil, by the way, is teeming with life and it is likely that the inspired author understood that.) This view is also consistent with our best scientific account today of human origins and it (or something like it) is preferred by those who prefer to believe that God made Adam and Eve in a way that connects mankind to the other creatures of His creation.

In such ways the theory of evolution can be reconciled to a Christian understanding of the Original Sin.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Evolution is nothing more than an orderly development from simpler to more complex forms.

Isn’t this the theme of Genesis 1?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Bear in mind that the creation account and the story of the Garden of Eden given in Genesis is not and never was intended by its divinely inspired author to be a scientific treatise. Several interpretations consistent with natural science and the sacred text are possible.

Among scientists who study human origins, the Multiregional hypothesis of human origins to which you refer has been supplanted by the Out of Africa hypothesis. This latter hypothesis, based on the latest fossil evidence and genetic research, proposes that all modern humans descend from a small ancestral group, possibly as small as a single pair. This view is consistent with our best scientific account today of human origins and it heartens those who prefer to believe that God made Adam and Eve separate from any physical ancestry to other creatures.

Some other equally pious believers prefer to believe that the Genesis account of God breathing onto Adam means that His creation of mankind occurred when He fused the souls of our first parents to their matter and the potential of self-aware consciousness was placed within them and then awakened. In this view, the non-human mud to which the second story of Creation refers as the matter He used to form Adam’s physical body is non-human matter that includes in some way the matter of earlier-created life. (Soil, by the way, is teeming with life and it is likely that the inspired author understood that.) This view is also consistent with our best scientific account today of human origins and it (or something like it) is preferred by those who prefer to believe that God made Adam and Eve in a way that connects mankind to the other creatures of His creation.

In such ways the theory of evolution can be reconciled to a Christian understanding of the Original Sin.

Great post, Michelin. Thanks!

Oh, but I have to tell ya, I prefer Bridgestone.

 

[kalt]

So you’re saying that humanity evolved all over the world and then the first two that evolved were given souls (this all being your opinion of course, it is stated like it is fact lol) and then their decendents the same thing. But evolutionary theory shows humans at different levels of evolution living side by side. For example, Homo Habilis living at the same time as Homo Erectus. Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals also lived at the same time. And they did not all live in the same location. I find it hard to believe that only two developed to a state where they were given souls and the rest were discarded? I doubt that only two “evolved” and the rest all over the place never made it? And at what point were they evolved enough to merit a soul?

This is a tough concept to pin down.

Human beings didn’t evolve all over the world. Habilis, Erectus, and Neandertals weren’t human. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the species we belong to.

 

[kalt]

Bear in mind that the creation account and the story of the Garden of Eden given in Genesis is not and never was intended by its divinely inspired author to be a scientific treatise. Several interpretations consistent with natural science and the sacred text are possible.

Among scientists who study human origins, the Multiregional hypothesis of human origins to which you refer has been supplanted by the Out of Africa hypothesis. This latter hypothesis, based on the latest fossil evidence and genetic research, proposes that all modern humans descend from a small ancestral group, possibly as small as a single pair. This view is consistent with our best scientific account today of human origins and it heartens those who prefer to believe that God made Adam and Eve separate from any physical ancestry to other creatures.

Some other equally pious believers prefer to believe that the Genesis account of God breathing onto Adam means that His creation of mankind occurred when He fused the souls of our first parents to their matter and the potential of self-aware consciousness was placed within them and then awakened. In this view, the non-human mud to which the second story of Creation refers as the matter He used to form Adam’s physical body is non-human matter that includes in some way the matter of earlier-created life. (Soil, by the way, is teeming with life and it is likely that the inspired author understood that.) This view is also consistent with our best scientific account today of human origins and it (or something like it) is preferred by those who prefer to believe that God made Adam and Eve in a way that connects mankind to the other creatures of His creation.

In such ways the theory of evolution can be reconciled to a Christian understanding of the Original Sin.

Soil is what the writers knew about. You plant seeds in soil, and things develop. I don’t think there’s any reason to insist on a literal interpretation of using clay, mud, dust, whatever to make man.

It seems that people assume that the men who wrote the Bible were simpletons who were capable of nothing more than writing literally. Is it so hard to believe that the writer used something common (planting, growing) to tell about God? Because, in the end the Bible is about God, not us. Seems we forget that, too. Genesis is there to tell us about God not human origins. Or maybe I have it wrong. Opinions?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Human beings didn’t evolve all over the world. Habilis, Erectus, and Neandertals weren’t human. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the species we belong to.

I’m well aware of that, Kalt. Thanks. I have to teach this curriculum in my sixth grade class every year at the beginning of the first semester. However, Homo Habilis, Erectus are indeed considered stages by many scientists, before homo sapiens. They were the early versions of homo sapiens on a ladder of evolution. At least that is a popular theory. And Neanderthals were extremely human in behavior, considered a cousin to homo sapiens that went in another direction. They had burial ceremonies for the dead and some religious sensibilities and human behavior. They were outsmarted, pushed out of France/Germany warm territories by homo sapiens and ultimately didn’t have enough females left with which to breed. They were basically choked out and killed off. We don’t know what their potential truly was? Human fully or not? There are so many theories and unanswered questions.

 

[SHW]

Here’s my question:

Since death supposedly did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned, then how can evolution be true since many things had to live and die in order to evolve?

CCC 1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered.

Just thought of this: Unless, of course, nothing at all died, but still evolved from generation to generation, until after Adam’s sin. I guess this is possible.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Of course, if Genesis 1 is literally true, then what did lions and wolves and other carnivores eat?

Even a PLANT dies if we eat it. And according to Genesis 2, Adam and Eve were allowed to eat plants.

 

[SHW]

Of course, if Genesis 1 is literally true, then what did lions and wolves and other carnivores eat?

Even a PLANT dies if we eat it. And according to Genesis 2, Adam and Eve were allowed to eat plants.

Grass?

Animals can feel pain as do humans. As far as I know, plants do not feel pain. Perhaps they were only in the garden for one day only and sinned on that same first day. We do not know for sure how many hours were in a “day” since Peter claims in 2 Peter 3:8 “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

 

[adstrinity]

Here’s my question:

Since death supposedly did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned, then how can evolution be true since many things had to live and die in order to evolve?

CCC 1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered.

Just thought of this: Unless, of course, nothing at all died, but still evolved from generation to generation, until after Adam’s sin. I guess this is possible.

That is a possibility, as is this: What is death? It is ceasing to be or is the Inspired Narrator of this tale explaining separation from God? The moment Our First Parent’s got immortal souls is the moment they became human. Maybe other things had died, plants, monkeys, lizards, but, since they weren’t man, we’re not concerned about them being separated from God since they could never be with Him to begin with.

Possible?

bpbasilphx brings up a good point as well. I was taught (by a Full Bible Middle school) that all the carni/omni vores before the fall were all herbivores. Still, let’s say that wolves could survive on carrots and broccoli…they had to stop growing/living for that to happen.

If we are to take into account literal interpretations, maybe nobody had a need to eat before the fall. …Until Adam & Eve?

 

[kalt]

I’m well aware of that, Kalt. Thanks. I have to teach this curriculum in my sixth grade class every year at the beginning of the first semester. However, Homo Habilis, Erectus are indeed considered stages by many scientists, before homo sapiens. They were the early versions of homo sapiens on a ladder of evolution. At least that is a popular theory. And Neanderthals were extremely human in behavior, considered a cousin to homo sapiens that went in another direction. They had burial ceremonies for the dead and some religious sensibilities and human behavior. They were outsmarted, pushed out of France/Germany warm territories by homo sapiens and ultimately didn’t have enough females left with which to breed. They were basically choked out and killed off. We don’t know what their potential truly was? Human fully or not? There are so many theories and unanswered questions.

Habilis and Erectus weren’t early stages of homo sapiens. They were Habilis and Erectus which are distinct species–from each other and from homo sapiens sapiens. You seem to be thinking that anything that walked on 2 feet was human. This is not true. I hope you’ll do some research before next term. If you understand the concepts better, your students will benefit. Tell me you haven’t been teaching them that habilis and erectus were human!!