Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[mVitus]

I don’t think I’ve read the opinion here at any point that all life is as it was since the 6th day.

I’ve seen a couple over the various iterations of this topic. They haven’t stayed active but there have been a couple.

The main point I’m making however is that Buffalo was in error when he said

She accepts micro to be true.

He would’ve been on solid if all he claimed was that the Church sees no contradiction in faith between the idea of that only microevolution occurs and faith, but he didn’t. He went beyond what he could claim and said that the Church claims it as fact.

I’ve made clear my position is in favor of evolution, but I’ve tried throughout to also make clear that a Catholic accepting evolution is, theologically speaking, just permitted, not required. And that while I will disagree with the scientific accuracy other views, they are theologically permissible.

So even though I accept evolution, Buffalo saying the the Church accepts change Over time as true, not merely unopposed to faith, draws criticism from me.

 

[Edgar]

If those details are figurative rather than scientifically precise, then we can interpret them so that evolution is actually the mechanism God used to accomplish His creation of the varieties of life.

… until you get to Genesis 2:7 - Adam was created from inanimate matter, therefore human evolution, at least, is a theological impossibility.

The gaps you speak of are an expected consequence of examining a tiny fraction of the record of life. Most organisms did not leave any record at all, fossil or otherwise, since they were eaten by other organisms and bones rotted before any permanent record could be left. As we find more fossils the gaps begin to fill in, but there will always be gaps.

Perhaps so, but one has to take into consideration the tendency of evolutionists to inject wishful thinking and outright fantasy into their interpretation of fossils … and the longer the gaps remain, the more desperate they become to “fill them in”.

 

[buffalo]

but is unscientific and based on faulty logic.

Really? How so?

 

[buss0042]

Except Genesis is not a scientific book?

 

[Edgar]

My opinion is, Genesis is not scientific until Adam comes on the scene. Then Genesis become ‘scientific’ in the sense that, post-Adam, it describes literal history.

 

[buss0042]

By what authority do you claim it to be scientific, literal history? Because I have a source that says otherwise. So lets compare sources and see what we come up with?

 

[Edgar]

By what authority do you claim it to be scientific, literal history? Because I have a source that says otherwise. So lets compare sources and see what we come up with?

My “source” is the testimony of thousands of years of traditional exegesis, which is no doubt based on the fact that after Adam, the text reads like literal history and not myth or fable. The Martyrology of the Catholic Church provides precise dates for the creation of Adam and for Noah’s flood, implying a literal reading of Genesis history.

 

[buss0042]

My source is a little more condensed - its Joseph Ratzinger, now known as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Here, https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm, in the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1994, he writes the following:

“The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.”

“Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.”

A bit long, to be sure, but I’d like to see what you say about it

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If those details are figurative rather than scientifically precise, then we can interpret them so that evolution is actually the mechanism God used to accomplish His creation of the varieties of life.

… until you get to Genesis 2:7 - Adam was created from inanimate matter, therefore human evolution, at least, is a theological impossibility.

That is a non-canonical interpretation of Genesis. Trust the Church, please.

The gaps you speak of are an expected consequence of examining a tiny fraction of the record of life. Most organisms did not leave any record at all, fossil or otherwise, since they were eaten by other organisms and bones rotted before any permanent record could be left. As we find more fossils the gaps begin to fill in, but there will always be gaps.

Perhaps so, but one has to take into consideration the tendency of evolutionists to inject wishful thinking…

One has to take that into consideration if one has already made up one’s mind that evolution is wishful thinking. It is called circular thinking. To prove evolutionists are wrong you start out assuming evolutionists are wrong.

 

[buss0042]

The martyrology you refer to is found in the Bible, Genesis I’m guessing? The problem with relying on these texts for precise dates is that histories were not written or utilized the way the are today - ancient historical texts aren’t the equivalent of modern historical texts. In that regard, the numbers we see are largely symbolic of large passings of time, and are not meant to be precise as they would be if they were created today.

 

[buss0042]

The names of Noah’s sons aren’t translated from the native language in any Bible - they’re in the native language, simply transliterated instead of translated. When translated, they are the names of ancient lands, such as Egypt and Greece - meaning that “Noah’s sons” weren’t literal people, they were groups of people that ended up settling in various areas of the ancient world after what was likely a large regional flood. The dates they give were, again, not used as we would use them today, because those societies had different methods for conveying the passing of time.

 

[buss0042]

Lots of replies, my apologies - the fact that these stories of Genesis are not scientific or historical literal stories does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that the theological truths they convey are false - they are unequivocally and unflinchingly truth.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

buss0042:

By what authority do you claim it to be scientific, literal history? Because I have a source that says otherwise. So lets compare sources and see what we come up with?

My “source” is the testimony of thousands of years of traditional exegesis, which is no doubt based on the fact that after Adam, the text reads like literal history and not myth or fable. The Martyrology of the Catholic Church provides precise dates for the creation of Adam and for Noah’s flood, implying a literal reading of Genesis history.

How do you square your interpretation of “thousands of years of traditional exegesis” with the Catechism, that somehow neglected to make the exact point you are trying to make? Specifically, how do you square your interpretation with paragraph #283 of the Catechism, which I quoted earlier and which seems to contradict you?

 

[mVitus]

Really? How so?

Please don’t dodge the initial point. I asked for a magisterial document stating microevolution was a Church Teaching given your claim. Will you admit there is none?

 

[buffalo]

Please don’t dodge the initial point. I asked for a magisterial document stating microevolution was a Church Teaching given your claim. Will you admit there is none?

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.

 

[buffalo]

“No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes. R. Junker and S. Scherer, in their ‘critical reader’ on evolution, have this to say: ‘Many examples of such developmental steps [micro-evolutionary processes] are known to us from natural processes of variation and development. The research done on them by evolutionary biologists produced significant knowledge of the adaptive capacity of living systems, which seems marvelous.’ They tell us, accordingly, that one would therefore be quite justified in describing the research of early development as the reigning monarch among biological disciplines. … Within the teaching about evolution itself, the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: ‘There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.’” The Truth of Christianity - Joseph Ratzinger

 

[Metis1]

Again, I have yet to read any scientific evidence whatsoever that has it that “micro-evolution” somehow miraculously stops before becoming “macro-evolution”. Why is it that those who make such a claim cannot provide any evidence from actual scientific sources?

Answer: there ain’t any as it’s strictly a fabrication put forth by some who insist that the creation accounts must be taken literally, which is really quite absurd as these accounts simply do not at all match what the scientific evidence dealing with both the creation of our universe and life here on Earth indicates. If literalism was only that which is available, one could maybe take that position, but it simply ain’t the only available interpretation of these accounts.

The Church simply does not endorse the concept that all of scripture must be taken at the literalistic level. Aquinas, for example, believed that if one took that position, then Jesus could not possibly be the Messiah.

 

[buffalo]

Again, I have yet to read any scientific evidence whatsoever that has it that “micro-evolution” somehow miraculously stops before becoming “macro-evolution”. Why is it that those who make such a claim cannot provide any evidence from actual scientific sources?

Miraculously? It is by design macro-evolution does not happen. Over and over I have given scientific sources that show macro does not happen. Why do you deny these so?

 

[buffalo]

Consistent with philosophy, genetics and the second law what we actually observe is devolution.

 

[Metis1]

Miraculously? It is by design macro-evolution does not happen. Over and over I have given scientific sources that show macro does not happen. Why do you deny these so?

Is it possible for you to link these sources to me as I have not seen them? I have asked my question quite a few times before both here and at another website and never saw an answer.