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

[o_mlly]

Yes, “evolution” is a loaded word and I would prefer to avoid using it to describe my interpretation …

Atheists insist on the use of the word “evolution” because they see it as a substitute for the word “creation” which is anathema to them because the correlate of “creation” is Creator.

To evolve is to change from the simple to the complex gradually. But the simple cannot pull itself up by its own bootstraps. How then do atheists explain this miracle of complexity? Well, they don’t.

The theist and the atheist agree on proven factual evidence. But the empirical “science” ends with those observed facts. Now, both atheist and theist enter the philosophical realm, specifically the metaphysical – How to rationally connect the observed data into a meaningful and coherent explanation?

The theist does so maintaining the metaphysical principles/laws guiding rational thought about the physical world, i.e., non-contradiction, excluded middle, principle of sufficient reason. However, the atheist suspends whatever principles impede his atheistic bias. Who has the more rational explanation of the existence of complex beings? Clearly the theist does.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Right, that’s my point… the idea of evolution is too simplified.The cold environment change would not only affect the brown bear, but would also affect whole environment that the brown bear is connected to.

No, it is your understanding and characterization of evolution that is too simplified.

 

[Aloysium]

But if the first life-forms God created were microbes and later He added various creatures until He got to man, this could be described as an “evolution” of some sort.

Of course, it’s such a slippery word. I have no idea most of the time what people are arguing for or against when they use it.

By far, people will agree that there once existed dinosaurs, if that is an issue, and that God created everything in a step-wise fashion, six days, whatever that signifies.

We can be said to be personally evolving into our eternal selves, along the Way, but that would because we participate in our own creation, surrendering ourselves as fallen mankind to the one true vine, Jesus Christ.

Creatures themselves do not evolve, nor does the kind of being they are; they change in accordance with what they are and in response to their environment, as do their offspring from progenitors for similar reasons and as they pursue in a mate, the instinctive dreams and desires placed in their “hearts”.

Greater complexity of being must be created utilizing the pre-existing hierarchy. I would say that technically, it is not evolution we see in nature, but creation.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So, Adam and Eve came from soulless animal creatures ?

Yes. Yes, they did. (Well… not soul-less. All living things have a soul that animates them, but they did lack rational souls.)

When it was time to begin Humanity in earnest, God instilled rational souls into our first parents. They were the first that could truly be called human. This is completely in keeping with Church teaching.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I agree. They cannot discuss the specific mechanics because they reject the supernatural. That was kind of my point. ^^ They can comment and be correct about the physical mechanics of evolution, but lack the understanding of the guidance and direction from God.

 

[Edgar]

Of course, it’s such a slippery word. I have no idea most of the time what people are arguing for or against when they use it.

Yes, even “evolution” and “the theory of evolution” are different things. When Dobzhansky said “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (the title of his famous essay), he was correct, as “evolution” in biological science is the facts of microevolution - mutations, natural selection, horizontial gene tranfer, changes in gene frequency, speciation.
But if one reads this essay one discovers that he wasn’t referring to “evolution”, but “the theory of evolution” which includes the entire (alleged) evolutionary history of life on earth - in which case, he was wrong, as nothing in applied biology depends on the concept of Darwin’s tree and the Universal Common Ancestor.

 

[Edgar]

When it was time to begin Humanity in earnest, God instilled rational souls into our first parents. They were the first that could truly be called human. This is completely in keeping with Church teaching.

So Eve didn’t come from Adam’s rib?

 

[Edgar]

They can comment and be correct about the physical mechanics of evolution, but lack the understanding of the guidance and direction from God.

But if the “mechanics of evolution” are guided and directed by God, they are not natural, so they cannot be described by science and cannot be reproduced in any experiment. Pierre-Paul Grasse accepted that evolution occured, based on the evidence of the fossil record, but believed science isn’t capable of explaining its mechanism. He was of the opinion that Darwinism was a very inadequate and overrated theory.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So Eve didn’t come from Adam’s rib?

Personally, no, I don’t believe she literally did. I believe that language was used specifically to show that the sexes are equal. (Rather than coming from the head, showing superiority, or the leg / foot, showing inferiority. )

However, God totally could have made Eve form Adam’s rib after granting Adam a soul. I don’t know, wasn’t there to watch. I have no issue with either understanding.

But if the “mechanics of evolution” are guided and directed by God, they are not natural, so they cannot be described by science and cannot be reproduced in any experiment. Pierre-Paul Grasse accepted that evolution occured, based on the evidence of the fossil record, but believed science isn’t capable of explaining its mechanism. He was of the opinion that Darwinism was a very inadequate and overrated theory.

Being guided by God doesn’t mean it’s not natural. I can shape a tree as it grows to produce a specific form, but the growth of that tree remains natural. Similarly, God can determine exactly when to instill a specific mutation through the natural process conception. Science shows us that mutations occur over time. That’s all. It cannot speak to an external source for these mutations (or, external determination for when these mutations occur.)

You’re trying to mix two branches of thought. There is the science, which can tell us the physical processes of species development, and there is the theology, which tells us that God is in control.

 

[Wozza]

ProdglArchitect:

They can comment and be correct about the physical mechanics of evolution, but lack the understanding of the guidance and direction from God.

But if the “mechanics of evolution” are guided and directed by God, they are not natural…

Either God is involved with the whole of creation or He is not. I cannot for the life of me understand this argument. It’s as if people are claiming that evolution is a process over which God has chosen not to excercise any control.

He has either made a decision on how things turn out, by whatever means, or He has not. If evolution is the process which the evidence points to then that is the process He has chosen to operate within the physical laws which He created. And if He has chosen to use those laws which we class as natural then are we not therefore obliged to descibe evolution as a natural process?

If you think that organisms just popped into existence by divine fiat then you are a fundamentalist and we will describe that method as being supernatural. Failing that, then the process was carried out withing the physical aws dictated by God, whicb we describe as natural laws and we shall therefore describe evolution as being natural.

I mean, where is the problem here? Even an atheist like myself is frustrated by the inability of Catholics to grasp this

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You basically just described my argument better than I was describing it

Do you mind if I borrow that in the future?

 

[edwest]

She did. Literally. (10 characters)

 

[Richca]

Techno2000:

True, but to me the scale tips in favor of instantaneously, because nothing in the Bible even hints of gradualism.

Why should it?

The Bible is not a treatise on the mechanics of creation, it is a narrative on the nature of God’s relationship with us. There is no reason to include the literal mechanics of creation because they are inconsequential to the question.

Translation = The Evolutionists Bible.

In my reading of the Bible, the ‘mechanics of creation’ according to the sacred writers is the creative activity and power of God. In other words, God himself is the Creator and Mechanic of creation.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

None of that disagrees with my position. I just think He created over the course of billions of years, rather than instantaneously.

 

[Richca]

I agree with this. Creation is supernatural, the direct supernatural creative activity of God like a miracle such as the immediate creation of each human being’s soul or the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the virginal womb of Mary. Evolution is described as a natural process of nature so it would pertain to God’s providence which is distinct from creation and presupposes creation. I think Edgar is viewing divine providence from its source which is God and that is supernatural. Providence is generally understood as God directing, guiding, and preserving in existence that which he has created and according to the various creatures natures or laws he has imprinted on them. Creation is the creation of creatures and their natures.

To avoid confusion, what creationists mean by creation is God’s direct, immediate, and supernatural creative activity as I said above. Evolution is a natural process and not creation in a technical sense or understood as a supernatural, direct, and immediate act of God in the creation and formation of creatures. I think most people understand the difference between the two.

 

[Richca]

Then you would be a creationist but I think your position is evolutionism.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Then you would be a creationist but I think your position is evolutionism, maybe I’m wrong.

You are wrong.

As I said before, there is nothing which requires the act of creation to have been literally instantaneous. Time is meaningless to God, so instantaneous creation is just as taxing as extended creation (i.e., not taxing… at all). I’ve made that point as plainly as I can in my recent series of posts.

You are creating a conflict where none exists. God created all life in the universe, and the evidence would indicate that the system He used to allow this life to take shape was the transition, over millions of years, of species.

There is no reason it has to be one or the other; the physical mechanics of evolution do not in any way diminish God’s role as sovereign creator…

I’m with Wozza, I seriously don’t get why this is a problem…

 

[buffalo]

Yes. Yes, they did. (Well… not soul-less. All living things have a soul that animates them, but they did lack rational souls.)

When it was time to begin Humanity in earnest, God instilled rational souls into our first parents. They were the first that could truly be called human. This is completely in keeping with Church teaching.

Are their humans walking around without immortal souls? How do we detect them?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Are their humans walking around without immortal souls? How do we detect them?

No, there are not.

All members of the human species are descended from Adam and Eve, and all have immortal souls. Nothing I’ve written contradicts that. I’m sorry if you think it does, but the problem is on your end.

 

[Richca]

If we consider the initial act of creation by God, it can only be instantaneous. The reason for this is that there is no process of becoming between non-being and being. A thing becomes and is simultaneously and instantaneously.