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

[ProdglArchitect]

ProdglArchitect:

God instilled rational souls into our first parents.

You are suggesting that our parents existed before a rational soul was “instilled” in them.

I most certainly am not. Their rational souls were gifted at the moment of conception. Perhaps infused is a better word, or gifted… there’s really no word for “gave at the moment of conception,” so instilled was the default I turned to.

By ‘perfectly theologically sound’, I mean divine revelation as it is contained in Holy Scripture and particularly the Genesis 1-2 creation narratives.

(I’m only quoting a little bit of your post for length reasons)

Divine revelation deals with God’s relationship with humanity, not the specific scientific mechanics of how things happened. Non-Fundamentalist Biblical scholars pretty much universally agree that the opening few chapters of Genesis are Historical Allegory (and poetry) due to the style of writing. As such, we are not bound to take the creation narrative literallistically.

For example, from the initial act of creation in your analysis, namely, the big bang singularity to the formation of our galaxy, our solar system with our sun, moon, the earth and oceans, I believe you are arguing that this all occurred through a natural process of nature

Yes… and no… The singular act of creation is not natural, as nature has no way of producing itself. That was an act of God. From there, the development followed the laws of Nature, which are dictated by God’s providence… they are both natural, and God-driven. There is no need to create a split between the two… Seriously, even the atheist is able to understand this (no offense @Wozza), I legitimately cannot comprehend why everyone feels like there needs to be a distinction between what is natural and what is God’s will. The order of nature is subject to God’s Will, as implemented in His design… I’m not going to say anything more, because I’d just be repeating myself at this point.

I’m not trying to be scientific (ie, materialistic) here. And I would say you are seriously overestimating the power of science to explain the history of life.

No I’m not. Good science studies the evidence. We have extensive fossil records that seem to indicate a progression of species, with many different groups sharing distinct traits that would reasonably be explained by divergence from an proceeding species.

We also see large gaps in the fossil records, holes, that would seem to indicate rapid development of new species.

As for the whole “they can’t prove it” thing. Technically, no, they can’t. However, if we see an increasing number of avian traits in dinosaurs as time progresses (the development of feathers, then wing structures, then hollow bones, etc.) we can reasonably conclude from these shared traits that they are related. It may not be provable, but it is certainly a rational conclusion.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

What happened to all those humans that existed with Adam and Eve who didn’t receive a soul?

I believe they eventually became extinct due to competition from rational humans, or due to shifts in climate and resources.

I see two potential points for the transition. 1 - the proto-human to neanderthal transition. In which case the proto-humans were still ape-like, and went extinct for whatever reasons those species did. Or 2 - the neanderthal to homo-erectus transition, in which case they went extinct due to competition and climate change as we emerged from the last ice age. Incidentally, I favor the second clause, as it can also provide an explanation for the story of the Nephilim, who would have been neanderthal cousins whom certain ensouled humans mated with. We see traces fo neanderthal dna in humans today, which means that there was likely some interbreeding. I do recognize that this contradicts my earlier post to Buffalo, I wasn’t thinking about this theory when I posted that.

None of this is Church teaching or theological assertion or anything, just my personal musings on the subject.

@Wozza, I have to ask, are you sure you’re an atheist? You seem pretty comfortable with a perfectly-valid Catholic understanding the nature-God dichotomy. It’s just interesting to see someone who proportions to not believe giving such a clear and concise explanation of acceptable Catholic thought on the subject.

I will not have the time to keep up with the debate today, I’ve already spent far too much time on it as is.

 

[o_mlly]

If we consider the initial act of creation by God, it can only be instantaneous.

Creation could be instantaneous but not necessarily so. After all, He is omnipotent.

If a being acts instantly then that being acts within time. In eternity, God is creating time and then enters time as the Second Person – the Word. Acting as His Second Person, God then created the universe by His Word: “Let there be …”.

Further, we believe that God creates each immortal soul at the time of ensoulment. That time is at or after the material comes into being in the cooperative act of the parents. Indeed, creation is a great mystery to contemplate.

 

[Techno2000]

I believe they eventually became extinct due to competition from rational humans, or due to shifts in climate and resources.

So, humans got their souls just the nick of time, to save them from the bad climate and resource problem.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So, humans got their souls just the nick of time, to save them from the bad climate and resource problem.

Sure, why not? Are you saying that’s outside of God’s providence?

 

[o_mlly]

He [God] set them up so that there is some logic to existence.

I believe you have it backwards. Existence precedes essence. The categorization of essences is reason’s (man’s logical) effort to understand that which exists. God’s acts are not bound by our logic; rather our logic is bound by God acts. Logic is man’s invention, the universe is God’s creation. The former chases the latter.

We describe what happens in this case as being natural. Except when they don’t. Except when God decides to circumvent His laws and do something that doesn’t conform to them. We describe what happens in this case as supernatural.

This definition of “natural” is based on the creature’s perspective on the acts of he Creator. That is, when we understand His methods, we call these methods “natural” and when we do not, we call those methods “supernatural” or “unnatural” until we do understand. From the Creator’s perspective, no circumvention is ever necessary.

It is more likely that nature is operating just as designed completely within the Lawgivers laws and we simply do not yet grasp all those laws. In our ignorance, we may think the Creator changed His mind but that would only be because we see things down here (within time) sequentially; He sees all from above (in eternity).

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

So, humans got their souls just the nick of time, to save them from the bad climate and resource problem.

Sure, why not? Are you saying that’s outside of God’s providence?

How many semi human creatures got souls ?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

How many semi human creatures got souls ?

All of them, but only fully-human people have rational, immortal souls.

I’m curious, do you understand the Catholic understanding of souls? In Catholic theology, the soul is the animating factor of any living being. There are different kinds of souls. Plants have plant souls, lower animals have animal souls. Humans have rational, human souls.

Of the three, only human souls are rational and immortal. They are distinct from other kinds of souls. When we die, our souls are judged and go to Heaven or Hell. When plants and animals die, their souls cease to exist. For the purposes of our discussions, only fully-human being, Adam and Eve and their descendants, are “human.”

This is all pretty basic Catholic theology.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

How many semi human creatures got souls ?

All of them, but only humans have rational, immortal souls.

I’m curious, do you understand the Catholic understanding of souls? In Catholic theology, the soul is the animating factor of any living being. There are different kinds of souls. Plants have plant souls, lower animals have animal souls. Humans have rational, human souls.

Of the three, only human souls are rational and immortal. They are distinct from other kinds of souls. When we die, our souls are judged and go to Heaven or Hell. When plants and animals die, their souls cease to exist.

This is all pretty basic Catholic theology.

How many of these creatures got their animals souls changed into rational, immortal souls By God ?

 

[Aloysium]

Their rational souls were gifted at the moment of conception. Perhaps infused is a better word, or gifted… there’s really no word for “gave at the moment of conception,” so instilled was the default I turned to.

Gifted or given to what exactly? A collection of material events?

To my mind we are created, a unity of body and spirit, from what two parents contribute as an existential potential for a living human being. Consider that our material bodies are that aspect of our being that is observable by the senses and their technological extensions. No soul is infused, instilled, given or whatever; it is created as an organizing principle for the psychological and physical structure of our being as persons. Being rational and relational, capable of knowing and of acting with a free will, ultimately allowing us the possibility of love, we can in being that encompassing spirit, commune with the Source of our existence, Love itself.

We are individually, and were, in the form of the first person, created, brought into existence as humankind. And, we began in Eden, which is more than some idyllic fantasy of the same world we now inhabit. Genesis is quite explicit in this regard, that original sin resulted in the fall which saw death enter into the world. In and through Jesus Christ, embracing the cross, having faith and trusting in God, we not only come to know Him, but will bodily return into existence as death vanishes in His eternal Light.

Evolution is as illusory as any other aspect of our our self-centred relationship with the world - wealth, power, honour and pleasure. There is far more to existence than what we come to understand in our dealings within what is ultimately this vale of suffering. And, the real world, as revealed by Christ from the mount that speaks to His greater knowledge of the Truth, is upside down. There was no evolution, only creation.

 

[Aloysium]

Existence precedes essence.

And it is Existence itself, triune in nature, perfect Divine Relationality, who is the Source and Cause of all this, all time and space with everything in it - the material, psychological and spiritual, within us united in the form of the person, capable of love and thereby able to know God.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Once again, you are creating problems where none exist.

No matter the language, every last soul is a gift from God. He doesn’t need to give them to us, He doesn’t owe them to us. He creates us out of love. Our souls are infused at the moment of conception, there is no point in time from the instant the sperm couples with the egg creating new life, until the moment of our death, that we exist without our souls.
The word infused is simply a placeholder for a reality we cannot comprehend. We cannot understand the nature of the soul and how it interacts with our human form, we also do not understand how souls come into being. That is God’s perrogative.

Stop creating problems where none exist. I have no choice but to believe that you are being purposefully obtuse in order to manufacture conflict.

To my mind we are created, a unity of body and spirit, from what two parents contribute as an existential potential for a living human being.

I agree with this. Do you really not understand that? This does not contradict evolution, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. At some point, when Adam was created, his soul came into being in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS EVERY OTHER HUMAN SOUL ON THE PLANET. The only difference is that his parents did not have rational souls, and He did as a gift from God. The rational soul you or I have does not come from our parents, it comes from God, just as Adam and Eve’s souls came from God.

Whatever, I’m done. You’re obviously set in your assumptions, and feel the need to misconstrue my position repeated in an effort to undermine a position which the Church accepts as a valid understanding of the genesis of the human species.

I’m done. I’m out. I’m not going to keep going in circles with you. If you genuinely cannot understand my position as I have already outlined it, there’s nothing else I can say, because I literally cannot put it any simpler.

God Bless, I’m out.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

How many of these creatures got their animals souls changed into rational, immortal souls By God ?

… None of them…

If you are created with an irrational soul, you die with an irrational soul. Adam’s soul wasn’t changed from irrational to rational; at the moment of his creation, God intervened and gave him a rational soul instead of an irrational one. There was no point when Adam had an irrational soul. The same is true of Eve, and all of their descendant. In terms of souls, NOTHING ELSE ON THE PLANET WAS AFFECTED BY THIS SHIFT.

Whatever, like I said, I’m done with this thread. It’s a waste of time arguing with people who’ve made up their minds.

 

[Wozza]

We describe what happens in this case as being natural. Except when they don’t. Except when God decides to circumvent His laws and do something that doesn’t conform to them. We describe what happens in this case as supernatural.

This definition of “natural” is based on the creature’s perspective on the acts of he Creator. That is, when we understand His methods, we call these methods “natural” and when we do not, we call those methods “supernatural” or “unnatural” until we do understand. From the Creator’s perspective, no circumvention is ever necessary.
[/quote]

It’s not His methods we are discussing. His methods could be via natural means or supernatural means and we have to agree what they mean. By the very definition of those terms we mean either an act that conforms to natural laws (such as evolution) or one that does not (a penguin materialising in my living room).

It is nonsensical in the extreme to suggest that a bird suddenly appearing on my sofa means that we are missing some scientific laws that would allow such a thing to occur. By all means mentally adjust your thought.process to include such a proposition. But I think everyone else will know exactly what I mean by supernatural.

So yes, a supernatural act is one that from our perspective (kinda the only one we have available) circumvents God’s own natural laws.

 

[Techno2000]

Whatever, like I said, I’m done with this thread. It’s a waste of time arguing with people who’ve made up their minds.

Yall always crumble then you have to come up with details.

 

[Wozza]

@Wozza, I have to ask, are you sure you’re an atheist? You seem pretty comfortable with a perfectly-valid Catholic understanding the nature-God dichotomy. It’s just interesting to see someone who proportions to not believe giving such a clear and concise explanation of acceptable Catholic thought on the subject.

Hey, understanding something and not agreeing with it are not incompatible positions. And I understand the Catholic position on this as I understand the position taken by fundamentalists who insist on a literal reading of scripture.

Accepting evolution as the process by which we came to be here does not contradict the first position. Although I obviously disagree on whether it has natural or supernatural antecedents. It does however totally contradict any views that are based on either a purposeful twisting of scientific facts or simply an uneducated understanding of the process. We have both examples in this and other threads.

Incidentally, it always grates when I have to write something like ‘Accepting evolution…’. It’s as nonsensical to me as saying ‘Accepting gravity…’

Call back in after you’ve taken a break. I’m sure there’ll be lots to entertain us all.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

No, I am not crumbling, I literally cannot be any plainer. That’s the problem. I have put it as simply as I can, and you have either ignored what I’ve written, or misconstrued it. Then, when I’m tired of repeating myself, people like you take it as some sort of victory that you’ve wasted enough of my time to make me too tired to continue.

Tell you what, you want to continue the discussion drop me a PM. I’ll be happy to go over it in a one-on-one discussion.

 

[Wozza]

ProdglArchitect:

Whatever, like I said, I’m done with this thread. It’s a waste of time arguing with people who’ve made up their minds.

Yall always crumble then you have to come up with details.

Say what? The guy just took out some time to give you a 600 word answer to your question and you insult him and accuse him of cutting and running? What is the matter with you? I mean, seriously. There have been countless replies to almost all of your questions, however bizarre they have been by many posters all trying to help you understand that which you obviously don’t. And you show zero sign of having read any of them.

 

[PickyPicky]

I’m afraid that after making many attempts some time ago to answer these bizarre questions I came to the unhappy (and I hope unfair) conclusion that Techno didn’t actually want them answered. So I gave up, too.

 

[Aloysium]

Stop creating problems where none exist.

As much we understand the workings of matter, it will remain a mystery. In a similar fashion, we can come to know and understand the mystery of our existence in terms of our relationship with our Creator and how we came to be as has been revealed, from one man. The concept of evolution is flawed at so many levels; to be blunt, it is wrong. So there is a problem if one believes that it is true. One does not see the problem when one is caught up in the illusion.

The issue has to do with what constitutes a human being. The physical is one aspect of that structure which is psychological at the same time and ultimately spiritual, existent, one, relational with being that is other to itself. We come into existence as one person, unique and irreplaceable in one’s own being as are all of us as expressions of one humanity, in Adam and in Christ.

We did not originate from the genetic material of simian parents, with all the random disorder that they would have been prey to in a pre-existing fallen world. That’s why I ask, if that is your belief and how that might work.

I have no choice but to believe that you are being purposefully obtuse in order to manufacture conflict.

If we are going to speak of motives rather than the topic at hand, I suppose there could be an element of truth in that the obtuseness lies in the sloppy sort of thinking that are evolutionary theories, especially theistic evolution, something I seek to clarify, but seemingly is being projected back onto me now. No, I am not being obtuse, and any conflict is a byproduct of not letting people get away with stuff that doesn’t make sense. That said, please ask for clarification of anything I present; hopefully we are all here to learn.