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

[edwest211]

These discussions have been going on for years.

 

[AndrewAxland]

Your wasting your breath. Unless you enjoy engaging in pointless discussion.

 

[Bradskii]

These discussions have been going on for years.

Yes. And you still ask ridiculous questions as the one above about fish. I just asked my grandson why a fish might try to walk around in mud and he said ‘perhaps all the water went away’.

He can work it out and you can’t. And he’s 4.

 

[IWantGod]

Might be more accurate to say that a desire to survive is going to give one a strong survival advantage, hense why most creatures we see have this desire.

This is true but pointing out the advantage of having a particular quality is not the same thing as identifying it’s genesis or cause. The fact remains that biological organisms are directed toward the end of survival. It really doesn’t matter if an organism once existed that did not have an instinct for survival. any nature that exhibits goal direction can only be made sense of teleologically.

 

[goout]

They utilized science, describing what they saw in the world about them, how barren places gradually became filled with life.

It’s not fruitful to impose a genre on a text that was simply not written in that genre. All it does is distort what the writer is trying to communicate.
Yes, Genesis is observant and is trying to give meaning to the world around the writer, but it was never intended to be scientific in the manner you are linking it to.

We owe the writer, and God, to read Genesis in context. That is how inspiration is living.
If we lock it in 21sst century interpretations, we rob it of meaning.
(what you end up doing is making the atheists correct about scripture and faith…)

 

[Dan123]

I’d need to see that demonstrated, stating something can only be explained by a single explanation would (and should) require strong evidence of some sort. I don’t see any issue explaining creatures having a survival instinct when they exist in an environment that would sensibly favor creatures with survival instincts, so saying it CAN’T explain it is curious indeed.

 

[meltzerboy2]

The Written Torah has all kinds of ellipses and omissions. That is why it must be interpreted in conjunction with the Oral Torah, passed down through many generations until codified in the Mishnah and rabbinical commentaries on the Mishnah (the Gemara). Each day of the Creation need not have been 24 hours long; indeed, the days of the Creation may have been an indeterminate length during which evolutionary processes occurred.

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t see any issue explaining creatures having a survival instinct when they exist in an environment that would sensibly favor creatures with survival instincts

Pointing out that particular qualities find favor in particular environments is not the same thing as identifying the genesis or cause of any particular quality. All it means is that you are more likely to fare better with a particular quality and pass it on in reproduction. That alone is not an explanation of why that particular quality is actually there in the first place. It’s just an explanation of why that trait has survived. I think that’s fairly obvious.

 

[Dan123]

Imagine a population of simple creatures floating in ancient waters which have a small capacity to steer themselves and don’t fare well in direct UV light. Each generation many are lost by drifting into direct sunlight from their caves. At some point one has a minor mutation that results in an instinct to avoid the sun. Is that creature more or less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? Are it’s children more or less likely to survive? How long until that mutation is the norm for the species?

 

[AndrewAxland]

That alone is not an explanation of why that particular quality is actually there in the first place.

What you are looking for is a metaphysical explanation, and you are not going to find that in science. You’re confusing the two meanings of “why”. Science doesn’t, and can’t, answer the questions you are asking. Likewise, metaphysics is useless in answering the questions scientists ask. It deals sole with issues that, as the name shows, are beyond the physical world.

You’re also assuming that the scientific answers and the metaphysical answers conflict and cannot both be right. The Church does not teach this, and never has. That line of thought comes out of Protestantism.

 

[edwest211]

There are no two right answers.

 

[AndrewAxland]

If you believe that, fine, that’s your business. But it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[edwest211]

Yes, it is.

 

[IWantGod]

Imagine a population of simple creatures floating in ancient waters which have a small capacity to steer themselves and don’t fare well in direct UV light. Each generation many are lost by drifting into direct sunlight from their caves. At some point one has a minor mutation that results in an instinct to avoid the sun. Is that creature more or less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? Are it’s children more or less likely to survive? How long until that mutation is the norm for the species?

I have not disagreed with the fact that having a particular trait may help a species to continue reproducing in its environment. Just like if the nature of an organism directs it towards the end reproduction it may ensure the development of a species.

Pointing out that a particular trait could ensure the survival of a species is irrelevant. This does not address the point that i made.

 

[buffalo]

Yes. And you still ask ridiculous questions as the one above about fish. I just asked my grandson why a fish might try to walk around in mud and he said ‘perhaps all the water went away’.

He can work it out and you can’t. And he’s 4.

I saw that too. A fish flapping on the beach trying to catch a wave back to the water. An hour later he was dead.

 

[Dan123]

I thought I had. In my scenario I offered no explanation for the trait existing beyond random mutation. A few billion years later a few relatively intelligent primates may or may not have a discussion about where that ancient creature’s survival instinct came from.

 

[AndrewAxland]

Yes, it is.

If you make an assertion like that on a Catholic forum, you had better be able to back that up with official Church documents. Your say-so or fantasies about what the Church teaches is not enough.

I refer you to the Papal encyclical Humani generis, which confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.

Since science and evolution make no statements about the origin of the soul, there is no conflict.

Please stop trying to pass off your own fantasies as official Church teaching. It is a serious transgression against the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[IWantGod]

A few billion years later a few relatively intelligent primates may or may not have a discussion about where that ancient creature’s survival instinct came from.

Yes, and by discussing survival instinct they would essentially be asking where goal direction in nature came from. Which is really not a scientific qeustion, but rather a matter of philosophy. There is clearly teleology in nature.

 

[AndrewAxland]

Again, you are mixing up the two senses of “why”, and you are also quibbling on the word “teleological” in the same way.

You really have to distinguish the two meanings of the word “why” in your thinking.

Survival instinct as a goal-directed behavior can be described using the word teleological, in a way. But when you take a word that has a particular meaning and implications in the realm of metaphysics and use it to describe something in the physical world, you have to realize that some of the meaning, and all of the implications, are lost in translation.

 

[buffalo]

I refer you to the Papal encyclical Humani generis, which confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.

You are late to the party. See the prior Darwin threads.

Did you catch the part about polygenism in HG?