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

[Metis1]

In addition, we cannot believe that Adam or any of us were accidental.

I do not believe Adam & Eve were real-life individuals as I drift in the direction that the creation accounts are allegorical. I suspect that what the author(s) of these accounts did was to take the polytheistic Babylonian account and shred it by putting in their own belief in the One God. Archaeologists know that at least some who lived in eretz Israel knew of the Babylonian epic since it predates the writing of Genesis by an estimated 1000 years, plus it it’s quite common for different societies to take ideas from other much larger societies and then modify these narratives to fit their own norms and mores.

Look up “Santa Claus” in Wikipedia to see a more recent version of that being done, for example, whereas “Santa” goes from a religious figure to a secular buffoon in a clown suit.

 

[Rubee]

I agree, but the extent of what God has allowed to be random we simply cannot discern. The ToE in no way removes God from the equation as it is neutral on that.

But arguing for true ‘randomness’ as opposed to merely the appearance of it, does. True randomness is inconsistent with creation.

 

[Rubee]

I do not believe Adam & Eve were real-life individuals as I drift in the direction that the creation accounts are allegorical. I suspect that what the author(s) of these accounts did was to take the polytheistic Babylonian account and shred it by putting in their own belief in the One God. Archaeologists know that at least some who lived in eretz Israel knew of the Babylonian epic since it predates the writing of Genesis by an estimated 1000 years, plus it it’s quite common for different societies to take ideas from other much larger societies and then modify these narratives to fit their own norms and mores.

Look up “Santa Claus” in Wikipedia to see a more recent version of that being done, for example, whereas “Santa” goes from a religious figure to a secular buffoon in a clown suit.

Interesting. This whole time I thought you were Catholic. My apologies. I’d not have argued with you if I knew you were something else. Or I might’ve but would have framed by arguments differently.

PS. The Genesis account is definitely a myth (not literal), but Adam and Eve or a “first couple” who are the ancestors of all human beings today, is not. It’s not an “optional” belief for Christians. (PS: I’m not including ‘Unitarians’ and other such “Christians” whose so-called Christianity essentially denies Christianity: I’m using the traditional connotations of the word.)

 

[Rubee]

PS. The Genesis account is definitely a myth (not literal), but Adam and Eve or a “first couple” who are the ancestors of all human beings today, is not.

@Metis1, Correction! (of myself). There are mythical aspects to it, because it was likely a song/poem of oral tradition, but it’s not wholly mythical.

1. Adam + Eve= Literal
2. Perfectly sinless= Literal
3. Immortal= Literal
4. Sinned/fell= Literal
5. Became capable of sickness, suffering, and death because of fall= Literal
6. Their fall caused the whole creation to fall too=Literal

1.) Was there a snake? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Might’ve been a symbol of the tempter only.
2) Was there an incident involving eating forbidden fruit (literal fruit)? Perhaps. Perhaps not. There was a direct act of disobedience, but it might’ve taken a different form and the fruit might be merely symbolic.
3) Was there a special garden from which they were expelled? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Might be symbolic of their idyllic experience of the material universe and the soul’s union with Divinity pre-fall.

In addition, for all we know, perhaps it was the Babylonians who had the distorted versions of an “original” song/story/poem/myth that all/most people originally knew –That’s a possibility too!

After all, if we came from one couple, we all must’ve had a single original story of our history at some point, that got distorted or lost over time as we multiplied and separated from each other.

 

[edwest]

Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” ( Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

• Catholic Answers

 

[buffalo]

In addition, for all we know, perhaps it was the Babylonians who had the distorted versions of an “original” song/story/poem/myth that all/most people originally knew –That’s a possibility too!

Yes. Much of the past arguments have been as to the dates of first writing. Now we are finding out Hebrew writing dates are being pushed back.

 

[rossum]

A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

All living humans are descended from a pair: for instance Mitochondrial Eve’s parents. Similarly everyone is descended from Y-Adam’s parents. The same for their grandparents, great grandparents etc.

Biology cannot tell which of those many ancestral pairs had souls. All that is required is that one of those pairs had souls and did something naughty.

 

[edwest]

That is not Church teaching. Jesus Christ was sent to be born and live among us. He died as a sacrifice for all men so that sins may be forgiven. He rose from the dead bodily, and spent time with His disciples. This intersection of body and soul is very important.

 

[Aloysium]

creation accounts are allegorical.

I am interested, allegorical of what ultimate truths, exactly.

 

[buffalo]

And now we learn that species have developed survival backup plans.

This is more support for ID and front loading.

 

[Bradskii]

And now we learn that species have developed survival backup plans.

This is more support for ID and front loading.

Gee, you forgot to post any evidence.

 

[Vonsalza]

If he can show me a monkey egg that hatches monkeys who already know how to monkey

-but-

Only activates the hatching action when the last monkey dies I’ll…

Well…

I don’t know what the hell I’ll do. Anything would be possible at that point.

 

[Edgar]

"Bradskii:

Some Christians, those who profess that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour, believing the ToE is the best explantion for life as it stands, deny certain interpretations of scripture.

No doubt there are quite a few Christians, who, having accepting ToE as the best scientific explanation, then adopted a non-literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story. But as for me, the reasons I adopted a non-literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation had nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth. In fact, ToE wasn’t even of the radar-screeen of my reasoning in that regard.
While I believe ToE is the “best scientific explanation”, I also believe it isn’t the truth, so it hasn’t influenced my exegesis one iota.

 

[Edgar]

I get the point you are making, but I’d say that since we’ve been doing what the theory states, for perhaps a thousand times longer than it’s been around, it’s pretty much useless in practical terms.

Darwin’s theory explained how evolution happens in the wild, but the same principles of microevolution (which is really “the theory of evolution”) have been used by animal and plant breeders for thousands of years. Darwin unquestionably contributed a great deal to psudeo-scientific atheist doctrine, but did he actually contribute anything to applied science? Which use of applied science would not exist if no one had heard of Charles Darwin?

 

[Edgar]

That’s not incredulity. That would be down to lack of evidence.

If an atheist relies on science as the ultimate measure of reality, he will remain incredulous when confronted with miracles.

That evolution occurs is often taken as a fact.

I take “evolution” as a fact - bacteria become resistant to antibiotics - that’s “evolution”.

There are no partially formed bits and pieces. I’m afraid that you are exhibiting a serious lack in understanding the the subject.

Really? So the evolution of a heart, for example, involved an entire heart appearing suddenly? … along with the entire brain matter that controls it?

Statistics and probablity are unscientific?

I’m surprised your keen eye for the “straw man” argument didn’t notice this perfect example.

 

[Bradskii]

"Bradskii:

Some Christians, those who profess that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour, believing the ToE is the best explantion for life as it stands, deny certain interpretations of scripture.

No doubt there are quite a few Christians, who, having accepting ToE as the best scientific explanation, then adopted a non-literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story. But as for me, the reasons I adopted a non-literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation had nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth. In fact, ToE wasn’t even of the radar-screeen of my reasoning in that regard.
While I believe ToE is the “best scientific explanation”, I also believe it isn’t the truth, so it hasn’t influenced my exegesis one iota.

You do know that you are saying that the ToE is a better explanation than ID?

 

[Bradskii]

Aloysium:

I get the point you are making, but I’d say that since we’ve been doing what the theory states, for perhaps a thousand times longer than it’s been around, it’s pretty much useless in practical terms.

Darwin’s theory explained how evolution happens in the wild, but the same principles of microevolution (which is really “the theory of evolution”) have been used by animal and plant breeders for thousands of years. Darwin unquestionably contributed a great deal to psudeo-scientific atheist doctrine, but did he actually contribute anything to applied science? Which use of applied science would not exist if no one had heard of Charles Darwin?

Bioinformatics. Ed put that one forward.

Oh, and what happened to the question about what scientific use creationism is to us? Did you forget or are you just ignoring it?

 

[Bradskii]

Really? So the evolution of a heart, for example, involved an entire heart appearing suddenly? … along with the entire brain matter that controls it?

Now wouldn’t that be a silly argument. But if you don’t understand evolution, you might think that someone could actually make it. Read this an see if you can follow it:

‘Earthworms can have five, 10 or zero hearts, depending on how you define “heart.” They have five pairs of aortic arches that run along the length of its body (or 10 single arches, if you count each pair as two separate structures). That said, a human heart, for instance, has multiple chambers, while aortic arches have only one; if you define a heart as having multiple chambers, then an earthworm would have zero hearts.’

How Many Hearts Does An Earthworm Have?

Earthworms lack a proper heart, which by definition has multiple chambers. Rather, they have five pairs of aortic arches that pump blood through their tube-like bodies.

sciencing.com

Hearts start off as very simple structures. And then…um…how do I put this…evolve. If the structure moves blood around the organism then you can describe it as a heart at every stage as it…um…evolves. There are no partially formed bits and pieces. If there were it wouldn’t work (duh!). All the parts are there that are needed for what it does at every stage.

You are expressing amazement that at each stage of its…um…evolution, it appears to have popped into existence. It’s beyond astonishing that so many people can argue for so long about a subject that they don’t understand.

 

[Aloysium]

It’s beyond astonishing that so many people can argue for so long about a subject that they don’t understand.

What we are discussing are points of view, an aspect of which is whether there exists a geneological connection among all living things, brought into existence purely by the physical laws of nature. An alternative view would be that there exist different kinds of things, and that, as each individual thing is given existence in its moment, so too was the first of its kind, utilizing what was available to bring forth a new if of being.

The subject of the quote above is people who argue, specifically the poster to whom this poster is responding.

An aspect of human nature is covered by the old aphorism that if you put two rabbis together, you will come up with at least three opinions.

I don’t think it’s astonishing at all that people will perpetually argue that the other person doesn’t understand the subject matter, when they lack an understanding sending of what the other person is saying, even to the point that it sounds like word salad, and has little appreciation for human nature.

TLDNR - I may not be following my adivice here, but let’s try to stick to the arguments

 

[Aloysium]

Edgar:

Aloysium:

I get the point you are making, but I’d say that since we’ve been doing what the theory states, for perhaps a thousand times longer than it’s been around, it’s pretty much useless in practical terms.

Darwin’s theory explained how evolution happens in the wild, but the same principles of microevolution (which is really “the theory of evolution”) have been used by animal and plant breeders for thousands of years. Darwin unquestionably contributed a great deal to psudeo-scientific atheist doctrine, but did he actually contribute anything to applied science? Which use of applied science would not exist if no one had heard of Charles Darwin?

Bioinformatics. Ed put that one forward.

Oh, and what happened to the question about what scientific use creationism is to us? Did you forget or are you just ignoring it?

Bioinformatics is genetics. The only arguments you’ll get from me about the actual science are those that exist in those fields themselves.

Both the ToE and a creationist perspective deal with the fundamental nature of reality. It is within those contexts that the science makes sense to us. Theories lead to practical applications where they are based on what we discover empirically. Both the ToE and creationism deal with the metaphysical and philosophical. The ToE for example is based on utilitarianism and materialism. It interprets such obvious qualities as beauty, truth, relational existence, more or less as subjective illusions, grounded in material processes and their usefulness.

Both the ToE and creationism have to do with a global understanding of our world and its foundations. They themselves have no practical use; it is the science which they both interpret that leads to innovations in the various fields within medicine. They do have an impact on how we conduct our lives and relationships, since they reinforce and justify our underlying beliefs.

On a personal note, not wishing to derail the thread, I would add that hopefully the issue of my memory and your impression of evasiveness have been clarified. This thread is very long and moves very quickly; it is easy to have missed these discussions when they appeared in the past.