Reconciling Evolution & Faith

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1282415515' post='2161101']
Also proof text.
[/quote]

Proof Text is a loaded charge, and in this case a baseless charge. Sourcing ones argument with relevant Church Teaching is a traditional practice found in nearly all Church writings. The CCC alone [i]proof text's [/i] or rather sources and quotes a number of Scriptural verses and passages, , Church Councils, documents for the Doctors and Saints of the Church, and Papal documents, and vice-versa. Sourcing should not be confused with Proof Texting.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1282415904' post='2161109']
I'm interested in reading it in the near future. Just g2g atm.

Peace.
[/quote]


[quote name='goldenchild17' timestamp='1282416313' post='2161114']
I will too. thanks for posting. I have no problems with text dumping. Nor should anyone that's open to learning.
[/quote]

Sapere aude!

[dairygirl4u2c]

text dumping has pros and cons. the cons are that often, if not usually, the poster only does it cause they are not able to themself articule the core of the text, and to make arguments. not always the case, and in some cases text dumpting is most effective. not usually though. and, those who say text dumping isn't bad, use that to justify their inability to articulate and argue. not always. im generallyh against text dumping, cause in practice it's abused.
obviously, the positions hsouldn't be 'i am for text dumping', or 'i am against text dumping.' the middle grounds are where the real discussion is at. but still, id truly be interested if someone is prepared ot say 'generally text dumping is good', it's like has their experience showed them something i haven't seen, or is tere somehting else im unaware of?

[KnightofChrist]

tl;dr≠Sapere aude

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282416529' post='2161117']
Proof Text is a loaded charge, and in this case a baseless charge. Sourcing ones argument with relevant Church Teaching is a traditional practice found in nearly all Church writings. The CCC alone [i]proof text's [/i] or rather sources and quotes a number of Scriptural verses and passages, , Church Councils, documents for the Doctors and Saints of the Church, and Papal documents, and vice-versa. Sourcing should not be confused with Proof Texting.
[/quote]
Good thing I haven't confused the two.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1282426891' post='2161203']
Good thing I haven't confused the two.
[/quote]

Too bad, then you're point of it being proof text is just wrong.

[MithLuin]

Prior to the discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1960s, the state of the theory of evolution in the biological sciences was very different from what it is today. Meaning, much of the theory was based on attempts to explain data that could be explained in a variety of ways, and similarities and connections were arguable. If you are going to quote scientists from before this time period, it is important to point out that their skepticism is entirely appropriate, because up until that time, [i]no chemical basis for heredity was known[/i]. Literally. People did not know what DNA was for, and it was presumed that proteins (which have much greater variety and versatility) were the molecules of heredity. It took the work of Avery and Hershey/Chase to convince people of the importance of the DNA molecule in heredity, but we still didn't know about the genetic code.

With the sequencing of complete genomes (human, mouse, etc) and the availability of the PCR technique, it is very easy to study even small portions of DNA from a variety of sources and draw conclusions about the inter-relatedness of individuals within a species...and between species. To ignore this data would be inappropriate for scientists, and it is for good reason that evolution is considered the unifying theory of biology.

Theologically, the theory of evolution is mostly irrelevant, because it answers questions that are not raised by theology. That doesn't mean it hasn't been used to support philosophical worldviews that are completely incompatible with Christianity, so I understand the concern. I just...well....don't share it. Denying God is absurd, regardless of what directions science takes.

[cmotherofpirl]

I have no problem believing God created everything in existance and that He used some form of Big Bang and evolution to accomplish his goals. At some point God stepped in and added souls to our first parents and started the line of humanity.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/human-chimp-genomic-differences.html"]Human-Chimp Genomic Differences[/url]

One of the most popular evidences proclaimed for evolution in recent years is the high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The cousin genomes are about 99% similar and this has repeatedly been expounded as an obvious proof text of evolution. But these comparisons did not include the finicky Y chromosome which only recently has been decoded from the chimp genome. These new results show an entirely different picture.

Scientific theories are used to make predictions. And when those predictions are confirmed they make a theory look good. Certainly evolutionists think that the 99% similarity between human and chimp genomes is a powerful confirmation of evolution. But there are two sides of the prediction coin—the more you gain on the upside, the more you can lose on the downside. If a successful prediction is compelling proof of a theory, then its failure is a strong falsifier. And we now know that the human and chimp Y chromosomes are highly dissimilar.

The new research shows significant differences particularly between the male-specific regions of the human and chimp Y chromosomes—the MSYs. Unlike the prediction of highly conserved genomes over the 6 million years since the two species split apart, the new results indicate a “wholesale renovation” and “remodeling” in the respective lineages. Little change was predicted but what has been found is that more than 30% of the chimpanzee MSY region has no human counterpart, and vice-versa.

Furthermore, the human and chimp regions are not in the same order. Contrary to what was expected, “the chimpanzee and human MSYs differ markedly in sequence structure” reflecting “extensive rearrangement.” In all, the chimp and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other,” said one evolutionist.

And how did all this occur? These human and chimp regions differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, “indicating rapid evolution” explain evolutionists. It is an example of “rapid divergence” driven by various “synergistic factors.” There was, for example, the “brisk kinetics” of ectopic recombination, genetic hitchhiking, and the competition for mates.

So when genetic similarities are found they are powerful evidence for common descent, and when surprising differences arise they are examples “rapid evolution.” No wonder evolution has been called a tautology.

[MithLuin]

I see why that seems frustrating. If there were consistent differences, it would be evidence of a lack of relationship. The more similar, the more closely related. While these differences [i]are[/i] significant, the result may be to put the year of divergence back a bit further. It isn't enough of a difference to annihilate the relationship, because (as you've pointed out) 99% common DNA is pretty significant.

Here is an image showing the chromosomes of Human, Chimpanzee, Orangutan and Gorilla:
[img]http://www.carolguze.com/images/chromosomes/humanagpeall%2B.jpg[/img]

I'm sorry, but they're not unrelated, even if the Y chromosomes are different. It is surprising, of course, because the Y chromosome doesn't generally engage in crossing over (not having a partner) and thus is generally conserved across generations fairly well. (Alterations of a single base will occur in four generations, so over 100,000 years 'fairly well' is going to change in definition.) It will be interesting to see what explanations they come up with for this, then.

Basically, if anyone can come up with a theory to explain all of these individual occurrences [i]besides[i] evolution, the scientific community would be all in a flurry over it.

[TeresaBenedicta]

I wish my computer hadn't crashed... I took an entire course on this very question. I had a lot of good resources that I think you would find interesting.

Personally, I think that the evolution and belief in God are certainly compatible. In a paper I wrote for the class, I argued against the scientific positivism that insists that scientific reasoning alone can explain all things. Obviously here we are coming at the same question but from a different angle.

If we hold that man is the product of an evolutionary process, the main concern is the human soul and how the in the evolution of man he came to be distinct from the rest of the animals. John Paul II dealt with this exact question in his [url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm"]Address to the Pontifical Academy for Science[/url], where he says, "With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation [that is, scientific observation] but the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection."

That is to say, while science can mark the physical genealogy of man and his origin, science cannot empirically show [i]how[/i] man came to be a spiritual being. The jump from a pure animal to body and soul can only be accounted for by the supernatural. As Pope Pius XII noted, science and the theory of evolution in particular, can account for "the origin of human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter," but belief in God obliges one "to hold that souls are immediately created by God." ([url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humanigeneris_en.html"]Humani Generis[/url])

From my studies, it seems that one can accept Darwinian evolution so long as one respects that the moment of the creation of the soul is supernatural.

[sixpence]

I will finish reading KofC's posts as soon as I can...hopefully tomorrow.

Thus far I have to say, if there was convincing scientific evidence that chimpanzees and humans did not have a common ancestor, we all certainly would have heard all about it from the scientists AND the fundamentalists by now..

I also have to say that, I fully realize that evolution is sometimes used by proponents of naturalism/atheism as evidence that God was not required to create our world, but they are still unable to answer the question of where life originated from, where matter itself originated from, how the big bang occurred.. etc.

I also disagree with the statement that the theory of evolution has not been subject to the scientific method (with observable results). Just google the evolution of horses, or the rapid evolution of viruses and microbes developing resistance to antibiotics... in science the word "theory" is defined as "a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis" The theory of evolution has, by definition, been elevated from the level of a hypothesis.

It just seems that there is extremely good evidence of evolution, (if you ask 98% of scientists, both Christian and non-Christian), and truth cannot contradict truth, as has been stated in this thread multiple times. I will, of course, concede that it would certainly be possible that the Lord created Adam and Eve totally separately, and perhaps He did, but as for now, all the evidence points to Him shaping the evolution of all species through time and eventually forming Adam and Eve with human souls.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1282447729' post='2161304']
I see why that seems frustrating. If there were consistent differences, it would be evidence of a lack of relationship. The more similar, the more closely related. While these differences [i]are[/i] significant, the result may be to put the year of divergence back a bit further. It isn't enough of a difference to annihilate the relationship, because (as you've pointed out) 99% common DNA is pretty significant.

Here is an image showing the chromosomes of Human, Chimpanzee, Orangutan and Gorilla:
[img]http://www.carolguze.com/images/chromosomes/humanagpeall%2B.jpg[/img]

I'm sorry, but they're not unrelated, even if the Y chromosomes are different. It is surprising, of course, because the Y chromosome doesn't generally engage in crossing over (not having a partner) and thus is generally conserved across generations fairly well. (Alterations of a single base will occur in four generations, so over 100,000 years 'fairly well' is going to change in definition.) It will be interesting to see what explanations they come up with for this, then.

Basically, if anyone can come up with a theory to explain all of these individual occurrences [i]besides[/i] evolution, the scientific community would be all in a flurry over it.
[/quote]

The Y chromosomes being vastly different, when it was predicted that they would be and should be very similar is damning to the theory that each are related. Plant and animal cells share many similarities but that does not make a tree my cousin, or a house plant my nephew. Two species having similarities does not mean that they are related. But that each have the same Creator, like two works of art by the same Artist. Each piece of art will have similarities because each share the same Creator. Also let it be clear, I accept micro-evolution because it can be proved and observed, but macro-evolution does not really have the same honor. Many of forms of that theory including but not limited to Darwinian Theory are often [i]religious[/i] and dogmatic in nature by how they are put forth, believed and explained. This is why other therioes of origin are shouted down and cursed by a large part of the Scientific community, Intelligent Design being one of the most hated. Why? Because Darwinian Theory is and was intended to be a religion and excuse for Atheism. The Church rejects Polygenism or Animal Lineage because as John Paul II point out it is [i]incapable of laying the foundation for the dignity of the person.[/i]

Also, a great many species come into existence, live, and then die out without proof whatever of evolving from or into other species.


[url="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/06/wasp-evolution-forgot.html"]The Wasp Evolution Forgot[/url]

New research on an old, misidentified, fossil specimen reveals that the fig wasp has remained virtually unchanged for over 34 million years. In spite of dramatic climate shifts, and who knows what else, this millimeter long fig tree pollinator, and its fig tree companion, somehow managed to persist. While primitive primates somehow developed the human brain and consciousness in a geologically brief time window, the fig wasp managed to avoid evolutionary change over a much longer time period. It is yet another example of stasis in the biological world.

Fig wasps are so named because they have a complex and highly specific relationship with fig trees. There are about 800 species of fig trees, and each is pollinated by just one or two species of fig wasp which otherwise ignore the other fig trees species. That’s quite a feat that evolution pulled off—800 or so variations on a theme.

At one fig tree a wasp collects pollen and stores it in pockets on the underside of its body before flying to another fig tree (of the same species of course) where it pulls out the collected pollen and spreads it on the flower. It’s amazing what unguided mutations will do (no, natural selection doesn’t magically design intricate systems like this, it merely kills off the loser mutations).

And what’s also amazing is how, after implementing such dramatic and nuanced changes, evolution then comes to a screeching halt. It created species, and relationships between them, that fortuitously would not only survive climate shifts and tens of millions of years, but wouldn’t even call for any more change. That’s a good design.



[url="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-i.html"]The Gene Myth, Part I[/url]


[b]Within a population traits vary from individual to individual. Such natural biological variation has been observed since antiquity, but its underlying causes and limitations are complicated. By the nineteenth century it was obvious to breeders that while substantial variation could be obtained, there also were limits to their efforts. And furthermore, there was a price to be paid. A particular characteristic could be exaggerated, but at the cost of some undesirable consequence. Such observations led the German polymath Johann Goethe and French naturalist Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire to formulate their law of compensation which limited biological variation.

This doctrine was a problem for Darwin, for it held that species were anchored to their design—they could drift about a bit, but they could not continue to evolve. But Darwin argued that it did not apply to organisms in their natural environments. “With species in a state of nature,” Darwin argued, “it can hardly be maintained that the law [of compensation] is of universal application,” even though “many good observers ” believed it to be true.[/b]

Darwin then cited two particular species which he claimed supported his position. Most readers were probably impressed with the wealth of biological details that Darwin presented in his argument, but his logic was circular.

Darwin argued that the unique features of these two species show that the law of compensation does not hold in the wild because, after all, such unique features must have evolved. Darwin presupposed the truth of evolution in order to find evidence for evolution.

[url="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-i.html"]Continued...[/url]

Edited August 22, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[MithLuin]

Plant and animal cells share profound differences, suggesting that their paths diverged [i]ages[/i] ago.

You're good with micro evolution. So, in human terms, Asians and Africans are both descended from common ancestors, and we're all good there. The Church says that's what happened. The Bible says that's what happened. And yes, those evolutionary biologists assert it, too. All human beings have a common descent.

But if we take it one step further back...and look for a common ancestor between humans and chimps, you cry foul and say it couldn't happen? Despite having pretty much [i]the exact same evidence[/i] as above? Sounds quite fishy.

The Y chromosome is radically different - but it is easy to identify how a common Y chromosome could be shifted around to form the chimp one. What is surprising is the level of mutation, but the actual mutations are easy to identify. This is not a case of 'no relationship' but of a different relationship than had been expected.


Those wasps you mentioned have a very static niche, so conservation of their genome is required for their survival. If they change, the fig trees die, and if the fig trees die, they die. So, if both the wasp and the fig is still here....then they are both the same as they were. Whether we're discussing mutualism or predator/prey relationships, the pressure they exert on each other makes a huge difference.


But [b]Zigg[/b] didn't start this thread to get into a debate over evolution. He asked a theological question, in the context of the history as portrayed by modern biologists. How can you have animals dying and eating each other before the fall? Let's make sure we address that without getting too distracted by tangents.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1282458201' post='2161343']
You're good with micro evolution. So, in human terms, Asians and Africans are both descended from common ancestors, and we're all good there. The Church says that's what happened. The Bible says that's what happened. And yes, those evolutionary biologists assert it, too. All human beings have a common descent.

But if we take it one step further back...and look for a common ancestor between humans and chimps, you cry foul and say it couldn't happen?
[/quote]

Because micro evolution can be proven and observed, macro evolution cannot. Also because the Church rejects Polygenism or Animal Lineage. Chimps do not have true Souls, nor do Apes, the idea that God put a Soul into an animal is foreign to Scared Scripture and Scared Tradition, and it dishonors the dignity of Man, and Christ. Each have the same creator, which is also why we share similarities with all of life. If we can believe that Christ miraculously rose from the dead, something that modern science states is both improbable and impossible. Then why is it so hard for Christians today to believe that in like manner God miraculously and at once created Adam body and soul frist and then Eve, and that each had no Animal Lineage, and no parents other than God Himself? Darwinian Theory is and was intended to be Atheistic and materialist, as a Christian who is not ignorant of that fact I cannot in good conscience except it.

Pax.