Reconciling Evolution & Faith

[Jesus_lol]

Some people should check out the evolution of whales. That is a pretty profound macro evolution that is heavily supported by the fossil record. They went from terrestrial legged creatures, to ocean dwelling... whales. There is still some reduntant bone structures left over from when they used to have legs.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282459154' post='2161344']
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.
[/quote]

In Western theology it's generally accepted that animals have mortal souls. It was commonly believed that our soul is what gives us life so think, for example, how the english word "animated" comes from the latin word "anima" (soul).

You can't really compare the belief in Risen Jesus and a literal interpretation of Genesis because, although science can say that the resurrection is improbable, it doesn't have any empirical evidence that a man called Jesus didn't disappear from his tomb (whether by natural or supernatural means). This isn't the case with evolution, there's plenty of scientific evidence that humans descended from other animals or that the world wasn't created in one week, so your analogy between genesis and the resurrection doesn't really work.

[KnightofChrist]

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

For centuries breeders have observed limits to the changes they can bring about in populations. 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 suggested that biological change was limited as breeders had observed. Species could drift about a bit, but they could not continue to evolve. But using two barnacle species as his example, Darwin argued that the law of compensation did not apply to organisms in their natural environments.

Darwin’s argument was circular, but it was foundational to his theory of evolution. If there was no limit to biological change in a population, then new species and eventually large-scale change could emerge. Here’s how Darwin’s idea worked.

Biological variation was transmitted from parent to progeny. Tall individuals would tend to have tall offspring, fast individuals would tend to have fast offspring, and so forth. This transmission process was key to the action of natural selection. Those trait variations that were successful in transmitting themselves to the next generation, by definition, survived while those that failed would disappear from the population. So long as traits were transmitted, natural selection would be inevitable.

In other words, whatever it is that determines your traits is also transmitted to your offspring. Therefore, if you have evolutionarily successful traits then you will have more offspring, and they will receive your successful traits.

But how were the traits defined and transmitted? Darwin didn’t quite know how but in the twentieth century it seemed obvious—via the genes. According to the merger of modern genetics and evolution, it was all in the genes. They determined your traits and they were passed on to your offspring. This view fit evolutionary theory and was quickly accepted as an unquestionable scientific fact.

There is only one problem: it is false.

The fact that our genes are practically identical with the chimpanzees genes should have been a sign to evolutionists that their gene-centric view was problematic. How could the chimp and human be so different if their genes are so similar? Nonetheless, evolutionists proclaimed the great similarity as evidence that there must be an evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps.

In fact the biological evidence is clear: genes are only part of a far more complicated story than what evolution envisioned. As Stuart Newman explains:

[indent]Genes, which are composed of DNA, directly specify the sequences of RNA molecules and indirectly, the amino acid sequences of proteins. Before there were multicellular forms, single-celled organisms evolved for as much as two billion years driven, in part, by genetic change, as well as by establishment of persistent symbiotic relationships among simpler cells. During this entire period no cellular structure or function was specified exclusively by a cell’s genes. The protein and RNA molecules produced by cells associate with each other in a context-dependent fashion or, in many cases, catalyze chemical reactions (generating lipids, polysaccharides and other molecules), whose rates depend on the temperature and composition of the external environment. So the population of molecules inside the cell can vary extensively even if the genes do not.

It was long believed that a protein molecule’s three-dimensional shape, on which its function depends, is uniquely determined by its amino acid sequence. But we now know that this is not always true—the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous influence over their functions.

The deployment of information in the genes, moreover, is itself dependent on the presence of certain RNA and protein molecules in the cell. Since, as described above, the composition of the cell’s interior and the activity of many of its proteins depend on more than just the genes, the portion of the genes’ information content that is actually used by the cell is determined, in part, by non-genetic factors. So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent.[/indent]


As Newman explains, the gene is nothing close to how evolution envisioned it. The gene myth is yet another example of evolution’s failed expectations. It seems that inevitably evolution’s interpretations turn out to be wrong as it has produced a steady stream of false predictions. Evolution is certainly the best counter indicator in the life sciences.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282459154' post='2161344']
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.
[/quote]

How is that the idea of God putting a soul into an animal dishonors the dignity of man and Christ?

I don't reject the possibility that God miraculously created Adam body and soul, and then Eve. But I also don't reject that man could have evolved, granting that there must have been just as miraculous a moment when God infused a soul into the animal body, thus creating a spiritual being. John Paul II has said as much (see the link I noted above in an earlier post).

Scientific positivism, Darwinian theory included, is atheistic and materialistic because it rejects the metaphysical and over-steps its own bounds with its conclusions. But we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is real science in there. Science has its proper realm and is perfectly compatible with faith. Frankly, the scientific evidence is pretty strong in the case for evolution. But there is no reason to be afraid of that. While some might make atheistic and materialistic claims from that evidence, that does not mean there is something to be feared from the evidence itself. On the contrary, we must instead argue philosophically as to why their claims are unfounded. Which actually isn't that difficult to do.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1282460497' post='2161351']
Some people should check out the evolution of whales. That is a pretty profound macro evolution that is heavily supported by the fossil record. They went from terrestrial legged creatures, to ocean dwelling... whales. There is still some reduntant bone structures left over from when they used to have legs.
[/quote]

The Evolution of Whales seems to be a Whale of A Tell.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iFnyCjcodY[/media]

and

[url="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/of_whale_and_feather_evolution037221.html"]Of Whale and Feather Evolution: Nature's Two Macroevolutionary Lumps of Coal[/url]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1282461595' post='2161356']
How is that the idea of God putting a soul into an animal dishonors the dignity of man and Christ?
[/quote]

Because it "[i]violates the “substance view” of human personhood which the Catholic Church has taught since St. Thomas Aquinas integrated Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity. It holds that the human soul is the “organizing principle” or “form” of the human body (matter) such that the combination becomes a body/soul composite person of matter/form.[17] It is philosophically untenable to posit that God at some point placed a human soul in a non-human bi-pedal primate animal which would already have had its own organizing principle (form) in Aristotelian/Thomistic terms. Under such a scenario it would be correct to state that the first human person (Adam) had “animals” for parents since in Catholic teaching the soul and the body together constitute the composite person as a matter/form composite unity of body/soul which is indivisible during life. (In addition of course, the notion that Adam had animals for parents is contrary to Divine Revelation). The D.E. scenario implies that God would begin the human race by rejecting the truth of the “substance view” of human personhood and then subsequently allow his actual method of human creation to be misrepresented in Scripture and Tradition thereafter as if He had specially created Adam as a body/soul composite entirely new entity.[/i]"

[KnightofChrist]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE[/media]

[OraProMe]

Is this cut and paste a reply to me or more material to discuss? If the former then I'd just like to point out that accepting both the resurrection and a literal interpretation of genesis aren't analogous because one is falsifiable while the other isn't.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282461561' post='2161355']
[url="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-ii.html"]The Gene Myth, Part II[/url]

For centuries breeders have observed limits to the changes they can bring about in populations. 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 suggested that biological change was limited as breeders had observed. Species could drift about a bit, but they could not continue to evolve. But using two barnacle species as his example, Darwin argued that the law of compensation did not apply to organisms in their natural environments.

Darwin’s argument was circular, but it was foundational to his theory of evolution. If there was no limit to biological change in a population, then new species and eventually large-scale change could emerge. Here’s how Darwin’s idea worked.

Biological variation was transmitted from parent to progeny. Tall individuals would tend to have tall offspring, fast individuals would tend to have fast offspring, and so forth. This transmission process was key to the action of natural selection. Those trait variations that were successful in transmitting themselves to the next generation, by definition, survived while those that failed would disappear from the population. So long as traits were transmitted, natural selection would be inevitable.

In other words, whatever it is that determines your traits is also transmitted to your offspring. Therefore, if you have evolutionarily successful traits then you will have more offspring, and they will receive your successful traits.

But how were the traits defined and transmitted? Darwin didn’t quite know how but in the twentieth century it seemed obvious—via the genes. According to the merger of modern genetics and evolution, it was all in the genes. They determined your traits and they were passed on to your offspring. This view fit evolutionary theory and was quickly accepted as an unquestionable scientific fact.

There is only one problem: it is false.

The fact that our genes are practically identical with the chimpanzees genes should have been a sign to evolutionists that their gene-centric view was problematic. How could the chimp and human be so different if their genes are so similar? Nonetheless, evolutionists proclaimed the great similarity as evidence that there must be an evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps.

In fact the biological evidence is clear: genes are only part of a far more complicated story than what evolution envisioned. As Stuart Newman explains:

[indent]Genes, which are composed of DNA, directly specify the sequences of RNA molecules and indirectly, the amino acid sequences of proteins. Before there were multicellular forms, single-celled organisms evolved for as much as two billion years driven, in part, by genetic change, as well as by establishment of persistent symbiotic relationships among simpler cells. During this entire period no cellular structure or function was specified exclusively by a cell’s genes. The protein and RNA molecules produced by cells associate with each other in a context-dependent fashion or, in many cases, catalyze chemical reactions (generating lipids, polysaccharides and other molecules), whose rates depend on the temperature and composition of the external environment. So the population of molecules inside the cell can vary extensively even if the genes do not.

It was long believed that a protein molecule’s three-dimensional shape, on which its function depends, is uniquely determined by its amino acid sequence. But we now know that this is not always true—the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous influence over their functions.

The deployment of information in the genes, moreover, is itself dependent on the presence of certain RNA and protein molecules in the cell. Since, as described above, the composition of the cell’s interior and the activity of many of its proteins depend on more than just the genes, the portion of the genes’ information content that is actually used by the cell is determined, in part, by non-genetic factors. So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent.[/indent]


As Newman explains, the gene is nothing close to how evolution envisioned it. The gene myth is yet another example of evolution’s failed expectations. It seems that inevitably evolution’s interpretations turn out to be wrong as it has produced a steady stream of false predictions. Evolution is certainly the best counter indicator in the life sciences.
[/quote]

[OraProMe]

And again most Western theologians have agreed that animals have finite souls.

[KnightofChrist]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sinSG4mYajg&NR=1[/media]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1282463127' post='2161364']
And again most Western theologians have agreed that animals have finite souls.
[/quote]

finite souls are not True Souls/Infinite Souls.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1282463046' post='2161363']
If the former then I'd just like to point out that accepting both the resurrection and a literal interpretation of genesis aren't analogous because one is falsifiable while the other isn't.
[/quote]

As Mother Church believes in literal interpretation of Genesis, so do I.

[quote]Catholics interpret the Bible in a "literal" sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.

The "literal" meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The "literalist" interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: "that's what it says, that's what it means."

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was "raining cats and dogs outside", how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the "literal" interpretation...the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a "literalist" interpretation of the phrase, "it's raining cats and dogs"?

The "literalist" interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author's intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.

If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, "It was raining cats and dogs outside," in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a "literal" interpretation, not a "literalist" interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.

Literal, or Catholic, interpretation vs. literalist, or fundamentalist, interpretation.

Source:http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute[/quote]

Audio Version: http://ewtn.edgeboss.net/download/ewtn/audiolibrary/apologetics107.mp3

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282464659' post='2161367']
As Mother Church believes in literal interpretation of Genesis, so do I.
[/quote]

So far I'm with you on this whole topic, and I also accept the literal story of Genesis (if anything because I'm far more enchanted by the story than I am by any scientific divergence). However, I was under the impression (maybe mistaken?) that the Church hasn't defined the creation story as literal, and can be acceptable either way.

[OraProMe]

K of C,

Of course animal souls are souls. They might be different to an infinite soul but it's incorrect to state that the Church teaches animals do not have souls. I think many Eastern theologians believe animals have souls that are infinite too, I recall Apo talking about all creation returning to the logos. You can ask him about it.

Literal/literalist. You know what I meant and just evaded my point. The analogy you drew is not correct because the resurrection cannot be falsified while creationism can be.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282464659' post='2161367']
As Mother Church believes in literal interpretation of Genesis, so do I.



Audio Version: http://ewtn.edgeboss.net/download/ewtn/audiolibrary/apologetics107.mp3
[/quote]
but the Church doesn't REQUIRE us to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis There is only one Truth, we and everything else were created by God. Science slowly fills in the details.