Reconciling Evolution & Faith

[Nihil Obstat]

Are we going to go on that literal versus literal[i]istic[/i] tangent again? That normally takes about four pages. Maybe somebody can just nip that one in the bud?

[OraProMe]

I tried, Nihil! He knew what I meant.

[cmotherofpirl]

Let me know when the four pages are done so we can get back to our conversations...

[OraProMe]

Also, KofC, I take issue with this distinction between literal and literalistic. What was the intention of the author's of Genesis? Did they want to conver that God created the world? Did they want to convey that God created man ex nihilio? Did they want to convey the world was created in seven days? Maybe they wanted to convey that God created man ex nihlio but in a much larger space of time than a week. Who decides?

Before you can claim that Genesis can be taken literally or literalisticly you must first explain your terms and provide a sound method to help you figure out what the author was trying to convey. It's all very well and good to say you accept a literal interpretation when there's two very distinct and obvious interpretations of a passge (you used the example of it raining cats and dogs) but what about when the answer isn't so obvious? After all we are talking about a supernatural force here, maybe it really was raining cats and dogs? Stranger things have happened in the bible. Did God really turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? How one is supposed to work out the original intent of an unknown author who lived thousands of years ago is really beyond me. Perhaps you could tell me?

I think Pope Pius XII's decision to leave the question open was a very wise move.

Edited August 22, 2010 by OraProMe

[MithLuin]

[b]K of C[/b], as you have been told [i]many[/i] times in this thread, the Church does not mandate that you must believe as you do. You are welcome to believe what you have argued, of course - the Church doesn't go around giving imprimaturs to scientific theories for the simple reason that that is not a realm where she feels the need to pass judgment.

Being an atheist is counter to the Catholic faith. Denying that God created (well, everything!) is also an unacceptable position for a Christian. Believing that the story of creation in Genesis tells us [i]how[/i] God created Man...is optional. 'How' isn't really a question the Bible or the Church get into very often - it's mostly (not entirely!) irrelevant to theology. The Church states confidently that God [i]did[/i] create the universe, and has no problem leaving the details on [i]how[/i] to Him.

[i]Could[/i] God have created Adam directly from dust? Of course! No one here is denying God's powers. It would be a miracle with some strange consequences, but whatever. What [i]is[/i] being argued is that God endowed us with reason, so when we discover these relationships and connections using that gift...well, what's the problem? It becomes a problem if anyone says 'Man is [i]merely[/i] an animal - look, I've proved it.' And certainly that is a danger in today's world that we have to address. But again...no one here is saying that. No one [u]here[/u] is denying that God creates a soul for each individual person.



I am going to attempt to address genetics without becoming ill to my stomach. I am extremely displeased with the people you have chosen to quote from. I am a high school science teacher (biology, actually), and it makes me more than a bit mad when people who know better try to be misleading in their explanations. There is the inevitable dumbing down when you explain to a lay audience, and nuances are going to be left out. That I get. But this is outright dishonest.

What traits you show will always be a combination of genetic heritage and environmental conditions. Mainstream biologists all teach this - it isn't some hidden truth that only 19th century breeders knew about. So, for instance, if you have growth spurts genetically programmed into you, but poor nutrition, you won't actually grow. Lest you think this is merely conjecture without evidence, I will point you towards the increase in the average height of Japanese men post-WWII when a more Western diet was introduced.

So, yes, no one is saying 'genes alone'. But to then turn that around and say 'genes aren't really all that important' is nonsense. The argument used above is specifically about the details of how enzymes are expressed and how protein production is controlled in the cell. These control mechanisms are very important, but to suggest that they someone make the genes themselves irrelevant is very, very silly.

Why are we different from chimps, with all of that similar DNA? Because we have most of the same genes, but we have [i]variations[/i] in our genes, and those variations are not irrelevant. Meaning, it's like someone copies this entire message I have just written, but changes one letter. That would be more than 99% the same (because I've written a lot more than 100 letters!) But what that one letter does is to change the message, and that change can be very significant.

For instance, the allele for sickle cell versus the allele for healthy hemoglobin differs by a [i]single[/i] base. Only one letter in the entire message is different, but that one letter changes the properties of the finished protein. That is [i]one[/i] base out of 1,603 bases - a difference of .0006%, meaning that healthy individuals have 99.9994% of their hemoglobin DNA in common with sickle cell individuals. This, again, is no conjecture - we've identified the gene responsible, sequenced it, and compared it with healthy individuals. We've traced the pattern of inheritance in families. We know it's a recessive trait and that being heterozygous (having one good allele and one disease allele) makes a person immune to malaria, which explains why the trait persists in populations exposed to malaria. We've also compared the human gene for β-globin to the homologous genes found in a wide variety of other animals. [[url=http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?org=Human&db=hg18&position=chr11:5204877-5203272]Here's[/url] the location of the gene in the genome - it's on chromosome 11.]

Suddenly, sharing 99% of our DNA with chimps isn't such a big deal, is it? We obviously have a lot of the same structures and thus similar enzymes. That 1% can cover some huge differences.


So, why do breeders hit a limit when trying to optimize certain traits? Mutation has been left out of the equation. Breeders work over several generations to select for traits that are already there. They are performing artificial selection in much the way nature applies natural selection. Once they've got all the alleles associated with that trait concentrated in one individual, they've hit their limits. But if there is a mutation, it can introduce a new trait into the population, giving them something new to work with. Are random mutations often helpful? No, not terribly. But when you consider time frames, the chances of a useful helpful mutation increase dramatically.

One example: ruminants. Ruminants are organisms that can digest grass and get useful nutrition from it. You and I are not ruminants, so if we tried to survive on grass, it wouldn't work out so well. 'Roughage' is not fully digested by humans. Cows, sheep, goats, horses, llamas, deer, on the other hand? They're good with a diet of grass. Why is that?

Here are three abstracts of articles by Dr. Irwin (Toronto) to give you an example of the research on this question.
[quote]The evolution of a new digestive enzyme, stomach lysozyme, from an antibacterial host defense enzyme provides a link between molecular evolution and organismal evolution. Lysozymes have been recruited at least three times (twice from a conventional lysozyme c and once from a calcium-binding lysozyme c) in vertebrates for functioning in the stomach. The recruitment of lysozyme for its new biological function involved many molecular changes, beyond those required to adapt the protein to function in the stomach. The evolution of the stomach lysozyme gene has been extensively studied in ruminant artiodactyls. In ruminants, the lysozyme c gene has duplicated to yield a family of about ten genes. These duplications allowed: (1) specialization of gene function and (2) increased levels of expression. The ruminant stomach lysozyme genes have evolved in an episodic fashion - there was a period of rapid adaptive sequence evolution, driven by positive selection in the early ruminant, that was followed by an increase in purifying selection upon the well-adapted stomach lysozyme sequence among modern species. Recombination of small portions (exons) of the genes between members of the lysozyme gene family may have aided in adaptive evolution. Evolution to a stomach lysozyme is not irreversible; at least one member of the ruminant stomach lysozyme gene family appears to have reverted to a more ancestral function, yet retains hallmarks of its history as a stomach lysozyme.

'Molecular evolution of ruminant lysozymes' 1996[/quote]

[quote]Comparative studies of mammalian lysozymes and their genes have contributed to knowledge of how new functions arise during evolution. The recruitment of lysozymes for functioning in the stomach fluid of ruminants has occurred in response to selection pressures that are partly known and on a time-scale that is known. A semiquantitative analysis of adaptive evolution is thus made possible by the ruminant lysozyme system. Large-scale production of lysozyme by the stomach lining entailed gene duplication as well as a change in gene expression. Remoulding of the lysozyme for working and lasting in the stomach fluid involved accelerated amino acid replacements, which may have been facilitated by intergenic recombination. The possibility that multigene families can accelerate adaptive evolution, by virtue of their capacity for bringing together functionally coupled substitutions, receives emphasis in this review.

'Evolutionary genetics of ruminant lysozymes' [i]Animal Genetics[/i] 1992[/quote]

[quote]The genomes of ruminant artiodactyls, such as cow and sheep, have approximately 10 lysozyme genes, 4 of which are expressed in the stomach. Most of the duplications of the lysozyme genes occurred 40-50 million years ago, before the divergence of cow and sheep. Despite this, the coding regions of stomach lysozyme genes within a species (e.g., cow, sheep, or deer) are more similar to each other than to lysozyme genes in other ruminants. This observation suggests that the coding regions of the stomach lysozyme genes have evolved in a concerted fashion. Our previous characterization of 3 cow stomach lysozyme genes suggested that it was only the coding exons that had participated in concerted evolution. To determine whether the introns and flanking regions of ruminant stomach lysozyme genes are evolving in a concerted or a divergent fashion, we have isolated and characterized 2 sheep stomach lysozyme genes. Comparison of the sequences of the sheep and cow stomach lysozyme genes clearly shows that the introns and flanking regions have evolved, like the 3' untranslated region of the mRNAs, in a divergent manner. Thus, if the four coding exons are evolving by concerted evolution, then a mosaic pattern of concerted and divergent evolution is occurring in these genes. The independent concerted evolution of coding exons of the ruminant stomach lysozyme gene may have assisted in the accelerated adaptive evolution of the lysozyme to new function in the early ruminant.

'Mosaic evolution of ruminant stomach lysozyme genes' [i]Molecular Phylogenetic Evolution[/i] 1999[/quote]

I can play 'cut-n-paste' too I pulled these abstracts off the NCBI database.

So, what's the point? If you have mutations in lysosomes - for instance, you have portions of DNA double copied, so you have an extra segment of the same stuff that was already there, a duplicate copy - then the organism has more DNA to work with, and in this case, uses that to digest grass.

Please don't claim that we can't observe these types of mutations occurring. We observe them all the time in bacteria and viruses, since their generations are so short. MRSA is resistant to our antibiotics - and it seems we can't develop an antibiotic that germs won't develop a resistance to. Are their genomes (very small, limited things - we're talking bacteria here) really already carrying the instructions for everything we throw at them? Or...do mutations occur so that the bacteria are constantly getting new material to work with that may be useless, but become suddenly useful when we hit them with a new antibiotic? Not surprisingly, we've investigated that question, and yes, spontaneous mutations that produce resistance [i]do[/i] occur. Not often, but it doesn't have to be often.

[KnightofChrist]

Anyone else is welcomed to copy and paste, wont see me crying rivers about it.

Eh, this really isn't a big deal to me. In as much as I cannot change peoples minds on the matter. Darwinian Theory is Atheistic and held as a religion of Atheists. I cannot accept it on the grounds of both religious or scientific, the more I research the more it seems to be quite foolish. It suggests amazing impossibilities that would be laughed at if it pertained to another science. Darwinian Theory is a joke, a sad joke it is not science.

Pax

Edited August 22, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1282486605' post='2161406']
[b]but the Church doesn't REQUIRE us to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesi[/b]s There is only one Truth, we and everything else were created by God. Science slowly fills in the details.
[/quote]

False.

Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to [u]exclude the [b]literal historical sense[/b][/u] of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation? -- Reply: [b]In the negative.[/b]

Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis -- June 30, 1909

Edited August 22, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Ziggamafu]

Uh-huh. So!

How do we reconcile evolution with the concept of a perfect paradise before the Fall? Does the blood-thirsty battle for survival within the animal kingdom, whole species coming and going through fantastic catastrophes, violent collisions of entire galaxies, the cruel suffering in the animal food-chain, etc., sound like a perfect, unfallen paradise?

It seems to me that we have to say it is; the perfect "circle of life", the harmony of the chaotic universe, yada-yada.

Thoughts?

[Jesus_lol]

Its hard to take rebuttals to evolution seriously when they are dated from before evolution started to be truly understood. Its like looking in a Sears and Roebuck catalog from 100 years ago(i have, they are pretty cool to look through) and concluding that Ipods and flatscreen TVs do not exist.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282499631' post='2161502']
False.

Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to [u]exclude the [b]literal historical sense[/b][/u] of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation? -- Reply: [b]In the negative.[/b]

Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis -- June 30, 1909
[/quote]
Quoting from a document from 1909 is meaningless in this discussion because we are WAY past what scientists knew in 1909.
Again I am not required to believe a literal interpretation of Genesis. MiniLuith has explained it over and over and over again in great detail, so maybe you should reread her posts again. She actually TEACHES science [ ya know a professional }so maybe she has a better grasp of the matter than you.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1282515040' post='2161618']
Quoting from a document from 1909 is meaningless in this discussion because we are WAY past what scientists knew in 1909.
[/quote]

Not necessarily.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' timestamp='1282501047' post='2161505']
Uh-huh. So!

How do we reconcile evolution with the concept of a perfect paradise before the Fall? Does the blood-thirsty battle for survival within the animal kingdom, whole species coming and going through fantastic catastrophes, violent collisions of entire galaxies, the cruel suffering in the animal food-chain, etc., sound like a perfect, unfallen paradise?

It seems to me that we have to say it is; the perfect "circle of life", the harmony of the chaotic universe, yada-yada.

Thoughts?
[/quote]
The garden of Eden was a perfect paradise prepared for Adam amd Eve.Who knows what was going on outside the gates...

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' timestamp='1282501047' post='2161505']
Uh-huh. So!

How do we reconcile evolution with the concept of a perfect paradise before the Fall? Does the blood-thirsty battle for survival within the animal kingdom, whole species coming and going through fantastic catastrophes, violent collisions of entire galaxies, the cruel suffering in the animal food-chain, etc., sound like a perfect, unfallen paradise?

It seems to me that we have to say it is; the perfect "circle of life", the harmony of the chaotic universe, yada-yada.

Thoughts?
[/quote]
Earth and Paradise are two distinct places.

God created Adam from the clay of the earth. Blessed Anne describes this as if he came forth out of a little hill:

Genesis
{2:7} And then the Lord God formed man from the clay of the earth, and he breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

Blessed Anne
"I saw Adam created, not in Paradise, but in the region in which Jerusalem was subsequently situated. I saw him come forth glittering and white from a mound of yellow earth, as if out of a mould. . . The hillock opened, and Adam stepped gently forth. . ."

Then God drew Adam up into Paradise which is separate from Earth:

Gen
{2:8} Now the Lord God had planted a Paradise of enjoyment from the beginning. In it, he placed the man whom he had formed.
{2:15} Thus, the Lord God brought the man, and put him into the Paradise of enjoyment, so that it would be attended and preserved by him.

Blessed Anne:
"And now I saw Adam borne up on high to a garden, to Paradise."

Then, after the naming of the animals in Paradise, Eve was created from Adam's side in Paradise and surprisingly not on Earth.

{2:21} And so the Lord God sent a deep sleep upon Adam. And when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and he completed it with flesh for it.
{2:22} And the Lord God built up the rib, which he took from Adam, into a woman. And he led her to Adam.

Blessed Anne
"I saw a figure in his right side, and I became conscious that it was Eve (this vision is of Adam while he was still on Earth), and that she would be drawn from him in Paradise by God. . . God sent a deep sleep on him and he was rapt in vision. Then from his right side, from the same place in which Jesus was opened by the lance, God drew Eve. I saw her small and delicate. But she quickly increased in size until full-grown. She was exquisitely beautiful. Were it not fro the Fall, all would be born in the same way, in tranquil slumber."

Then after the Fall God cast Adam and Eve from Paradise to Earth:

Gen
{3:23} And so the Lord God sent him away from the Paradise of enjoyment, in order to work the earth from which he was taken.
{3:24} And he cast out Adam. And in front of the Paradise of enjoyment, he placed the Cherubim with a flaming sword, turning together, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Blessed Anne
"Paradise itself appeared like a cloud, to be mounting higher and higher above them. Then a fiery ring, like the circle sometimes seen around the sun and moon, came down from heaven and settled around the height upon which was Paradise."

"I now see Paradise far, far off like a strip of land directly under the point of sunrise. When the sun rises, it mounts up from the right of that strip of land which lies east of the Prophet Mountain and just where the sun rises. It looks to me like an egg hanging over indescribably clear water which separates it from the earth."

"I saw Adam and Eve reach the earth, their place of penance."

So Paradise is not on the Earth and Earth is not a part of Paradise. They are two distinct locations. Still the Earth was affected by the Fall.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1282515040' post='2161618']
Quoting from a document from 1909 is meaningless in this discussion because we are WAY past what scientists knew in 1909.
Again I am not required to believe a literal interpretation of Genesis. MiniLuith has explained it over and over and over again in great detail, so maybe you should reread her posts again. She actually TEACHES science [ ya know a professional }so maybe she has a better grasp of the matter than you.
[/quote]

Too bad, you are required to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. You are required to believe what the Author intended. You are not allowed belive that Genesis is a myth.

MiniLuith has failed to provided solid proof that Darwinian Theory can be proven by the scientific method, or observed. In fact thus far no Darwinian Evolutionist has done so, their predictions continue to change when those predictions are not proven or proven wrong.

Edited August 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Maggyie]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282526344' post='2161716']
Too bad, you are required to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. You are required to believe what the Author intended. You are not allowed belive that Genesis is a myth.

MiniLuith has failed to provided solid proof that Darwinian Theory can be proven by the scientific method, or observed. In fact thus far no Darwinian Evolutionist has done so, their predictions continue to change when those predictions are not proven or proven wrong.
[/quote]

I don't think MiniLuith has to prove that Darwin's theory can be proven... if it could be "proven" it would no longer be theory would it? The point is that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with the Catholic faith. If you've been taught otherwise you've received very bad, unorthodox catechesis.