Reconciling Evolution & Faith

[mommas_boy]

By way of resuming the topic at hand, namely, how does one reconcile Evolution and Faith, I offer this suggestion, which I posted in another, similar thread:

[quote name='mommas_boy' timestamp='1264102088' post='2041593']
Ok. I am willing to put forward a theory that may or may not satisfy both the requirements of Faith with the current theories (supported by evidence) in science.

I am willing to entertain a scenario where both Adam and Eve were not the first humans, but were the first ensouled [b]people[/b]. This allows for the evolutionary development of [i]homo sapiens[/i] as a species with a viable gene pool (ie. large enough to be self-sustaining), while also satisfying the requirement that all modern humans are descended from Adam and Eve, vis a vis thus:

It is common knowledge that all human beings are descended from one woman, as evidenced by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve"]mitochondrial DNA[/url] (mtDNA). This woman is called "Mitochondrial Eve" (mtEve). It is also common knowledge that all men alive today are descended from one man, dubbed "Y-Chromosomal Adam" (yAdam). Now, yAdam and mtEve were separated by many thousand years, so they had no possibility of having been mates. However, Mitochondrial Eve must have had a partner with whom she had children; we will call this partner "Mitochondrial Adam" (mtAdam).

It is possible that the Biblical Eve could have been the same as mtEve, but it is far more likely that the Biblical Eve was a matrilineal ancestor of mtEve. mtEve would have inherited her mtDNA from the Biblical Eve through many generations of mothers. So, it is likely that one of Biblical Eve's great-great-great granddaughters was mtEve, from whom, all living humans are now descended. Thus, all living humans are descended from Biblical Eve, because mtEve was descended from Biblical Eve.

In this scenario, Biblical Adam and Eve are one of many humans, but the first humans to be gifted by God with a spiritual soul. Children of their line were also granted souls. Eventually, mtEve was born, and became mated with mtAdam, and it is from their union that the current population of earth is now descended.

This appears to satisfy scientific evidence; does it also satisfy the requirements of our Faith?

EDIT: A plus of this theory is that science can neither prove nor disprove that an ensoulment event occured; it is purely a matter of faith.
[/quote]

You should also read through the rest of that thread, specifically KofC's comments further down, for reasons why this might not be acceptable to our Faith.

[sixpence]

Favorite Science video: PCR Song

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5yPkxCLads[/media]

PCRrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

Edited August 23, 2010 by sixpence

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1282539417' post='2161888']
I like science.
[/quote]

You would.

[Fidei Defensor]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdm5he_richard-dawkins-demonstrates-laryng_tech?from=embed%3Fstart%3D44

[Winchester]

A rehashing of the problem of evil argument against God.

Welcome to Dullsville, Population: Richard Dawkins.


I think it's cute that both sides spend so much time creating straw men to knock over.

[kamiller42]

I will take Dawkins' words seriously when he creates his own organism and brings it life. Of course, to do so, he would have to admit his organism began with an intelligence (his own) and a creator (himself). So if his organism required a creator to come into existence, why not humans?

Score --
God: Quadrillions forms of life created; Dawkins: 0.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='fidei defensor' timestamp='1282583477' post='2162053']
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdm5he_richard-dawkins-demonstrates-laryng_tech?from=embed%3Fstart%3D44
[/quote]

Interesting video. But does God have to engineer a perfect creation? Could God have used a circuitous evolutionary path? Did God have to go back to the drawing board, as Dawkins suggests?

Dawkins creates a false choice: either evolution or religion. It is the same false choice created by Galileo: either heliocentrism or religion. In both cases, it was the scientist who presented their theories as dogma -- as a matter of religion.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='mommas_boy' timestamp='1282593379' post='2162125']
Interesting video. But does God have to engineer a perfect creation? Could God have used a circuitous evolutionary path? Did God have to go back to the drawing board, as Dawkins suggests?

Dawkins creates a false choice: either evolution or religion. It is the same false choice created by Galileo: either heliocentrism or religion. In both cases, it was the scientist who presented their theories as dogma -- as a matter of religion.
[/quote]
I agree with the false choice part. I do think that in general, science and religion can be compatible.

However, I do believe that if such a God exists as Catholics believe in, then yes, he does have to engineer perfect creation because he himself being perfect cannot create the imperfect or else it would violate his nature. Granted, I also see that as an obstacle to his existence since he must beget perfection due to his nature and yet if what he created was perfect, it would be on the same level as him, which would not be possible either since God is theoretically the highest and most perfect thing in the universe.

Oh well.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='fidei defensor' timestamp='1282609691' post='2162269']
I agree with the false choice part. I do think that in general, science and religion can be compatible.
[/quote]

I always appreciate your opinions for their candor and logic. We are in agreement here.

[quote name='fidei defensor' timestamp='1282609691' post='2162269']
However, I do believe that if such a God exists as Catholics believe in, then yes, he does have to engineer perfect creation because he himself being perfect cannot create the imperfect or else it would violate his nature. Granted, I also see that as an obstacle to his existence since he must beget perfection due to his nature and yet if what he created was perfect, it would be on the same level as him, which would not be possible either since God is theoretically the highest and most perfect thing in the universe.

Oh well.
[/quote]

Ok. The perfection question created a paradox. How about my other question, "Does God [i]have[/i] to go back to the drawing board [for each new species], as Dawkins suggests?"

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='mommas_boy' timestamp='1282613770' post='2162292']
I always appreciate your opinions for their candor and logic. We are in agreement here.



Ok. The perfection question created a paradox. How about my other question, "Does God [i]have[/i] to go back to the drawing board [for each new species], as Dawkins suggests?"
[/quote]
I think what Dawkins is trying to say is that if God created humans as unique individuals, why would he (poorly) modify the engineering, as demonstrated by the laryngeal nerve, rather than just creating it in a way that makes the most sense.

[OraProMe]

I think Richard Dawkins is a jerk and not a very good philosopher or theologian, he should stick to science. However one thing that makes me uncomfortable about the Church is that it always seems to come up with a "way out" when challenged by science or common sense. Evolution requires death before the fall? Oh, death and suffering just existed for animals and not humans before the fall. Why do innocent people suffer? Oh, that's original sin. I'm a fair God but allow millions of people to be born with disease and illness because of what their great, great, great (x10000) grandparents did.

The problem of evil is probably the biggest obstacle to theism for me.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1282619584' post='2162325']
I think Richard Dawkins is a jerk and not a very good philosopher or theologian, he should stick to science. However one thing that makes me uncomfortable about the Church is that it always seems to come up with a "way out" when challenged by science or common sense. Evolution requires death before the fall? Oh, death and suffering just existed for animals and not humans before the fall. Why do innocent people suffer? Oh, that's original sin. I'm a fair God but allow millions of people to be born with disease and illness because of what their great, great, great (x10000) grandparents did.

The problem of evil is probably the biggest obstacle to theism for me.
[/quote]
Not only does the Church come up with ways out, but these ways are conveniently non-falsifiable. Yes, they may make sense philosophically (if you accept certain premises,) but you can't disprove them either.

Edited August 24, 2010 by fidei defensor

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='fidei defensor' timestamp='1282618675' post='2162318']
I think what Dawkins is trying to say is that if God created humans as unique individuals, why would he (poorly) modify the engineering, as demonstrated by the laryngeal nerve, rather than just creating it in a way that makes the most sense.
[/quote]

I believe, as a devout Catholic, and an ardent proponent of science, that God honors the rules that he set in place. Rather than break his own rules, God used his own created rules in the system of evolution in order to craft humans.

An example. I believe that we can both agree that the God that Christians believe in is ardently against rape. Yet, from time to time, a child is conceived through rape. This God is ardently against rape, yet -- he also honors the rules of conception that he put into place: sperm meets egg, and conception happens. It's not ideal, and is certainly not the way that God would have hoped for that child to come into the world, but God creates a new individual nonetheless. Those are the rules that he set forth, and he is going to stick to them. God is Truth, and it is against his Nature to contradict himself, as you alluded to in your post just prior to my last.

Similarly, I submit that God set forth the rules of evolution. Those rules are far from perfect, far from ideal, but those are his rules, and it is against his Nature to act to the contrary.

[quote name='fidei defensor' timestamp='1282620634' post='2162326']
Not only does the Church come up with ways out, but these ways are conveniently non-falsifiable. Yes, they may make sense philosophically (if you accept certain premises,) but you can't disprove them either.
[/quote]

You are placing the requirements of science (ability to be proven true or false) onto religious faith, which does not share the same burden.

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1282619584' post='2162325']
I think Richard Dawkins is a jerk and not a very good philosopher or theologian, he should stick to science. However one thing that makes me uncomfortable about the Church is that it always seems to come up with a "way out" when challenged by science or common sense. Evolution requires death before the fall? Oh, death and suffering just existed for animals and not humans before the fall. Why do innocent people suffer? Oh, that's original sin. I'm a fair God but allow millions of people to be born with disease and illness because of what their great, great, great (x10000) grandparents did.

The problem of evil is probably the biggest obstacle to theism for me.
[/quote]

I believe in two kinds of faith. My religious faith -- that's kind number one. And then my scientific faith -- that when I perform an experiment 100 times, and get a similar result, the 101st time will also be similar. I have performed a certain experiment a very many times: asking my Church why she teaches as she does. And each time I perform this experiment, I receive a similar result: my Church has a logical answer. That is my experience, and the experience of everyone else here on this phorum who have asked questions and legitimately sought answers. I possess a scientific faith that my Church has a good answer.

The answer to the problem of evil is the person of Jesus Christ. I would say that anyone would have a right to be angry at a God who did not share in their plight -- in sickness, pain, the toil of work, the loss of a loved one, death. But the Catholic Church teaches that God took on those infirmities, also.

[quote]
Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Phillipians 2:5b-11
[/quote]

Christ's death and resurrection accomplished the vindication of suffering. Jesus didn't just conquer death and disease -- afterall, they still remain -- rather, he [b]transformed[/b] suffering from being the result of sin into being the path to Heaven. Indeed, there is no one person (save our Holy Mother) who entered Heaven without first dying. Is it pleasant? No. But at least the Church professes that Christ did it with us -- Emmanuel, God With Us.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282414695' post='2161095']
[i]Christians should realize that evolution is not
part of genuine natural science,
but is an excuse invented by men to reject God.[/i]

[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Homiletic/11-96/3/3.html"]Theistic evolution: A tragic misunderstanding and grave error[/url]

By Clement A. Butel

[mod]Please don't copy/paste articles, just link to them instead. - dUSt[/mod]
[/quote]

Here is a link to the archived article. Since the other is dead.

[url="http://www.daylightorigins.com/2007/May/22/Theistic_1.html"]Click Here[/url]

Edited August 24, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Laudate_Dominum]

The fiddler is breaking the link because it doesn't like R[s][/s]CC, replaces it with Catholic Church.

[url="http://tinyurl.com/2bg4e4j"]Try This[/url]