Creation

[Socrates]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 16 2005, 10:51 PM'] Here's some Biology for you:
[url="http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/"]http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/[/url]

This is from Dr. Michael Behe,
Professor of Biochemistry
Department of Biological
Sciences, Lehigh University:
[url="http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm"]http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm[/url]
Some of his articles can be found here:
[url="http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_articles.htm"]http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_articles.htm[/url] [/quote]
Just thought I'd clarify.

Dr. Behe beliefs in "Intelligent Design."
He beleives in evolution, though guided by a Higher Intelligence (God), rather than random processes.
Behe is not a literalist "7 Day" Creationist.

[cathqat]

What Socrates said is true; I've read [i]Darwin's Black Box[/i]. Behe's not a creationist who denies evolution.

[frozencell]

I teach RCIA at my church (me and my wife are some of the teachers) and this topic came up the other day at our meeting. If you will notice, when Cain is banished to the "outerlands" he says that surely the many people out there will kill him. We raised this question to our priest and this was his reply.

He said that the Jews don't really have abstract "words" in their language (as did the Greeks) and so everything they wrote was very concrete in it's wording. For example, the Good Shephard is a name applied to Jesus because, to Jews, a shephard demostrates selfless love. They don't express the love itself as an abstract feeling, but a person. The same goes for Adam and Eve. They were a story written to express a larger amount of people and their actions (i.e. the tree of good and evil, etc.). This is simply a story to relate the giving into sin of the many people that God had created. Cain and Abel are two extremes to demostrate the actions and emotions of good people who followed God and those rebelling to do their own thing.

Did I explain myself well enough there? I hope that wasn't too confusing. I was a staunch believer in the literalness of the story of Adam and Eve, but now I have started to turn to the other side as there is quite a bit of evidence which seems to support this, both historically and biblically.

What do you think?

[cmotherofpirl]

I think you are now going to far in the opposite direction.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 17 2005, 12:32 AM'] What Socrates said is true; I've read [i]Darwin's Black Box[/i]. Behe's not a creationist who denies evolution. [/quote]
The reason I posted his link was because of his firm stand against Darwinian evolution/ natural selection.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 17 2005, 12:23 AM'] I gave examples about how he is vague. I am very surprised no one's mentioned them before. If you think his use of terms is clear, I've already invited you to clarify the meanings.
















[/quote]
Your examples are simply two terms that you assert are being misused. That's not exactly evidence that they are in fact being misused.

[quote]OK. I think your assertion that he is clear, even while using terms in an unclear way without bothering to clarify or define them, "borders on arrogance." That's not an effective response, you know.  [/quote]

What's not effective response is your continued assumption that he had used these terms incorrectly. Your argument stems from that point, yet you have not demonstrated that such is the case. You made the accusation to discredit the article, which is fine if the accusation is true. Whether or not it is true is yet to be demonstrated. The reason your assertion borders on arrogance is that you are assuming that you are correct with your assertion and Father's use of the term is wrong (rather than the possibility that you may simply be misunderstanding him and that his usage is perfectly fine and that he may know something about those terms and the subject, that you do not), yet you have demonstrated no such thing. The burden of proof is on you. You made the accusation. Perhaps you could point to an example and show how it is being used incorrectly (which, I presume would include a proper definition of the term and an example of proper usage.) Without this, your accusation is baseless.

It’s arrogant for me to claim that someone else presents a clear argument? That makes about no sense whatsoever. I’m claiming nothing with regard to myself.

[quote]I see no reason to contact him.[/quote]



Why not? This paper has been presented all over the world. Fr. Harrison is highly influential and a brilliant theologian. The article is influential enough that if it is erroneous, we should al want it corrected or deleted. If he has erred, he would like to know it. If not, he can clarify this point for you. In any case, you should have the intellectual honesty to attempt to find the truth of the matter.


[quote]But you do have the ability and right to clarify your own meaning. Would you like to do so?[/quote]

What good would it do for me to attempt to clarify these terms for you? My opinion is worth nothing. He wrote the article, get him to clarify it. All I can give you is my understanding of those term, as they would apply to this topic had I used them in an article or paper. However, this will mean virtually nothing as there is the distinct possibility that I may not understand his usage either. In either case, what I can offer could in no way be considered a clarification of his article, and therefore would be irrelevent.

[cathqat]

[quote name='frozencell' date='Jan 17 2005, 01:10 AM'] We raised this question to our priest and.... Adam and Eve. They were a story written to express a larger amount of people and their actions (i.e. the tree of good and evil, etc.). This is simply a story to relate the giving into sin of the many people that God had created. [/quote]
If he is claiming that humans are descended from more than two first parents, like polygenists claim, you should know that the Church has condemned polygeny. Catholics must believe that we humans are all descended from the same two parents (whom we usually call Adam and Eve).

[cathqat]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 17 2005, 09:04 AM'] The reason I posted his link was because of his firm stand against Darwinian evolution/ natural selection. [/quote]
But Behe is not entirely opposed to Darwin's concept of natural selection.

For example: "Darwinian theory [i]successfully accounts[/i] for a variety of modern changes. Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns. Likewise, the ratio of dark- to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light-colored moths more visible to predators. Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics. [i]These are all clear examples of natural selection in action[/i]."

Likewise: "Yes, I should emphasize that [i]I do think natural selection works. You can observe it in the laboratory[/i]. The question I'm trying to address is not whether Darwinian processes can't explain something, it's can they explain everything?... Antibiotic resistance is a perfect example of what they can explain."

As another author clarified: "Please note that Behe did [i]not[/i] claim that the Darwinian explanation is wrong in all cases, but that neo-Darwinism cannot explain [i]some[/i] cases (such as bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting system). This means that [i]irreducible complexity is not a general falsificator of natural selection or neo-Darwinism, but a specific falsificator for specific cases[/i]."

Behe has also clearly stated, "I'm not a creationist." Likewise in [i]Black Box[/i], "I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it."

[popestpiusx]

The question, in this case, is between two different kinds of evolution. The examples you gave are examples of microevolution (otherwise know as adaptation), which most creationists do not deny. This is to be contrasted with macroevolution, which results in the creation of new species out of lower life forms or of a single very simple lifeform.

Behe has a lot of good information. That doesn't mean we agree on everything. I did not intend to give that impression. I would say that Fr. Harrison and Dr. Mastropaolo are my best sources right now. Although there are plenty of others equally as worthy.

[cathqat]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 17 2005, 10:43 AM']Your examples are simply two terms that you assert are being misused.[/quote]

OK. Fr. Harrison repeatedly refers to the "historical formation of Eve from Adam’s side" without clarifying what he means by "historical." What does it mean? Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a definition of a term so crucial to his thesis? This is especially necessary because the events under discussion are themselves pre-historic. ("Pre-historic" means "of or belonging to an era before recorded history.") He could have clarified his use within the paper, but he did not.

Likewise, Fr. Harrison argues that these accounts must be regarded as "literally" true. But what does he mean by "literal"?

In common English parlance these days, literal means "conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words." To most English speakers in our day, to understand something "literally" is to understand the words as a nonfigurative, factual description.

This is not, however, the way "literal" is used among literary scholars, biblical exegetes, nor the Church. In literary circles, the "literal" meaning of a text is the meaning intended by the original author(s), as discerned through careful study of the words; phrases; literary, historical, and social contexts; etc. Within the Church, the meaning is very similar: "The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation." (c.f. [i]Dei Verbum[/i] 12, [i]Divino Afflante Spiritu[/i] 35f, etc. Likewise St. Thomas: "Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power.")

Now consider the following two sentences:
Emil Svensson fell off the wagon today.
Abraham Lincoln bought the farm.

If you ask the average man on the street what the "literal" interpretations of these two sentences should be, he will probably assume they are nonfigurative, factual descriptions and tell you that Emil fell off a wagon and Lincoln bought a farm. But if you ask a literary scholar for the "literal" interpretations, you may get very different answers: Emil Svensson got drunk and Abraham Lincoln died. The answer of the literary scholar depends on the meaning intended by the original author(s), as discerned through careful study of the words, phrases, contexts, etc.

This distinction between the common definition of "literal" and the literary definition of "literal" is a very important one. For the average man on the street, there can be no "literal" interpretation of Psalm 114:4, unless he is willing to believe that mountains have legs like sheep. But for the literary scholar and the biblical interpreters of the Church, the verse does have a literal sense, and it is not describing mountains gamboling on four legs. For the Church, all passages of scripture have a literal sense, though it is not always easy to discern.

Back to Fr. Harrison: In what sense is he using the word "literal"? One of the above? Neither? Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a definition of a term so crucial to his thesis? But none is forthcoming; I looked for one. If anything, it appears that he is using it in the common English parlance, man-on-the-street way, which would be a misuse; I hope this is not the case. But regardless how he intends to use it, he needs to show that both he and the Church use it in the same way(s).

[[Just to confuse matters further: the "literal sense" of Scripture may also be called the "historic sense." In neither case, however, does it mean "conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words."]]

If you would like to clarify, for me and anyone else who might be curious, what Fr. Harrison actually means when he uses terms like these, please feel free to do so. It may lead to an interesting discussion.

[quote]You made the accusation to discredit the article[/quote]

Not to discredit, but more to say that I don't find the article particularly helpful, since he uses essential terms vaguely, without clarification, and his use of citations seems to beg the question.

[quote]the possibility that you may simply be misunderstanding him and that his usage is perfectly fine[/quote]

I admit that it is theoretically possible he knows how to use the terms, but he is still not using them clearly. The paper would be substantially improved if he defined the terms.

[quote]The burden of proof is on you.[/quote]

No, in the context of his paper, the burden of proof is on him. If he wants to argue that the accounts are "historically and literally true" (something I do not deny), he needs to explain what he means by "historically" and "literally."

[quote]It’s arrogant for me to claim that someone else presents a clear argument?  That makes about no sense whatsoever.  I’m claiming nothing with regard to myself.[/quote]

I was joking about the "arrogant" thing. But claiming that his meaning is "clear" implies that you understand the paper. If you understand the paper so well, please explain his usage of the terms.

[quote]This paper has been presented all over the world.[/quote]

Then I am frankly stunned no one has asked him to define or clarify the terms essential to his thesis.

[quote]The article is influential enough that if it is erroneous, we should al want it corrected or deleted.[/quote]

I'm not that concerned about it. It may be influential in some particular circles, but it hasn't exactly captivated the mind of the general Catholic public, and I doubt it ever will.

[quote]What good would it do for me to attempt to clarify these terms for you?  My opinion is worth nothing.... All I can give you is my understanding of those term.... there is the distinct possibility that I may not understand his usage either.[/quote]

If Fr. Harrison's usage of the terms is clear, as you have said so many times, you should have no difficulty explaining his meaning to me.

But you have also used at least one of the terms yourself. At the very least you might clarify your own meaning?

[cathqat]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 17 2005, 02:45 PM'] Behe has a lot of good information. That doesn't mean we agree on everything. I did not intend to give that impression.
[/quote]
You did not give the impression that you and Behe agree on everything. I was just clarifying that he is not a creationist, nor does he argue against all natural selection. He only argues that there are some circumstances in which natural selection is an inadequate explanatory mechanism.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]The same goes for Adam and Eve. They were a story written to express a larger amount of people and their actions (i.e. the tree of good and evil, etc.). This is simply a story to relate the giving into sin of the many people that God had created. Cain and Abel are two extremes to demostrate the actions and emotions of good people who followed God and those rebelling to do their own thing[/quote]

It is a [i]de fide[/i] statement of faith that god created two distinct persons, one male and one female, and that all of humanity comes from those two individuals. To assert that we come from more than those two parents, even if one asserts that God created those other "parents" as well, is heresy.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[delta557]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jan 13 2005, 10:37 AM'] We must believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
We must believe that God created the earth and everything in it.
We must believe that God created a man called Adam and a woman called Eve.
We must believe that they were in union with God.
We must believe that they sinned, i.e. in the fall of man and that original sin was the result.

We are not bound to believe that the 7 days of creation has to be a literal seven days. Personally I believe that God could have done it all in seven days and made it look like it took billions of years but I am more inclined to believe that God didn't create the universe and the earth in a rush.

That is my understanding. [/quote]
Dude, that guy is soooo right.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 15 2005, 01:45 PM'] The Fossil record actually does more to disprove the old earth theory than it does to support it. Just think about it. How many animals do you know of that stick around long enough after they die to become fossilized. Fossils are not created over millions of years. They would have to be created almost instantly to preserve the kind of detail commonly found (scales, feathers, in some cases, even soft materials like the space that would have been filled by the body (not the shell) of a snail). [/quote]
I'm sorry but you are being misled completely on fossilization.

First off, in order for fossilization to occur there must be (for the majority of cases, excluding volcanic ash preservation and landslides as examples) water or a fluid environment. This is why you do not see fossilization occuring to any dead animals, it occurs below the surface. The animals stick around due to the lack of decay in anerobic environments. The bodies will not decay as readily, or be eaten and scattered by large predators (they are not found at the bottoms of large bodies of water). Many organisms can be covered by the slow collection of silt, or through massive unerwater landslides (which occur frequently off the continental shelf). Organisms can leave fossil evidence quite quickly even if they decay. Initial impressions made by the organisms leave fossil evidence, even if the organism is decayed or lost. Hard structures are the easiest to preserve because the structure can more easily withstand the pressures associated with the lithification of sediment. Also, it is important to keep in mind they all fossils that are not imprints have in a way become petrified. The structure has really been replaced by minerals. As petrified wood is really not wood at all but quartz that maintains the shape and structures found in the wood.

The rate of fossilization is dependent on the rate of lithification, the greater the pressure the quicker the lithification and the fossilization. Also the sediment plays a role in the rate of lithification and the preservation of fossils. Larger grain sizes do the most damage to the fossil specimen. Fine carbonate does the best in preserving and sand sized or larger grains do the most damage.

The fossil record in itself is by no means a comprehensive look at the history of life on earth. It discriminates greatly against surface organisms. It is estimated that based on preservation models, subduction, erosional processes, and environmental locales needed that less than 1% of earth's organisms would be preserved.

[Mary's Knight, La]

[quote name='bookwyrm' date='Jan 13 2005, 06:01 PM'] are you basing your stance on a scientific issue only on the Bible (which doesn't presume to teach us science)?
[/quote]
no but it does teach us history as a matter of fact most of the OT is history, where is the part on creation... just a thought...

i accept all we are required to believe but for the rest the jury's still out...