Evolution vs Creation

[Oik]

I don't think Evolution is problematic in animals. I think there is compelling evidence for it in animals. I do not extend this to humans.


This is my qualm with Theistic evolution, it treats the human body, the Flesh as something that evolved from other animals.

Man is made in the image and likeness of God, not in the image and likeness of th Creator's own creatures. To say we evolved is to say that only our souls are made in God's image and likeness.


This is even more problematic for dialogue between Chriatians and athiests, fir the point will always come to what Mel said earlier, that Theistic evolution in no way implies God.

[Oik]

[quote]35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.


36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.


37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]


38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.


39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.


40. Truly, we are aware that the majority of Catholic doctors, the fruit of whose studies is being gathered in universities, in seminaries and in the colleges of religious, are far removed from those errors which today, whether through a desire for novelty or through a certain immoderate zeal for the apostolate, are being spread either openly or covertly. But we know also that such new opinions can entice the incautious; and therefore we prefer to withstand the very beginnings rather than to administer the medicine after the disease has grown inveterate.

Pope Pius XII--[i]Humani Generis[/i][/quote]

[infinitelord1]

how is there less and less proof for evolution.....did you know that the dna of a monkey and the dna of a human is only seperated by 2 components? That says we are very closely related. What about carbon dating, which suggests we are much older then what the bible suggests (5-10 thousand yrs old). I believe what robotman0 believes.....evolution was the way god chose to do it.

[Oik]

Humani Generis explicitly states that the creation account CANNOT be regarded as a myth ans is not on par with profane writings. Catholics MUST believe that there was an original couple, one man, one woman from which humanity decends. We don't have to believe that thier names were 'Adam' and 'Eve,' but we have to believe that they existed and that they sinned (original sin).




[quote]Exactly. It only interferes if you believe in the literal account of genesis. If you don't. Than evolution implies nothing about a gods existence or non existence.[/quote]

As stated here, there would be no implication of God in creation. Problematic for myself.


The Church, at the current time, holds that Catholics MAY believe in evolution as long as they do not do so in such a way as to deny the existence of God.

Can you, as a Catholic believe in evolution? Yes.

This Catholic, however, doesn't. I am not a creationist though.

[Oik]

[quote]how is there less and less proof for evolution.....did you know that the dna of a monkey and the dna of a human is only seperated by 2 components? That says we are very closely related. What about carbon dating, which suggests we are much older then what the bible suggests (5-10 thousand yrs old). I believe what robotman0 believes.....evolution was the way god chose to do it.[/quote]

The Fact that we are closer to some animals in what material our bodies are composed off is a ridiculously huge leap of faith in the belief towards evolution.

So what, God only uses X amount of differnt materials for creation.

Here's a terrifically bad analogy (and don't try to follow thorugh with it or expound it...all anaologies fail eventually!)

Potato salad requires Potatoes. Some people use mayo, some people use mustard. So many combinations and ingrediants can be added. All potatoe salad is different (and mine is the best!). Does this mean that because Pasta has starch in it that Pasta is Potatoe salad? Its Spaghetti potatoe salad? Are mash potatoes Potatoe salad? No, no, and no.


The same goes for humans and animals. We might be made of the same materials, physically as apes or whatever. It doesn't however, mean we are those things or that we descended from those things.

[Oik]

Personally, I believe something really out there. I sypathize with both evolutionists and creationists. I am neither.

I think, strictly speacking for man, there is only one exl;planation: ther has necver been a 'change,' only an unfolding of physical being.

Evolution implies that changes take place in a species and those changes over time lead to the development that speices into another.

I simply don't beileve in changes. I believe the fossil records and in 'adaptations.' This is to say, the first humans, adam and eve, had all the gentic capability we have today and will continue to have. The 'changes' we see in the human beings physicality are not 'changes' but and an unfolding of genetic possibilities already there. For whatever reason (that God had), the unfolding was initated. This gives the appearance that 'change' was happenings.

The difference here it that the adaptations taking p[lace were gentically able to happen. Evolution says that it is 'mutations,' good and bad, that initiate 'changes.' In other words, they are capabale and then thorugh mutations these changes become possible.

I of course deny 'change' and embrace only an unfolding of something previously genetically already capable.


As for Creationism, it doesn't account for the 'changes' that evolution tauts (which I have pointed out I beileve to be only an unfolding). So there is a sense that one gets that Creationism is denying the fossil records and science.

[infinitelord1]

oik,

ur right it doesnt necessarily say that we descended from apes it merely suggests it.


Some say......"if we evolved from monkeys then why is there still monkeys?"
I was reading in my anthropology book that human beings evolved from neanderthals about 30,000 years ago. We have not changed in 30,000 years. Recent studies have revealed that for a while neanderthals and humans existed at the same time. There was a mystery as to what happened to the neanderthals since these two species coexisted. They found no evidence that humans killed the neanderthals off (this doesnt mean it didnt happen). Some anthropologists say that it is possible that in some areas of the world......specifically in some regions in central europe.........humans and neanderthals ended up mating together. If this really happened, it meant that they had to be very similar genetically. even more similar than monkeys to humans.


I made the comment earlier on this post that according to the bible the earth is 5-10 thousand years old.....i should have said according to some bible scholars.

[Oik]

Infinite, your point is well taken. It goes to show exactly what I was saying. The fact that humans and animals are made up of the same material doesn't even suggest that we came from apes. In fact, it illuminates how big a jump one has to take to fill in the gaps of evolutionary theory.

Merely being able to mate with something does not mean creating a viable offspring. Even if neanderthals and Homo Sapiens did mate, where's the evidence of viable offspiring?


The point here is to show that if indeed they did mate and created viable offspring, then they really AREN'T different, merely, homo sapiens would have more (or a difference in) unfolding of pre-existing already compatible, capable genetics.

Either way, the conclusion that neanderthals 'evolved' into Homo Sapiens (primarily the assertation that Neanderthals had a change that made them something different or new, that is Homo Sapiens) is a wild, refutable, and uncredible conclusion (unless of course more evidence is found to fill in all the gaps).

[001]

Well it's obvious that humans weren't always this way, so we must have come from something. (monkeys, apes, fish, whatever you want)

[Jaime]

[quote name='001' date='Apr 21 2005, 02:36 PM'] Well it's obvious that humans weren't always this way, so we must have come from something. (monkeys, apes, fish, whatever you want) [/quote]
How is this obvious?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Oik' date='Apr 21 2005, 12:32 PM'] Infinite, your point is well taken. It goes to show exactly what I was saying. The fact that humans and animals are made up of the same material doesn't even suggest that we came from apes. In fact, it illuminates how big a jump one has to take to fill in the gaps of evolutionary theory.

Merely being able to mate with something does not mean creating a viable offspring. Even if neanderthals and Homo Sapiens did mate, where's the evidence of viable offspiring?


The point here is to show that if indeed they did mate and created viable offspring, then they really AREN'T different, merely, homo sapiens would have more (or a difference in) unfolding of pre-existing already compatible, capable genetics.

Either way, the conclusion that neanderthals 'evolved' into Homo Sapiens (primarily the assertation that Neanderthals had a change that made them something different or new, that is Homo Sapiens) is a wild, refutable, and uncredible conclusion (unless of course more evidence is found to fill in all the gaps). [/quote]
oik,


thats what i was talking about that if they mated they produced offspring (neanderthals mixed with humanoids). Some suggest that in areas like malta......it was so isolated from the rest of the world that the gene pool was not spread out enough. These maltese people, in effect, still hold some neanderthal traits (short, wide shoulders, bigger heads).

[robotman0]

I know this is kind of side tracking from where the debate is currently going but let me just throw this out there.....it maybe be a really stupid idea but I just thought of it so here goes..... The beginning of Genesis where it talks about this.......perhaps the "how" God created the creatures is not there because God knew at the time people did not know enough for Him to explain that He created the organisms of the earth through evolution......they would not have even had a word for evolution at the time, so they certainly would not understand the concept.

Its just like in the book of Revalations...........you can't take that literally. It talks about all kinds of things like 7 headed serpents and such. This probably doesn't really mean a 7 headed serpent. For the sake of my point lets say it meant some country with 7 nuclear warheads. Well, God could have just inspired the writer to put that....but they didn't have a word for nuclear nor would they understand what it meant. On the other hand they could picture a 7 headed serpent and knew that He meant something with 7 destructive thingers.

What I'm trying to get across is the "how" is left out in Genesis. Maybe because it wasn't really important.......or maybe because the people wouldn't have understood with our limited minds.

I hope that made some sense and I apologize if I strayed too much from what was being discussed.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 21 2005, 10:40 AM'] how is there less and less proof for evolution.....did you know that the dna of a monkey and the dna of a human is only seperated by 2 components? That says we are very closely related. What about carbon dating, which suggests we are much older then what the bible suggests (5-10 thousand yrs old). I believe what robotman0 believes.....evolution was the way god chose to do it. [/quote]
There is less and less proof. As more of the fossils originally used to prove the evolutionary theory are studies, they are falling short of their former glory. As we get better capabilities to study fossils we find a hard position to defend...

God bless,
Mikey

[infinitelord1]

i have heard that some bible scholars say (from a creationism perspective) that the earth is really only 5-10 thousand years old. If so, i see this as extreme creationism. I am not sure as to how they were able to come up with this number but i imagine they used geneology to determine this. We know that jesus existed about 2000 years ago. The old testament is pretty adament about keeping track of who bore who, and how many siblings there were in the immediate family. Im sure by doing this you could probably get an idea of how long ago the first modern humanoids (possibly by the names adam and eve) existed. But even then....in the old testament it talks about people who are 970 years old and 750 years old. Its hard for me to take this literally, but if people really lived to be this old i guess it is possible that adam and eve existed 35,000 years ago (when humanoids evolved from neanderthals). There is no way (in my mind) that this earth is only 5-10 thousand years old though. Too much evidence still says otherwise.

[zealousdefender]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 21 2005, 11:17 PM']i have heard that some bible scholars say (from a creationism perspective) that the earth is really only 5-10 thousand years old. If so, i see this as extreme creationism. I am not sure as to how they were able to come up with this number but i imagine they used geneology to determine this. We know that jesus existed about 2000 years ago. The old testament is pretty adament about keeping track of who bore who, and how many siblings there were in the immediate family. Im sure by doing this you could probably get an idea of how long ago the first modern humanoids (possibly by the names adam and eve) existed. But even then....in the old testament it talks about people who are 970 years old and 750 years old. Its hard for me to take this literally, but if people really lived to be this old i guess it is possible that adam and eve existed 35,000 years ago (when humanoids evolved from neanderthals). There is no way (in my mind) that this earth is only 5-10 thousand years old though. Too much evidence still says otherwise.[/quote]
There are too many threads on this topic, so I'll just link you to the answer:
[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=32387&st=75entry575442"]Carbon dating is not infallible.[/url]

While you're there, you might as well read my post preceeding it.