Human Evolution

[Paddington]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1493782' date='Apr 6 2008, 05:14 PM']If you mean by my other posts, keep on topic Paddington.[/quote]



I do agree with you that people can choose to use evolution to justify eugenics.
But I'm confident that science shows all the "races" to be equal.
There have been Christians who have used Shem/Ham/Japheth to justify anti-black apartheid.
I don't think they used the Bible correctly anymore than Hitler used science correctly.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1493841' date='Apr 6 2008, 03:16 PM']

I do agree with you that people can choose to use evolution to justify eugenics.
But I'm confident that science shows all the "races" to be equal.
There have been Christians who have used Shem/Ham/Japheth to justify anti-black apartheid.
I don't think they used the Bible correctly anymore than Hitler used science correctly.[/quote]

Science shows all "races" as equal because God made the original two, Adam and Eve, who lived around 6000 years ago. That's my opinion based on the fact, even contimplating evolution feels wrong, and that I shouldn't entertain such thoughts complicating the simplicity of Christ Jesus.

[dairygirl4u2c]

more like complicating the narrow views you've been told, and so happen to believe.

adam and eve could have come from a line of evolution. God could have been part of it. the creation story could be more figurative than anything.

there's too many other possibilies, that even a christian could believe. so, for you as a christian to put on your blinders, here, and in other threads in this phroum, simply shows you to not like thinking of anything critical to you. ie, you are denying truth to live in an overly simplified, random world. you can't hide behind christianity on this one.

Edited April 7, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1494366' date='Apr 7 2008, 04:57 PM']there's too many other possibilies, that even a christian could believe. so, for you as a christian to put on your blinders, here, and in other threads in this phroum, simply shows you to not like thinking of anything critical to you. ie, you are denying truth to live in an overly simplified, random world. you can't hide behind christianity on this one.[/quote]

Actually yes she can. Evolution as an idea is far older then many would think.

St.Augustine in the 4th century was the first, (Or at least, the earliest in the Anno Dominae years), to make a theory about evolution. His idea was thiestic, (obviously), that everything happened in processes except all at once. A tad bit different from modern day evolution theories which ride along the Darwinian model. Because of him, the Church has no official position on creation. But has three Dgomas:

1: Everything was created out of Nothing, (Ex Nihilio)
2: The universe is orderly, (There is an order to everything)
3: Everything depends On God for its continued existence.

[i]FOR THE PAST THOUSAND YEARS[/i]. These Dogmas actually leaves the individual alot to muddle around with. She refuses to acknowledge evolution because she sees that bad fruit comes of it. Whcih from a Christian standpoint is a reasonable arguement why SHE doesn't beleive in it. She wasn't arguing it was real, shes saying she thinks it could be false: She's [i]sceptical[/i] of Evolution. You're making it sound like its a crime.

Quite frankly so am I, but not for the same reasons. The new discoveries in 'Evolution' tend to border on the wild, (The Devilfrog, I mean seriously, come on), that and the several hoaxes over the years isn't helping its case in my eyes, not to mention there's a possibility it breaks existing rules of science that nothing else seems to break.

Sides the darwinian model doesn't help us understand why we have intellects, strictly speaking, it argues that we don't, as intellects are not neccesary for the survival of a species.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Galloglasses

[son_of_angels]

From a philosophy perspective, a "moral" argument against evolution-that it necessarily would lead to eugenics-is based on some pretty unsound metaphysics. For example, if I said, "That man (say, a Roman Catholic priest) can't have molested that child because it would harm the faith" is an obviously flawed principle. If you can't distinguish between a moral/ethical action, which is based on the contingent choices of individuals, and the fact of a situation, which is based on the hypothetically necessary progression from cause to effect, you are in a sad state.

As to the other points, regarding the Biblical, and indeed, Catholic, viewpoint on the first parents. It is not anti-scientific to posit a miraculous beginning to the human race. After this long a time, it is likely that the bones of our first parents will never be found, and, moreover, there would be no way to confirm who they actually were. So, just as we do when we defend the feeding of the 5,000 and 4,000, we do not negate mathematics by saying that God transcends even mathematics (get your heads around that one), nor do we negate biology or chemistry by saying that God transcended them to create the human person. Is God then a deceiver? Well, I imagine that the loaves fed to the people would have looked like they had been baked when they would have in fact not done so, so if God was a deceiver in that case, then he was also a deceiver in this case. However, in neither case do we have to hold the position that God was a deceiver, because there is no evidence that it wasn't perfectly natural for the human race to take on the evolutionary character that it did to accomplish some future goal, just as, if Jesus had not made multiple loaves, the people would not have had as much wonder at their multiplication.

Also, a word on Pope St. Pius X's use of the term "Evolution." Usually, he uses that term to describe the evolution of doctrine not organic species.

Finally, regarding the need for scientific "evidence." I have it on good authority that most of the scientific principles underlying evolution CAN be tested, for example showing that random samples will display certain tendencies. If you consider that evolution is something which is not so much "proven" as "demonstrated to be probable" as a theoretical framework for understanding the present conditions and past development of organisms, it seems entirely ridiculous to discard it, when most of the genetic and biological discoveries made in the past several decades have been based on the confirmation of its scientific principles.

If, on the other hand, we found a smoking gun for the "Creationist" theory to be proven correct, it would not be treated as a boon for religion, or at least, should not be treated as such, but merely as something which alters or improves the framework of empirical evidence thus far.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1495960' date='Apr 9 2008, 08:24 PM']If, on the other hand, we found a smoking gun for the "Creationist" theory to be proven correct, it would not be treated as a boon for religion, or at least, should not be treated as such, but merely as something which alters or improves the framework of empirical evidence thus far.[/quote]

But wouldn't such evidence actually prove God exists? At least circumstantially?

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1495960' date='Apr 9 2008, 08:24 PM']From a philosophy perspective, a "moral" argument against evolution-that it necessarily would lead to eugenics-is based on some pretty unsound metaphysics. For example, if I said, "That man (say, a Roman Catholic priest) can't have molested that child because it would harm the faith" is an obviously flawed principle. If you can't distinguish between a moral/ethical action, which is based on the contingent choices of individuals, and the fact of a situation, which is based on the hypothetically necessary progression from cause to effect, you are in a sad state.[/quote]

As the one who came up with this argument, it is interesting, son of angels, that you of all people would say it is unsound.

I am sorry for acting [b]wisely[/b], instead of intelligently.

You argument is without peer, and I will accept your intelligence is without match.

But what about the cause of people to not believe in God because evolution can have the effect to make people believe nothing other than matter is needed to form life.

I haven't talked to someone like you in a while, I shall enjoy your posts soa. I hope you respond.

[son_of_angels]

Whether or not God exists would not necessarily be proven by the "smoking gun" of Creationism, because there is no material way we could prove agency by something non-material. For instance, if we found evidence that the world was created in one great upheaval, we might indeed say, "the laws of nature do not appear to have applied at this time, for some reason we know not what." However, that might indeed be enough to convince some. For others, it would just be further proof of the randomness of the universe. Moreover, I cannot say that we would necessarily know WHICH God it was that created everything. There is also the ability to be deceived, which is one of the deepest properties of human nature (as the account from Genesis shows).

Evolution can indeed have the effect of making people not believe in God, but these are the same people who would not believe in the resurrection, or the virgin birth, or anything miraculous whatsoever. Ultimately, also, there are worse sins than unbelief, like disobedience, maliciousness, idolatry. All of these proceed from a disordered love of the world, while, at least, atheism is a turning to one's own nature against something false. In other words, perhaps we could imagine that, as God works out his will in the world, he intends to allow those who only know the material to discover things which the faithful can put to use in the world, following the teaching of St. Paul the Apostle, "to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use." So we find that many doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. are indeed for the menial use of the things of this world, while Christians, recognizing God's providence, are elevated to the knowledge of higher things.

If, on the other hand, Christians start asking questions like, "Why would God allow this?" or else, "Why would God make the world in such a way as to permit unbelief?" then Christians will have to start answering all of these questions, including the fundamental question, "Why is there evil in the world in the presence of a good and provident God?" To this the Christian simply has no answer because WE are the provident good of God, working out his will through history, and at last returning to him in the last day.

I would love to know your, or anyone's, thoughts on what I have written.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1487722' date='Mar 29 2008, 12:16 PM'][url="http://www.staycatholic.com/creationism_or_evolution.htm"]http://www.staycatholic.com/creationism_or_evolution.htm[/url]
/\ Thats the source, but i'll cut to the chase with the quote.

This particular apologetic is neither interest in any form of evolutio and is more Intelligent design. However, he raises a valid point here.

"Within the human body there are a number of irreducibly complex systems. That is, systems that would not function if they were any simpler. One example is our digestive system. Microvilli, which line the intestines, are microscopic bristles that somewhat resemble the bristles of a hairbrush. The spaces between the bristles are wide enough to allow nutrients to pass through to be absorbed and digested. However, the spaces are narrow enough to block the passage of bacteria, bacteria that would kill you if they were allowed to pass. This in itself refutes the theory of evolution, which contends that when a need presents itself, the body adapts by gradually changing (evolving) over millions of years. In this case millions of years would be too long. As soon as the deadly bacteria appeared, the body would have minutes to hours to design and evolve a system to block them. Failure to do so would result in immediate extinction. Our continued existence rules out the evolutionary premise.

But, some may wonder, what about the alleged ape-men? The answer is simple: no one has ever found a fossil that indicates a link between man and ape-like ancestors. Fossils are either pure ape or pure man. Except for Neanderthal Man, the skulls of the alleged ape men were not found intact. They were pieced together from fragments and given the desired look.

Neanderthal Man had been traditionally portrayed as being chimp-like. However, in recent years he has been upgraded to human status. He had, on average, a larger brain size than modern man. He cared for his sick and elderly, buried his dead, employed art and religious rites, appreciated agriculture, clothing, and music. He is not that different from a number of cultures existing in recent centuries.

Nebraska Man was supposed to be half man and half ape. This was all based on the finding of a single tooth. Years later it was found that the tooth belonged to a wild pig. Piltdown Man was also supposed to be a great evolutionary find. The upper part of a skull was found in a quarry. Within the same quarry there was found, among many other types of bones, a broken lower jawbone. The two were put together and we had Piltdown Man. Decades later it was found that the skull was human and the jawbone was that of an ape. The teeth had been filed down to simulate human teeth. Piltdown Man was a hoax, an outright fraud.

Some propose the idea of theistic evolution. The idea that God created everything in a primitive state and then evolution took over. But there are no laws of nature to support this. However, we do have observable laws of nature, which refute such an idea. For instance, we can infer the following from the Second Law of Thermodynamics: (1) Natural processes always tend toward disorder, (2) the simple will never produce the complex and, (3) the universe is running down. Nothing has been observed to break this law. Evolution would have us believe that all the observable laws of nature are false. By the way, if the universe is running down (stars burning out), that would make the universe finite. Consequently, the elements that make up the universe could not have always been there. With time being eternal (there was always a yesterday and there will always be a tomorrow), all finite processes should have been completed in the past. This would be true no matter how far back in time that you went. So now we are left with two choices: Either an intelligent being created everything out of nothing, or nothing created everything out of nothing. Which do you suppose is more likely?"

Thats just there to put an interesting spin on this discussion. Ah, I came to these forums to get away from such constantly reacurring questions on other forums yet find myself stuck in them again. Nevermind his obvious intelligent design leanings, I ask us to look closely at his mention of thermodynamics. Does Evolution conflict with existing scientific laws? Nevermind Biblical consequence?

Any Catholic is free to accept Evolution of Creationism in any of their wildly differing varients. This is largely because the Church has no official Dogma concerning creation. Hasn't had on for the past Thousand years. This is largely because one of the Early Church Fathers, St.Augustine, proposed the idea that God did create everything simple, then let everything snowball along. Only difference between this and modern day thiestic evolution is in Augustine's mind, everything happened at once (process wise), and since the middle ages Theologians, scholars, Clergy, Monks, even nuns, Cardinals Bishops and Popes have been argueing with regards to Creation. Some suggested genisis is completely alegorical others literal. The Church decided Long before Darwin to shelve the question and label it 'We'll deal with this in a while', so technically, the idea that we evolved in consert with divine being's wishes is ALOT older then the idea that we are a galatic 'whoopsie-daise!'

In short, you can beleive in evolution or creation however liberal or literal. You just must abide by these three Dogmas: [url="http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.htm"](Source)[/url]

God created everything out of nothing ("ex nihlo" in Latin)

God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)

God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence)

/\ Those are all the Church has decided with regards to Creationism. That there was nothing before there was something, everything works (or is supposed to work), and we need God for us t continue existing. In a spiritual context this is not all that unreasonable. And remember, the Church looks to theological, Scientific AND Philosophy to make its decisions, especially with regard to miracles.

Case-in-point: Lourdes, famous healing Shrine, thousands are reported to be cured every year. Yet an independent scientific research facility in Lourdes investigates these healings. Only 67 have been reported to be Scientifically impossible/unexplainible. How many of these miracles does the Church officially endorse as being legitimit? 67. And this has been Church policy since the 'DARK' Ages, in fact, so much so, that when miracles are reported the Church is often the FIRST to be sceptical of them. The idea that it is a superstitious organisation looking for any shakey grounds to present the divine is, quite frankly, a lie. Otherwise we wouldn't have Athiestic Sci-Fi writers turning Catholic, [url="http://johncwright.livejournal.com/155936.html"](John C.Wright)[/url] Who is currently enjoying his new Religion immensely.

What does all this have to do with Creation and Evolution? Simple: The Church is not stupid. It knows where the Bible came from, it knows the Darwinian form of evolution is not the first, and it knows it won't be the last and will be disproven by later science because it knows the nature of science: In that it never concludes, it constantly spectulates. Henceforth, illegitimying all the myths that the Church is 'behind the times' 'superstitious', 'anti-scientific', or 'anti-progress', it is not behind the times because it was there before the times and will be there after the times, it is not superstitious as it is the first to doubt superstition, it is not anti-scientific because it nurtured and protected scientific thought in the war torn years of earlier centuries, even advanced it, it is not anti-progress, because progress has more then one direction, its trying desperately to steer humanity away from progression along the road to destruction. Henceforth i'd sooner trust the Church then the myriad dissenters, flip-floppers, and angsty-athiestic teenagers and faux scientists such as Richard Dawkins anyday.

My two cents.[/quote]
Man, that was the smackdown.

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1493322' date='Apr 5 2008, 10:33 PM']Who can actually believe fairytales.

I am going to quote Soverign in Mass Effect.

"All organic life is just a mutation, and accident,"

Of course, Soverign is the main evil character in Mass Effect. Great game, great story, but it will teach you sometimes being tough is the only way to be good, and being gentle sometimes is completely the wrong thing to do.

That is what you will eventually see all life is if you believe in evolution, theistic or otherwise. If Evolution happened, then it will lead people, as it did myself at one point, why does God even need to exist, if it was just a progression from one life form to another.

If people want to give Eugenisists gasoline to their fire, keep on believing in evolution, because many atheists laugh at people who say the believe their bible but believe in evolution. The agents of the devil laugh at you for believing in both. Pick one or the other. As for me and my house, we will serve the lord.

I do not believe in Evolution, because it can lead to Eugenics - which gives madmen and evil doers the right to kill 'inferors', which lead to mass murder. The fruits of Evolution is clearly seen. If you don't like it, then go off and take the blue pill and believe anything you want to believe.[/quote]

Interesting

As a contribution to this thread, I just wanna throw in that I'm sort of leaning toward the side of Galloglasses and JiMSH, though I can't pick a side definitely because I don't feel I'm learned enough on either side of the subject. I'll be watching this thread for a while God bless

Edited April 15, 2008 by Sacred Music Man

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1499382' date='Apr 14 2008, 04:16 PM']Whether or not God exists would not necessarily be proven by the "smoking gun" of Creationism, because there is no material way we could prove agency by something non-material. For instance, if we found evidence that the world was created in one great upheaval, we might indeed say, "the laws of nature do not appear to have applied at this time, for some reason we know not what." However, that might indeed be enough to convince some. For others, it would just be further proof of the randomness of the universe. Moreover, I cannot say that we would necessarily know WHICH God it was that created everything. There is also the ability to be deceived, which is one of the deepest properties of human nature (as the account from Genesis shows).

Evolution can indeed have the effect of making people not believe in God, but these are the same people who would not believe in the resurrection, or the virgin birth, or anything miraculous whatsoever. Ultimately, also, there are worse sins than unbelief, like disobedience, maliciousness, idolatry. All of these proceed from a disordered love of the world, while, at least, atheism is a turning to one's own nature against something false. In other words, perhaps we could imagine that, as God works out his will in the world, he intends to allow those who only know the material to discover things which the faithful can put to use in the world, following the teaching of St. Paul the Apostle, "to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use." So we find that many doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. are indeed for the menial use of the things of this world, while Christians, recognizing God's providence, are elevated to the knowledge of higher things.

If, on the other hand, Christians start asking questions like, "Why would God allow this?" or else, "Why would God make the world in such a way as to permit unbelief?" then Christians will have to start answering all of these questions, including the fundamental question, "Why is there evil in the world in the presence of a good and provident God?" To this the Christian simply has no answer because WE are the provident good of God, working out his will through history, and at last returning to him in the last day.

I would love to know your, or anyone's, thoughts on what I have written.[/quote]

Your thoughts are very interesting here.

I agree with what you say here as to God not creating a world that reveals his existance. God wants us to believe, and explore who he is. That doesn't really have anything to do about the belief in evolution is something that leads to evil, because it is all about survival of the fittest. That is not the Christian Philosophy, is it? So why would a God who says - give your cloak and jacket to someone who sues you, giving up something that would help you survive cold weather, when that's how he created all life on earth? He created it through survival of the fittest? Something about evolution, and survival of the fittest doesn't fit into a God who would send his own son to die for us?

Why does God allow unbelief? He's God, and wants us to believe and love him on our own accord. Think about that. God doesn't even enforce that people believe in him. He gives them the right to live life and not believe in him, because he's a gentlemen, and a true 'constitutionalist'. He would never do anything to make anybody do anything they don't want to do.

Here's the thing, I use to believe Evolution disproved God, and for a year, I didn't believe in God, and I laughed at people for believing him God. I thank God, that a friend of mine, who just started to go a non-catholic church told me about what God had done for him, and then I started to think, could it be that God was real, because my old friend who used drugs are off them now. God can use created things to show himself indirectly, like the moon reflects the light of sun.

That doesn't mean that you can believe in God and Evolution. They are mutually exclusive. I am not even going to say, I believe, because if Athiests can laugh at Christians who believe in both, because the Bible, in their mind says it is impossible, how can Christians not take offense to that. They would think I may be backward, but at least they wouldn't believe that I was fence sitting.

[dairygirl4u2c]

as to the question of evil... here's how i always addressed it.

it's the result of free will. if you give free will, you have to expect it to be used in a way not in accordance with good. otherwise it's not free will. why did God create free will such that that'd be the case? that's just the way it is, an inherent nature of the thing. now, why is that ultimately the case? i don't know. but, i do know that it'd be like asking... why can't a square have three sides, or something else that just does not make sense and cannot be. why can't it ultimately be? well, i can't answer that, but it just can't as far as anybody or thing or whatever is concerned.
could we have free will that did only good, like that of Mary? well that gets harder to answer, but i'd posit that it's not free will if it's not going to do it. i'd suppose mary had free will, but people debate this, and it'd be the exception i'd think rather than the rule if he did make that, as a line of free willing agents would have at least one who'd not sin or do bad.
i've heard of the "lack fo good" argument, but that doens't say why God make a "lack of good" to begin with. it's not really addressing the situation. i think my argument is best.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think a better queswtion than... why is evil out there... is why does suffering exist, and why does bad things happen to good people and to innocent people born with bad?

this gets tempting to blame on original sin etc. i dn't like saying that though, as i'm not big on techincal sins that get punished for punishment sake type stuff. i believe in sin and all but.

i might say it's like Jesus said... the man born blind is blind such that he will give glory to God when he finally sees.
it's a way to know what good is like, as it's only relative to know the bad.
and it reminds us that we are not in perfection yet, and God's kingdom will be much much better.
also, it gives mankind a drive to fix the things and be partakers in the kingdom.

some people say this life is an illusion more than anything... but even if that were the case it doesn't explain why the illusion wuld have them suffer. it'd have ot be that the suffering really was not even suffering but you thinking you were etc.

but i don't feel those are very good answers, any of the above really. i don't know how to answer it very well.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1500453' date='Apr 15 2008, 08:19 PM']as to the question of evil... here's how i always addressed it.

it's the result of free will. if you give free will, you have to expect it to be used in a way not in accordance with good. otherwise it's not free will. why did God create free will such that that'd be the case? that's just the way it is, an inherent nature of the thing. now, why is that ultimately the case? i don't know. but, i do know that it'd be like asking... why can't a square have three sides, or something else that just does not make sense and cannot be. why can't it ultimately be? well, i can't answer that, but it just can't as far as anybody or thing or whatever is concerned.
could we have free will that did only good, like that of Mary? well that gets harder to answer, but i'd posit that it's not free will if it's not going to do it. i'd suppose mary had free will, but people debate this, and it'd be the exception i'd think rather than the rule if he did make that, as a line of free willing agents would have at least one who'd not sin or do bad.
i've heard of the "lack fo good" argument, but that doens't say why God make a "lack of good" to begin with. it's not really addressing the situation. i think my argument is best.
i think a better queswtion than... why is evil out there... is why does suffering exist, and why does bad things happen to good people and to innocent people born with bad?

this gets tempting to blame on original sin etc. i dn't like saying that though, as i'm not big on techincal sins that get punished for punishment sake type stuff. i believe in sin and all but.

i might say it's like Jesus said... the man born blind is blind such that he will give glory to God when he finally sees.
it's a way to know what good is like, as it's only relative to know the bad.
and it reminds us that we are not in perfection yet, and God's kingdom will be much much better.
also, it gives mankind a drive to fix the things and be partakers in the kingdom.

some people say this life is an illusion more than anything... but even if that were the case it doesn't explain why the illusion wuld have them suffer. it'd have ot be that the suffering really was not even suffering but you thinking you were etc.

but i don't feel those are very good answers, any of the above really. i don't know how to answer it very well.[/quote]

Where the heck did this come from? Are you delibratly trying to change the subject to non-sense.

First of all,

If God created things through evolution, it means he created a world where the fittest survive and the least fittest do not. That means, more adaptable individuals should be on the top, and the least adaptable shouldn't be able to be born.

But hey, wait a minute, God sent his own son - a more fit individual - to die for us less fit individuals. Hey, that means God must have changed when he sent his son 2000 years ago, than when he evolved life millions of years ago.

But hey, wait a minute, scripture says God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. That means, his character to send the more fit son so that us less fit sinners could become more fit to be with him is the same character he must have had one million years ago when he was "Evolving" things. But that makes Survival of the Fittest ideals of Evolution would conflict with a loving and caring God, who loved the world so much he sent his only begotten son!

So, on the argument of What is God's character, compared to survival of the fittest ideas that Evolution says drives evolution, we see an huge cross. Why would a God who sent his fit son, who could be with him, to us less fit sinners, so we less fit sinners could receive life everlasting through the forgiveness of sins?

It doesn't make sense, so one or the other must not be the truth. And since we are all here because we believe in the Cross of the more fit son so we less fit sinners could have access to the father, I think we can all start to say - hey - I would rather choose a God who didn't evolve things, because that doesn't make sense when you consider is character, than a God who did!

They are two different Gods people. You either believe in a God who made the world in 6-days, or you believe in the other God who took billions upon billions of years!

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

[Galloglasses]

A fair enough point on thiestic evolution Jesusismysuperhero, but the ones in this arguement who don't believe God created us will more or less ignore any of our attempts to rationalise creationism or Thiestic Evolution. Our opinions on this matter are greatly affected by wether we lean towards acknowleding God's existence or not.