Evolution

[mortify]

These points seem to be addressed to my post so I'll respond where worthwhile.

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1616052' date='Aug 2 2008, 05:32 PM']1. Evolution is NOT random chance. There is a little random involved in it. We could have had 4 eyes instead of 2. That's random. But for the most part, it most certainly is not random.[/quote]

The phrase I used was "process of chance changes" and I'm referring to the idea that complex life came about by random mutations curbed by natural selection. There is no guiding force in evolution, ultimately everything came about by an incalculable number of astronomically improbable random changes.
[quote]I wouldn't be trying to allegorize Genesis because I always thought it was obvious that it was allegory. Even before I knew the first thing about evolution. Frankly, I think it silly when someone tries to take it literally because I've always thought it to be so obvious.[/quote]

You say you're Catholic so you should stop and consider what you're saying here. The Fathers of the Church believed in the immediate creation of the [u]Body[/u] and Soul of the first man, I would not label such a teaching as "silly." What's more sad than silly is that people elevate the 'wisdom' of men above the revealed truth of God.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1616061' date='Aug 2 2008, 06:52 PM']Heh...

Yep. That's the way it works. If I recall correctly, that's what they did with Newton's law of gravity when the theory of relativity came around.[/quote]
Are you serious?

[Farsight one]

[quote name='mortify' post='1616085' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:23 PM']These points seem to be addressed to my post so I'll respond where worthwhile.
The phrase I used was "process of chance changes" and I'm referring to the idea that complex life came about by random mutations curbed by natural selection. There is no guiding force in evolution, ultimately everything came about by an incalculable number of astronomically improbable random changes.[/quote]But that's the thing. Evolution is not random. Like I said, there is a little random in it, but not a lot. The mutations are random, but they are only a tiny aspect of evolution. Natural selection is most of it and it is not even on iota of random. So to call evolution "random" is simply untrue.


[quote]You say you're Catholic so you should stop and consider what you're saying here. The Fathers of the Church believed in the immediate creation of the [u]Body[/u] and Soul of the first man, I would not label such a teaching as "silly." What's more sad than silly is that people elevate the 'wisdom' of men above the revealed truth of God.[/quote]From what little I've read about the Church fathers, they knew Genesis to be allegory too. None of them took it literally. They might have believed in the "immediate creation...of the first man", but that's it. And I still don't see how this "immediate creation" contradicts evolution in any way.


[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1616086' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:26 PM']Are you serious?[/quote]Yes. I'm quite serious. Do you think my statement is ridiculous and untrue, or are you just surprised by it? Don't forget that science defines these words differently than the general public. What the public calls a theory, science calls a hypothesis and what the public calls a fact is generally called a theory by science (not exactly, but that's as close as I can get).

Edited August 2, 2008 by Farsight one

[mortify]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1616094' date='Aug 2 2008, 06:40 PM']But that's the thing. Evolution is not random. Like I said, there is a little random in it, but not a lot. The mutations are random, but they are only a tiny aspect of evolution. Natural selection is most of it and it is not even on iota of random. So to call evolution "random" is simply untrue.[/quote]

You have to be more detailed.

The change from my one species to another is ultimately the work of mutation curbed by natural selection and passed on via reproduction. What is the cause of mutation? It's a random, accidental, unguided event. Natural selection does not guide evolution, nor can it explain the apparent design in creation. The apparent design is apparently accidental!

[quote]From what little I've read about the Church fathers, they knew Genesis to be allegory too. None of them took it literally. They might have believed in the "immediate creation...of the first man", but that's it.[/quote]

Do you mind quoting your source(s)?

Dr Ludwig Ott in _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ states:
[b]"The Fathers concur in teaching that God immediately created the first man, both as to body and to soul."[/b]

[quote]And I still don't see how this "immediate creation" contradicts evolution in any way.[/quote]

The first man's immediate creation from earth flagrantly contradicts the theory of evolution.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='mortify' post='1616102' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:58 PM']The first man's immediate creation from earth flagrantly contradicts the theory of evolution.[/quote]
Mortify has a point here, Evolution theorises Mankind eventually evolved from a water borne species.

[XIX]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1615520' date='Aug 1 2008, 11:07 PM']So you, Miss Catherine, are of the persuasion that Adam was the first fully human ancestor?[/quote]
My understanding of Catholic teaching is that we are all descendants of one man and one woman.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='XIX' post='1616121' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:18 PM']My understanding of Catholic teaching is that we are all descendants of one man and one woman.[/quote]

Yes all evolutionary theories must account that all of humanity descended from one man and one woman. This is why they are called or First Parents.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='mortify' post='1616102' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:58 PM']You have to be more detailed.

The change from my one species to another is ultimately the work of mutation curbed by natural selection and passed on via reproduction. What is the cause of mutation? It's a random, accidental, unguided event. Natural selection does not guide evolution, nor can it explain the apparent design in creation. The apparent design is apparently accidental![/quote]
Again, no. The change from one species to another can be achieved by natural selection alone. Eventually an animal can become so different from its original that it is classified as a new species. And yes, mutation is random (at least from what scientists can see so far), but mutation plays only a minor role in evolution. And thus randomness is only a minor part of evolution. And yes, natural selection does guide evolution and yes it can explain the apparent design in creation just like chemistry and physics can explain the apparent design in crystal formations. From what I can tell, (and I mean no offense) you know very little about evolution. I suggest reading up on it some. Even just the wikipedia articles on it. (read "introduction to evolution" before you read the "evolution" article)

[quote]Do you mind quoting your source(s)?[/quote]I do mind. Because I don't have sources to quote. I'm good at remembering what something says, and not so good at remembering where to find it again if I need to. It's a troublesome thing. But if I see it again, I'll bring it here.

[quote]Dr Ludwig Ott in _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ states:
[b]"The Fathers concur in teaching that God immediately created the first man, both as to body and to soul."[/b]
The first man's immediate creation from earth flagrantly contradicts the theory of evolution.[/quote]I don't even know who this Dr. person is, so pardon me if I'm skeptical. Also, lets say that man was directly created by God body and soul directly out of the earth (instead of out of another creature). So what? That means that man didn't evolve. But every other creature on earth could have. This is actually a concept I've been tinkering with - that God allowed evolution to take it's course and just before man was going to evolve from ape, He directly intervened and created us Himself.

[KnightofChrist]

Ludwig Ott
From [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Ott"]Wikipedia[/url], the free encyclopedia

Ludwig Ott (October 24, 1906 in Neumarkt-St. Helena; - October 25, 1985 in Eichstaett) is a Catholic theologian and Medievalist.

After training at the Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Ott was ordained a priest in 1930. He received his doctorate in Munich (1931-1936) under Martin Grabmann and was mentored by him in studying the development of medieval theology. In 1936 he was "extraordinary professor"[citation needed], and in 1941 a full professor of dogmatics at the episcopal philosophical and theological college in Eichstaett. From 1960 to 1962 he was the rector of this Catholic university.

His research centers mostly in the area of dogmatics. With his "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" he produced a standard reference work on dogmatics. The work, popular with both clergy and laity, has been translated into more than ten languages.

Edited August 3, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='XIX' post='1616121' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:18 PM']My understanding of Catholic teaching is that we are all descendants of one man and one woman.[/quote]
I meant that he was the first because scripture clearly says that he came before Eve.

[mortify]

Peace be with you,

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1616134' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:32 PM']Again, no. The change from one species to another can be achieved by natural selection alone.[/quote]

Natural selection does not cause any change, it only acts as a [i]f[/i]ilter weeding out non-viable changes.
[quote]Eventually an animal can become so different from its original that it is classified as a new species. And yes, mutation is random (at least from what scientists can see so far), but mutation plays only a minor role in evolution. And thus randomness is only a minor part of evolution. And yes, natural selection does guide evolution and yes it can explain the apparent design in creation just like chemistry and physics can explain the apparent design in crystal formations.[/quote]

I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about.

[quote]From what I can tell, (and I mean no offense) you know very little about evolution. I suggest reading up on it some. Even just the wikipedia articles on it. (read "introduction to evolution" before you read the "evolution" article)[/quote]

No offense taken.

There are worse things to be ignorant of.

[quote]I do mind. Because I don't have sources to quote. I'm good at remembering what something says, and not so good at remembering where to find it again if I need to. It's a troublesome thing. But if I see it again, I'll bring it here. [/quote]

Guess the importance of referencing your statements never sunk in when you were in school, or perhaps you just can't back it up. Either way, it doesn't reflect highly of your methods, if you intend to call a teaching of the Fathers "silly" you better be prepared to defend yourself.
[quote]I don't even know who this Dr. person is, so pardon me if I'm skeptical.[/quote]

Being skeptical is convenient, especially since you can't back up anything you say.

[quote]Also, lets say that man was directly created by God body and soul directly out of the earth (instead of out of another creature). So what? That means that man didn't evolve.[/quote]

It means the evolution of man is false.

[quote]But every other creature on earth could have. This is actually a concept I've been tinkering with - that God allowed evolution to take it's course and just before man was going to evolve from ape, He directly intervened and created us Himself.[/quote]

Frankly, I'm [b]skeptical[/b] of your ability to [i]tinker[/i] on this concept!

Edited August 3, 2008 by mortify

[Farsight one]

[quote name='mortify' post='1616178' date='Aug 2 2008, 09:22 PM']Natural selection does not cause any change, it only acts as a [i]f[/i]ilter weeding out non-viable changes.[/quote]Natural selection does not itself directly cause changes, but it does result in them.
[quote]I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about.[/quote]In what regard? What I said there I learned mostly from Ken Miller - the evolutionary biologist (and Catholic) who pretty much single handedly "decided" the result of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. I don't have evolutionary biology credentials (and neither, I assume, do you), but he sure does and I should hope info I got from him is accurate. Again, check the wiki entries on evolution.

[quote]There are worse things to be ignorant of.[/quote]I would actually claim otherwise (ignorance of God notwithstanding), but I think that's for another time.

[quote]Guess the importance of referencing your statements never sunk in when you were in school, or perhaps you just can't back it up. Either way, it doesn't reflect highly of your methods, if you intend to call a teaching of the Fathers "silly" you better be prepared to defend yourself.[/quote] See, now you're just being rude. I explained why I didn't have sources and that I'd give them if I found them. Have a little patience.


[quote]Being skeptical is convenient, especially since you can't back up anything you say.[/quote]It's not convenient. I truly had no idea who he was. People cite random "doctors" all the time who have no credentials on the subject nor even an authentic doctorate. (Kent Hovind anyone?) It was natural of me to be skeptical, but now that I know who he is, I stand corrected on his authority. That doesn't change what I said at all. And again, you're being rude and condescending.

[dairygirl4u2c]

QUOTE(mortify @ Aug 2 2008, 09:22 PM) *
--Natural selection does not cause any change, it only acts as a fiddler weeding out non-viable changes.--
Natural selection does not itself directly cause changes, but it does result in them.


he's right, it doesn't cause changes. it's basically a portion of a bell curve getting wiped out, leave the rest of the new bell curve to form a new bell curve. and the process repeats itself until you're a completely different animal. ie, you don't get thumbless kids from cutting your thumbs off. but, if people wihtout thumbs dn't breed, the thumbless people are gone.

[Servant of the Secret Fire]

[quote name='mortify' post='1616102' date='Aug 3 2008, 01:58 AM']Dr Ludwig Ott in _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ states:
[b]"The Fathers concur in teaching that God immediately created the first man, both as to body and to soul."[/b]
The first man's immediate creation from earth flagrantly contradicts the theory of evolution.[/quote]

But what does "immediate" mean here in this context? It seems to me that such a word must be very carefully used when talking about the creative actions of God, since He is outside of time. Secondly, if possible, I would like to see a source which shows that the Fathers authoritatively taught that the creation of Man was direct from dust to human body. You say so in your sentence, but that is not necessarily what Dr Ott meant by "immediately created" as he makes no mention of earth, and as I say it is not clear what "immediate" means in this context.

The change from ape (or whatever) to man is "immediate" in the sense that either you have Man, body and soul, or you don't - there is nothing in between.


[quote name='Farsight one' post='1616134' date='Aug 3 2008, 02:32 AM']Also, lets say that man was directly created by God body and soul directly out of the earth (instead of out of another creature). So what? That means that man didn't evolve. But every other creature on earth could have. This is actually a concept I've been tinkering with - that God allowed evolution to take it's course and just before man was going to evolve from ape, He directly intervened and created us Himself.[/quote]

While I don't rule out the idea that man is in fact an exception to evolution as you suggest, I take issue with the implication that God is only at most "indirectly" involved in evolution. So many people from young earth creationists to Richard Dawkins seem to think this and I cannot understand why. Well, Dawkins may have some excuse given his total ignorance of religion but anyway .... even to the extent that "random" mutations are involved - can we really speculate as to how such events appear to God? (And please don't take this as I just think it is really important to avoid such implications in order to fully convey the wonder of Creation. )

[nowak.chris]

I think we need to distinguish from natural selection, which is observable limitation of genetic material (such as is used in breeding dogs/horses/whathaveyou) and evolution, which is a speculative theory on an increase in genetic material being incorporated into the pool of natural selection.

The Church obviously allows for evolution in its teaching, I remain unconvinced that it is at all logical.