cmotherofpirl Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 [url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0101.htm"]http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0101.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 (edited) Read it a while back. a very good article for those interested in this subject. The late Cardinal presents a balanced view. Edited March 9, 2009 by kafka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I have never been able to wrap my head around the problem. It always seemed to me evolution didn't explain the origin of life, so it didn't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Christoph Cardinal Schonborn's "Chance or Purpose" was a concise and lucid examination of the issue. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Intestingly, it was made clear to me in my biology degree senior synthesis course entitled "Organic Evolution" that Evolution Theory assumes as a starting point that Life exists by ANY MEANS. That is, life must exist for evolution to work upon it as a means of selecting variation within a given population of pre-existing living creatures. So really, a "creator" is not all that out of line with Evolution Theory; it just assumes that the Creator stays out of the process wants the ball is rolling. Old error, New Label as Fulton Sheen would say... Edited March 10, 2009 by Veridicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' post='1801886' date='Mar 9 2009, 07:17 PM']I have never been able to wrap my head around the problem. It always seemed to me evolution didn't explain the origin of life, so it didn't really matter.[/quote] Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Evolution can explain fairly acceptably "how". Like a large portion of science though, it doesn't do a lot for why, and nor can it predict. Even if it got to the point where it could accurately predict (making it a scientific Law), it still wouldn't have a shadow of a hope of describing why. Honestly, the how doesn't affect me. It never will. The why, on the other hand, is somewhat immanently important to me, and all of us. At least that's what we believe as theists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1817673' date='Mar 27 2009, 01:48 AM']Evolution can explain fairly acceptably "how". Like a large portion of science though, it doesn't do a lot for why, and nor can it predict. Even if it got to the point where it could accurately predict (making it a scientific Law), it still wouldn't have a shadow of a hope of describing why. Honestly, the how doesn't affect me. It never will. The why, on the other hand, is somewhat immanently important to me, and all of us. At least that's what we believe as theists.[/quote] fair enough, yet I would suggest to you that the how and the why are not seperate. At this point in time for a Christian to deny the truth that all history and all human knowledge (science) do not have a single source and single end who is God, would be short-sighted. God is One-Divine Eternal Act. Any sort of valid scientific knowledge may in a way illuminate Divine Revelatary knowledge, and any Divine Revelatory knowledge may illuminate scientific knowledge. To separate the two would in mind be fideism. Edited March 27, 2009 by kafka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 [quote name='kafka' post='1817684' date='Mar 27 2009, 02:58 AM']fair enough, yet I would suggest to you that the how and the why are not seperate. At this point in time for a Christian to deny the truth that all history and all human knowledge (science) do not have a single source and single end who is God, would be short-sighted. God is One-Divine Eternal Act. Any sort of valid scientific knowledge may in a way illuminate Divine Revelatary knowledge, and any Divine Revelatory knowledge may illuminate scientific knowledge. To separate the two would in mind be fideism.[/quote] Well at the core they're one and the same, but at the level that we as humans can penetrate, we can't find God through the how. We can certainly understand it in a religious sense, and knowing more about the world around you is very important to a Christian living in today's world, but when we get to the debate about evolution, right now I think it's mostly irrelevant. Understanding it with a religious perspective, obviously we catch a glimpse of God's incomparable design, and this is awesome for us who understand it that way, but in a scientific sense we don't see much of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1817747' date='Mar 27 2009, 09:53 AM']Well at the core they're one and the same, but at the level that we as humans can penetrate, we can't find God through the how. We can certainly understand it in a religious sense, and knowing more about the world around you is very important to a Christian living in today's world, but when we get to the debate about evolution, right now I think it's mostly irrelevant. Understanding it with a religious perspective, obviously we catch a glimpse of God's incomparable design, and this is awesome for us who understand it that way, but in a scientific sense we don't see much of anything.[/quote] God has used the 'how' to help trigger conversion experiences for people such as Avery Dulles. We're plunged into a historical situation so in one sense we experience God through our material situation and that includes natural science. Once one has accepted the gift of faith or perhaps accepts grace to a limited extent natural science is better guided by its source, end, and limitations in view. I'm not aware of any major debate anymore among mature adults. Scientists have discovered enough verifiable data about evolution that it cannot be dismissed by any mature Christian adult. The ones who debate the existance or usefullness of evolution are the extremists who tend to pure Creationists who deny any gradual evolution (who deny verifiable truths), or pure evolutionists who deny a Creator who is the source and guider of evolution (who make evolution their idol). At least this is how I see things. The only problem is scientists havent broken through to a complete all encompassing theory (and perhaps never will), hence you have different models of evolution from different schools of scientists. I kind of see what you are getting at by a pure scientific sense yet I'm not sure how many scientists or non-scientists for that matter view natural science apart from at least some sort of theology or at least an implicit idea of God. Some professional scientists may publicly present their science apart from theology but it seems impossible to practice this personally and constantly over a matter of time. Edited March 27, 2009 by kafka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 [quote name='kafka' post='1817829' date='Mar 27 2009, 01:43 PM']The only problem is scientists havent broken through to a complete all encompassing theory (and perhaps never will), hence you have different models of evolution from different schools of scientists.[/quote] what I meant to say was all encompassing theory proven as a law. I'm not familiar with all the technical terms used in natural science so tend to limp a bit when it comes to them. When I get home tonight I'll post a couple more articles on God and evolution that I've either read or am reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 [quote name='kafka' post='1817829' date='Mar 27 2009, 01:43 PM']I'm not aware of any major debate anymore among mature adults. Scientists have discovered enough verifiable data about evolution that it cannot be dismissed by any mature Christian adult. The ones who debate the existance or usefullness of evolution are the extremists who tend to pure Creationists who deny any gradual evolution (who deny verifiable truths), or pure evolutionists who deny a Creator who is the source and guider of evolution (who make evolution their idol). At least this is how I see things.[/quote] Flat out denying the existence of evolutionary processes would make gaining converts nearly impossible, too. I think some radical Creationist sects are going to find themselves going extinct... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 [quote name='kafka' post='1817829' date='Mar 27 2009, 12:43 PM']God has used the 'how' to help trigger conversion experiences for people such as Avery Dulles. We're plunged into a historical situation so in one sense we experience God through our material situation and that includes natural science. Once one has accepted the gift of faith or perhaps accepts grace to a limited extent natural science is better guided by its source, end, and limitations in view. I'm not aware of any major debate anymore among mature adults. Scientists have discovered enough verifiable data about evolution that it cannot be dismissed by any mature Christian adult. The ones who debate the existance or usefullness of evolution are the extremists who tend to pure Creationists who deny any gradual evolution (who deny verifiable truths), or pure evolutionists who deny a Creator who is the source and guider of evolution (who make evolution their idol). At least this is how I see things. The only problem is scientists havent broken through to a complete all encompassing theory (and perhaps never will), hence you have different models of evolution from different schools of scientists. I kind of see what you are getting at by a pure scientific sense yet I'm not sure how many scientists or non-scientists for that matter view natural science apart from at least some sort of theology or at least an implicit idea of God. Some professional scientists may publicly present their science apart from theology but it seems impossible to practice this personally and constantly over a matter of time.[/quote] I think by and large we're on the same page with this, actually. Just coming at it from different angles. [quote]I'm not aware of any major debate anymore among mature adults.[/quote] I'm most definitely not a young-earth Creationist, but there are certainly still parts that haven't been worked out. I'd be willing to bet that the general idea is in place and solid, as well as many specifics, but it's far from a closed case. Not being a geneticist or anything like that though, I'm quite content to wait and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) [quote name='philothea' post='1817844' date='Mar 27 2009, 02:29 PM'] Flat out denying the existence of evolutionary processes would make gaining converts nearly impossible, too. I think some radical Creationist sects are going to find themselves going extinct...[/quote] The radical Creationists are in a sense just as bad as the radical atheist evolutionists in that both factions deny truth. Obviously the atheist evolutionists are much worse for their explicit denial of God and exultation of natural science as their idol, yet the radical Creationists are in a sense implicitly denying God who is the source of creation and all science by replacing verifiable scientific evidence with their own false version of history and science or perhaps by falling into the error of fideism . [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1817981' date='Mar 27 2009, 06:02 PM']I'm most definitely not a young-earth Creationist, but there are certainly still parts that haven't been worked out. I'd be willing to bet that the general idea is in place and solid, as well as many specifics, but it's far from a closed case. Not being a geneticist or anything like that though, I'm quite content to wait and see what happens. [/quote] Yes there are problems that need to be worked out concerning a theory of evolution. I'm not sure the scientists will ever come to a complete understanding of it in this life (even in the future) since the gap in time seems to great to overcome. That is why the above Avery Dulles' article was interesting for me to read in the sense that he analyzes the different models of evolution by the respected Christian and non-Christian scientists. I'm not a scientist either but in general I find evolution fascinating to study as a recreation. I even think it is implied in the some verses of Genesis. Maybe I'll post some more later tonight, including some links to articles by other theologians. Edited March 27, 2009 by kafka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Honestly, once we've got evolution reconciled to theism, it seems significantly more astounding than everything popping up out of nowhere. Looking at the fractal-esque complexity is just mind-boggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1818271' date='Mar 27 2009, 09:55 PM']Honestly, once we've got evolution reconciled to theism, it seems significantly more astounding than everything popping up out of nowhere. Looking at the fractal-esque complexity is just mind-boggling.[/quote] Actually fractal-type organization would make sense evolutionarilly speaking since natural selection can only work on extant traits; thus we could expect repeating patterns of complexity... It's an especiially prevalent theme in proteomics and genomics where genes are "copied" within a length of DNA and then selection works upon these extra copies to produce new variants of related "protein families" with differing functions. Hemoglobin genes are a prime example... Edited March 28, 2009 by Veridicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now