God And Evolution

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1818327' date='Mar 27 2009, 10:32 PM']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...[/quote]
Yes! I didn't quite catch that last bit, but I'm sure I agree.
Fractals seem to be like a microcosm for the universe, actually. That's why I used it as an analogy.

Our universe is one giant fractal on God's computer simulation.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1819336' date='Mar 28 2009, 11:47 PM']Yes! I didn't quite catch that last bit, but I'm sure I agree.
Fractals seem to be like a microcosm for the universe, actually. That's why I used it as an analogy.

Our universe is one giant fractal on God's computer simulation. [/quote]


Haha... <<What's that you're smoking up there? Most of the people I have met that are REALLY into fractal art are drug-users...

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1819336' date='Mar 28 2009, 11:47 PM']Yes! I didn't quite catch that last bit, but I'm sure I agree....[/quote]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)[/url]

Check out the part on "Homology of Sequences in Genetics: Parology"...it talks about hemoglobin and myoglobin and gene duplications; which is what I was trying to explain in 1 sentence...

[kafka]

both of you are beyond me at this point. I'm more interested in the theological/philosophical aspects of evolution. In Avery Dulles article above there seem to be three basic models of evolution Christian theologians fall into, namely Theistic Darwinism, Intellegent Design and the Teleoligical view.

I mentioned I'd post some more links. Here is a good and succint article on the Catholic view of Evolution, summarizing the basic aspects of evolution a Catholic may aspect and the ones that he must reject. Also summarizes what Catholics should believe about Adam and Eve:
[url="http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/instruction005.htm"]http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/instruction005.htm[/url]

Here is a more in depth article by Karl Rahner called Hominisation. The first section is excellent since he goes into the official Church teaching on Man in relation to the theory of evolution. Also he goes into the relationshiop between theology and natural science:
[url="http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=3367&C=2765"]http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter...3367&C=2765[/url]

Here are some verses and short commentary from the Book of Genesis which may be attributed to a sort of evolution:

{1:2} But the earth was empty and unoccupied, and darknesses were over the face of the abyss; and so the Spirit of God was brought over the waters.
{1:5} And he called the light, ‘Day,’ and the darknesses, ‘Night.’ And it became evening and morning, one day.

~ The first day is not a day as we count time, but merely the first period of time, of unspecified length, in the universe. Science agrees that first the Universe was created, and there was no life in the first time period, for the Universe was void and unoccupied. And when the earth first became, it was void and lifeless.

{1:11} And he said, “Let the land spring forth green plants, both those producing seed, and fruit-bearing trees, producing fruit according to their kind, whose seed is within itself, over all the earth.” And so it became.

~ Notice that God commands the earth to produce plant-life (‘herbam virentem’). He miraculously created heaven and earth out of nothing, but he causes the plant-life to be produced out of what already exists, the land. This text supports the idea, found in science, that life developed from existing inanimate matter. But the text also clearly teaches the truth that the entire process of creation and the development of creation is caused by God and is under His Providence.

{1:20} And then God said, “Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures above the earth, under the firmament of heaven.”

~ In this next step within the development of creation, God creates the first creatures that have living souls (but not immortal souls) within the sea. Again, science agrees, teaching that the first animals were in the water, not on the land.

{1:24} God also said, “Let the land produce living souls in their kind: cattle, and animals, and wild beasts of the earth, according to their species.” And so it became.

~ So, plants were the first life created, then moving creatures of the sea, then moving creatures of the land. This is the same order of development in creation taught by science (although Scripture omits mention of microscopic organisms, with which the ancients were unfamiliar).


We know that the immortal human souls of Adam and Eve were created miraculously and immediately by God. The question that ticks me is whether or not the formation of Adam's was a summit of God's providential evolution or it was somehow miraculously and immediately created by God using the elements of the Earth. I really dont know but I like to think about it. In either case man is a magnificent creature since he is only complete in the unity of soul and body. An immortal soul directly infused by God at conception, and a material body somehow formed by God from the elements of the Universe.

Edited March 29, 2009 by kafka

[Veridicus]

[quote name='kafka' post='1819439' date='Mar 29 2009, 05:13 AM']both of you.....elements of the Universe[/quote]


Excellent Post.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Veridicus

[Apotheoun]

I accept micro-evolution, but I remain unconvinced about macro-evolution.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1819394' date='Mar 29 2009, 12:44 AM']Haha... <<What's that you're smoking up there? Most of the people I have met that are REALLY into fractal art are drug-users...[/quote]
Really? I don't actually know anyone who knows what a fractal is.

Ever heard of the Electric Sheep Project?

[kafka]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1819618' date='Mar 29 2009, 02:21 PM']I accept micro-evolution, but I remain unconvinced about macro-evolution.[/quote]
I dont know how much actual data natural scientists have collected to demonstrate macro-evolution as a convincing and perhaps provable theory, yet from a Christian theological/philosophical view macro-evolution is not only possible for a theory of the history of nature but in my mind it almost makes sublime sense especially from a Providential teleological point of view.

Teleology is basically the view that final causes exist in everything that is. With this in mind, for the sake of an evolutionary argument (and there is good reason behind this) let's just say the man is the final cause or goal of God's initial creative act of establishing the Universe out of nothing. With man as the goal of this initial creative act lets work our way up to him from the beginning.

First God's creates the elements. These elements expand and collide (or do whatever they do) and eventually form stars. This initial creation and development of the original elements which make up Deep Space reach a certain goal according to Providence in the formation of our Sun. The Sun must come into being before the Earth since the final goal Man cannot not survive without the Sun, therefore the Sun was created for the final cause of Man. And scientists teach us that the Earth was formed from out of the Sun.

Now once the formation or becoming of the Earth reaches a finality in terms of an ultimate establishment of minerals, soil, water, etc. then and only then is it possible for plants to come into being for plants need these things in order to survive. At this point it seems to me that God would have to perform a special creative act for the transition from the existance of inanimate matter to the existance animate matter, yet the point is that inanimate matter reaches a finality in development first and then and only then animate matter may emerge, since animate matter depends on inanimate matter for its existance.

If you can now see where my points are headed the same could be said of vegetative/plant life which evolves from microorganisms. The plant kingdom must reach a finality in develepment or evolution and spread throughout the Earth in variety, for the next grade of life namely animals or sensient beings depend on the whole variety of plants for their survival. The emergance of animal life would need some sort of unique creative act of God.

And so once the sum total of Deep Space to the Sun to Earth to plants to animals reach a collective/cosmic realization by first having each been uniquely finalized or established by God in order, then God miraculously creates the summit-the final cause-the cosmic goal of His original creative act and that is us, mankind. So Man comes into being when everything he needs or God desires him to have first reaches its own individual develepment and finalization. And in fact all those grades of creation are summed up in the being of man, namely the elements, minerals, vegetative life, sensient life, with a sublime and unique 'addition' namely an immortal soul with freewill and the light of reason.

These sort of loose theological/philosophical statements are the meaning of evolution for me at this point. So I guess from a theological/philosophical view I would accept macro-evolution within each grade, but the emergence of a new grade e.g. plant to animal, would need a special creative act of God.

Some final thoughts: in faith we know that God modified man in grace to eventually live with Him and see Him face to face in a free and gratuitous gift of immediate vision known as eternal life. It seems the very design of man's body symbolizes this unique destiny the Infinite Creator has given to his finite human creature since he is a biped. Man is the only 'animal' pointed completely upward/vertical implying that he is made for something beyond the Earth, whereas all other non-rational animals are quadripeds implying their finality is mere Earth.

Edited March 29, 2009 by kafka

[Nihil Obstat]

As long as you could, in theory, look at a specific point and say "this is the first man and woman; they have human souls", I don't see a problem with basically anything about this.

[kafka]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1820195' date='Mar 30 2009, 12:28 AM']As long as you could, in theory, look at a specific point and say "this is the first man and woman; they have human souls", I don't see a problem with basically anything about this. [/quote]
that is presupposed since I'm a Catholic. As a matter of fact based on these sort of musings I expressed today it seems fitting to me that once the evolution of the grade of animals was finalized and established throughout the Earth, perhaps some time passed and then the first man Adam as the final grade and unique summit of creation would have been miraculously created by God completely independent of anthropoids. God still would have used the 'dust of the earth' perhaps referring to the elements of the earth, and in some sense the vegative and sensient forces present on the Earth to compose Adam's body while at the same time infusing his immortal soul in one creative instant.

This fits my idea that each grade comes into existance by a special creative act of God, and not some implicit mechanism already present in a lower grade. God merely uses what is already established and finalized in the lower grade to uniquely create a higher grade at a particular point in time. So once the evolution of inanimate matter is finalized God specifically creates animate matter (in part using the inanimate matter already present). The inanimate matter does not possess the inner power to go beyond itself since it is finalized. Same with the transition from plant life to animal life. The evolution of plant life is finalized it cannot go beyond itself therefore God intervenes and creates animal life in part already using the 'materials' present on Earth up to that point in time, and from that starting point of original animal life (whatever that may have been) animals begin to evolve into more complex sensient beings. Perhaps even within the evolution of a grade God's Providence creatively intervenes several times. Eventually, the evolution of animals is finalized and they have no power to go beyond themselves, and so comes a point in time where the cosmos is prepared to recieve the summit of creation, or the final cause and goal of all its Providential development and evolution, namely man.

The problem I have with Adam's body coming from a last stage of the evolution of some hypothetical anthropoid is that God infuses a human soul at the moment of conception. It doesnt make sense to me that Adam would have been conceived in the womb of some mere anthropoid, born of that anthropoid and then abandoned. No. I think Adam's body was miraculously formed independent of anthropoids, yet at the same time God used the elements and life forces already present and established on Earth.

It's late but those are my final thoughts for the day.

Edited March 30, 2009 by kafka

[Nihil Obstat]

Wouldn't that imply rejection of fossil records that show homo erectus, and stages like that? Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote.

[kafka]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1820303' date='Mar 30 2009, 02:22 AM']Wouldn't that imply rejection of fossil records that show homo erectus, and stages like that? Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote.[/quote]
not at all. First off those fossil record and the hypothesis drawn from them are not proof that these were infused with an immortal soul or descendents of Adam and Eve. They could have been highly developed anthropoids. Also they seem like isolated cases. I'd have to research if there is a fossil record of a significant population of any of these. In any case tradition of the Judeo-Christian Revelation is that Adam and Eve first lived in the Middle East after they were expelled from Paradise. (Incidentally,Paradise is another speculative issue). It is a tradition that one of Adam and Eve's first dwellings after being expelled was the same grotto Christ was born in, and that they were buried on the same hill Christ died on. From the Middle East, their descendants would have eventually spread out to places like Africa or Asia. So maybe those fossils or homo erectus are some stray descendents of Adam and Eve, yet maybe they arent, perhaps they are just unique anthropoids. And maybe I should shut my mouth now since I've probably over-stepped my limits into natural science where I am not competent and havent done any research.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='kafka' post='1820310' date='Mar 30 2009, 07:38 AM']It is a tradition that one of Adam and Eve's first dwellings after being expelled was the same grotto Christ was born in, and that they were buried on the same hill Christ died on.[/quote]
I never knew that - very cool. Do you know of a good resource to read up on that tradition?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kafka' post='1819748' date='Mar 29 2009, 03:20 PM']I dont know how much actual data natural scientists have collected to demonstrate macro-evolution as a convincing and perhaps provable theory, yet from a Christian theological/philosophical view macro-evolution is not only possible for a theory of the history of nature but in my mind it almost makes sublime sense especially from a Providential teleological point of view.[/quote]
Macro-evolution (a.k.a. trans-specific speciation) remains an unproven and unprovable scientific hypothesis, and I find nothing theologically or philosophically sublime about the idea.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Apotheoun

[kafka]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1820340' date='Mar 30 2009, 06:59 AM']I never knew that - very cool. Do you know of a good resource to read up on that tradition?[/quote]
Not exactly, I've probably heard it preached or read it somewhere. Let me see what I can find.