God And Evolution

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1820342' date='Mar 30 2009, 06:30 AM']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.[/quote]

Indeed, the definition of species has yet to fully and adequately settled. If by species you mean mechanically/reproductively distinct populations, then yes we have seen macroevolution. We have directed it in the selective breeding of all sorts of animals; a great dane and chiuaua will never be capable of natural copulation. Science states that given enough time their genetic differences would eventually prevent their copulation as fully as their physicality currently does.

The other thing to keep in mind is that fertilization is quite species specific. The protein structure and enzymes located in the tip of the mammalian sperm are highly selective only for the receptors of the same species oocytes. I am not entirely sure if any species of domesticated dog have been so substantially changed through selective breeding efforts that they could not fertilize in vitro.

BTW, isn't there theology in the Church that Creation is still "proceding toward completion" or something? See CCC 302: "The universe was created 'in a state of journeying' toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it." Could not the microevolutionary processes simply be the final observable stages of the same (macro)processes God used to bring Creation up to this point?

I'm not a theologian, but I have studied evolution extensively during my undergraduate education. It just seems like people who understand the science really well have no theoligical training...and again, people who are brilliant theologically summarily dismiss the science because they have little comprehension of it. I dunno.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Veridicus

[Veridicus]

[quote name='kafka' post='1820302' date='Mar 30 2009, 01:14 AM']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.[/quote]




Why would Adam have had to be imbued with a soul at conception precisely. Is it a philosophical hangup? Is it just the idea that a pre-extant animal form would have its own 'nature' and thus would be incompatible with the endowment of a human soul? Why could God have not taken a maturing pre-human hominid and made a few changes by his divine perogative and then endowed it with a soul and called it Adam? Again, since this is all speculation, why do we have to assume Adam was indowed with a soul at CONCEPTION; the Church has never taught Adam was endowed with a soul at conception because the Church has never taught that Adam was 'conceived'...rather the bible says God 'formed the man of dust from the ground." In philosophical terms (and again I am no philsopher so anyone can correct me here), does not "dirt" and "dust" have a substance and nature just like the species of "bread" does at the altar at Mass? Would it be philosophically different since that pre-human hominid is 'animate'? Hmm...I'm just speculating all of this...don't think I have anything invested or reason to argue angrilly over any of these thoughts.



(I think I got into this issue with KnightofChrist a while back...)

Edited March 30, 2009 by Veridicus

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1820626' date='Mar 30 2009, 06:16 PM']Why would Adam have had to be imbued with a soul at conception precisely. Is it a philosophical hangup? Is it just the idea that a pre-extant animal form would have its own 'nature' and thus would be incompatible with the endowment of a human soul? Why could God have not taken a maturing pre-human hominid and made a few changes by his divine perogative and then endowed it with a soul and called it Adam? Again, since this is all speculation, why do we have to assume Adam was indowed with a soul at CONCEPTION; the Church has never taught Adam was endowed with a soul at conception because the Church has never taught that Adam was 'conceived'...rather the bible says God 'formed the man of dust from the ground." In philosophical terms (and again I am no philsopher so anyone can correct me here), does not "dirt" and "dust" have a substance and nature just like the species of "bread" does at the altar at Mass? Would it be philosophically different since that pre-human hominid is 'animate'? Hmm...I'm just speculating all of this...don't think I have anything invested or reason to argue angrilly over any of these thoughts.



(I think I got into this issue with KnightofChrist a while back...)[/quote]
Something you said got me thinking... if we had a highly developed mammal like a neandertal...

What does conception mean with a lower animal anyway? Do we consider the fertilization of an egg 'conception' with lower life forms, or only humans (having immortal souls)?
Maybe the first conception was the attainment of humanity by the very first humanoid animal?

It's sorta late, and there may very well be serious theological problems with this, so I'll add a disclaimer that I'm just thinking out loud, and would drop this little idea like a hot coal if it's shown to be inadequate or in error.

[kafka]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1820626' date='Mar 30 2009, 07:16 PM']Why would Adam have had to be imbued with a soul at conception precisely. Is it a philosophical hangup? Is it just the idea that a pre-extant animal form would have its own 'nature' and thus would be incompatible with the endowment of a human soul? Why could God have not taken a maturing pre-human hominid and made a few changes by his divine perogative and then endowed it with a soul and called it Adam? Again, since this is all speculation, why do we have to assume Adam was indowed with a soul at CONCEPTION; the Church has never taught Adam was endowed with a soul at conception because the Church has never taught that Adam was 'conceived'...rather the bible says God 'formed the man of dust from the ground." In philosophical terms (and again I am no philsopher so anyone can correct me here), does not "dirt" and "dust" have a substance and nature just like the species of "bread" does at the altar at Mass? Would it be philosophically different since that pre-human hominid is 'animate'? Hmm...I'm just speculating all of this...don't think I have anything invested or reason to argue angrilly over any of these thoughts.[/quote]
[i]Why would Adam have had to be imbued with a soul at conception precisely. Is it a philosophical hangup?[/i]
Yes you nailed it.

In a human, the body cannot exist without the soul. The soul is infused at the moment of conception, so that the soul does not exist without the body, and the body does not exist without the soul. The soul is the principle life force of the body. So it would be impossible for a human zygote to develop to embryo stage without it being united to the unique/immortal/human soul. Theologians and philosphers have explained this in many different ways (too many to summarize here), yet the point is the soul/body unity of human existance.

[i]Is it just the idea that a pre-extant animal form would have its own 'nature' and thus would be incompatible with the endowment of a human soul? Why could God have not taken a maturing pre-human hominid and made a few changes by his divine perogative and then endowed it with a soul and called it Adam? [/i]
Theoretically, God could have modified a pre-extant animal form and infused Adam's soul thus the first moment of Adam's existance. Yet from the point of view of the transcendent uniqueness of a human being, and from a teleological view, my opinion is that the purpose or design of animals is that Man may have dominion over them and that they may serve Man.

{8:8} You have subjected all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and in addition: the beasts of the field,
{8:9} the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, which pass through the paths of the sea.

Therefore is doesnt make sense that man would in any way be derived from animals. I seems to me that God created the complete unity of the first human Adam independent of an pre-extent animal form. No servant is greater than his master.

Man has a sensient/animal aspect as well as a vegetative aspect to his nature not because his body is connected to animals or plants in an evolutionary process, yet because Man is the summit of creation. All grades of existance are summed up in his being.

{8:6} You reduced him to a little less than the Angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor,
{8:7} and you have set him over the works of your hands.


{2:7} And then the Lord God formed man from the clay of the earth, and he breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

'clay' or 'dust' of the earth is symbolic, and so the formation of man's body is open to an evolutionary view, yet for some reasons stated above and in my previous posts, I tend to think that God used the elements of the earth, and perhaps the vegetative and sensient forces locked up in the earth to form the body of man in one unique creative act at the same moment of the creative infusion of the immortal soul (independant of any evolutionary process). So Adam would not have been concieved in a womb, yet from the first moment of his existance, his body and soul would be in perfect unity never existing independent of eachother in any way, just as all other men ever created are united soul/body at the first moment of existance.


Well this is all I can come up with for now. Its late. I know your not angry Veridicus. I love to speculate, and this sort of honorable back and forth conversation about the deep things of existance without being petty or argumentative is right up my alley.

Edited March 31, 2009 by kafka

[Veridicus]

[quote name='kafka' post='1820973' date='Mar 31 2009, 01:58 AM']In a human, the body cannot exist without the soul. The soul is infused at the moment of conception, so that the soul does not exist without the body, and the body does not exist without the soul. The soul is the principle life force of the body. So it would be impossible for a human zygote to develop to embryo stage without it being united to the unique/immortal/human soul. Theologians and philosphers have explained this in many different ways (too many to summarize here), yet the point is the soul/body unity of human existance.[/quote]

I agree that the human body cannot exist without the soul. And I agree that the soul is infused at the moment of conception...something US society needs to be reminded of. And I understand the philosophical concept of the animus as the principal vital force of the body. BUT....your line of negative reasoning on this front still assumes that Adam would have had to have a soul at his conception. I am saying that if Adam was derived from extant pre-human hominid matter...the basical animal 'soul' would have been what was present when that creature that would someday become Adam was conceived. There is no hangup as far as animating forces are concerned there. There would be a previous lower animating force which sustained the pre-human hominid at its conception, guided its living activities during development. But then at some point this animal soul was extinguished, perhaps God did some physiological tweaking to the now inanimate, but not yet decomposing, hominid form and then infused the 'inanimate' tissue (which for symbolic purposes may as well be 'clay' or 'dust') with the first human soul. Thus from the moment of Adam's (in the proper sense) existance he would have had his own body and his own soul and would have been spiritually and at some level physiologically different than than the prehominid clay from which he was formed in that moment. Again, all speculation...


[quote name='kafka' post='1820973' date='Mar 31 2009, 01:58 AM']Theoretically, God could have modified a pre-extant animal form and infused Adam's soul thus the first moment of Adam's existance. Yet from the point of view of the transcendent uniqueness of a human being, and from a teleological view, my opinion is that the purpose or design of animals is that Man may have dominion over them and that they may serve Man.[/quote]

I still don't quite understand fully why my abovementioned response would necessarily be incompatible with man's transcendency. We are NOT physiologically or morphologically distinct in any profound way to be honest. Our transcendence comes from our spirituality, from our rational immortal soul. And my abovementioned-scenario seems to jive okay with this idea.

[quote name='kafka' post='1820973' date='Mar 31 2009, 01:58 AM']'clay' or 'dust' of the earth is symbolic, and so the formation of man's body is open to an evolutionary view, yet for some reasons stated above and in my previous posts, I tend to think that God used the elements of the earth, and perhaps the vegetative and sensient forces locked up in the earth to form the body of man in one unique creative act at the same moment of the creative infusion of the immortal soul (independant of any evolutionary process). So Adam would not have been concieved in a womb, yet from the first moment of his existance, his body and soul would be in perfect unity never existing independent of eachother in any way, just as all other men ever created are united soul/body at the first moment of existance.[/quote]

Adam would not have been created from the womb, but as my abovementioned scenario would indicate, the pre-extant hominid form would have been...this form was NOT Adam because it did not possess his distinct immortal, rational soul. And again, an inanimate animal body is basically 'vegetative' so if this was the clay that God slightly tweaked morphologically or physiologically then it would be no different.

Look at our basic reproduction now. The human being exists at the moment of its conception. However, the pre-extant matter which gives rise to this new human zygote exists as biologically distinct cells capable of living (albeit for short time). These cells obviously do not possess "souls", but from that biological clay each new person is formed. I do not understand why there would be a specific barrier from Adam being conceived from a larger bank of cells in what we could call physiologically a pre-human-hominid utterly deprived of its own animating force.

The problem is that I have seen NO scientific reason to believe that every animal on the planet was created through a sort of theistic evolution, but then man was outside this process. Obviously I do not wholly base my faithlife on what science can tell me, but there is NO apparent reason to speculate otherwise in physiological terms. Could God have built us de novo and given us DNA that is 99.3% identical to chimpanzees and made us a morphology distinctly primate mammal? Of course...but I do not see this as being necessary.

Either some sort of guided evolution explains it all, or we shouldn't be trying to jive Christian Theology with Macro-evolution at ALL. There is no serious scientific reason to separate Man from this same proces for the diversity of life on earth.

What you think?

Edited March 31, 2009 by Veridicus

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1820925' date='Mar 30 2009, 11:32 PM']Something you said got me thinking... if we had a highly developed mammal like a neandertal...

What does conception mean with a lower animal anyway? Do we consider the fertilization of an egg 'conception' with lower life forms, or only humans (having immortal souls)?
Maybe the first conception was the attainment of humanity by the very first humanoid animal?

It's sorta late, and there may very well be serious theological problems with this, so I'll add a disclaimer that I'm just thinking out loud, and would drop this little idea like a hot coal if it's shown to be inadequate or in error.[/quote]
Just so this doesn't get lost.

I'd love to hear opinions on this. It still makes sense a day later, so maybe it's not as ridiculous as I was worried it was.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1821621' date='Mar 31 2009, 11:54 PM']Something you said got me thinking... if we had a highly developed mammal like a neandertal...[/quote]

There is still speculation within the science community; but last I heard Neanderthals may have been physiologically/genetically similar enough that interbreeding between them and Cro-Magnon man occurred. Perhaps these were environmentally-distinct groups of humans (Neanderthals had culture and burial rituals it is believed) both descended form Adam...or maybe Neanderthals were Nephilim or something crazy...I dunno...

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1821621' date='Mar 31 2009, 11:54 PM']What does conception mean with a lower animal anyway? Do we consider the fertilization of an egg 'conception' with lower life forms, or only humans (having immortal souls)?
Maybe the first conception was the attainment of humanity by the very first humanoid animal?[/quote]

As far as I know, it means precisely the same thing for animals as it does for us. At the moment of their conception (in terms of animals with sexual reproduction) they would be imbued with whatever animating force/spirit gives them their self-sustaining capacity to live. This animating force is not rational, nor is it immortal. But scientifically speaking it is still conception. Egg + Sperm = Conceptus. My point in my preceding post was to demonstrate that the Church has never stated that Adam was 'conceived' in a biological sense; so to use the conception of the pre-extant animal matter from which he may have come as a reason to deny an evolutionary link for man seems misplaced. In this case it would NOT have been Adam that was conceived but the pre-human hominid that God would alter to become Adam in some way. Again, all just speculation. The only issue I can see is that of what happens to the animal spirit/animus/lifeforce that previously animated the pre-Adam hominid from its conception up till said animal form could be manipulated by God into the first Adam. If that animating force was removed, then the animal body would be just that...an inanimate mass of cells ready for God to tinker with as he wished and to imbue with a soul when he got it the way he wanted it. This would explain our genetic and morphological and physiological relationship to other hominids and primates, but would still allow for Adam to be 'created' from inanimate tissue and thus bypass his having to have his soul imbued at his 'conception.' Again, I must repeat that this seems a silly argument to try to make against it since the Church has NEVER taught that Adam was conceived. And I am not saying that Adam was conceived...only that the tissue which would later become Adam was conceived in a different form before God would use it to make Adam as we know him.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1821668' date='Apr 1 2009, 01:04 AM']There is still speculation within the science community; but last I heard Neanderthals may have been physiologically/genetically similar enough that interbreeding between them and Cro-Magnon man occurred. Perhaps these were environmentally-distinct groups of humans (Neanderthals had culture and burial rituals it is believed) both descended form Adam...or maybe Neanderthals were Nephilim or something crazy...I dunno...



As far as I know, it means precisely the same thing for animals as it does for us. At the moment of their conception (in terms of animals with sexual reproduction) they would be imbued with whatever animating force/spirit gives them their self-sustaining capacity to live. This animating force is not rational, nor is it immortal. But scientifically speaking it is still conception. Egg + Sperm = Conceptus. My point in my preceding post was to demonstrate that the Church has never stated that Adam was 'conceived' in a biological sense; so to use the conception of the pre-extant animal matter from which he may have come as a reason to deny an evolutionary link for man seems misplaced. In this case it would NOT have been Adam that was conceived but the pre-human hominid that God would alter to become Adam in some way. Again, all just speculation. The only issue I can see is that of what happens to the animal spirit/animus/lifeforce that previously animated the pre-Adam hominid from its conception up till said animal form could be manipulated by God into the first Adam. If that animating force was removed, then the animal body would be just that...an inanimate mass of cells ready for God to tinker with as he wished and to imbue with a soul when he got it the way he wanted it. This would explain our genetic and morphological and physiological relationship to other hominids and primates, but would still allow for Adam to be 'created' from inanimate tissue and thus bypass his having to have his soul imbued at his 'conception.' Again, I must repeat that this seems a silly argument to try to make against it since the Church has NEVER taught that Adam was conceived. And I am not saying that Adam was conceived...only that the tissue which would later become Adam was conceived in a different form before God would use it to make Adam as we know him.[/quote]
We should all be theologians. We're geniuses.

Lol.

Well yea, this all seems to make sense. Funny how the problem becomes more complex the harder you look at it. (Like fractals? )

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1821669' date='Apr 1 2009, 01:06 AM']We should all be theologians. We're geniuses.

Lol.

Well yea, this all seems to make sense. Funny how the problem becomes more complex the harder you look at it. (Like fractals? )[/quote]


Haha. Yeah. I don't really spend a lot of time looking at fractals. But my druggy cousin sent me a link to a youtube video of a fatboyslim video that is just like 6 minutes of fractals...I thought I was gonna have a seizure or something watching it.

In any case, it just doesn't seem prudent to me scientifcally to try to argue for such a distinct difference between how animals and how man were created in the physical sciences sense. I know there is a great tendency (I seemed to be picking it up from kafka) to want to try to 'meet the science halfway' on the issue and to work on common ground. But I just don't think it will ever make sense to serious scientists to try and argue that mankind is a giant exception (in terms of physicality). Our genetics, morphology, and physiology all point to the same trends as is apparent with any other evolutionary study.

So I'm just trying to work out other potential solutions that could fit more closely with that science model. But I am not a philosopher and I am not a theologian. But it doesn't not seem to me that Adam's animal matter having come from a pre-extant hominoid form would necessary be an issue philosophically with what little I know philosophically (since Adam would not have been conceived at birth...his soul would have been imbued in the inanimate remains of said hominid...thus animating it much like we would imagine God animating the 'clay' he was forming). And the issue of evolution is always a hard topic theologically because 2000 years of Church documents had a more literal interpretation of Genesis because there was no other data to use to express the spiritual truth in there. Hmm....I wish kafka would get back and challenge my thoughts on that.....

Edited April 1, 2009 by Veridicus

[Nihil Obstat]

Philosophically (I guess), the way I look at it is that we take what we know about science, and we use what we're 'pretty sure' about, and then we learn for ourselves how faith has been behind it. Know what I mean?

Not to say we make faith fit science, because that's the wrong way to look at it.

Two things that are true can't contradict each other, so when we know one is true, if someone else we 'know' is true outright contradicts it, one of our truths is obviously flawed.

So the way I see science and faith I guess, is that conflict is impossible, and when it looks like there is, it's because we don't know enough about one or the other.

Hope that made sense.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1821686' date='Apr 1 2009, 01:23 AM']So the way I see science and faith I guess, is that conflict is impossible, and when it looks like there is, it's because we don't know enough about one or the other.[/quote]

That's the one. I know some brilliant scientists who's minds are just so closed or brainwashed into ever considering a spiritual reality that they just cannot be part of a theological discussion. And likewise, I know brilliant people of faith who are so set in their mindset that they can't open up and look at the data and see how to two truths can coincide. There aren't enough moderate minded people really exploring this issue. I think the scientists are afraid that religion will 'weaken the science' and the religious are afraid that giving an inch to science will lead to a 'diluting of faith and tradition.'

Truth cannot contradict Truth.

[kafka]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1821267' date='Mar 31 2009, 06:56 PM']The problem is that I have seen NO scientific reason to believe that every animal on the planet was created through a sort of theistic evolution, but then man was outside this process. Obviously I do not wholly base my faithlife on what science can tell me, but there is NO apparent reason to speculate otherwise in physiological terms. Could God have built us de novo and given us DNA that is 99.3% identical to chimpanzees and made us a morphology distinctly primate mammal? Of course...but I do not see this as being necessary.

Either some sort of guided evolution explains it all, or we shouldn't be trying to jive Christian Theology with Macro-evolution at ALL. There is no serious scientific reason to separate Man from this same proces for the diversity of life on earth.

What you think?[/quote]
First off, I think your speculative scenario is well thought out and valid. I see nothing wrong with your explanation, and find it quite interesting, and I suggested (above) that there is nothing wrong with that hypothetical, and I didnt mean to sound like I was arguing negatively against it, since I wasnt.

My model is following a more teleological view. An evolution occurs in each grade, namely inanimate matter, vegetative life, and animal life. When each grade reaches a sort of finality and can no longer transcend itself, then God by a special creative act uses the nature of the grade which has reached its finality and creates the beginnings of a whole new grade which is higher in nature, and then this new grade undergoes its evolution, (in the case of plants and animals it would be what is termed macro-evolution).

Now when animals reached there finality in the high primates, the cosmos reached a horizontal plane which had no purpose other than to renew its own cycle of life. In concrete sense the cosmos taken alone has no transcendent purpose above and beyond itself. Prescinding from an ultimate purpose of glorifying God, the cosmos seems to have no purpose other than survival at this point in history. Then God created Man, and suddenly the whole cosmos has 'found' its purpose in this utterly unique creature. Everything that God created (prescinding from ultimate purpose) beginning with Deep Space, to the Sun, to the Earth, to plants, to animals all find their purpose in serving Man. God created the Universe for Man. And this truth is absolutely, and irrevocably established, verified and confirmed at the event of the Incarnation. Man is Lord of the cosmos. He has been given everything by God, and this is expressed in numerous verses of Scripture to in varying degrees and ways. And this Lordship of Man over Cosmos found its definitive fulfillment in the entire event of Jesus Christ. And it will find its definitive fulfillment in all of the Saints in the totality and unity of their human nature (soul-body) who have followed Christ in death, the resurrection, and ascension and will reign with Christ forever in the New Heaven and New Earth. So this truth of Man as Lord of cosmos and the cosmos as servant of Man suggests to me that Man in his totality was not derived via evolution his servant the animals, yet created independent of him. The aspects Man as summit and lord of the cosmos shares with the animals, plants, and inanimate matter is indirect, and not a direct derivitative.

Now there is another argument and that is found in the purpose of Man. The purpose of Man is to know and to love God in a supernaturally modified state of grace built into his original essence. This state finds its fulfillment in immediate vision of God in eternal life, yet it must first be actualized concretely by doing good works since Man is plunged into an historical situation. Therefore this transcendent and unique purpose of knowing and loving God which sets us above and beyond the cosmos, is not limited to his immortal soul, it encompasses the totality and unity of his being (soul/body). Man in his totality is transcendent and unique beyond all animals, plants, element, etc. If this purpose were limited to his immortal soul (as you suggested) then we would be Angels, and our bodies would be like puppets and have no real value or meaning. Or we would fall into the error of Platonic/gnostic dualism. Man would be an immortal creature trapped in a body roaming the earth. Yet this is not the case since Man is complete only after the general resurrection, and in fact God creates a New Heaven for the resurrected Saints who are complete after the resurrection. So from this viewpoint it doesnt seem to me that Man would in any way have an evolutionary connection to the cosmos. Every aspect of Man he shares with the cosmos is in a way unique and transcendent of the cosmos, therefore indirect implying to direct evolutionary connection.

I guess that is another point. The resurrected bodies of men are created anew by God. The only reason our bodies corrupt and die is the fallen state of original sin, and not because of any direct tie to the Earth as is the case in animals and plants.

So that is my speculative answer. I havent put a whole lot of thought into these ideas so please forgive any incompleteness or lack of logical progression etc and please point out where I may have fallen short or not made sense Veridicus. Thanks.

[kafka]

I just reread this last post of mine. A few grammar errors and mis-spellings, and misnomers. I was pretty beat up by work when I wrote it so forgive me. Still I wouldnt mind anyone sharing their own thoughts in reaction to what I posted.