Theory of Evolution

[oakleyswitch]

i totally love monkeys

[hierochloe]

The theory of evolution does not deny God, nor does the concept of the Big Bang. That's like saying the lottery denies God because the winner is determined by chance.

[avemaria40]

Maybe God created us through evolution b/c the Big Bang had to have a Force behind it and evolution makes no sense at all unless Someone wanted life on this planet and maybe He started with little prokaryotic cells but He was working towards His greatest Creation.

Edited September 5, 2005 by avemaria40

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 5 2005, 06:20 AM']The theory of evolution does not deny God, nor does the concept of the Big Bang. That's like saying the lottery denies God because the winner is determined by chance.
[right][snapback]711664[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Unfortunately evolutionists do not share your view about the theory of evolution. All of the points Oik brought up are valid. Evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

[track2004]

Well as far as I've heard, the Pope (at least JPII) said you could believe in evolution, so evidently they aren't as incompatable as you're saying Bro.

[Oik]

It is correct to say that JPII eluded to the fact that one can subscribe to a theory of Evolution if that theory does not, at it's core attempt, or from it's content indeed lead to the exclyusion of God (the Atheistic view).

Futhermore, Deism and other -isms that would conclude that God has little or no role in the creation of Man and/or God doesn't, from the beginning to eternity interact with man, have been condemned by the Church.


So, if you want to get technical, Atheistic Evolution is incompatible for obvious reasons.

Theistic Evolution in it's varying explanation (while there are maybe only three or four) is in some senses flawed.


If God created a process to create our bodies, then in a way this admits of a kind of Deism, from the physical aspect of humanity. It places Evolution inbetween God and man.
Even here, this is incompatible with even the Theistic evolutionists claim in Genesis with God making man out the clay. When God makes man out of clay, HE forges man, HE molds man, HE is the processor.

Theistic evolution, indeed, re-creates Evolution as the molder for it implies that God controls the process indirectly (or directly), though immediately, in relation to man, it is Evolution that forms man's flesh.


This in incompatible with Catholicism, it is incompatible with all Christianity. It is simply anti-Biblical.



What the Church would allow in Theistic Evolution is if evolution created the clay for which God was to mold man.

Really though, is this evolution? Evolution theorizes that it is the changes over a period of time that develop into evolution.

With God, changes in reguards to the human person are irrelevant. What I mean to say is, it makes no difference (here I am NOT stating God's opinion) to God whether or not a mountain has snow or not, that fact doesn't play a role(in the sense of God's creation, not in a sense of utility) in whether or not my body is fashioned the way it is.


Objections:

I can see where some might say that environment plays a role in God fashioning the human body with certain features (for instance, if God placed adam and eve in the cold, it is possible that Adam and Eve would have had long hair instead of sghort hair). Here, though, understand that I am NOT speaking in a manner of utility (that is hair length to serve a purpose, ie, keeping me warm). I am speaking here about what defines me as a person.

Why? As human beings, we are BODYSOUL. So, the body is important, the soul is important.

Evolution cannot account for the bodysoul relation.

This in and of itself does not discount Evolution. What is does do though is that it allows us, as Christians to look to Theology and Philosophy (philosopy that is compatible with Christianity of course).

He is where Evolution fails. The seat of wisdom of the theory (I don't mean this in a mocking sense, I mean it in the scientific sense) of Evolution goes back to empirical evidence.

Simply though, Man is not merely empirical.
Why? You may observe me only from the perspective of an outsider. You are not me, I am me.

However, you, as a human being are self-reflective. You (or I) can be aware of ourselves, being aware of ourselves.

This aspect of humanity is simply incompatible with Evolution.

As for Theistic evoltuion, I have given my response. Theistic evoltuion is, in the structural sense, inefficent (which has nothing to do with anything).
Theistic evolution, in terms of roles, becomes creationism when God is directly involved and it become Anti-Christian (or Anti-God) when Evolution is the means which created man's body.

Why? As I mentioned before, God molded man for clay. It was God's hands that create.

God Bless,
Chelsea

[Oik]

bump

[Brother Adam]

[White Knight]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 5 2005, 05:20 AM']The theory of evolution does not deny God, nor does the concept of the Big Bang. That's like saying the lottery denies God because the winner is determined by chance.
[right][snapback]711664[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I'm afriad it does.

[Oik]

I can see the point that is being expressed White Knight. I think the distinction is whether or not science intentionally sets out to deny God or not. Sometimes it does. Other times it comes to conclusions that might lead one to to deny God's existence. Still other times, the conclusions point to God's existence.

As for me, I am neither Evolutionist nor Creationist (am sympathetic to Creationism ,of course, for it is 100% compatible with the Faith).

Edited September 6, 2005 by Oik

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Oik']Still other times, the conclusions point to God's existence.[/quote]

Care to give an example?

[Oik]

Some empirical evidence points to God's existence. In fact, all of creation points to God's existence. This of course really has nothing to do with Science, so much as it has to do with the world God created. In this way, science and philosophy interconnect with Theology. We (can) study the empirical and it leads to God. the creation says something about its Creator.

I know that that wasn't exactly concrete, I hope that it helps.

God Bless,
Chelsea

[hierochloe]

I think it's a misnomer to say that science ever attempts to disprove God. It's far more accurate to state that certain people attempt to use science to disprove God (which is futile). I know, semantics, so what.. Well, this sort of thing drives a rift between science and philosophy which is extremely counter-productive.

I still don't see how evolutionary process, as well as other theories regarding how the universe came to be, can be accused credibly of attempting to refute God's existence. They may appear to contradict literal interpretation of the bible, which only makes them incompatible to certain biblical interpretation, NOT incompatible with the presence of a creator and arguably not incompatible with Christianity. But I think most can agree on this anyways, since logically a creation requires a creator, leading down the path to God's existence, so on and so forth.

The theory of evolution in itself makes no attempt to refute the presence of an external, continuously guiding hand as it were. Certainly, I agree that man is not merely empirical. Nevertheless, evolutionary theory is not meant to explain the non-empirical. So it does not attempt in the least to define the body-soul relationship nor the creation of this relationship. It's a scientific theory, not a philosophical tenet.

I agree that evolution, when considered a process actively and lucidly guided by God qualifies as creationism. The breakdown is in the assumption that evolution requires that God does not play an active (non-passive) role in the process. Evolutionary theory makes absolutely no claim whatsoever as to whether or not it is a process that is actively driven by God. That is merely an interpretation added on by people, mainly the same people who would attempt to use science to refute the existence of God or erode the credibility of Christianity. Likewise, the same interpretation is assumed by those who take issue with the contradictions of such a theory and a literal translation of the biblical account of creation.

If a person finds evolution unbelievable because it does not agree with their interpretation of biblical account, it's better for them to state that than attempt to prove that evolution and other theories of origins discount a very active and personal involvement by God in natural process. The fact is that these theories, by nature, do not make any statements about God’s relationship with His creation.

I often wonder what God’s response would be to our assertion that He would never create something using a certain process. Many would say that free will itself is "inefficient" yet there it is. If God could just make us pure, why not just do it? Why a complete life-span to grow into relationship with him if He could make it happen in an instant?

[Brother Adam]

"If a person finds evolution unbelievable because it does not agree with their interpretation of biblical account, it's better for them to state that than attempt to prove that evolution and other theories of origins discount a very active and personal involvement by God in natural process. The fact is that these theories, by nature, do not make any statements about God’s relationship with His creation."


After reading both Oik's and your posts I don't see how you are addressing the valid points he brings up about evolution. You are attempting to remove God's actions in the physical world. Evolution does indeed ultimately make statements about the nature of God, because it is God who is responsible for all creation. As Oik already pointed out, even thiestic evolution is incompatible with Christianity. There is no need to restate what he has already stated, unless someone could directly show where his logic is somehow flawed.

Evolution attempts to address origins, especially the origins of [i]bios[/i], life. That most certianly does fall back into theology, even if some scientists who propose the theory of evolution attempt to stay merely in a scientific realm.

[hierochloe]

Well, I'm afraid I may be missing both of your points - please forgive my hard-headedness. Evolution does not, in fact, make any attempt to explain away God, the spiritual nature of life, nor anything else theological (which Oik pointed out). I don't attempt to remove God's actions in the world. I just stated that evolution does not make such an attempt, niether explicitly nor implicitly. Any such conclusion is a personal augmentation and therefore a straw man in a debate over the theory itself.

Evolution is compatible with the concept of God actively creating and maintaining His universe. It's also compatible with the concept of a God doing the same passively. It's even compatible (although less sensical imho) with the concept of no God. How? Because it makes no claims whatsoever about who God is or how he interacts with his creation. Period. It's complete fallacy to say that in and of itself it denies God in any way.

Obviously, [b]evolution is [i]not[/i] compatible with a literal biblical translation.[/b] No disagreement there. Naturally, as translations approach a figurative sense rather than literal, slightly more possible credibility in evolutionary theory and a whole host of other scientific concepts is allowed. Still, it is not evolitionary theory speaking of God and His specific involvement with creation. In the case of Christianity, it's the bible and a person's translation of scripture, etc that determines this. Depending on the person's conclusions regarding these spiritual lexicons, they may put more or less stock in evolutionary theory.

Who is to say that [i]what appears to us to be a passive process affected by numerous environmental variables over long periods of time[/i] could not be a very active and deliberate action by God? Couldn't God's very will be driving each and every one of these vectors? You don't think God could manipulate so many factors precisely enough to exactly produce the fruit of his will in the very same sense that a potter would use his hands to intricately mold a jar from clay? Would this not qualify as direct involvement by God (and thereby fall under creationism according to Oik)? Evolutionary theory does not deny God, and aside from disagreeing with a literal translation of Genesis, it is compatible with a Christian God as well. Unless I somehow fell off the truck ten years ago.

[Oik]

[quote]Who is to say that what appears to us to be a passive process affected by numerous environmental variables over long periods of time could not be a very active and deliberate action by God? Couldn't God's very will be driving each and every one of these vectors? You don't think God could manipulate so many factors precisely enough to exactly produce the fruit of his will in the very same sense that a potter would use his hands to intricately mold a jar from clay? Would this not qualify as direct involvement by God (and thereby fall under creationism according to Oik)? Evolutionary theory does not deny God, and aside from disagreeing with a literal translation of Genesis, it is compatible with a Christian God as well. Unless I somehow fell off the truck ten years ago. [/quote]

I think your conclusion is directly in line with what Brother Adam was saying. There is no such thing as the Evolutionary process, only God's direct involvment in creation, ie Creation.

[quote]Who is to say that what appears to us to be a passive process affected by numerous environmental variables over long periods of time could not be a very active and deliberate action by God? Couldn't God's very will be driving each and every one of these vectors?[/quote]

This is de facto Creationism.

[quote]Evolutionary theory does not deny God, and aside from disagreeing with a literal translation of Genesis, it is compatible with a Christian God as well.[/quote]

If science leads to de facto Creationism, there is no such thing as evolution or evolutionary theory.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 7 2005, 08:53 AM']This is de facto Creationism.[/quote]
Yes, and in that statement it would seem it doesn't make sense for one to say that an explanation of the physical process itself denies God's direct involvement in it's execution.

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 7 2005, 08:53 AM']If science leads to de facto Creationism, there is no such thing as evolution or evolutionary theory.
[right][snapback]714245[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm starting to see where you're coming from now, yet I'm inclined to think this is nothing more than semantics. I say potaytoh, you say potahtoh. Evolutionary theory, as well as big-bang and others, can indeed explain the physical processes involved in a creative process directly controlled by God. So evolutionary process fits within the larger umbrella of creationism, as long as one recognizes that God actively drives this process - the physical process itself is still labelled evolution.

[Oik]

[quote]Yes, and in that statement it would seem it doesn't make sense for one to say that an explanation of the physical process itself denies God's direct involvement in it's execution.[/quote]

I understand and agree on the logic here. The problem is that science, at least when it comes to non-christian sources, specifically avoids this conclusion. The obligation falls on the part of science and scientists to accept and diseminate this information. Frankly, they don't.


[quote]I'm starting to see where you're coming from now, yet I'm inclined to think this is nothing more than semantics. I say potaytoh, you say potahtoh. Evolutionary theory, as well as big-bang and others, can indeed explain the physical processes involved in a creative process directly controlled by God. So evolutionary process fits within the larger umbrella of creationism, as long as one recognizes that God actively drives this process - the physical process itself is still labelled evolution.[/quote]

IT agree, is can seem as semantics. It takes time to see the argument thorugh. It's of course more of a theo-philosophical arguement (Science is merely concerned with emperical questions).

The ramification here though are that if God is directly controlling a thing, it is not really a process. Evolutionary analogy is a kin to a modern day worker (in this explanation, God) who sits at a chair and pushes buttons (except for all Eternity) to make the computer (evolution) tell the machines (physical processes, volcanoes, earthquakes, animals) what to do to produce (here, man comes in) and continue life.

Where is Gid's involvement? I suppose a better anaology is that God is the worker and the machine and the means by which man comes to be. However, this is really Creationism in a sense.

If God designs a physical process and then lets it unfold without any real interaction, He is reduced by theory, to the Clockmaker. Faith then is reduced to Deism.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:24 PM']I understand and agree on the logic here. The problem is that science, at least when it comes to non-christian sources, specifically avoids this conclusion. The obligation falls on the part of science and scientists to accept and diseminate this information. Frankly, they don't.[/quote]
Hmmm, in my experience (bias here), professional scientists will be the first to point out that their scientific conjecture on origins is not meant to bare on anything in the supernatural realm. It seems to be the people with an alternate agenda (such as atheism or anti-Christianity, etc) that add the spiritual aspect. And in case I am misunderstanding you and you mean that scientists indeed shoulder a responsibility to make added conclusions as to the spiritual nature, I must say I wholeheartedly disagree. That would be like having a mechanic attempt to diagnose a human ailment.
[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:24 PM']The ramification here though are that if God is directly controlling a thing, it is not really a process.
...
If God designs a physical process and then lets it unfold without any real interaction, He is reduced by theory, to the Clockmaker. Faith then is reduced to Deism.
[right][snapback]715816[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I see your point. Yet, I think that what appears to be and is scientifically defined by humans as a "process" (much like human conception and gestation is labelled a "process") can be something far greater and not limited by our own conception and labels. For example, when I prepare a meal for myself, I go through a process. All phases of this process can be very directly controlled by none other than me. The same is true for a potter molding clay into a jar. There is a process involved in all of these things yet the "creator" of these things is still directly and actively involved.

I think the very same can apply to evolutionary theory. Evolution does not logically necessitate that it be a passive process that unfolds, initiated and managed passively by a "clockmaker" figure, so to speak. It [i]could[/i] be a passively controlled process, but nowhere is passive operation [i]required[/i] either explicitly or implicitly. I think evolutionary theory (as well as many other theories on origins) allows itself to be executed more along the lines of a potter or cook, every phase intricately, directly controlled. Inasmuch, evolution would still be a process directly controlled by God by which certain aspects of our reality come to be, thus qualifying as creationism.

[Oik]

[quote]Hmmm, in my experience (bias here), professional scientists will be the first to point out that their scientific conjecture on origins is not meant to bare on anything in the supernatural realm. It seems to be the people with an alternate agenda (such as atheism or anti-Christianity, etc) that add the spiritual aspect. And in case I am misunderstanding you and you mean that scientists indeed shoulder a responsibility to make added conclusions as to the spiritual nature, I must say I wholeheartedly disagree. That would be like having a mechanic attempt to diagnose a human ailment.[/quote]

Science intentionally limits itself to empirical observation.

Where is the fault? Man is not merely empirical.

Why is this important? Science is authoritative, that's why. Should they bear that responsibility? Yes. Theology does, Psychology does, Philosophy does. Why not science? It can't be because science limits itself. Why? Siceince is autoritative, so it has the obligation to go where it may, even if it goes beyond empirical evidence. Why? Becuase human beings are not merely empirical. The world is not merely empirical. Science must choose to either admit the non-empirical aspcet of life or give up speaking authoritatively and start issuing assumptions.