Evolution vs Creationism vs Else

[scardella]

Here, I'm not talking about a Godless/atheist understanding of evolution either, except where noted. I was just wondering who believed in a literal creation (humans created as humans, no macro-evolution) and who believed that humans were shaped via macro-evolution. Also, if you've got other theories or in-betweens, please share!

I've kinda been all over the place on this, and I'd like to hear people's arguments.

[OLAM Dad]

When God created us 'in His image' I don't believe that he was speaking about His physical image. After all, the Creator, God the Father is spiritual and not physical. So what does this mean?

Our soul allows us to share in God's divinity, it also is what separates us from the rest of God's creation. Therefore, I believe that 'in His image' means 'with a soul'. What we look like physically is not relevant, therefore, solving the evolution debate is strictly a scientic exercise and not a theological one.

Note: This is just my opinion, if I'm straying from the Magisterium in any way then I am wrong.

Edited January 18, 2006 by OLAM Dad

[scardella]

I know that Catholics can believe in evolution w/ some caveats and we can believe in creationism. That's why it's interesting for me.

Plus, you're not really answering the question....

[philothea]

Aww, you posted this just to make me happy, didn't you?

I am undecided between options 2 and 3, but I picked 2.

I'm as certain as I am of anything that Genesis -- while entirely true -- is not literal. It's not even self-consistent.

Without divine revelation, the interrelation and progressive advancement of living things is evident. I don't see God making a world that looks to be one way, and yet actually is entirely different.

I don't know the precise process, but a long time ago there was no life on Earth. The earliest life forms were very primitive. Later, more advanced -- but similiar -- living things existed. It was not a smooth progression, but the trend and the connections are clear.

At some point, two humans came to be, God endowed them with souls, and they chose sin.

We know the rest of the story.

[rkwright]

[quote name='OLAM Dad' date='Jan 18 2006, 10:47 AM']When God created us 'in His image' I don't believe that he was speaking about His physical image.  After all, the Creator, God the Father is spiritual and not physical.  So what does this mean? 

Our soul allows us to share in God's divinity, it also is what separates us from the rest of God's creation.  Therefore, I believe that 'in His image' means 'with a soul'.  What we look like physically is not relevant, therefore, solving the evolution debate is strictly a scientic exercise and not a theological one.

Note:  This is just my opinion, if I'm straying from the Magisterium in any way then I am wrong. 
[right][snapback]859789[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I agree... let the science guys debate over Intelligent design vs Evolution. The point is that image (in my opinion) refers to the soul, and that whoever the first 'souls' were, sinned and bam you have the rest.

It doesn't really matter to me if we physcially evolved from a cell, or we're just created the way we are. Scientifically I'm not sure theres an overwhelming reason to buy one or the other.

[morostheos]

The scientific theory of evolution isn't in itself atheistic either, since science can't make any claims about the existence/non-existence of God. The ideological proposal that Cardinal Schonborn calls evolutionism is the atheistic part that Catholics can't agree with.

So, that being said, I would say that Catholics don't even have to put any caveats on the scientific theory of evolution since it is simply that - a scientific theory that makes no claims on who caused anything to happen, but simply the mechanisms by which it happened.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='OLAM Dad' date='Jan 18 2006, 11:47 AM']When God created us 'in His image' I don't believe that he was speaking about His physical image.  After all, the Creator, God the Father is spiritual and not physical.  So what does this mean? 

Our soul allows us to share in God's divinity, it also is what separates us from the rest of God's creation.  Therefore, I believe that 'in His image' means 'with a soul'.  What we look like physically is not relevant, therefore, solving the evolution debate is strictly a scientic exercise and not a theological one.

Note:  This is just my opinion, if I'm straying from the Magisterium in any way then I am wrong. 
[right][snapback]859789[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
well, there is a certain physical element to being created in God's image, if you look at Theology of the Body. Not only did God endow us with a soul, He also created us male and female, so that earthly families can be in the image of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[quote name='rkwright' date='Jan 18 2006, 12:25 PM']The point is that image (in my opinion) refers to the soul, and that whoever the first 'souls' were, sinned and bam you have the rest. 
[right][snapback]859814[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree with this, except you can't separate the body and the soul.

I voted option 2

[Brother Adam]

'literal' creationism with reservations, so I picked 'other'.

basically i think catholics have had a 'reaction' to fundamentalism creationsim and feel a need to fight against it (as the Church at one time only distributed communion under one species cause of the reformers insistance on 2)

Edited January 18, 2006 by Brother Adam

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 18 2006, 01:44 PM']'literal' creationism with reservations, so I picked 'other'.

basically i think catholics have had a 'reaction' to fundamentalism creationsim and feel a need to fight against it (as the Church at one time only distributed communion under one species cause of the reformers insistance on 2)
[right][snapback]859901[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
can you elaborate?

[rkwright]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 18 2006, 12:12 PM']I agree with this, except you can't separate the body and the soul.

I voted option 2
[right][snapback]859857[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

why is that? when we die our soul leaves, and will be reunited at some point with a 'body', yet the 2 do seperate?

[scardella]

I guess some questions might be helpful in muddying the issue...
1. How well does radio-carbon dating work, on average, when used w/ objects of known age? Also, what determines a thing's "age" anyway? Are you measuring when some object came into some configuration, or that particular substance... ie. would it date a stone tablet's age as the age of the underlying rock or the date when it was last worked on? [i]As far as I can tell, radio-carbon dating is something that has to be absolutely workable in order for any evolutionary timeline to be created in the first place.[/i]
2. What morphological evidence is there that shows moving from fish -> reptile -> mammal or whatever until you have apes -> semi-apes/semi-human -> human? Are there multiple and or significant gaps? [i]It is my understanding that there is at least one, and that happens to be in the "gap" between apes and humans.[/i]
3. Have we seen speciation? What concrete evidence is there of that? Have we seen something to the point of causing at least horse/donkey breeding (ie it will produce an offspring but the offspring will always be infertile: a mule)
4. What role does God play in this? [i]If He were using option 2, we should be able to build a very nice time-line without much, if any gaps. If He were using option 3, gaps can and should be expected. If He were using option 1, radio-carbon dating probably is complete rubbish. If it were option 4, we should expect something similar to option 2. If it were option 5 or 6???[/i]
5. If one chose options 2 or 3, could the devil have any influence in evolution?
6. Is there a possibility of a hybrid option? [i]Ie, God creates multiple lines, say plants, animals, bacteria, etc., and those lines branch off afterwards?[/i]
7. In the end, what matters for a Catholic?

[morostheos]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jan 18 2006, 04:15 PM']I guess some questions might be helpful in muddying the issue...
1.  How well does radio-carbon dating work, on average, when used w/ objects of known age?  Also, what determines a thing's "age" anyway?  Are you measuring when some object came into some configuration, or that particular substance... ie. would it date a stone tablet's age as the age of the underlying rock or the date when it was last worked on?  [i]As far as I can tell, radio-carbon dating is something that has to be absolutely workable in order for any evolutionary timeline to be created in the first place.[/i]
(snip)
[right][snapback]860098[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Off the top of my head, I'll start of with number 1 - carbon dating. I'm sure you could get more specific explanations online somewhere, but I can give a basic overview. Radio-carbon dating is a method of measuring the types of radioactive decay products that are present in an object. It uses pretty much the same principle that atomic clocks use. Certain radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate. By measuring the ratio of the original isotope to the decay products, one can determine when that object came to be.

Example: Say someone gave you a jar of individually wrapped peppermint patties, and you are eating them at a rate of 1/minute and making a pile of the wrappers as you unwrap them. You started eating them as soon as they were given to you. If a scientist came into the room and observed you eating the peppermint patties at a rate of exactly 1/minute, then counted the number of wrappers sitting on the table, they could estimate how long you've been sitting there eating them.

The decay products that are measured are the "wrappers". Luckily, radioactive decay is more predictable than how fast you eat peppermint patties.

OK, so to answer your questions:

[quote] How well does radio-carbon dating work, on average, when used w/ objects of known age?[/quote]

Well, radioactive isotope dating in general is very accurate when used w/objects of known age. Carbon dating (of the type relevant to the evolution debate) can't really be used very accurately on objects of known age because it is meant for determining the age of really old things. When something is that old, we usually don't know exactly how old it is. To use objects of known age would be like trying to weigh a pencil on a bathroom scale - it doesn't really work.

[quote] lso, what determines a thing's "age" anyway?  Are you measuring when some object came into some configuration, or that particular substance... ie. would it date a stone tablet's age as the age of the underlying rock or the date when it was last worked on?[/quote]
That would give you the age of the rock. It's based on when the object was created. Carbon dating is used specifically on things that were once alive (carbon-based), so you would have to find some fossils in the rock to do carbon-dating on.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 18 2006, 01:46 PM']can you elaborate?
[right][snapback]859960[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Whenever I ask those with 'scholarly' degrees who hold prominant positions in universities and in the Church the common reaction is "We aren't fundamentalists, we believe in evolution". To me, this is quite an odd answer. I approach most doctrine the same - I'm open, make a case. It's why I am Catholic today. When it comes to faith and reason and evolution, Catholics just haven't sold me on 'evolution'. There are too many philosophical and fundamental theological problems with accepting portions of both 'new' theories of evolution and of course, darwinian theories of evolution. I've thrown some of these out there a few times here even and they are usually ignored, or I'm just plain dumb for thinking that I can believe in creationism as I do. I believe that the human body as well as the soul was created deliberatily by God in an act of his will and that human beings did not evolve out of previous species. I believe the human was created perfect (good) and never needed 'improving' through evolution, and I do not believe we are evolving now. To say that we are not created in the image of God physically poses huge theological problems for me as well. How can we, if we are to believe in the hypostatic union, and hold the body in as high regard as we do as Catholics, put to abandon so easily that physically we do not resemble, in some way, the intimate life of the Trinity, of God. I am not compelled so quickly to throw my hat into science that tries to reach these types of conclusions. There are numerous other, far reaching, questions as well. So while I am not so much inclined anymore to say with certianity that God created the world in 6-24 hour periods, I wouldn't be overly disgusted if He actually has, I'm not sure that we can know through our own human reason. The creation story (which I believe there is only one and have good solid biblical evidience to show why) may not try to discuss any scientific theory, but I don't doubt it is true, any less than I doubt the theophany(ies) of God in the physical world through nature (fire, smoke, lightening) in the Old Testament.

[qfnol31]

Brother Adam, what do you say about evolution with man not invovled?

[scardella]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Jan 18 2006, 02:49 PM']Certain radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate.  By measuring the ratio of the original isotope to the decay products, one can determine when that object came to be.

Example: Say someone gave you a jar of individually wrapped peppermint patties, and you are eating them at a rate of 1/minute and making a pile of the wrappers as you unwrap them.  You started eating them as soon as they were given to you.  If a scientist came into the room and observed you eating the peppermint patties at a rate of exactly 1/minute, then counted the number of wrappers sitting on the table, they could estimate how long you've been sitting there eating them.[/quote]

This assumes that there are no wrappers in the beginning. That's been my problem w/ carbon dating. So, you have to know the original ratio of the radioactive isotopes to the stable byproduct in order for the prediction to work. How do they know what that was?

[quote]Luckily, radioactive decay is more predictable than how fast you eat peppermint patties.[/quote]

Agreed. I'm familiar w/ half-life measurements, etc...

[quote]OK, so to answer your questions:
Well, radioactive isotope dating in general is very accurate when used w/objects of known age.
[/quote]

For my info, do you know of any helpful links regarding this?