Evolution

[Steve in Vista]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1075997' date='Sep 26 2006, 04:52 PM']
...science and revelation go hand in hand. They're both sciences, ...[/quote]

That is precisely what I am saying is incorrect. Revelation is directly from God. Science as seen from a naturalistic base is biased towards trying to dictate truth that it will say religion must accept. Pius X's point is, that is absolutely unacceptable. From God's revelation of truth (and that means creation and not evolution) science is only the handmaid in a chain (that I gave above) that is to serve religion and not the other way around. Secondly, revelation is not a science at all, for science is too limited to encompass revelation. However, revelation is supernatural and encompasses true science (from the latin scientia simply meaning knowledge). Therefore true science serves religion and revelation and not the other way around.

Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum

[Aloysius]

theology, not revelation, is a science.

science ought to observe the natural world completely objective from any pre-drawn metaphysical conclusions either way. after science observes the world and describes its mechanisms, it is up to philosophy and ultimately theology to interpret what that means.

well, the only pre-drawn metaphysical conclusion should be that everything in the natural universe actually exists.

science should not set out to prove revelation. science should not set out to disprove revelation. science should set out to investigate and observe the natural world and its mechanisms and then describe them.

[Era Might]

You are confusing revelation with theology.

Revelation is the data, and is directly from God. Theology is the synthesis of that data, and comes from man. In the Church's 2,000 year history, she has taken that data and verified much of it through definition. However, the science of theology remains. This is why we have theologians, to attempt a synthesis of the data, and properly harmonize it with other spheres of truth.

This same principle applies to science. Natural truth is just as sure as supernatural truth, and also comes directly from God. Science, however, like theology, is a human science, and requires scrutiny and discussion to accurately discover and discern that natural truth.

Revelation is not concerned with science, and science is not concerned with revelation. This is why we must take the two, try to discern the facts, and then harmonize two spheres of truth, which cannot contradict because they both have God as their source.

[quote]Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.

--Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2293[/quote]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1076020' date='Sep 26 2006, 07:09 PM']theology, not revelation, is a science.[/quote]
Well, yes, when I referred to revelation as a science, I was speaking of the science that is concerned with revelation. The word "science" is generally associated with natural truth, so I wanted to reference revealed truth specifically. But yes, theology and (natural) science are both similar fields, just dealing with different means of revelation (natural and supernatural).

Edited September 26, 2006 by Era Might

[goldenchild17]

Without addressing the theological aspect of it (I don't think evolution is compatible) I'm just not sure it's anything more than a theory. There is plenty of evidence and observation of adaptation within species. We have the spotted moths (I think that's what they were) that changed color so they could survive. There were the many different kind of finches that Darwin observed. But the moths were still moths. The finches were still finches. When does an animal become another animal?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1076166' date='Sep 26 2006, 10:54 PM']
Without addressing the theological aspect of it (I don't think evolution is compatible) I'm just not sure it's anything more than a theory. There is plenty of evidence and observation of adaptation within species. We have the spotted moths (I think that's what they were) that changed color so they could survive. There were the many different kind of finches that Darwin observed. But the moths were still moths. The finches were still finches. When does an animal become another animal?
[/quote]
It probably depends who you ask. The way I (not knowing much science) understand it is an animal is definately no longer of the same species when it cannot produce fertile offspring with its ancestral species. Apparantly, I just found out, this "speciation" has been observed on the labratory level. Check this out:
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Ar...cial_speciation[/url]

Whether [i]manipulative[/i] breeding on the lab level proves the theory of evolution in [i]nature[/i] is for somebody smarter to decide.

[goldenchild17]

okay but is there a difference between not being able to breed with the ancestral species, and choosing not to breed with the ancestral species? How do we know it's physically impossible for certain species to breed with their ancestral species? Has anybody force-breeded them to see? Just a question, I don't know.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Frist, I'd just like to say I am thinking rationally here with my limited knowledge, I am really no authority on science. I think you can tell by looking at DNA if crossbreeding is possible. It seems that the species-line would be drawn at the [i]possibility[/i] of producing fertile offspring. You raise an interesting question about whether a mutated animal would [i]want[/i] to mate with its parent's kind or not. Would it want something like itself or would its instincts still orient it toward the species it came from? Then again I could be totally wrong and making a fool of myself. Is anyone out there a biologist?

Edited September 27, 2006 by thedude

[Resurrexi]

[quote] I know we can be fairly certain that the earth is at least 600 million years old [/quote]

I know that I'm fairly ceratin that the world is about 6000 years old.

[Farsight one]

Just so you all know. Evolution is NOT a theory. It's quite real, just misconceived. The fact that children tend to be between their parents in height( average height of the two +2.5 inches for males and -2.5 for females) is evolution. The cold virus evolves when it changes strains (which is why there's no cold vaccine. It changes too rapidly). That chart you see all the time where the monkey changes frame by frame into man really has nothing to do with true evolution.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1077558' date='Sep 28 2006, 01:32 AM']
I know that I'm fairly ceratin that the world is about 6000 years old.
[/quote]
well, you base that opinion off of pseudo-pscience and a faith in something that the Church does not require us to believe...

Farsight, you're describing the fact of micro-evolution, everyone agrees to that.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1077659' date='Sep 28 2006, 01:44 AM']
Just so you all know. Evolution is NOT a theory. It's quite real, just misconceived. The fact that children tend to be between their parents in height( average height of the two +2.5 inches for males and -2.5 for females) is evolution. The cold virus evolves when it changes strains (which is why there's no cold vaccine. It changes too rapidly). That chart you see all the time where the monkey changes frame by frame into man really has nothing to do with true evolution.
[/quote]
Yes microevolution. No one disputes that as far as I can tell.

[KnightofChrist]

What about the fact that the bible and Church teaches that Adam and Eve were "The First Parents." The word "first" would imply that they were the first, zero, no parents ahead of them no not a ape, nor ape-like.

Adam and Eve can not be "the first parents" if indeed they had parents. Genetics does not change the parenthood of a mother and father. If my wife gave birth to the x-men we would still be their mother and father. The same would be true for Adam and Eves "parents", and if they did have parents, and if so the Church is wrong to teach that Adam and Eve were "the first parents", because that would not be true if they did have parents.

The original intention of Biblical and Church teaching (I believe) is that Adam and Eve were The First Parents, they had no parents, God created them directly.

I would rather look like a fool for God, and take the more traditional view of creation, than Darwin’s modern atheistic theory of evolution, which is taught today as if there is no God, and is scientific law. When in fact it remains one of many scientific theories, of creation.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1077709' date='Sep 28 2006, 03:29 AM']I would rather look like a fool for God, and take the more traditional view of creation, than Darwin’s modern atheistic theory of evolution, which is taught today as if there is no God, and is scientific law. When in fact it remains one of many scientific theories, of creation.
[/quote]
Amen.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='thedude' post='1076266' date='Sep 26 2006, 11:03 PM']
It probably depends who you ask. The way I (not knowing much science) understand it is an animal is definately no longer of the same species when it cannot produce fertile offspring with its ancestral species. Apparantly, I just found out, this "speciation" has been observed on the labratory level. Check this out:
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Ar...cial_speciation[/url]

Whether [i]manipulative[/i] breeding on the lab level proves the theory of evolution in [i]nature[/i] is for somebody smarter to decide.
[/quote]

A thought. If an animal is considered a new species when it can no longer breed with it's ancestors, ie if one breed cannot breed with another breed. Then how come horses can breed with donkeys? Or are they the same breed technically?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1077712' date='Sep 28 2006, 05:16 AM']
A thought. If an animal is considered a new species when it can no longer breed with it's ancestors, ie if one breed cannot breed with another breed. Then how come horses can breed with donkeys? Or are they the same breed technically?
[/quote]
It can breed, but the offspring cannot. Mules cannot mate with each other and produce offspring from what I know. According to Wikipedia, there are rare cases where mules have been able to produce offspring when mated with horses or donkeys, but it doesn't look like two mules can produce offspring.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertile_mules"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertile_mules[/url]

[Aloysius]

it is different races within a species which cannot interbreed (which is why the word "race" is a misnomer in human terms).

Darwin was wrong, that is true. But the origin of the human body may have had different stages before Adam and Eve, this does not make them not our first parents. if they generated our entire species, they're our first parents.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='thedude' post='1078153' date='Sep 28 2006, 04:05 PM']
It can breed, but the offspring cannot. Mules cannot mate with each other and produce offspring from what I know. According to Wikipedia, there are rare cases where mules have been able to produce offspring when mated with horses or donkeys, but it doesn't look like two mules can produce offspring.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertile_mules"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertile_mules[/url]
[/quote]

So then wouldn't that make a mule the same species as the horse? And the same species as the donkey? If they can mate, then either they are the same species, or the ability to make with one is not significant in determining what makes a separate species. Are two mules not of the same species? Since they cannot breed with each other? Are a donkey and a horse of the same species because they can breed? Just some questions I have that don't add up for me.

[cmotherofpirl]

interesting discussion:
[url="http://catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=834"]http://catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=834[/url]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXT[/url]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1078195' date='Sep 28 2006, 05:52 PM']
So then wouldn't that make a mule the same species as the horse? And the same species as the donkey? If they can mate, then either they are the same species, or the ability to make with one is not significant in determining what makes a separate species. Are two mules not of the same species? Since they cannot breed with each other? Are a donkey and a horse of the same species because they can breed? Just some questions I have that don't add up for me.
[/quote]
Beats me. I don't know how a biologist would define a species.