Human Evolution

[KnightofChrist]

Disregard truth all you want. Truth can not defy truth. The Catholic Church teaches only truth, anything that defies that is not truth.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1481889' date='Mar 22 2008, 06:47 PM']Disregard truth all you want. Truth can not defy truth. The Catholic Church teaches only truth, anything that defies that is not truth.[/quote]
The church doesnt claim to teach science, and never has. Try again.

Edited March 23, 2008 by fidei defensor

[Fidei Defensor]

And before you bother with any more of your "oh truth is truth" carp, the Pope says it is permissible for faithful catholics to believe in evolution. I think that trumps what you have to say. Better luck next time.

[KnightofChrist]

And I did not state that it did, I stated she taught truth, science can be true but if it is contrary to Catholic teaching it is false. That or the Church is false.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1481897' date='Mar 22 2008, 07:54 PM']And before you bother with any more of your "oh truth is truth" carp, the Pope says it is permissible for faithful catholics to believe in evolution. I think that trumps what you have to say. Better luck next time.[/quote]

As long as it is not contrary to Catholic Dogma.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/04/pope_benedict_x.html"]Pope Benedict XVI: Evolution Cannot Be Proven[/url]

Pope_2Pope Benedict XVI, "in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity's view of creation."

Here's the story: [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_re_eu/pope_evolution_1"]Pope says evolution can't be proven[/url]
Here's a quote:

In a new book, "Creation and Evolution," published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.

"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," the pope said.

He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said scientific and philosophical reason must work together in a way that does not exclude faith.

"I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science," the pope was quoted as saying in the book, which records a meeting with fellow theologians the pope has known for years.

Edited March 23, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

Oh ps at lease I source my copy and pastes...

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/science/27fossil.html?ref=europe"]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/science/...html?ref=europe[/url]

[kujo]

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory...Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." ([url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM"]John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution[/url])

[kujo]

I don't think ALL of evolutionary science is true; however, I do not reject the notion that humans evolved from lower species. I don't see how that takes away from God being the Creator. In fact, I reject the premise that believing so is antithetical to my faith in Christ. I took an anthropology course last semester, and, far from qualifying me to have an in-depth conversation on the ins and outs of evolution, I feel that my studies have led me close to understanding a) how God may have gone about Creating us and our other earthly-inhabitants and b) that God's plan for the earth is not as simple as we think (that includes evolutionary theory).

[dairygirl4u2c]

so, we have dinos from long long ago. and we have pre-humans. and many other fossils. but, where's the transitional fossils? it'd seem we should have some more stuff between the dinos and pre-humans. a fossil between man and ape type.

Quoting the late evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard,
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology — we fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”


EDIT:
all i can find is the reptile/bird fossil, which is slight evidence, but does't fix the large gap otherwise.
[url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html[/url]

well also reptile mammal fossels
[url="http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9030287/Diarthrognathus"]http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9030287/Diarthrognathus[/url]

For those of you without the fortitude to wade through the paleontological
literature, a wonder source of information is an article by Roger J. Cuffey
in the book _Science and Creationism_ (edited by Ashley Montague). This
book should be fairly easy to obtain. In the article, entitled "Paleontologic
Evidence and Organic Evolution" Cuffey lists no less than 220 references from
various scientific journals documenting these transitional fossils. These
transitions include connections between low rank taxa (like species) as well
as high-rank taxa (like classes).

For those interested in evaluating "intermediate forms", I'd recommend
Chris McGowan's _In The Beginning_ (Prometheus). It's a "good place to
start" for the layman (but by no means sufficient all by itself). He
devotes two chapters (pp. 110-141) on detailed study of Archaeopteryx
and the Cynodonts, comparing their features to those of the two groups
which they fall between.

While Archaeopteryx appears too late to itself be the transitional form
between reptiles and birds, it does fall between the two categories. The
Creationists contend that it is a bird - but a detailed study of features
shows that it has less in common with birds (feathers, wishbone) than it
does with Theropod dinosaurs (pubic peduncle, bony tail, no pygostyle, no
bony sternum, three well-developed fingers, three well-developed metacarpal
bones, metacarpal bones unfused, metatarsal bones separate, no hypotarsus,
abdominal ribs). The first specimen found was accidentally classified as
a reptile because the feather impressions were too faint to discern (until
the fossil was specifically examined for them).

I'll deal with Cynodonts more briefly, but when evaluated in 14 main areas
where reptiles and mammals differ skeletally, they are clearly intermediates.
They share five of the features with reptiles, five with mammals, and are
somewhere in between on the other four. Since they appear in the fossil
record at the proper time, and are connected by many other "transitional"
fossils in a very detailed sequence, they represent one of the most
well-documented transitional forms. (It should be no surprise that more
recent transitions are better documented. More fossils are available,
and more complex creatures probably change more slowly.)

Edited March 27, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1481899' date='Mar 22 2008, 07:56 PM']As long as it is not contrary to Catholic Dogma.[/quote]
Which is the awkward position in which Galileo found himself.

All Truth is God's Truth.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i do wonder how many tranistionals are in those books, and out there.
if htere's many from the human and prehominids, and some from long long ago, or from long ago til now consistently... there's gotta be some transitional ones that are more profound than just a few that look like transitional.

[Mr.Cat]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and...Catholic_Church[/url] are not "bad articles", in my personal judgment, that may give some definition to this subject.

[Galloglasses]

[url="http://www.staycatholic.com/creationism_or_evolution.htm"]http://www.staycatholic.com/creationism_or_evolution.htm[/url]
/\ Thats the source, but i'll cut to the chase with the quote.

This particular apologetic is neither interest in any form of evolutio and is more Intelligent design. However, he raises a valid point here.

"Within the human body there are a number of irreducibly complex systems. That is, systems that would not function if they were any simpler. One example is our digestive system. Microvilli, which line the intestines, are microscopic bristles that somewhat resemble the bristles of a hairbrush. The spaces between the bristles are wide enough to allow nutrients to pass through to be absorbed and digested. However, the spaces are narrow enough to block the passage of bacteria, bacteria that would kill you if they were allowed to pass. This in itself refutes the theory of evolution, which contends that when a need presents itself, the body adapts by gradually changing (evolving) over millions of years. In this case millions of years would be too long. As soon as the deadly bacteria appeared, the body would have minutes to hours to design and evolve a system to block them. Failure to do so would result in immediate extinction. Our continued existence rules out the evolutionary premise.

But, some may wonder, what about the alleged ape-men? The answer is simple: no one has ever found a fossil that indicates a link between man and ape-like ancestors. Fossils are either pure ape or pure man. Except for Neanderthal Man, the skulls of the alleged ape men were not found intact. They were pieced together from fragments and given the desired look.

Neanderthal Man had been traditionally portrayed as being chimp-like. However, in recent years he has been upgraded to human status. He had, on average, a larger brain size than modern man. He cared for his sick and elderly, buried his dead, employed art and religious rites, appreciated agriculture, clothing, and music. He is not that different from a number of cultures existing in recent centuries.

Nebraska Man was supposed to be half man and half ape. This was all based on the finding of a single tooth. Years later it was found that the tooth belonged to a wild pig. Piltdown Man was also supposed to be a great evolutionary find. The upper part of a skull was found in a quarry. Within the same quarry there was found, among many other types of bones, a broken lower jawbone. The two were put together and we had Piltdown Man. Decades later it was found that the skull was human and the jawbone was that of an ape. The teeth had been filed down to simulate human teeth. Piltdown Man was a hoax, an outright fraud.

Some propose the idea of theistic evolution. The idea that God created everything in a primitive state and then evolution took over. But there are no laws of nature to support this. However, we do have observable laws of nature, which refute such an idea. For instance, we can infer the following from the Second Law of Thermodynamics: (1) Natural processes always tend toward disorder, (2) the simple will never produce the complex and, (3) the universe is running down. Nothing has been observed to break this law. Evolution would have us believe that all the observable laws of nature are false. By the way, if the universe is running down (stars burning out), that would make the universe finite. Consequently, the elements that make up the universe could not have always been there. With time being eternal (there was always a yesterday and there will always be a tomorrow), all finite processes should have been completed in the past. This would be true no matter how far back in time that you went. So now we are left with two choices: Either an intelligent being created everything out of nothing, or nothing created everything out of nothing. Which do you suppose is more likely?"

Thats just there to put an interesting spin on this discussion. Ah, I came to these forums to get away from such constantly reacurring questions on other forums yet find myself stuck in them again. Nevermind his obvious intelligent design leanings, I ask us to look closely at his mention of thermodynamics. Does Evolution conflict with existing scientific laws? Nevermind Biblical consequence?

Any Catholic is free to accept Evolution of Creationism in any of their wildly differing varients. This is largely because the Church has no official Dogma concerning creation. Hasn't had on for the past Thousand years. This is largely because one of the Early Church Fathers, St.Augustine, proposed the idea that God did create everything simple, then let everything snowball along. Only difference between this and modern day thiestic evolution is in Augustine's mind, everything happened at once (process wise), and since the middle ages Theologians, scholars, Clergy, Monks, even nuns, Cardinals Bishops and Popes have been argueing with regards to Creation. Some suggested genisis is completely alegorical others literal. The Church decided Long before Darwin to shelve the question and label it 'We'll deal with this in a while', so technically, the idea that we evolved in consert with divine being's wishes is ALOT older then the idea that we are a galatic 'whoopsie-daise!'

In short, you can beleive in evolution or creation however liberal or literal. You just must abide by these three Dogmas: [url="http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.htm"](Source)[/url]

God created everything out of nothing ("ex nihlo" in Latin)

God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)

God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence)

/\ Those are all the Church has decided with regards to Creationism. That there was nothing before there was something, everything works (or is supposed to work), and we need God for us t continue existing. In a spiritual context this is not all that unreasonable. And remember, the Church looks to theological, Scientific AND Philosophy to make its decisions, especially with regard to miracles.

Case-in-point: Lourdes, famous healing Shrine, thousands are reported to be cured every year. Yet an independent scientific research facility in Lourdes investigates these healings. Only 67 have been reported to be Scientifically impossible/unexplainible. How many of these miracles does the Church officially endorse as being legitimit? 67. And this has been Church policy since the 'DARK' Ages, in fact, so much so, that when miracles are reported the Church is often the FIRST to be sceptical of them. The idea that it is a superstitious organisation looking for any shakey grounds to present the divine is, quite frankly, a lie. Otherwise we wouldn't have Athiestic Sci-Fi writers turning Catholic, [url="http://johncwright.livejournal.com/155936.html"](John C.Wright)[/url] Who is currently enjoying his new Religion immensely.

What does all this have to do with Creation and Evolution? Simple: The Church is not stupid. It knows where the Bible came from, it knows the Darwinian form of evolution is not the first, and it knows it won't be the last and will be disproven by later science because it knows the nature of science: In that it never concludes, it constantly spectulates. Henceforth, illegitimying all the myths that the Church is 'behind the times' 'superstitious', 'anti-scientific', or 'anti-progress', it is not behind the times because it was there before the times and will be there after the times, it is not superstitious as it is the first to doubt superstition, it is not anti-scientific because it nurtured and protected scientific thought in the war torn years of earlier centuries, even advanced it, it is not anti-progress, because progress has more then one direction, its trying desperately to steer humanity away from progression along the road to destruction. Henceforth i'd sooner trust the Church then the myriad dissenters, flip-floppers, and angsty-athiestic teenagers and faux scientists such as Richard Dawkins anyday.

My two cents.

[Vincent Vega]

Galloglasses,
I hope you stick around, because I [b][i]really[/i][/b] enjoyed your post.

I like this part in particular:
[quote]Case-in-point: Lourdes, famous healing Shrine, thousands are reported to be cured every year. Yet an independent scientific research facility in Lourdes investigates these healings. Only 67 have been reported to be Scientifically impossible/unexplainible. How many of these miracles does the Church officially endorse as being legitimit? 67. And this has been Church policy since the 'DARK' Ages, in fact, so much so, that when miracles are reported the Church is often the FIRST to be sceptical of them. The idea that it is a superstitious organisation looking for any shakey grounds to present the divine is, quite frankly, a lie. Otherwise we wouldn't have Athiestic Sci-Fi writers turning Catholic, (John C.Wright) Who is currently enjoying his new Religion immensely.[/quote]
I've often thought to myself that if I ever had to present a quote in an argument as to why I became Catholic, that I would say "I'm not non-religious because I'm a skeptic; I'm Catholic because I'm skeptic." Whenever the Church presents a new miracle/canonizes a saint/etc., it's very careful and meticulous in taking a stance, exploring all feasible reason for the phenomenon. This is one of the things that really attracted me to the Church.

[Aloysius]

I'd like to point out that saying Adam and Eve were our first [i]fully human[/i] parents is perfectly in line with Humanari Generis and leaves open the possibility that they were not literally created out of mud but were an exponential leap in evolution from a previous form of our bodies.

I disagree with Darwin's theory of gradual evolution, I think the archaeological record (which does not show gradual shifts with lots of little transitional elements from one species to another, but rather many wholly different species popping up along a time line) points more to long periods of staticity punctuated by radical quick periods of specialization, probably the result of a genetic mutation of only one human. Hence, there was likely only one born which became the ancestor for an entire new species. ie, Adam. perhaps both Adam and Eve were born with the specific mutation which bore the human species which has an immortal soul (the biological sign of this, in my humble opinion, would be when the brain was structured for language, because only when man is truly linguistic is he truly man... I hold this to have happened far earlier than many archaeologists would hold it but there is no way of knowing for absolute sure... but I can bet you dollars to donuts that any people who made rock art definitely had language and thus were definitely human, ie they were definitely sons of Adam)

oh, and dairy, Neanderthals are not in our direct line of ancestry. in fact, Neanderthals were actually much more humane than our own ancestors (evidence shows they cared for their sick and saved flowers even through the winter for the burial of their dead, something I think points to some sort of resurrection cult of belief that the body would rise again but it could mean any number of things, most of them necessarily at least proto-religious)... and our ancestors... who ermm... actually left their sick to die... pretty much wiped out the Neanderthals. it's pretty much a Cain and Able situation on a species-wide scale.

perhaps the Neanderthals were an intelligent species which did not have the same fault bore by the sons of Adam. probably they had some fault as a result of sin existing in the world since the time of the fallen angels, but perhaps they were not descendants of Adam. it is perfectly in line with Humanari Generis to think that perhaps they were not sons of Adam because they are not our direct ancestors. it all depends on where we place the first linguistic human brain... though I do believe Neanderthals likely had language so if they were not sons of Adam, they were some special creation which likely had an immortal soul.

[Guest SDphisheater]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1481231' date='Mar 21 2008, 01:01 PM']Yet the Catholic Church teaches Adam and Eve where real persons, created by God directly, all of humanity descended from them, and they where the cause of Original Sin. This means Adam and Eve did not evolve from lower species, but the first humans, and where intelligent and had freewill because they chose to sin. If Adam and Eve descended from a lower species then that life form would be our first parents and not Adam and Eve, making the teaching of the Catholic Church false. Being of a lower species or life does not take away parenthood, Mary Mother of God was merely human, but this still did not take away her parenthood of Christ.[/quote]


Does the Catholic Church teach that? I looked in my catechism and couldn't find it. I don't think the Church encourages a literal interpretation of Scripture. I think the point of the story is that Original Sin exists, it's humanity's own fault through poorly used free will, but that as humans. The details aren't important, the way I see it. It could be Jack and Jill (or Coco and Tarzan). As we are today, we are distinct from other animals because their is a Creator who loves us in a special way and has blessed us above the rest.

[Socrates]

[quote name='SDphisheater' post='1488971' date='Mar 30 2008, 05:30 PM']Does the Catholic Church teach that? I looked in my catechism and couldn't find it. I don't think the Church encourages a literal interpretation of Scripture. I think the point of the story is that Original Sin exists, it's humanity's own fault through poorly used free will, but that as humans. The details aren't important, the way I see it. It could be Jack and Jill (or Coco and Tarzan). As we are today, we are distinct from other animals because their is a Creator who loves us in a special way and has blessed us above the rest.[/quote]
Maybe someone could help me with a direct source, but it is Church teaching that the entire human race did descend from an orignal man and woman (Adam and Eve), whose sin of disobedience caused the entire human race to fall.
It's also taught that the body of Eve was created in some way from the body of Adam.
The theory of polygenism (that the human race is descended from many ancestors) is condemned as heresy.

Whether God directly created Adam's body from the dust, or whether it came from lower animals is open to speculation, as is whether the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was literal or symbolic.

Edited March 31, 2008 by Socrates

[Fidei Defensor]

[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403185958.htm"]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80403185958.htm[/url]