Evolution

[Selah]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1615563' date='Aug 2 2008, 12:35 AM']Yep. There is a painting in the city hall here called Genesis, that shows a primitive man walking across the savanna in the distance, and the clouds above him remind me of the ones in Michelangelo's painting in the Sistine Chapel. That is exactly how I visualize it. One man, becoming self aware, having God reach out and give him a soul. Then the Father selected an Eve for him. Geneticists have traced the human race back to one Eve at a time when humans were just about wiped out.

I think the "7 days of creation" was like the 7 days of visions given to Joseph. The ancient scribe was given a revelation of God's creation over 7 nights, and he interpreted them to mean that God created everything in 7 days, and did the best he could to take something incomprehensible and put it on paper. I would never presume to tell God how long a day to him should be.[/quote]

That's a really interesting theory, Catherine. Thanks for sharing

[mortify]

The origin of man is a supernatural mystery, we came about by a direct intervention of God, not by some theorized process of chance changes that ultimately led to a complex being. Science has a great deal of use but when it comes to the ultimate origin of man it's as useless as trying to understand the origin of the Incarnate Son of God. We don't discount the Incarnation simply because "all life comes from life" and the idea of a Virgin Birth is scientifically impossible. Likewise, we should give the Genesis Account more credence, especially since it's the inspired word of God.

[Galloglasses]

Before this debate goes between Creationism and Evolution, let me point out that The Church DOES NOT have a Dogma on Creation, not for the past 1500 years, instead it has Three:

"Evolution is not a fact, but a set of theories. Some of the theories are very compelling, such as fossil records and observed micro evolution within species, while many aspects of evolutionary theory have been proved wrong by science itself. The irreducible complexity of each species is something modern science has been unable to explain. A Catholic may interpret the book of Genesis literally or as an allegory. However any theory that is believed by a Catholic must meet the following criteria:

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

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

3. God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence)"

Simply put, that's what the Church Teaches, Thiestic Evolution is compatible with Catholicism so there is no need to worry there. Evolution itself is not a Fact. (Metamorphisis isn't evolution, as its the same thing that happens to a specific species with age and is programmed into their genetic Structure, so it can't count as Macro evolution as evolution is the Theory that an Animals changes/mutates over a long period of time due to changes/effects of their surrounding enviroment), Micro Evolution is, at the least argueably a fact. (Differences in Breeds of Dogs, types of a certain species of Insects, such as Wasps, and, as uncomfortable as some people may feel me saying this but, Differences in Races of Humans.)

Also, [url="http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.htm"]Source[/url] for those wondering where I got that quote.

[mortify]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1615991' date='Aug 2 2008, 04:08 PM']Before this debate goes between Creationism and Evolution, let me point out that The Church DOES NOT have a Dogma on Creation, not for the past 1500 years, instead it has Three:[/quote]

The Church teaches more than that.

The Church teaches that the first three chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events, and are not to be understood as mere myth, legend, or symbols for religious truth. It does not mean every sentence has to be literally interpreted, as even the Fathers and Theologians offered various interpretations for *certain* parts, however all Fathers taught that God's creation of man in terms of [b]body[/b] and soul was immediate, not a drawn out process.

[Galloglasses]

True, but that is not 'Dogma' that you are speaking off. Don't get me wrong, I lean in the Creationist direction, (Thankfully, i'm not alone in that belief in real life), I'm just saying these are the 'Dogmas' concerning Evolution. As in the things that can't be questioned or interpreted differently.

[mortify]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1616023' date='Aug 2 2008, 04:54 PM']True, but that is not 'Dogma' that you are speaking off.[/quote]

So in your opinion what is not strictly called "Dogma" is pretty much up for grabs whether it be accepted or rejected by the individual? If this were so there would be no problem in dissenting from the pastoral changes of Vatican II, which was not a dogmatic council. The reality is we are bound to far more than what is strictly defined.

We should also remember that evolution is not dogma either, and so we shouldn't be looking to reinterpret or [i]allegorize [/i] the entire Genesis Account to have it fit with a theory that may change in the future, but this is my personal opinion.

God bless

[Galloglasses]

No, you completely misread, there is Dogma, (The stuff that, as a Catholic, you are required to belief), Doctrine, (Church Teachings that are susceptible to change, but this very, very rarely happens. The Vatican II May not have been Dogmatic, but it was certainly Doctrinal, the individual is not at total Liberty to reject the teaching), then you have normal teaching.

And did you not read my last post? I AM a creationist, I do not think that Genisis should be totally allegorised either, that would a crasy cop out on our part with regards to Scripture, and would give Darwinistic people a field day argueing against it. NOR was I argueing that Evolution was a Dogma either, I was stating that an Individual, AS a Catholic, is free to believe in 'Thiestic Evolution', and that would not go against Church Teachings. Personally, I'm not a totally literal Creationist, but definately a Creationist overall.

God Bless You.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Galloglasses

[Farsight one]

There seems to be a couple misconceptions about evolution here.

1. Evolution is NOT random chance. There is a little random involved in it. We could have had 4 eyes instead of 2. That's random. But for the most part, it most certainly is not random.

2.a. Evolution IS a fact AND a theory. It is both. Evolution is a fact because it is directly observable. The definition of evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles over time", which most certainly happens and is a fact. The theory part comes into play when trying to explain HOW it happens. It's the same way with gravity. Gravity is a fact because we can see it happen. Exactly HOW it works, though, is the theory.

2.b. And fyi - calling it "just a theory" doesn't mean much. In the world of science, if a theory and a law contradict each other, scientists will throw out the law and keep the theory because theories are better than facts in the scientific world.

[quote]We should also remember that evolution is not dogma either, and so we shouldn't be looking to reinterpret or allegorize the entire Genesis Account to have it fit with a theory that may change in the future, but this is my personal opinion.[/quote]I wouldn't be trying to allegorize Genesis because I always thought it was obvious that it was allegory. Even before I knew the first thing about evolution. Frankly, I think it silly when someone tries to take it literally because I've always thought it to be so obvious.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1616052' date='Aug 2 2008, 06:32 PM']In the world of science, if a theory and a law contradict each other, scientists will throw out the law and keep the theory because theories are better than facts in the scientific world.[/quote]
Buh?

[Farsight one]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1616055' date='Aug 2 2008, 06:35 PM']Buh?[/quote]Heh...

Yep. That's the way it works. If I recall correctly, that's what they did with Newton's law of gravity when the theory of relativity came around.

[mortify]

These points seem to be addressed to my post so I'll respond where worthwhile.

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1616052' date='Aug 2 2008, 05:32 PM']1. Evolution is NOT random chance. There is a little random involved in it. We could have had 4 eyes instead of 2. That's random. But for the most part, it most certainly is not random.[/quote]

The phrase I used was "process of chance changes" and I'm referring to the idea that complex life came about by random mutations curbed by natural selection. There is no guiding force in evolution, ultimately everything came about by an incalculable number of astronomically improbable random changes.
[quote]I wouldn't be trying to allegorize Genesis because I always thought it was obvious that it was allegory. Even before I knew the first thing about evolution. Frankly, I think it silly when someone tries to take it literally because I've always thought it to be so obvious.[/quote]

You say you're Catholic so you should stop and consider what you're saying here. The Fathers of the Church believed in the immediate creation of the [u]Body[/u] and Soul of the first man, I would not label such a teaching as "silly." What's more sad than silly is that people elevate the 'wisdom' of men above the revealed truth of God.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1616061' date='Aug 2 2008, 06:52 PM']Heh...

Yep. That's the way it works. If I recall correctly, that's what they did with Newton's law of gravity when the theory of relativity came around.[/quote]
Are you serious?

[Farsight one]

[quote name='mortify' post='1616085' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:23 PM']These points seem to be addressed to my post so I'll respond where worthwhile.
The phrase I used was "process of chance changes" and I'm referring to the idea that complex life came about by random mutations curbed by natural selection. There is no guiding force in evolution, ultimately everything came about by an incalculable number of astronomically improbable random changes.[/quote]But that's the thing. Evolution is not random. Like I said, there is a little random in it, but not a lot. The mutations are random, but they are only a tiny aspect of evolution. Natural selection is most of it and it is not even on iota of random. So to call evolution "random" is simply untrue.


[quote]You say you're Catholic so you should stop and consider what you're saying here. The Fathers of the Church believed in the immediate creation of the [u]Body[/u] and Soul of the first man, I would not label such a teaching as "silly." What's more sad than silly is that people elevate the 'wisdom' of men above the revealed truth of God.[/quote]From what little I've read about the Church fathers, they knew Genesis to be allegory too. None of them took it literally. They might have believed in the "immediate creation...of the first man", but that's it. And I still don't see how this "immediate creation" contradicts evolution in any way.


[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1616086' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:26 PM']Are you serious?[/quote]Yes. I'm quite serious. Do you think my statement is ridiculous and untrue, or are you just surprised by it? Don't forget that science defines these words differently than the general public. What the public calls a theory, science calls a hypothesis and what the public calls a fact is generally called a theory by science (not exactly, but that's as close as I can get).

Edited August 2, 2008 by Farsight one

[mortify]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1616094' date='Aug 2 2008, 06:40 PM']But that's the thing. Evolution is not random. Like I said, there is a little random in it, but not a lot. The mutations are random, but they are only a tiny aspect of evolution. Natural selection is most of it and it is not even on iota of random. So to call evolution "random" is simply untrue.[/quote]

You have to be more detailed.

The change from my one species to another is ultimately the work of mutation curbed by natural selection and passed on via reproduction. What is the cause of mutation? It's a random, accidental, unguided event. Natural selection does not guide evolution, nor can it explain the apparent design in creation. The apparent design is apparently accidental!

[quote]From what little I've read about the Church fathers, they knew Genesis to be allegory too. None of them took it literally. They might have believed in the "immediate creation...of the first man", but that's it.[/quote]

Do you mind quoting your source(s)?

Dr Ludwig Ott in _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ states:
[b]"The Fathers concur in teaching that God immediately created the first man, both as to body and to soul."[/b]

[quote]And I still don't see how this "immediate creation" contradicts evolution in any way.[/quote]

The first man's immediate creation from earth flagrantly contradicts the theory of evolution.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='mortify' post='1616102' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:58 PM']The first man's immediate creation from earth flagrantly contradicts the theory of evolution.[/quote]
Mortify has a point here, Evolution theorises Mankind eventually evolved from a water borne species.

[XIX]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1615520' date='Aug 1 2008, 11:07 PM']So you, Miss Catherine, are of the persuasion that Adam was the first fully human ancestor?[/quote]
My understanding of Catholic teaching is that we are all descendants of one man and one woman.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='XIX' post='1616121' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:18 PM']My understanding of Catholic teaching is that we are all descendants of one man and one woman.[/quote]

Yes all evolutionary theories must account that all of humanity descended from one man and one woman. This is why they are called or First Parents.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='mortify' post='1616102' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:58 PM']You have to be more detailed.

The change from my one species to another is ultimately the work of mutation curbed by natural selection and passed on via reproduction. What is the cause of mutation? It's a random, accidental, unguided event. Natural selection does not guide evolution, nor can it explain the apparent design in creation. The apparent design is apparently accidental![/quote]
Again, no. The change from one species to another can be achieved by natural selection alone. Eventually an animal can become so different from its original that it is classified as a new species. And yes, mutation is random (at least from what scientists can see so far), but mutation plays only a minor role in evolution. And thus randomness is only a minor part of evolution. And yes, natural selection does guide evolution and yes it can explain the apparent design in creation just like chemistry and physics can explain the apparent design in crystal formations. From what I can tell, (and I mean no offense) you know very little about evolution. I suggest reading up on it some. Even just the wikipedia articles on it. (read "introduction to evolution" before you read the "evolution" article)

[quote]Do you mind quoting your source(s)?[/quote]I do mind. Because I don't have sources to quote. I'm good at remembering what something says, and not so good at remembering where to find it again if I need to. It's a troublesome thing. But if I see it again, I'll bring it here.

[quote]Dr Ludwig Ott in _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ states:
[b]"The Fathers concur in teaching that God immediately created the first man, both as to body and to soul."[/b]
The first man's immediate creation from earth flagrantly contradicts the theory of evolution.[/quote]I don't even know who this Dr. person is, so pardon me if I'm skeptical. Also, lets say that man was directly created by God body and soul directly out of the earth (instead of out of another creature). So what? That means that man didn't evolve. But every other creature on earth could have. This is actually a concept I've been tinkering with - that God allowed evolution to take it's course and just before man was going to evolve from ape, He directly intervened and created us Himself.

[KnightofChrist]

Ludwig Ott
From [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Ott"]Wikipedia[/url], the free encyclopedia

Ludwig Ott (October 24, 1906 in Neumarkt-St. Helena; - October 25, 1985 in Eichstaett) is a Catholic theologian and Medievalist.

After training at the Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Ott was ordained a priest in 1930. He received his doctorate in Munich (1931-1936) under Martin Grabmann and was mentored by him in studying the development of medieval theology. In 1936 he was "extraordinary professor"[citation needed], and in 1941 a full professor of dogmatics at the episcopal philosophical and theological college in Eichstaett. From 1960 to 1962 he was the rector of this Catholic university.

His research centers mostly in the area of dogmatics. With his "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" he produced a standard reference work on dogmatics. The work, popular with both clergy and laity, has been translated into more than ten languages.

Edited August 3, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='XIX' post='1616121' date='Aug 2 2008, 07:18 PM']My understanding of Catholic teaching is that we are all descendants of one man and one woman.[/quote]
I meant that he was the first because scripture clearly says that he came before Eve.