Dodos. Mammoths. Passenger pigeons.
Dodos. Mammoths. Passenger pigeons.
I was going to disagree with the statement that we produce a human body, thinking of ourselves as merely causal agents acting through our will. But a second thought is that in being a body-soul unity, we are also those silent processes that keep us in life. There is a union of two haploid cells that is seen happening physically in the creation of a new person. We know there to be a combination of genetic material at a molecular level that goes on as this happens. Information is collected from two parents to produce the physical form of a new person.
Although God breathed into the initial matter which formed the body of Adam, Eve was created from him. A new individual person was brought into existence so that we may be reunited in love. Similarly, I believe we are created body-spirit persons at the moment of conception. God does not breath His Spirit into someone that already exists.
That would tie in to how Adam was initially created. He could not have come from two animal gametes, which would combine to form another animal. It’s not stated how matter was brought together to shape Adam’s body. Whether it was moulded in the macrocosmic womb that is the environment or created as one seed the microcosm of an animal womb, I don’t know. That we look the way we do which is similar to hominids to my mind is because God wanted a body that would work and fit in with the rest of nature. It’s not really natural selection, but the other way around, similar to what we do in breeding animals, except that we would not be direct descendants from those animals. Rather, it was a matter of what was good for them would be good for us. That information was used to make the human body, capable of living on earth and also knowing God.
There are different stories that encompass the data.
What do you make of peacocks? Are they freaks of nature or expressions of beauty?
You don’t have to teach science to us. Christians invented the scientific method. No atheist was involved in the invention of scientific method.
Actually you seems to follow the scientism ideology.
How do you know it was because they weren’t good at survival ?
So these were just flawed creatures that random mutations produced for trial and error purposes ?
They weren’t so flawed when they emerged, but became more so when the environment changed around them. And it doesn’t make sense to speak of “purposes” with regard to random mutations.
Because if they were then they would have survived. Was that really so difficult?
They were suited to their original environments, but the environments changed too fast for them to adapt. For dodos it was rats off ships that ate their eggs. For mammoths it was temperature increase. For passenger pigeons it was a new efficient predator: humans.
No. They were all well adapted to their original environments by natural selection. A population of about three billion for passenger pigeons is hardly indicative of a failure.
Church teaching is examined first, then science.
One cannot criticize a particular design unless one talks to the designer and understands the full purpose. A while ago they criticized the design of the eye the same way. Until they found reasons for it and are now awestruck.
Eve came from Adam.
Pope Pius XII taught in his encyclical that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God
Figuratively, not necessarily literally as the Catechism teaches, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. " (CCC 390).
Well, when someone finds a very good reason why it is better to leave a hole in the abdominal wall and be vulnerable to hernias, maybe then I will be awestruck too. But until then, it looks like an imperfect design to me.
Here is a name and address
1234 3rd Street
We have information that we can go to his house and meet him
Let’s add a letter by mutation. (we have added information)
We can go to his house but we will not meet Joseph Smithy.
Here we see a mutation that results in an inability to meet Joseph Smithy.
Mutations result in loss of function or ability. They limit or lose a prior expression.
If we add a number to the address the same thing will happen. We go to the house number 12345 but no one named Joseph Smith is there.
Imperfect design still means there is design.
If so, it is a design that is beyond observation.
This would be a better analogy if we went to house number 12345 and met someone even better than Joe. That is possible.
I want to find Joseph Smith.