Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true


#2396

Not quite. Random mutation is random, obviously. It is natural selection which provides the smooth synchronisation. As the climate gets colder, natural selection will select those random mutations which improve the survivability of all species living in that colder environment. Animals will get longer fur. Plants will be better able to resist frost. Fish will adapt to living in colder water.

It is natural selection which coordinates the changes arising from the changed environment.

rossum


#2397

Yes. For thousands of years the Holy Spirit did not let us know about the existence of Australia, pulsars and neutrinos.

Maybe the Holy Spirit wanted a book small enough not to need 200 people to carry it?

rossum


#2398

The issue has to do with whether those factors gradually accumulated or were brought together by an organizing principle, which we may refer to as the soul of the living being. Further, there is a question as to whether this soul was either created in time or formed gradually.

That life emerges from “dust” because it is in the nature of dust to do such things is a view held by some. Most people seeing how difficult it is to put something together and how easily it will fall apart don’t believe that something so complex as nature and especially themselves and their loved ones occured by happenstance. It is a pretty strong belief that in the face of what life teaches, would hold that genetic and epigenetic factors grew in complexity, producing functional propteins and cells, solely as a result of the inherent properties of atoms.

The idea of there being an organizing principle, transcendent to the workings of matter alone arises as we seek to understand the causes of what is. To restate what was said above, some people may believe that the bricks and mortar come together to build the home. However, while their properties are necessary to the construction, they in themselves cannot carry out the work. Let’s take an enzyme involved in the production of some neurotransmitter that allows for this thought to exist in time and space. It is produced by very tightly controlled process within the neuron. This happens by virtue of the chemical properties of many molecules working together within the cell in conjunction with others in the brain, which is one among other organ systems that make up the body, which in turn is physically and psychologically atuned to its environment on which it is dependent for its survival. That order, while it may be sufficient to explain the physical workings of the cell that maintain it, does not explain how it came to be. The ordering of matter, here the human spirit, which allows for this experience to happen, can be traced back to the beginnings of life, where in ever simpler forms manifests the soul of particular organisms. The existence of an individual living being can be thought of as an expression of universal being or as having been created as other, remainining in relation to Existence, which is not a thing but Divine Relationality.

The soul of a thing is knowable as itself; it is here right here, you and I, as we converse. When we dissect it using the intellectual lens that isolates the physical, however, we will find molecules doing their thing. Materialistic reductionism would see this as the final truth of what is. It is rarely found; more common is a naturalist view that speaks about emergent properties, things coming together forming a new greater whole with its own properties. While the soul, with its psychological and physical aspects, is made up of constituent parts, necessary for its expression, it does not so much arise from them, but rather brings them together into the unity that is the living being.


#2399

No we may not. Scripture specifically denies the existence of a soul:

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:5-7

How complex is God? Does the complex God have a meta-God who organised the complexity in God? One of the issues I have with Intelligent Design is that it never applies its own ideas on complexity and design to the Designer it proposes.

You assert a complex designer and have no explanation for the origin of that complexity. You are in essence assuming what you have to prove. If the complexity in God was not the result of design, then the complexity of the physical world need not be the result of design since God is an example of undesigned complexity.

Standard evolutionary processes can increase complexity in DNA using standard measures of complexity.

rossum


#2400

You assume a literalist reading of the passage “God ordered them to destroy…”

Hence, the idea the evolution cannot be of God because it involves destruction is incorrect. Merely involving destruction is insufficient; more detail of the argument is needed.

rossum

A good case can be made that evolution is not destruction of anything. It is a continual reforming, reshaping, evolving.

And Christians should take note: Scripture is not the sum total of revelation. Nature also reveals God. Scientific discovery points to God. Evolution tells us something about God.
God reveals himself through Scripture, and nature, and fully and finally in the person of Jesus Christ.

II. THE STAGES OF REVELATION

In the beginning God makes himself known

[54] "God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities.

Note that this “constant evidence” is not dead in the letter.
And this is why fundamentalism is anathema to Christianity: it

makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself.

God is living, and reveals himself in a living way. Science helps discover the living God.
Ref:
P. Benedict
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html


#2401

The Holy Spirit allows a person to think, to breathe, to live, to discover, to grow. Science aids a person in that process. Inspiration does not guarantee full scientific and historical accuracy. Inspiration is much deeper than that. And if you are going to insist on this fundamentalist idea of inspiration, than you will have to show us the dome in the sky. It’s in the bible, and if the bible is that kind of fact, show us the dome.

Confining inspiration to the literalist viewpoint yields a god that is as big as your own understanding. The true God is much larger than your individual perspective and understanding.

The Holy Spirit brings unity, both between peoples, and also the full integration of the human person, body and soul, faith and reason.
As Catholics, we are called to be fully and wholly human, and we are creatures of both faith and reason.


#2402

gogout: I was arguing AGAINST the fundamentalist idea of inspiration. What IS inspired is what is necessary for salvation. The “For thousands of years the Holy Spirit let us get it wrong” quote was from buffalo.


#2404

“Soul” has different meanings and connotations. The way it is being used in the quote has to do with things being soulless in the sense that they are relational and ultimately not caused by themselves but by a transcendent Relationality. We may exercise our free will, but it has been granted to us as spirits rooted in eternity. Atoms are souless in the sense that there is nothing there but the various relationships that determine what they do. These qualities are brought into existence in their moment, coming from nothing and being nothing apart from what they are as created by God. The collection of qualities, the relationships that are established by matter, I refer to as their soul. We as a unity, who here is reading this, typing out words that express thoughts that arise are similarly a being, a soul brought into existence, although composed of an almost infinite collection of atoms arranged in accordance with a psychological sturcture which shpaes this experience, reflecting our particular relational nature.


#2405

It’s hard to see in a picture, but imagine yourself there. Look out, way out, then gradually lift your gaze upwards, over and around to the other side.

Can you see a vast turtle shell that is the world.

It’s hard to see. You first have to put aside the Hubble images when you look up.

What's%20in%20the%20sky

Who knows what our children’s children’s children’s children will see?


#2406

How so? That claim has been made. See Richard Dawkins, who should know better. I watched him on TV and he used the ‘evidence’ to rail against a being he claims he’s not sure exists. These types of threads will continue to exist.


#2407

#2408

Now you are really not going to believe this. But that is a picture of Agiofarago beach on the south coast of Crete and ten minutes ago I booked a hotel a few minutes away from there. I’ll be swimming there sometime tomorrow so I’ll try the lifty gazy thing and let you know if I’m moved in any way or if I spot any dome-type visions. Maybe a few glasses of ouzo will help.


#2409

Why gee. Chris is expounding EXACTLY what everyone else on this thread is trying to tell you. YOU are the one that disagrees with him.

And again I will ask you: Who in this thread, indeed anywhere in this forum, is using evolution to deny God’s existence? Your pathetic claim that people are trying so to do fools no-one. It doesn’t even fool you. Even what you just linked to is a denial of your very position.


#2410

So Eve did not really come from Adam? and the Holy Spirit led the Church in error for so long? Hmmmmmm


#2411

Nice!

ouzo_1_600x

Have one for me.


#2412

Of course the claim has been made, but that doesn’t make it true. Dawkins’ claims are unlogical and dont prove anything, which I’m sure you would agree with. Making a false claim doesn’t make an idea false


#2413

I disagree with very little of what you’re saying.

But does an objectively “random” process immediately disqualify God’s hand guiding it?
Assuming evolution doesn’t mean humans aren’t the pinnical of creation – they obviously are. But taking the time to get to the pinnacle, as in millions of years (potentially) doesn’t equate to where we are at now being cheap or not made in the image of God.

There are cases to be made for and against both ideas – we simply don’t know enough to definitively say what the origins of humanity are, much like the origins of the universe. It’s okay to acknowledge what we don’t definitively know


#2414

Does the lack of existence of a real man made from dirt that walked next to a corporal God and conversed with a taking snake truly sound a death gong to Christianity?

Or would the lack of existence of a first man and the original sin he brought into the world, so this?


#2415

Even various POPES have said that it is not obligatory to accept the story of Adam & Eve as the actual literal specific creation history of our first forebears. Pope Pius XII declared 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” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

The word “Adam” means “all men”. The word “Eve” as the Bible states means "the mother of all living. So the names used point to a more general concept then specific people. The Church allows for evolution, the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms with the guidance of God. But somewhere along the line God infused an individual soul and what was an animal became man.

I think it is at that point that the story focus. It seems to me that prior to what is referred to as the “fall” what became humans were still animals. They were living in a kind of special paradise but not because of where they were living but rather the fact that were oblivious how their lives could be better. Like other animals they lived by the status quo. The had no concept of evil or decency. Animals do not know nor care about the fact that they are naked, If a dog loses a leg he quickly adapts to the new status quo and learns to run on three legs. He doesn’t moan about his missing leg nor think it makes him less like other dogs. When another dog that he played with dies again he quickly adapts to the new stature quo. A wolf who attacks and kills a man would not be considered as doing something “evil”. He just was being a wolf. He doesn’t consider the pain that he caused the man. That is the state that I believed we find our first forebears prior to their becoming fully human in the story of Adam & Eve. So what changed?

It seems evident to me that the story is speaking about man becoming fully human with a God-given soul when he developed a conscience (ate from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”). That itself was not in the story the “sin” because knowledge is necessary for sin to be present. The first sin followed quickly after when according to the story they refused to take responsibility for their actions… Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent. But just as we do not inherit the sins committed by our parents nor do we inherit A & E’s sin. What we inherited from our first forebears was the ability to commit sin.


#2416

It’s not only a sign of wisdom, but the outcome of knowledge, in that knowing more involves a growing appreciation of what we don’t know as we plunge into the mysteries of existence. That said, what drives our search is the desire for Truth, to be satisfied face to face with God. After that it is a joyous revelation of His Glory.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.