Is the Church creating new doctrine with regards to origins?
#41
(06-20-2014, 01:28 PM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: I had a feeling Vox was calling me a fool. (snip)

I absolutely wasn't, I promise. What I was trying to do was to make clear that even people who say they are "against evolution" actually believe in the mechanisms of evolutionary theory. People who push macro-evolution often think that people who don't buy the idea of one species mutating into another are "stupid" for not knowing that things like random mutations and natural selection, etc., exist. And the people who are against the idea of macro-evolution (as I am) allow them to easily think that by saying they are "against evolution" instead of being more careful with their language. MagisterMusicae gets it perfectly. He wrote:  "In fact, "my theology" does not make me uncomfortable with evolution. It is the hypothesis of "Macroevolution" -- the lack of evidence supporting the extrapolation, the reliance on fallacious argumentation, etc."

Reply
#42
(06-20-2014, 02:28 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(06-20-2014, 01:28 PM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote:
(06-20-2014, 01:22 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(06-20-2014, 01:13 PM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote:
Quote:To the people talking about evolution:  no one but a person who hasn't surpassed the level of idiocy denies that random mutations and natural selection, etc., happen --- not even religious idiots, not even trad idiots.

Just in case anyone think I'm a fool denying micro evolution, I'm not. It's the other stuff that people associate with the word "evolution" that is questionable. Micro evolution is a fact. Macro evolution is a hypothesis.

Phew!!!  Thank you!!!  I just spent 10 minutes composing a literary masterpiece by way of questioning your response to my question.  As I'm about to click the "post" button, your reply above, as if by some magic, appears and supplies the answer.  Have you read my mind?  Are you a......................................clairvoyant?? :O ??? :grin:  Anyway, I'm glad that's cleared up now  :).

I had a feeling Vox was calling me a fool. I suppose it was the ambiguity of the word "essence". I don't know how else to express it. The essence of something won't change but the accidents can. A lizard cannot become a bird but a lizard can pick up variations such as adapting to an environment. The essence of the creature won't change. A lizard and bird are two different essences.

Anyway, to bring back this thread to Church teaching, is the Church abandoning traditional doctrine? What do ya'll think of this: http://www.logosinstitute.org/Beyond_Cre...orm_1_.pdf

What about transubstantiation?

Also, I don't deny mutations and natural selection -- I do find that it doesn't make [macro] evolution possible, for reasons already sketched.

Transubstantiation is a miracle, whereby essences change but accidents do not. I use the word "essence" because a lizard will remain a lizard. For it to, say, evolve into a bird (that did not exist before) God would have to continuously create new essences for each evolutionary development. I think that was what St. Thomas was getting at when he speaks of creation. At least that is what I read. My terminology might be wrong. When God created, He finished creating. No new essences will be made but there can be changing expressions of essences.

I think grass already exists and milk already exists, so no new essences are made. Thank you for pointing out my mistake in my understanding of these terms. I need to read up more on essence and substance. I think for macroevolution to work, there have to be constant miracles or pantheism.
Reply
#43
(06-20-2014, 11:30 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(06-20-2014, 01:28 PM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: I had a feeling Vox was calling me a fool. (snip)

I absolutely wasn't, I promise. What I was trying to do was to make clear that even people who say they are "against evolution" actually believe in the mechanisms of evolutionary theory. People who push macro-evolution often think that people who don't buy the idea of one species mutating into another are "stupid" for not knowing that things like random mutations and natural selection, etc., exist. And the people who are against the idea of macro-evolution (as I am) allow them to easily think that by saying they are "against evolution" instead of being more careful with their language. MagisterMusicae gets it perfectly. He wrote:  "In fact, "my theology" does not make me uncomfortable with evolution. It is the hypothesis of "Macroevolution" -- the lack of evidence supporting the extrapolation, the reliance on fallacious argumentation, etc."

Yeah, I'm guilty of using imprecise words. My bad.
Reply
#44
(06-20-2014, 05:15 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-20-2014, 11:32 AM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: My main objection to theistic evolution is that it says that God created something full of death and sickness and called it good. For evolution to happen there has to be a lot of dying I have listened to sermons that say that the miracle at the Wedding of Cana reflects God's creation--how He spoke and they were instantly made. Death before original sin makes no sense because God could create things without that process. Theistic evolution is the only way that evolution is possible.

You're absolutely right.  Death before original sin makes no sense.  Yet we know death existed before humans, and certain species' ontology is to clean up death - vultures, certain flies, certain worms, etc.  There is definitely a contradiction, but the possibility Catholics aren't willing to consider, even abstractly, is that maybe they are wrong and original sin does not exist.

Original sin holds the entire faith together. This just demonstrates why creation is important to know about. People often wonder why it is important to believe in creation.
Reply
#45
(06-20-2014, 11:30 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: What I was trying to do was to make clear that even people who say they are "against evolution" actually believe in the mechanisms of evolutionary theory. People who push macro-evolution often think that people who don't buy the idea of one species mutating into another are "stupid" for not knowing that things like random mutations and natural selection, etc., exist. And the people who are against the idea of macro-evolution (as I am) allow them to easily think that by saying they are "against evolution" instead of being more careful with their language. MagisterMusicae gets it perfectly. He wrote:  "In fact, "my theology" does not make me uncomfortable with evolution. It is the hypothesis of "Macroevolution" -- the lack of evidence supporting the extrapolation, the reliance on fallacious argumentation, etc."

Thanks, Vox.

In the whole Galileo affair Cardinal Bellarmino was not completely opposed to the reinterpretation of scripture along Copernican lines, it would have necessitated proof of the Copernican theory of planetary motion and the inaccuracy of the alternates (Tyconian, Ptolmeic, etc.). It was really not a question of theology, but rather a question of not changing the common interpretaton until the was reason to do so.

In a sense "Macroevolution" is the same in my eyes. Plenty of dencent modern exegetes and theologians have come up with ways to reinterpret some things in light of a Macroevolutinary theory. I see no serious problems with some. In fact we have Pius XII giving limits to such reinterpretation (in Humani Generis), so it is hard to say that such reinterpretation is verboten.

Add to this that the mechanisms themselves are not in doubt.

Where the problem lies is not in theology or scripture exegeses, but on the level of the theory itself.

To make the issue about Darwinism vs. Genesis is a red herring. Both Fundamentalists and Darwinists make that mistake. The latter, more out of an effort to distract from the flaws of their hypothesis, methinks. Rather it should be about whether Darwinism or its revisions actually describes how life developed, or is it limited to the "Microevolution" we see.
Reply
#46
So is your argument essentially that because we haven't been around long enough to observe macroevolution take place, we shouldn't assume that is the most likely model?  I think that is reasonable, but we could just as easily say that we haven't been around long enough to hypothesize that microevolution is the only thing taking place as well.  Essentially we would have to say we just know nothing either way prior to about 3000 BC.  If you accept that the mechanisms are in place, though, then i don't understand the difficulty in assuming that they most likely acted in the past as they do now, regardless of the fact that we haven't been around long enough to observe such slow processes fully complete themselves.
Reply
#47
Fact: We can breed better cows that can give us better milk.

Conclusion:Lizards became birds and fish became men. You're a lunatic if you disagree.

Fact: We see similarities between the physical and chemical structure of organisms.

Conclusion: A rat and a dog have to come from one another. We'll call this ancestor a Rog. This is an illustrated drawing of what we think it looks like proves it without a doubt. Here, we'll even give it a scientific name.

Fact: there is no other naturalistic explanation.

Conclusion: it's the only true explanation that's why

Fact: the fossil record doesn't show any gradual evolution.

Conclusion: it's evidence for evolution because every thousand years organisms rapidly evolve and every million years they don't so if we find it it's evidence and if we don't it's evidence

How can anyone possibly deny these facts? Only an idiot disagrees with our conclusions.

-----

I don't know how else to point out that many arguments for why it is true are fallacious so forgive me if it's a straw man. People who believe it generally cannot conceive so another possibility and they accuse skeptics of being dishonest or psychologically threatened because it is the only explanation they have. Those who do believe in God can conceive of another possibility for the origin of life, so the arguments don't prove it conclusively. Even the Roman pagans could not believe in creation so what Jews and Christians claimed sounded like rubbish.
Reply
#48
(06-21-2014, 11:27 AM)Melkite Wrote: So is your argument essentially that because we haven't been around long enough to observe macroevolution take place, we shouldn't assume that is the most likely model?  I think that is reasonable, but we could just as easily say that we haven't been around long enough to hypothesize that microevolution is the only thing taking place as well.  Essentially we would have to say we just know nothing either way prior to about 3000 BC.  If you accept that the mechanisms are in place, though, then i don't understand the difficulty in assuming that they most likely acted in the past as they do now, regardless of the fact that we haven't been around long enough to observe such slow processes fully complete themselves.

There is no problem with extrapolating from Microevolution to Macroevolution per se. In fact, generally in scientific fields we do make the initial assumption of steady state -- that is, that processes occuring now have and will always occur in the same way.

However, that a model applies outside of the bounds in which it was developed is itself a new scientific hypothesis. It demands the same rigors of testing necessary to validate any scientific hypothesis. Certainly, favor is given to such validity, but this cannot be any more than a favored assumption without empirical evidence.

As in any scientific theory, we first make a hypothesis, then test this hypothesis by comparison with observational data. If the hypothesis cannot be empirically demonstrated by observational evidence, it is not disproven (a hypothesis cannot be disproven unless the contradictory is proven), but it cannot be any more than a hypothesis. This is the case with Macroevolution.

But that is not what Darwinian and neo-Darwininan evolutionists propose. They don't say, "this is our assumption and the best explanation we have". They say, "this is how it happened" and exclude any other possibility, even an intelligently-guided evolution. Look at the interview with Richard Dawkins in Expelled. He would admit the seeding of Earth by exterior intelligences, but then goes on to assert that this could not be God, and in fact whoever seeded our planet with life would have had to themselves evolve. That's a far cry from "best explanation", or "our best assumption". Rather, it's a "save the phenomemon" approach to Macroevolution -- i.e., any theory of origin must accept Macroevolution as validated, then has freedom to speculate so long as any living thing "evolved" in some way.

The problem is one of bad will and bad philosophy, not good science.

I am not opposed to the study of evolution, and am very interested in seeing if there is some limit to the processes we do see happening. Either way, it would be intriguing to see if there is an "Edge of Evolution" or if there is not, and if so, where exactly is it. I don't see an evolutionary theory as inherently contradictory with the Faith, so long as the de fide conditions proposed by Pius XII are upheld (Special Creation of Two First Parents whose soul is not evolved from that of an animal).

So, really, as I wrote above, it is a red herring to discuss evolution in terms of theology or scriptural exegesis. It is a scientific hypothesis. It demands the rigorous empirical testing of a scientific hypothesis. But , when such testing is done we have seen some support, but also some major problems with the hypothesis. It is not disproved by these, but certainly has not been empirically proven.

Further, any true theory of origins will never contradict the Faith, because, like a good Thomistic philosophy student, I know that everything that every could and will happen was planned and known by God from all eternity. Nothing escaped His intellect, and whatever the actual process, everything was created and is maintained only by God as participation in His Being. If what appears to us as "random mutation" is the source of change, it is not truly "random". It was planned and at least permitted by God because there is no change without his Will intervening at least permissively. (BTW, that's all from Thomistic Metaphysics, not Theology -- thus it does not invoke any Revelation but reason alone).
Reply
#49
(06-21-2014, 12:45 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I am not opposed to the study of evolution, and am very interested in seeing if there is some limit to the processes we do see happening. Either way, it would be intriguing to see if there is an "Edge of Evolution" or if there is not, and if so, where exactly is it. I don't see an evolutionary theory as inherently contradictory with the Faith, so long as the de fide conditions proposed by Pius XII are upheld (Special Creation of Two First Parents whose soul is not evolved from that of an animal).

That's very unscientific, don't you think?  What would you do if the testing brings results that directly contradict de fide conditions?  By saying that, are you not placing a bias on the hypothesis before it is even tested?

Quote:Further, any true theory of origins will never contradict the Faith, because, like a good Thomistic philosophy student, I know that everything that every could and will happen was planned and known by God from all eternity. Nothing escaped His intellect, and whatever the actual process, everything was created and is maintained only by God as participation in His Being. If what appears to us as "random mutation" is the source of change, it is not truly "random". It was planned and at least permitted by God because there is no change without his Will intervening at least permissively. (BTW, that's all from Thomistic Metaphysics, not Theology -- thus it does not invoke any Revelation but reason alone).

I no longer accept that the faith is infallible, so I don't need science to not contradict the faith, but going with what you said, isn't this again placing a bias on the hypothesis before it can be tested?  This is the same reason people were found to be heretics in the past.  They found that the fact contradicted what was then de fide, so rather than the faith modifying itself based on the new information found, it tried (and failed) to silence the new info.
Reply
#50
(06-22-2014, 09:26 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-21-2014, 12:45 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I am not opposed to the study of evolution, and am very interested in seeing if there is some limit to the processes we do see happening. Either way, it would be intriguing to see if there is an "Edge of Evolution" or if there is not, and if so, where exactly is it. I don't see an evolutionary theory as inherently contradictory with the Faith, so long as the de fide conditions proposed by Pius XII are upheld (Special Creation of Two First Parents whose soul is not evolved from that of an animal).

That's very unscientific, don't you think?  What would you do if the testing brings results that directly contradict de fide conditions?  By saying that, are you not placing a bias on the hypothesis before it is even tested?

Quote:Further, any true theory of origins will never contradict the Faith, because, like a good Thomistic philosophy student, I know that everything that every could and will happen was planned and known by God from all eternity. Nothing escaped His intellect, and whatever the actual process, everything was created and is maintained only by God as participation in His Being. If what appears to us as "random mutation" is the source of change, it is not truly "random". It was planned and at least permitted by God because there is no change without his Will intervening at least permissively. (BTW, that's all from Thomistic Metaphysics, not Theology -- thus it does not invoke any Revelation but reason alone).
[size=10pt]
I no longer accept that the faith is infallible
[/size]
, so I don't need science to not contradict the faith, but going with what you said, isn't this again placing a bias on the hypothesis before it can be tested?  This is the same reason people were found to be heretics in the past.  They found that the fact contradicted what was then de fide, so rather than the faith modifying itself based on the new information found, it tried (and failed) to silence the new info.

Please see this thread http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...063.0.html
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)