Evolution conflict and division

o_mlly said:

Why are you being intellectually dishonest? Why do you repetitively use in your reply to me and others, the predicate, "As you can see ... " as if you have cited convincing evidence when you have not given such evidence? Why will you not cite in any of Thomas' writings showing that he supports macro-evolution? I have cited from his works that he did not. Methinks you are merely using banal, boring high school debating tactics.

Do you know the difference between philosophy and theology? It appears not.

Click to expand...

Just looking at the resource cited, the document does note support of theism with use of or through natural causes as opposed to deism. For example the article notes:

Given the cause, the effect follows; the cause removed, the effect ceases. This axiom is to be understood of causes efficient in act, and of effects related to them not only in becoming but also in being (op. cit., II, xxxv).

As in, not only an initial cause, but active sustainance through natural causes.

And:
The first cause (in any order of causes dependent one on the other) contributes more to the production of the effect than the secondary cause. (Cf. De causis, in cap.)

axiom of causality: "Given the cause, the effect follows; the cause removed, the effect ceases".

And obviously Saint Thomas aquinas doesn't have any writings supporting the theory of evolution explicitly, of course the theory had not been discovered/invented that far back in history. But the document does clearly outline how evolution would be possible through St. Thomas aquinas's framework and understood as "God-enacted" through the concept of secondary causality.

Its also worth pointing out that Saint Thomas Aquinas also acknowledged belief in animal death before the fall.

But we already know that the Catholic Church acknowledges evolution as a method that God may have used to create life. This isn't controversial, it's well known.

Mercy Shown said:

Invoking your degree or library isn’t an argument. If the epistemological distinction you’re gesturing at matters here, explain why—without appeals to authority.

Click to expand...

I have given you some arguments. But you've ignored them with a lot of hand waving. So, I just hand-wave back.

No, I don't think you and I can have a productive conversation since we seem to be different on so many points of epistemology and ontology. It's very likely we'll barely agree or find common ground in our respective perspectives on much of anything, and I don't trust anyone who can't cite the sources that have influenced or informed their position.

Besides, I'm not here to convince anyone to become evolutionists.

2PhiloVoid said:

Well, we THINK He spoke and it was so......................via the testimony of some ancient Hebrew writings that ..........well.............we all HOPE were written by Moses.

The truth is, we don't know, AND what's more, we don't know that Moses even existed. But, I digress. I'm willing to have 'faith' that at the very least, a guy named Moses actually did exist and lived and said a few important things. It's what historical plausibility allows me.

Click to expand...

This same reasoning cuts both ways. If appeals to science and historical uncertainty distance us from Genesis, then that applies equally (or with greater) force to things like the virgin birth, the resurrection, and miracles in general. These are not more accessible to scientific verification; they are categorically beyond it.

This is a selective use of skepticism. Certain claims are ruled out as “unscientific” while others are retained because they are theologically or personally convenient. That isn’t an epistemological advance—it’s which miracles to keep. If we’re going to invoke plausibility and evidence, we should apply those standards consistently, rather than pretending we’ve escaped faith by redefining it.

2PhiloVoid said:

But enough of this turkey talk that says, "WE KNOW." No, we don't. Reality sort of sucks like, philosophically speaking. But at the end of the existential day, it is what it is, and I'm that guy who has the guts to say it as it is.

Click to expand...

Than say it. You are an agnostic. You do not know if God exists.

2PhiloVoid said:

It's just that if none of us 'really knows,' then I think that's a reason to stay off of each others back and give each other some amount of breathing room in which each person can enjoy the Christian journey without being hammered by other Christians left and right.

Click to expand...

I’m not attacking you, and I’m not “hammering” you. I’m disagreeing with your claims. Those are not the same thing, and treating disagreement as a personal affront shuts down any meaningful discussion.

Saying “none of us really knows” is not a neutral appeal for peace; it is an epistemological claim. If taken seriously, it places you in an agnostic position with respect to what can be known about God. That’s not an insult—it’s a category description. But once that position is asserted, it can’t simultaneously be used as a shield against disagreement.

Breathing room in the Christian journey is fine. What doesn’t follow is that ideas should be exempt from examination. Respect for persons does not require suspension of debate, and clarity is not hostility. If we can keep that distinction intact, discussion can continue without anyone being “on each other’s backs.”

2PhiloVoid said:

I have given you some arguments. But you've ignored them with a lot of hand waving. So, I just hand-wave back.

No, I don't think you and I can have a productive conversation since we seem to be different on so many points of epistemology and ontology. It's very likely we'll barely agree or find common ground in our respective perspectives on much of anything, and I don't trust anyone who can't cite the sources that have influenced or information their position.

Besides, I'm not here to convince anyone to become evolutionists.

Click to expand...

This is strangely framed. Trying to convince anyone of anything is only the actions of the young and naïve.

Mercy Shown said:

This is strangely framed. Trying to convince anyone of anything is only the actions of the young and naïve.

Click to expand...

You need to stop with the constant needling and unwarranted insinuations. I notice you do a hell of a lot of that, and I don't appreciate it.

Mercy Shown said:

Not until in the second edition to make the book more palatable for the readers of his day.

Click to expand...

You can accuse Darwin of a lot of things, but not of being afraid to make controversial claims. C'mon. You could make a better argument that Newton hid his opinions of God. Of course, physics doesn't directly challenge your beliefs, and biology does.

o_mlly said:

Why are you being intellectually dishonest?

Click to expand...

I'm just telling you what the evidence is. It's there for you to see.

o_mlly said:

Why do you repetitively use in your reply to me and others, the predicate, "As you can see ... "

Click to expand...

It's why I cite evidence for you, with links. So you can see for yourself. No point in denial. If you want more evidence, I've offered to show more, on request.

o_mlly said:

Why will you not cite in any of Thomas' writings showing that he supports macro-evolution?

Click to expand...

I can't show that he supports valence electrons, either. For the same reason. I merely note that St. Tom demolishes many of the dodges used by creationists against the observed fact of evolution. Aquinas took no stance on these things, because in his time, there things weren't understood.

o_mlly said:

Methinks you are merely using banal, boring high school debating tactics.

Click to expand...

Like this...?

o_mlly said:

Do you know the difference between philosophy and theology? It appears not.

Click to expand...

Try to do better. And my thought is that you'd be more effective advocating your ideas than you have been, complaining about the Evil Barbarian.

Job 33:6 said:

Just looking at the resource cited, the document does note support of theism with use of or through natural causes as opposed to deism. For example the article notes:

Given the cause, the effect follows; the cause removed, the effect ceases. This axiom is to be understood of causes efficient in act, and of effects related to them not only in becoming but also in being (op. cit., II, xxxv).

As in, not only an initial cause, but active sustainance through natural causes.

And:
The first cause (in any order of causes dependent one on the other) contributes more to the production of the effect than the secondary cause. (Cf. De causis, in cap.)

axiom of causality: "Given the cause, the effect follows; the cause removed, the effect ceases".

And obviously Saint Thomas aquinas doesn't have any writings supporting the theory of evolution explicitly, of course the theory had not been discovered/invented that far back in history. But the document does clearly outline how evolution would be possible through St. Thomas aquinas's framework and understood as "God-enacted" through the concept of secondary causality.

Its also worth pointing out that Saint Thomas Aquinas also acknowledged belief in animal death before the fall.

But we already know that the Catholic Church acknowledges evolution as a method that God may have used to create life. This isn't controversial, it's well known.

Click to expand...

Where you write from "... the resource cited...", to what document then do you refer? "Op cit" requires a previous citation ... ? The resource I cited is the Summa Theologicae. The words you have quoted are not in that document. Once I understand your source, I'll respond to your reply.

At the end of the day, the arguments against the theory of evolution are weak.

And It is actually surprising difficult to mount an exegetical argument against evolution. You almost have to take a rigid fundamentalists interpretation of Pauline theology, and force it backwards and impose it on the old testament. Which, at first it seems like a reasonable approach, but it actually doesn't make any sense when we simply observe how new testament theology is layered on top of old testament context, as opposed to new testament theology replacing old testament context.

An argument against evolution requires somewhat of an ignorance of how things like prophecy in scripture works, in addition to a lack of awareness of old testament context. Which isn't a tall order for many everyday people given how complicated both topics are.

The Barbarian said:

I'm just telling you what the evidence is. It's there for you to see.

It's why I cite evidence for you, with links. So you can see for yourself. No point in denial. If you want more evidence, I've offered to show more, on request.

I can't show that he supports valence electrons, either. For the same reason. I merely note that St. Tom demolishes many of the dodges used by creationists against the observed fact of evolution. Aquinas took no stance on these things, because in his time, there things weren't understood.

Like this...?

Try to do better. And my thought is that you'd be more effective advocating your ideas than you have been, complaining about the Evil Barbarian.

Click to expand...

More of the same nonsense. Are you going for victim status now? I'm not complaining, nor do I think you're evil; just juvenile.

o_mlly said:

Where you write from "... the resource cited...", to what document then do you refer? "Op cit" requires a previous citation ... ? The resource I cited is the Summa Theologicae. The words you have quoted are not in that document. Once I understand your source, I'll respond to your reply.

Click to expand...

I'm referencing the page that was noted earlier:

This like provides comments that are in alignment with St. Thomas Aquinas's part 1 equation 104 of summa theologicae. In that God can use natural mechanisms to carry out His will to keeps things in being by means of certain causes.

"Reply to Objection 1: "Being" naturally results from the form of a creature, given the influence of the Divine action; just as light results from the diaphanous nature of the air, given the action of the sun. Wherefore the potentiality to not-being in spiritual creatures and heavenly bodies is rather something in God, Who can withdraw His influence, than in the form or matter of those creatures.

Reply to Objection 2: God cannot grant to a creature to be preserved in being after the cessation of the Divine influence: as neither can He make it not to have received its being from Himself. For the creature needs to be preserved by God in so far as the being of an effect depends on the cause of its being. So that there is no comparison with an agent that is not the cause of 'being' but only of "becoming."

Objection 3: Further, an effect is kept in being by the cause, not only of its "becoming," but also of its being. But all created causes do not seem to cause their effects except in their "becoming," for they cause only by moving, as above stated (Question [45], Article [3]). Therefore they do not cause so as to keep their effects in being.

On the contrary, A thing is kept in being by that which gives it being. But God gives being by means of certain intermediate causes. Therefore He also keeps things in being by means of certain causes

So God essentially sustains these secondary causes and operates through them.

It's why I cite evidence for you, with links. So you can see for yourself. No point in denial. If you want more evidence, I've offered to show more, on request.

o_mlly said:

More of the same nonsense.

Click to expand...

If you consider evidence and links to evidence to be "nonsense", it says something very disturbing.

o_mlly said:

I'm not complaining, Methinks you are merely using banal, boring high school debating tactics.

Click to expand...

Sounds like complaining.

o_mlly said:

nor do I think you're evil; just juvenile.

Click to expand...

As I said, you'd probably do better than calling names.

When someone writes something annoying to me, I usually get up from the keyboard, get a tea, and play with the dog a bit. Then I go back and reply. Saves me a lot of embarrassment. It could work for you.

Worth a try?

Job 33:6 said:

I'm referencing the page that was noted earlier:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Cause

Click to expand...

? I don't find that reference earlier in the thread. The document above references is not from Aquinas. Rather, it references The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Cause.

Job 33:6 said:

This like provides comments that are in alignment with St. Thomas Aquinas's part 1 equation 104 of summa theologicae. In that God can use natural mechanisms to carry out His will to keeps things in being by means of certain causes.

Click to expand...

I think you mean "Question 104. The special effects of the divine government. Article 1. Whether creatures need to be kept in being by God?"

Job 33:6 said:

So God essentially sustains these secondary causes and operates through them.

Click to expand...

No. God, of course, sustains all creation because all creation depends on His willing to do so. The words do say that He may operate through them but only in as much as the creature possesses the existence, i.e., the potency to do so.

To wit, Aquinas writes:
A being can instrumentality beget a like form to its own nature (micro-evolution) but not to a higher or more complex form (Principle of Sufficient Reason).

o_mlly said:

? I don't find that reference earlier in the thread. The document above references is not from Aquinas. Rather, it references The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Cause.

I think you mean "Question 104. The special effects of the divine government. Article 1. Whether creatures need to be kept in being by God?"

No. God, of course, sustains all creation because all creation depends on His willing to do so. The words do say that He may operate through them but only in as much as the creature possesses the existence, i.e., the potency to do so.

To wit, Aquinas writes:

Every effect depends on its cause, so far as it is its cause. But we must observe that an agent may be the cause of the "becoming" of its effect, but not directly of its "being." This may be seen both in artificial and in natural beings: for the builder causes the house in its "becoming," but he is not the direct cause of its "being." For it is clear that the "being" of the house is a result of its form, which consists in the putting together and arrangement of the materials, and results from the natural qualities of certain things. Thus a cook dresses the food by applying the natural activity of fire; thus a builder constructs a house, by making use of cement, stones, and wood which are able to be put together in a certain order and to preserve it. Therefore the "being" of a house depends on the nature of these materials, just as its "becoming" depends on the action of the builder. The same principle applies to natural things. For if an agent is not the cause of a form as such, neither will it be directly the cause of "being" which results from that form; but it will be the cause of the effect, in its "becoming" only.​

​

A being can instrumentality beget a like form to its own nature (micro-evolution) but not to a higher or more complex form (Principle of Sufficient Reason).

Click to expand...

It's in your own post. What are you talking about? Maybe you aren't aware that you cited the very page I referenced? See here:

Back to my response, Macroevolution (new species) could also occur through God’s governance of secondary causes, so evolution doesn’t conflict with the idea that God is the first cause. In accordance with your shared article, and in accordance with summa theologicae.

While creatures act according to their own natures, Aquinas teaches that God can work through secondary causes. Therefore, the natural processes driving evolution, including the development of new species (macroevolution), can be fully compatible with God as the first cause, in accordance with both the principle of secondary causality discussed in the Summa Theologica and explanatory articles such as those on New Advent.

o_mlly said:

A being can instrumentality beget a like form to its own nature (micro-evolution) but not to a higher or more complex form (Principle of Sufficient Reason).

Click to expand...

"Complex"is your addition to make it more acceptable to you. But here...
"This may be seen both in artificial and in natural beings: for the builder causes the house in its "becoming," but he is not the direct cause of its "being." For it is clear that the "being" of the house is a result of its form, which consists in the putting together and arrangement of the materials, and results from the natural qualities of certain things."
... Aquinas is merely showing that biological entities can only cause new kinds of biological entities without being the direct cause of their being. For it is clear that the being of new taxa is the result of their form, which consists in the putting together and arrangement of the materials and results from the naturual qualities of certain things.

Biological entities beget other biological entities, but only God can make something essentially new, like a person with a living soul, given directly by Him, not as the result of evolutionary change. Evolution never makes anything de novo; it only modifies that which already exists. This, Aquinas would find completely reasonable.

Job 33:6 said:

At the end of the day, the arguments against the theory of evolution are weak.

And It is actually surprising difficult to mount an exegetical argument against evolution. You almost have to take a rigid fundamentalists interpretation of Pauline theology, and force it backwards and impose it on the old testament. Which, at first it seems like a reasonable approach, but it actually doesn't make any sense when we simply observe how new testament theology is layered on top of old testament context, as opposed to new testament theology replacing old testament context.

An argument against evolution requires somewhat of an ignorance of how things like prophecy in scripture works, in addition to a lack of awareness of old testament context. Which isn't a tall order for many everyday people given how complicated both topics are.

Click to expand...

But let me clarify first. Using science it is hard to refute evolution. Using theology it is all but impossible to support it without going off road and making up your own meaning to the text. Most theistic evolutionists simply reinterpret the biblical text to fit their agenda and bias. They so badly want to have their cake and eat it too. It seems that you are saying that if we can debunk the old testament, then we can debunk Paul's teachings and expose Christ for the rube he was, believing such fables as a 7 day creation.

The bible says death entered through Adam's fall but theistic evolution says "no, no, that is speaking of spiritual death." Darn that Paul for forgetting to add that modifier.

The theistic evolution says, "Well they didn't die that very day." But did a plucked flower die the moment it was snapped form its stem. Yes, it did. It's decay began at that moment and so did Adam's. Adam mortality was then passed on to his offspring so that the whole race died.

Theistic evolution declares that God designed the world for death killing and destruction in order to create mankind. What an inefficient model that is. Theistic Evolutionists cry, "Science, science" until the are taking the wafer from the priest, or celebrating the resurrections at eastern or seeing Mary appear in a cloud or toasted cheese sandwich. Science gets trampled at the door of the church all the time but somehow the Ten Commandments are old wives tales. The entire Jewish history was based on a metaphor often known as a fable.

Some poor sap gets stoned to death for breaking a law based on a false premise. If only there had been some theistic evolutionist around to set everyone straight before the stones started flying. Theologically one has to force modern thought and science onto the bible changing its original intent. It would just be easier for them to do a Thomas Jefferson on their bibles with a sharp pair of scissors and some rubber cement.

Mercy Shown said:

But let me clarify first. Using science it is hard to refute evolution. Using theology it is all but impossible to support it without going off road and making up your own meaning to the text.

Click to expand...

Not really. Because theology is its own separate category from something like the natural sciences. You have to have a specific assumption about who God is, in order for that assumption to be used against the theory.

For example, it sounds like you assume that God would never create a world with death in it. I disagree. If I held to your assumed view, I could see why evolution would concern you. But I don't, which you know.

Mercy Shown said:

Most theistic evolutionists simply reinterpret the biblical text to fit their agenda and bias. They so badly want to have their cake and eat it too. It seems that you are saying that if we can debunk the old testament, then we can debunk Paul's teachings and expose Christ for the rube he was, believing such fables as a 7 day creation.

Click to expand...

You said "The bible says death entered through Adam's fall but theistic evolution says "no, no, that is speaking of spiritual death." Darn that Paul for forgetting to add that modifier."

The onus is still on you to demonstrate where the Biblical text parts from its historical context. Otherwise, death before the fall is the historical default. And again, theology doesn't replace original context. That requires an assumption that Paul was attempting to exegete Genesis.

Also, consider some other passages by Paul on the matter of sin and death:
Romans 6:4-5, 7-8 ESV
[4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
[7] For one who has died has been set free from sin. [8] Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.

Paul obviously isn't talking about physical death here, as if he were a zombie that came out of the grave.

Or this one:
Romans 7:4, 9 ESV
[4] Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
[9] I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Sin came alive and then I died? I mean, Paul, you're writing this letter, what do you mean "I died"?

Or even in Romans 5:
Romans 5:14 ESV
[14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Death reigned from Adam to Moses. What, so people stopped dying after Moses?

It's pretty obvious that Paul isn't speaking in a concordant way. Paul is addressing spiritual realities, not biological events.

So we have a lot of issues with extrapolating his theology back to Genesis as though he were exegeting on the question of death before the fall.

The rest of the post just comes off as a strawman.

Mercy Shown said:

Most theistic evolutionists simply reinterpret the biblical text to fit their agenda and bias.

Click to expand...

No, some of us read Genesis the same way many Jews have read it for millennia (such as Rabbi Moses Maimonides edit, here's a better link: Moses Maimonides on the Literal Meaning of Genesis - Spectrum Magazine). I'll never forget when a Jewish friend of mine read the following passage to me in Hebrew.


He semi-sung it and explained how it's clearly meant to be read lyrically. Then we walked through how repetition of "the evening and the morning" phrase for each day is similar.

So I'm not reinterpreting anything. I would argue I'm reading it the way it's written.

Mercy Shown said:

They so badly want to have their cake and eat it too. It seems that you are saying that if we can debunk the old testament, then we can debunk Paul's teachings and expose Christ for the rube he was, believing such fables as a 7 day creation.

Click to expand...

I'm often struck by how some people can't seem to escape this sort of thinking, where reading Genesis differently than fundamentalists is the same as debunking it, and if one part of the Bible isn't 100% literally true then all of it must be false.

It seems to be pervasive and deep-seated among fundamentalists.

Mercy Shown said:

Theistic evolution declares that God designed the world for death killing and destruction in order to create mankind. What an inefficient model that is.

Click to expand...

I think if nothing ever died then the earth would very quickly be overrun with organisms. Talk about inefficient!

Mercy Shown said:

Theistic Evolutionists cry, "Science, science" until the are taking the wafer from the priest, or celebrating the resurrections at eastern or seeing Mary appear in a cloud or toasted cheese sandwich. Science gets trampled at the door of the church all the time but somehow the Ten Commandments are old wives tales. The entire Jewish history was based on a metaphor often known as a fable.

Click to expand...

There's that thinking again.

Mercy Shown said:

Some poor sap gets stoned to death for breaking a law based on a false premise. If only there had been some theistic evolutionist around to set everyone straight before the stones started flying. Theologically one has to force modern thought and science onto the bible changing its original intent. It would just be easier for them to do a Thomas Jefferson on their bibles with a sharp pair of scissors and some rubber cement.

Click to expand...

Or, people like you could try and expand your range of thinking and drop the ideas that reading parts of the Bible differently than you is not the same as rejecting or debunking it, and reading some parts of scripture non-literally doesn't necessitate reading the entire book non-literally.

Yes and this is true as well. In-fact, theistic evolutionist, many that I've found, cite and follow historical references more consistently than YECs.

Mercy Shown said:

But let me clarify first. Using science it is hard to refute evolution

Click to expand...

Direct observation is tough to deny, yes. I'm thinking you might be confusing biological evolution (which is a fact), with common descent, which is a consequence of biological evolution.

Mercy Shown said:

It seems that you are saying that if we can debunk the old testament, then we can debunk Paul's teachings and expose Christ for the rube he was, believing such fables as a 7 day creation.

Click to expand...

Christ never said the seven days were literal 24-hour days. Paul never wrote that. And the OT doesn't say that they were. There's a difference between arguing with you, and arguing with God. It's important to keep that in mind.

Mercy Shown said:

Theistic evolution declares that God designed the world for death killing and destruction in order to create mankind. What an inefficient model that is. Theistic Evolutionists cry, "Science, science" until the are taking the wafer from the priest, or celebrating the resurrections at eastern or seeing Mary appear in a cloud or toasted cheese sandwich. Science gets trampled at the door of the church all the time but somehow the Ten Commandments are old wives tales. The entire Jewish history was based on a metaphor often known as a fable.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should take a few deep breaths, calm yourself, and try again.

River Jordan said:

Or, people like you could try and expand your range of thinking and drop the ideas that reading parts of the Bible differently than you is not the same as rejecting or debunking it, and reading some parts of scripture non-literally doesn't necessitate reading the entire book non-literally.

Click to expand...

Today's winner.