Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[Doveaman]

Remember, we do have evidence that supported the fire: the deaths of the soldiers "who took up ...". The whole passage is designed such to say that there is a real fire there.

Noah’s flood passage is designed that way too.

What the passage is saying is there is miraculous protection of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednago. The evidence of that miraculous protection is that they have none of the signs of fire that are expected.

The evidence of that miraculous protection is that the earth has none of the signs of a flood that are expected.

Again, theory vs data.

Theory: fire will burn every person in it and produce burned skin, hair, robes, etc.

Data: in this case 3 men were not burned.

Modification of theory: in that case the 3 men were protected by God.

Theory: global flood will leave evidence in the earth.

Data: in this case the earth has no evidence of global flood

Modification of theory: in that case the earth was protected by God.

Of course, this is not scientific evidence. Why not? Because science restricts itself to evidence that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. This is called "intersubjective". The account in Daniel is not intersubjective. We could set up approximately the same circumstances by building a fire that hot and then throw you in. Do you think you would come out unburned? If not, it means the experience is not intersubjective and not part of science. Does that mean the account is wrong or violates science? No.

The point is that any scientist, ancient or modern, who did not witness the fire in Daniel would have concluded those three men were not in a fire after scientifically examining those men.

 

[Doveaman]

Not here. The words that refer to "humans" in Hebrew is different from the word referred to as Adam.

The point is that the entire human race can be referred to as Adam in the sense that all humans descended form Adam. Therefore, the name of the man, Adam, in Genesis can also be used plurally to represent the entire human race since all humans eventually descended from Him.

Eve doesn't have a plural to my knowledge and the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 is not the word used for Eve in Genesis 2.

A name can have more than one meaning.

Your quote from Paul denies that:

“For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” (Rom 5:19).

That isn't talking "sin nature". That is saying that we are out and out sinners because of Adam. Not "sin nature", but sins.

But we are out and out sinners because of the sin-nature we inherited from fallen Adam. That’s the point Paul is making.

“For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!” (Rom 5:15).

Again, not sin nature where we commit our own sins and therefore die. Paul is saying "many died" They didn't have to do a thing. The trespass of one man killed them.

No wonder you think Paul is wrong; it’s because you are reading it wrong.

It appears that you are not reading what is there but a theory you would like to be there.

It appears you are not reading between the lines so you can understand what Paul is saying.

You apparently didn't see that "considered", even tho you wrote it. We have never told you that you can use theory to deny fact. In fact, we criticize creationists all the time for doing exactly that.

And we creationists criticize you for trying to use scientific theories do deny Scripture.

Now, it turns out that militant atheists have the same problem: trying to use theory to deny data. As I said before, it's a mistake about science. Atheists that use that type of argument are misstating science. And you can call them on that.

I did call them on it. They were trying to convince me that we humans did in fact descend from ancient apes even though I told them this was only a theory and not a fact.

Actually, the Genesis 3 story simply has it that there is only one serpent (made presumably in Genesis 2 as a potential helpmeet for Adam)

Bestiality?

It appears that you are not reading what is there but a theory you would like to be there.

and that it can naturally talk. No miracle. The serpent just talks.

I dare say miracles are natural. The laws that govern natural phenomena just need to be modified a bit so that natural phenomena behaves in unusual ways.

It also has legs. 3:14 "Then the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all animals, domestic and wild. You will crawl on your belly, groveling in the dust as long as you live."

Sounds like the description of a dragon.

“He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan.” (Rev 20:2).

God doesn't take away the ability of serpent to talk, but apparently its descendents either can't or don't, because the author realizes that snakes of that day don't talk.
BTW, the author of Genesis 3 obviously didn't know about skinks. They are a family of lizards and some species don't have legs and crawl on their belly.

But the Bible did not call the serpent a snake or a lizard. He is called a dragon.

“He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan.” (Rev 20:2).

He is more likely to be a dragon-serpent with legs that could also crawl on his belly and grovel in dust like a snake.

The Chinese still remember those ancient dragons and celebrate them to this day.

 

[Mallon]

If the serpent of Genesis is a dragon, that's even more reason not to read the account as an historical narrative.

 

[Anthony022071]

Actually, he said "in all directions".

He said "path".

"So let's get this straight. Let's say I were looking up at a storm, and watching lightning go throughout the sky. I deduce, based on my study of nature, that the path of the lightning is explained by natural causes (and in particular by Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism).

I take it that you would not consider me to be limiting God?"
​

My point remains the same. The point of the post was not about direction, but that the phenomenon of lightning is explained without recourse to direct use of the supernatural.

I agree.

I'm afraid you have that backwards. Design is what we see in organisms.

Organisms have both design and moving order. An organism is a microcosmos,not just something with a particular shape. Order and design are not mutually exclusive.

Now, is water directly created by God? Not really. Water results from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen. So your statement that "the substance is" created by God is not accurate.

God creates and sustains hydogen and oxygen particles,and for all we know God may be directly involved with their reactions. How do you separate the chemical reactions from the idea that God sustains the chemical particles in act?

Yes, you can put God in there, but not where you are trying to do it. God sustains the chemical reaction that produces water. That is, each and every time hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce water, we as Christians believe that God wills it to happen.

How do you separate the act of creating water from the act of sustaining the chemical reactions that produce water? Does the knowledge of natural causes exclude God's action? Is the word "produce" reserved for natural causes alone? And how do you distinguish,in this case,God's willing and his doing?

 

[Papias]

Anthony, welcome back!

Did you see my response (post #147) to your last post?

Remember, we were discussing His Holiness's statement:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. -Pope Benedict XVI


There are specific responses to your post, as well as more material from Pope Benedict in Post #147.

I hope you've been having a nice week-

Papias
​

 

[shernren]

I know you're facing a bit of flak from a lot of people at the moment, Anthony, but I would appreciate a reply to my follow-up question:

No. The direction of lightning does not necessaily require supernatural power. But the order that we find in the natural world does.

Okay, so how did you decide the difference?

I mean, the Bible says that God "​​​​​​​​cleft a channel for the torrents of rain and a way for the thunderbolt" (Job 38:25, ESV). Why isn't that a clear indicator that the direction of lightning requires supernatural power?

 

[lucaspa]

Noah’s flood passage is designed that way too.

The Flood stories in Genesis 6-8 are designed to show a flood. However, God's Creation contradicts that it is a world-wide flood. It could very well have been their world, like in Luke 2:1 the "entire world" is really the Roman world.

The evidence of that miraculous protection is that the earth has none of the signs of a flood that are expected.

Genesis 6-8 doesn't talk of any protection nor is there intended to be any! Remember, all land creatures die. So, that means real flood waters leaving real effects behind. Daniel is talking miracle of protection of those 3 men. Genesis 6-8 is not.

You need to put Daniel 3:22-34 in context. Go back up to 3:17: "If it be [so], our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver [us] out of thine hand, O king."

So, the 3 men had already called on God to do this particular miracle. No one called on God to preserve the earth exactly as it was before the Flood. Doveaman, you just can't take verses out of context in order to have them mean what you want them to mean instead of what the author (and God) wanted them to mean.

Theory: global flood will leave evidence in the earth.

Data: in this case the earth has no evidence of global flood
Modification of theory: in that case the earth was protected by God.

This isn't a modification of the theory. It is what we call an "ad-hoc hypothesis" to save your theory from falsification.

You make a theory: global flood. From that you make deductions of of the data that should be present. In this case, what we find is contradictory data. That data falsifies the theory. So now you introduce a new hypothesis: God prevented any of the effects of the flood. BUT, you have no basis to claim that. There's nothing in scripture to indicate God would be performing a miracle here. You introduced it only to keep the hypothesis from falsification.

What's more, in the cases I used, we had evidence (altho not scientific) for God's intervention: unburned men who were in a furnace, people meeting the risen Christ, etc. Here you have no evidence for God's intervention except that the expected data for a global flood is absent.

Ad-hoc hypotheses must be able to be tested independently of the hypothesis they are designed to rescue. If they can't, then they are not valid.

For instance, Thomas tested the ad hoc hypothesis that Jesus was risen by putting his hands in the wounds. That tactile and visual observation of the wounds is independent of the hypothesis that Jesus was resurrected. You don't have that here. We have no way to independently test for God's prevention of any effects of the flood.

The point is that any scientist, ancient or modern, who did not witness the fire in Daniel would have concluded those three men were not in a fire after scientifically examining those men.

But that is exactly the point of that miracle, isn't it? What's the point of covering up the Flood. In the Daniel story, the health of the 3 men is evidence that God was telling the truth and would protect the men. If God prevents any evidence of a flood, then God is telling a lie by making it appear something did not happen that did happen.

Thus, theologically you are on very dangerous ground. You are having God tell us a lie.

 

[Anthony022071]

Okay, so how did you decide the difference?

You have to consider what power is logically necessary for something to happen and what is not. Life,order,thought and the creation of matter out of nothing require power over natural things. They are supernatural as well as natural phenomena. Life is spirit,order is created by intelligence,thought is an activity of spirit,the creation of matter out of nothing is an act of almighty power.

I mean, the Bible says that God "​​​​​​​​cleft a channel for the torrents of rain and a way for the thunderbolt" (Job 38:25, ESV). Why isn't that a clear indicator that the direction of lightning requires supernatural power?

I don't know if that verse refers to the direction of lightning itself or to an opening in the sky. Probably the latter. Lightning does require supernatural power in that it is created,directly or indirectly,by God. But lightning and the direction it goes is not itself a supernatural action,as life is,or the creation of matter. So there is no need to bring up God when explaining it,unless perhaps there is circumstantial reason to suspect that God sent a lightning bolt for a specific purpose.

 

[lucaspa]

He said "path".

"So let's get this straight. Let's say I were looking up at a storm, and watching lightning go throughout the sky. I deduce, based on my study of nature, that the path of the lightning is explained by natural causes (and in particular by Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism).
​

I see what you are saying. See what I bolded? That is what I was paying attention to. But we are back at the same problem: since any particular path is explained by natural causes, do you still think there is supernatural involved?

lucaspa:
My point remains the same. The point of the post was not about direction, but that the phenomenon of lightning is explained without recourse to direct use of the supernatural.

I agree.

Since you agree that lightning, and even the particular path, is accounted for by natural causes without reference to the supernatural, is this "atheistic"?

Organisms have both design and moving order. An organism is a microcosmos,not just something with a particular shape. Order and design are not mutually exclusive.

God creates and sustains hydogen and oxygen particles,and for all we know God may be directly involved with their reactions. How do you separate the chemical reactions from the idea that God sustains the chemical particles in act?

I don't. You have been. BTW, God didn't directly create oxygen. That is made by nuclear fusion in stars. So, in your view, did God still create the oxygen?

What I am getting at is inconsistency on your part. You accept that we can have the chemical reaction without referring to God. You are content to say God sustains the reaction. You don't consider chemistry to be atheistic because it doesn't mention God. BUT, when evolution doesn't mention God, you claim it is atheistic. Do you see the inconsistency? Why is not chemistry atheistic if evolution is? Or, if chemistry is not atheistic, then why is evolution atheistic?

How do you separate the act of creating water from the act of sustaining the chemical reactions that produce water? Does the knowledge of natural causes exclude God's action?

You seem to think so. You have been saying all along that the knowledge of natural causes in evolution excludes God. So why doesn't chemistry exclude God's action but evolution does?

And how do you distinguish,in this case,God's willing and his doing?

How do you distinguish in the case of evolution?

In this post, Anthony, you sound like a theistic evolutionist. In fact, you are repeating the arguments I have been giving you. But you seem to do that only when chemistry is involved and shy away from the same position when evolution is involved.

 

[Papias]

Doveman wrote:

Theory: global flood will leave evidence in the earth.

Data: in this case the earth has no evidence of global flood

Modification of theory: in that case the earth was protected by God.

Well, we have to at least give Doveman credit for agreeing with the data that's been found.

Papias

 

[lucaspa]

The point is that the entire human race can be referred to as Adam in the sense that all humans descended form Adam.

No, the point is that, in Hebrew, the words are different when used to refer to a person and the entire human race. Let's look at the Hebrew:
Genesis 1:27: Vayivra Elohim et-ha'adam betsalmo betselem Elohim bara oto zachar unekevah bara otam.

"et-ha'adam" is "man" as in "human race", "male" is "zachar", not "Adam". "unekevah" is "female".

So lets look at Genesis 2:7: "Vayitser Adonay Elohim ha'adam afar min-ha'adamah vayipach pe'apav nishmat chayim vayehi ha'adam lenefesh chayah"

Now we have "ha'adam" to refer to one man.

Genesis 2:23: "Vayomer ha'adam zot hapa'am etsem me'atsamay uvasar mibesari lezot yikare ishah ki me'ish lukacha-zot."

"ishah" is "Eve". "ish" in "me'ish" is "man". Notice they are not the "zachar" or "unekevah" used in Genesis 1:17. Those are plural.

Therefore, the original Hebrew contradicts your claim.

Therefore, the name of the man, Adam, in Genesis can also be used plurally to represent the entire human race since all humans eventually descended from Him.

You capitalized "Him" referring to Adam as tho Adam is God. Why?

A name can have more than one meaning.

In this case, "ha-adam" means dirt. Look back at Genesis 2:7 and that "ha-adamah". Dirt.

But we are out and out sinners because of the sin-nature we inherited from fallen Adam. That’s the point Paul is making.

We are not sinners until we commit a sin. Are you saying a fresh newborn baby is a sinner? Paul is saying that we have committed a sin because Adam committed a sin.

You did not show how I read the Romans 5:15 wrong. You made a claim without reasons or evidence.

It appears you are not reading between the lines so you can understand what Paul is saying.

"reading between the lines"? LOL! I thought we were supposed to take a "plain reading" of scripture? When plain reading of scripture contradicts what you claim Paul is saying, then we must "read between the lines"? LOL!

BTW, you haven't addressed all the other verses where Paul says Jesus died for our sins, not because Adam sinned.

And we creationists criticize you for trying to use scientific theories do deny Scripture.

Nice change of subject. I said "We have never told you that you can use theory to deny fact. In fact, we criticize creationists all the time for doing exactly that. "

You are not denying that creationists try to use theory to deny fact.

Remember, theories are based on fact. They are tested against fact. When we have a theory that has repeatedly been tested against facts and we have failed to show it to be false, we accept it as (provisionally) true. Because it is based on facts. So, we are ultimately using facts to deny particular interpretations of scripture. You seem to be saying that a creationist interpretation of scripture = scripture. Nice sleight-of-hand. You try to convert criticism of a human interpretation into criticism of scripture. Doesn't work.

I did call them on it. They were trying to convince me that we humans did in fact descend from ancient apes even though I told them this was only a theory and not a fact.

Apples and oranges. I said "
Now, it turns out that militant atheists have the same problem: trying to use theory to deny data. As I said before, it's a mistake about science. Atheists that use that type of argument are misstating science. And you can call them on that."

I said you can call militant atheists on trying to use the theory that dead men don't rise in denying the Resurrection.

Instead, you have trotted out the old creationist canard about theory. As I pointed out above, theories are based upon, and tested against, facts. We often consider well-supported theories to be equivalent to "fact". For instance, "the earth is round" is a theory. But don't you accept it as fact? Friction is also a theory. But you never hesitate to put the brakes on your car when you need to stop because it is "only a theory", do you? You consider it fact.

So, not only did you misrepresent what I wrote, but what you actually wrote is not what you believe.

The facts are so many and so overwhelmingly supportive of the theory that humans descended from ancient apes that we accept it, like round earth and friction, as true and "fact".

Bestiality?

It appears that you are not reading what is there but a theory you would like to be there.

1. What bestiality?
2. I clearly labeled my speculation: "made presumably in Genesis 2 as a potential helpmeet for Adam"

I am speculating that might be the case, but not insisting on it. After all, Genesis 2 doesn't mention any other possible origin for the serpent, and it is an animal.

I dare say miracles are natural. The laws that govern natural phenomena just need to be modified a bit so that natural phenomena behaves in unusual ways.

Then they aren't "natural" anymore.

Sounds like the description of a dragon.

“He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan.” (Rev 20:2).
But the Bible did not call the serpent a snake or a lizard. He is called a dragon.

Genesis 2 has the serpent becoming a snake. Remember: "serpent" is a synonym for snake.

Revelations, if the author is not speaking in code and really means it that the serpent in Genesis 3 is the devil, cannot be right. Remember:
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

The serpent is going to have offspring (so we can surmise there is a female serpent somewhere). Do you really think modern snakes have Satan DNA? Also, if your idea that the serpent is a dragon, then just how are we supposed to bruise its head, and how does it bruise our heel? This works only if we are talking about snakes, which the authors knew often bit humans on the heel.

What's more, when we go to Job, we see that Satan is friendly with God and is walking. That's not possible because the serpent lost his legs in Genesis 3.

 

[lucaspa]

Life,order,thought and the creation of matter out of nothing require power over natural things. They are supernatural as well as natural phenomena. Life is spirit,order is created by intelligence,thought is an activity of spirit,the creation of matter out of nothing is an act of almighty power.

Life is chemistry. Christianity says humans have "spirit", but not animals or plants. As I pointed out, we don't need direct creation by intelligence to get life. I gave you the recipe for you do to so without using your intelligence.

Thought is an activity of the brain. We can change thoughts chemically, without any spirit involved.

Order happens without direct creation by intelligence. Earth is ordered as an oblate spheroid, but that happens by gravity. The galaxy is ordered as a spiral, but that too is ordered by gravity. Snowflakes are ordered, but that order comes from unintelligent chemistry, not intelligence. God does not move each molecule of water into place to make a snowflake, does He?

The designs in living organisms comes from the unintelligent process of natural selection.

Actually, matter doesn't come from "nothing". It comes from the energy as the universe cooled. E= mc^2. As water forms from steam as it cools, so matter formed from energy as the universe cooled.

The origin of the universe, including the energy in it, is one of two areas in science where a hypothesis of direct action by God is permissible.

Lightning does require supernatural power in that it is created,directly or indirectly,by God. But lightning and the direction it goes is not itself a supernatural action,as life is,or the creation of matter.

Life is no more supernatural action than lightning or the direction of it. So, as you put it: "there is no need to bring up God when explaining it,"[/quote]
But this again is god-of-the-gaps. You know there are natural explanations for lightning, so you don't require we bring up God. You don't think there are natural explanations for life, so now you bring up God. That's god-of-the-gaps.

 

[lucaspa]

Doveman wrote:



Well, we have to at least give Doveman credit for agreeing with the data that's been found.

Papias

LOL! Partly. He does imply there is data that contradicts a global flood. "no evidence" is not the same as "contradictory evidence".

Now we need to educate him on the difference of using theory to deny data and ad hoc hypotheses.

 

[Anthony022071]

Not only does he not doubt macroevolution (if you think he does, please supply a quote, in context), but YOU have stated that macroevolution is real, because speciation, by definition, is macroevolution.

Here are excerpts from an article from 2006 by John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter,a liberal publication. The article is entitled "Benedict's thinking on creation and evolution". I disagree with Allen's definition of a creationist as someone who believes in a strictly literal reading of Genesis.

<
Since we live in a sound-bite culture, let's get straight to the bottom line: Benedict XVI is not a "creationist." He does not believe in a strictly literal reading of the Book of Genesis, nor has he ever made any reference to teaching "creation science" in schools. A member of the prestigious secular French Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques (inducted in 1993 along with then-Czech President Vaclav Havel as one of only twelve foreign nationals), Pope Benedict has no desire to launch a crusade against modern science.
Nor is Benedict XVI really an advocate of "intelligent design" in the American sense, since intelligent design theorists typically assert that data from biology and other empirical sciences, by itself, requires the hypothesis of a designer. Benedict may have some sympathy for this view; he has questioned the evidence for "macro-evolution," meaning the transition from one species to another on the basis of random mutation and natural selection. Ultimately, however, he sees this as a debate for scientists to resolve. His concern cuts deeper, to the modern tendency to convert evolution into "a universal theory concerning all reality" that excludes God, and therefore rationality, as the basis of existence. In contrast, Benedict insists upon the fundamental conviction of Christian faith: "In principio erat Verbum - at the beginning of all things stands the creative power of reason."
Benedict is clear this is a question which "can no longer be decided by arguments from natural science."
With respect to Pope John Paul II's famous 1996 formula that evolution is "more than a hypothesis," therefore, it's meaningless to ask whether Benedict XVI agrees or disagrees. Ever the professor, he would insist upon clarifying what precisely is meant by "evolution," whether it's being evaluated on a scientific or philosophical basis, and so on.
What does seem clear, however, is that Benedict worries that with its seeming nihil obtstat for the theory of evolution, the church may inadvertently have accelerated the diffusion of a worldview which holds that it's pointless to ask questions which can't be settled by laboratory experiments, and that chance and meaninglessness are the ultimate laws of the universe. In that sense, one suspects Benedict would affirm that evolution is indeed "more than a hypothesis" -- for better, and for worse. >

< While Benedict does not believe it is the church's role to settle scientific debates, that doesn't mean he lacks his own views. Most notably, Benedict has doubts about what he calls "macro-evolution." ("Micro-evolution" refers to developmental changes within a species, "macro-evolution" is the transition from one species to another on the basis of mutation and selection.)
Ratzinger outlines his thinking in a November 27, 1999, lecture delivered at the Sorbonne entitled "The Truth of Christianity," which is published in his 2003 book Truth and Tolerance.

"No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes. R. Junker and S. Scherer, in their 'critical reader' on evolution, have this to say: 'Many examples of such developmental steps [micro-evolutionary processes] are known to us from natural processes of variation and development. The research done on them by evolutionary biologists produced significant knowledge of the adaptive capacity of living systems, which seems marvelous.' They tell us, accordingly, that one would therefore be quite justified in describing the research of early development as the reigning monarch among biological disciplines. … Within the teaching about evolution itself, the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: 'There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.'"
​

This distinction between "micro" and "macro-evolution" is apparently one Ratzinger began to make in the 1980s, after hearing a series of lectures at the Gustav Siewarth Academy, a small Catholic academy in Germany's Black Forest. Tassot told NCR that a German Catholic intellectual named Alma von Stockhausen, the founder of the Gustav Siewarth Academy, has said that Ratzinger concluded macro-evolution is "impossible" after this experience.
It is worth repeating, however, that whatever his personal views, Benedict XVI is unlikely to render an official judgment on what he sees as a scientific question. In a 1992 Vatican press conference presenting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, he said that it is not the function of the church to pass judgment on the scientific merits of evolutionary theory. >

 

[lucaspa]

I disagree with his definition of a creationist as someone who believes in a strictly literal reading of Genesis.

Pretty much, it is. All creationists have in common the literal reading that God directly made human beings. That can be by speaking them into existence a la Genesis 1 or making one man from dust and one woman from the rib of the man in Genesis 2. (notice the literal readings contradict) No creationist allows a non-literal reading that would allow humans to evolve from a previous species.

Now let's get to the article about Pope Benedict's views on evolution:

he has questioned the evidence for "macro-evolution," meaning the transition from one species to another on the basis of random mutation and natural selection.

Note what "macroevolution" is: speciation. Unfortunately, as I note below, there is massive evidence in real time and the fossil record that speciation occurs/ocurred. There is also massive evidence that natural selection is involved.

His concern cuts deeper, to the modern tendency to convert evolution into "a universal theory concerning all reality" that excludes God, and therefore rationality, as the basis of existence.

We here are concerned about that, too. This is why we keep insisting that evolution is not " a universal theory concerning all reality" that excludes God" ! Notice that word "convert". That backs up what we have been saying: evolution does not exclude God. Instead, some militant atheists want to misrepresent evolution as excluding God.

In contrast, Benedict insists upon the fundamental conviction of Christian faith: "In principio erat Verbum - at the beginning of all things stands the creative power of reason."

This gets out of evolution and to the origin of the universe. OR, it gets back to the idea that I have been stressing: a supernatural component to all explanations.

Benedict is clear this is a question which "can no longer be decided by arguments from natural science."

I'm afraid I can't agree with his "can no". It may be decided if some scientific hypotheses turn out to be correct. There are some hypotheses that Benedict could be referring to where it is impossible to decide from natural science: No Boundary, Logical and Mathematical Necessity, and Big Bounce. There is no way to falsify or support those 3. No Boundary especially has been made unfalsifiable.

What does seem clear, however, is that Benedict worries that with its seeming nihil obtstat for the theory of evolution, the church may inadvertently have accelerated the diffusion of a worldview which holds that it's pointless to ask questions which can't be settled by laboratory experiments, and that chance and meaninglessness are the ultimate laws of the universe.

First, biological evolution, or science as a whole, has never claimed that "chance" is the ultimate law of the universe. Evolution is not chance. In particular, the selection part of natural selection is the opposite of chance.

Secondly, I can understand the concern. Evolution is not a worldview. Atheism is a worldview. However, if Christianity stamps on theistic evolution and says it is impossible, then that leaves atheistic evolution the default winner in the philosophical arena.

Third, that part "it's pointless to ask questions which can't be settled by laboratory experiments" is the philosophy of science called Positivism. Positivism has been shown to be invalid; in fact known for the past 50 years or more to be invalid. Positivism is favored as a philosophy of science by atheists. Why? Because they like the idea of making religious questions "meaningless' (and therefore "false").

What is needed is education about science, about religion, and about the philosophy of science.

Most notably, Benedict has doubts about what he calls "macro-evolution." ("Micro-evolution" refers to developmental changes within a species, "macro-evolution" is the transition from one species to another on the basis of mutation and selection.) ...
Ratzinger outlines his thinking in a November 27, 1999, lecture delivered at the Sorbonne entitled "The Truth of Christianity," which is published in his 2003 book Truth and Tolerance.

" 'There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.'"
​

Here the Pope has confused 2 different things: speciation (macro-evolution) and the idea that evolutionary lines become "more complex".

As it turns out, there is massive experimental data supporting macroevolution. New species have been observed to arise from existing species both in the lab and in the wild in real time.

Not all evolutionary lines become "more complex". Evolution is "descent with modification", not absolute increased complexity.

There is, however, a very strong theoretical argument that evolutionary lines increase information. In fact, it is extremely difficult to avoid it. I can go into that in more detail if anyone wants.

So, basically, Pope Benedict's "scientific" objections come, unfortunately, from his ignorance about what has already been shown in the field of evolution. That's too bad.

In a 1992 Vatican press conference presenting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, he said that it is not the function of the church to pass judgment on the scientific merits of evolutionary theory.

The Catholic Church continues to be smart and avoid making theological pronouncements on scientific theories. Give them credit, the Catholics learned from the Galileo fiasco.

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

Here are excerpts from an article from 2006 by John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter,a liberal publication. The article is entitled "Benedict's thinking on creation and evolution".

Hey, thanks for responding to our discussion with more evidence that is directly relevant to our question, and helping to keep the discussion pleasant and evidence based. I appreciate it. I apologize if my posts were beginning to sound snippy.


the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: 'There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.


First of all, it's really hard to see where he's going with this, since he is explicitly quoting someone else (namely Szathmary and Smith), and because the paragraph is cut off after their quote. Did he comment on their view (regardless of whether or not it was properly presented)? We know that many people (such Darwin himself) lay out the contrary view in detail before saying that they disagree with it , so the following section would be useful.

Secondly, and more importantly, that speech is from about a decade ago. Perphaps Ratzinger did have some questions about common descent then, which were resolved in the years between then and now? After all, his statements suggest that he was, as the time, unaware of the huge number of clear lines of evidence for common descent and the many documented macroevolutionary transitions - which friends, on hearing a clearly misinformed statment from him, may have pointed out to him. Being a professor type, it makes sense that he would find out in those ensuing years, since his most recent statements (some of which we've seen here) are clear and unambiguously in support of common descent.

Either way, while this is some of the most doubt I'd heard in his statements, it still leaves us with the conclusion that he's fully in support of theistic evolution now.

began to make in the 1980s, after hearing a series of lectures at the Gustav Siewarth Academy, a small Catholic academy in Germany's Black Forest. Tassot told NCR that a German Catholic intellectual named Alma von Stockhausen, the founder of the Gustav Siewarth Academy, has said that Ratzinger concluded macro-evolution is "impossible" after this experience.

The above two questions apply to this one as well - in addition to the fact that this one is bordering on hearsay. Follow what it says - Alma (2 - who doesn't say why he though this), "said" something about Ratzinger's views, and Alma told Tassot (3) who then told the NCR (4). I have to admit that I don't think I've ever heard something that was at least fouth hand information presented as if it had any reliability whatsoever. The fact that it appears to be leaning most heavily on even more out of date information (this time from around a quarter century ago!) doesn't help.

So on balance, it still looks pretty clear that Benedict supports common descent, and the evolution of humans from ape-like creatures, as shown by his current statements.

I disagree with his definition of a creationist as someone who believes in a strictly literal reading of Genesis.

yes, I do too. Maybe he's just defining it that way so as to be clear in what he says later (my suspicion). As some here have pointed out, the term "creationist" (if the intent is clearly mentioned) can even apply to a theistic evolution supporter, who can use the term "evolutionary creationist".

I think that, as with so many other things, that clear explaining of what someone means by a certain term is important. So if he's just doing that, then I understand.

Papias

 

[Anthony022071]

Pretty much, it is. All creationists have in common the literal reading that God directly made human beings. That can be by speaking them into existence a la Genesis 1 or making one man from dust and one woman from the rib of the man in Genesis 2. (notice the literal readings contradict) No creationist allows a non-literal reading that would allow humans to evolve from a previous species.

I am a creationist,because I believe in the doctrine of creation. Some things in Genesis should be taken literally,and others figuratively,and some may be taken literally,figuratively,and allegorically. But even the things that were not meant to be taken literally must be regarded as having actually happened.

Catholic doctrine does not allow for humans to have evolved from a previous species.

Note what "macroevolution" is: speciation. Unfortunately, as I note below, there is massive evidence in real time and the fossil record that speciation occurs/ocurred. There is also massive evidence that natural selection is involved.

Macro-evolution is not just any kind of speciation,it is development above the species level. But that can't happen because speciation only results in sub-species which tend to have less genetic variability than the group it branched from. Speciation causes division and tapering,not metamorphosis from one primary species (such as horse or ape) to another.

We here are concerned about that, too. This is why we keep insisting that evolution is not " a universal theory concerning all reality" that excludes God" ! Notice that word "convert". That backs up what we have been saying: evolution does not exclude God. Instead, some militant atheists want to misrepresent evolution as excluding God.

The theory itself excludes God from working in nature,because it was developed from MN,which is the deliberate exclusion of the supernatural from scientific explanations,and the theory is meant to be understood from that perspective. It does not leave room for God to be working in nature,because it has natural "mechanisms" and processes doing everything by themselves. If you were to apply the doctrines of creation and providence fully and precisely to the theory of evolution,you would have to wholly convert it into a theory of creation and providence in order to do justice to all that the doctrines say.

 

[shernren]

You have to consider what power is logically necessary for something to happen and what is not. Life,order,thought and the creation of matter out of nothing require power over natural things. They are supernatural as well as natural phenomena. Life is spirit,order is created by intelligence,thought is an activity of spirit,the creation of matter out of nothing is an act of almighty power.

I agree with you that "you have consider what power is logically necessary for something to happen and what is not." But the leap you have made to the next sentence seems to be without any particular justification. How do you know that life requires more power than natural mechanisms can provide, a supernatural level of power?

Of course you may not feel any particular need to question that assumption. It is difficult to question long-held assumptions, especially ones that are intuitive such as this. So I'll approach this in a roundabout way. Besides life, you also mentioned order. So let me ask you:

Do you think the origin and maintenance of the order we see in the Solar System, with multiple large planets moving around the Sun for at least thousands of years without any collisions, requires supernatural power?

I don't know if that verse refers to the direction of lightning itself or to an opening in the sky. Probably the latter. Lightning does require supernatural power in that it is created,directly or indirectly,by God. But lightning and the direction it goes is not itself a supernatural action,as life is,or the creation of matter. So there is no need to bring up God when explaining it,unless perhaps there is circumstantial reason to suspect that God sent a lightning bolt for a specific purpose.

But the verse specifically says that God opens up a way for the thunderbolt! You can't get more direct than that.

 

[Anthony022071]

I agree with you that "you have consider what power is logically necessary for something to happen and what is not." But the leap you have made to the next sentence seems to be without any particular justification. How do you know that life requires more power than natural mechanisms can provide, a supernatural level of power?

Here's where we get into epistemology. I have no reason to believe that natural causes have the power to cause those phenomena. There is no logical correspondence between the proposed natural causes and the phenomena. What is it about amino acids and proteins that would lead us to think they can organize themselves into cells? Sure,that's what it looks like is happening through a microscope,but what power do they have and how does it compare with what happens in a cell? The necessary organizing power has to come from somewhere,and if there is no logical correspondence between the efficacy of natural things and what the phenomena seems to require,it is reasonable to assume that supernatural power is at work. As Christians,we are obliged to believe that God works in nature anyway. We ought to match the doctrines of creation and providence to those aspects of nature where it is reasonable to do so. Otherwise,there will be a disconnect between our assent to the doctrines and what we believe about nature itself,between faith and natural knowledge. Our belief in the doctrines will be fideist,and our view of nature will be deist or naturalistic.

Of course you may not feel any particular need to question that assumption. It is difficult to question long-held assumptions, especially ones that are intuitive such as this. So I'll approach this in a roundabout way. Besides life, you also mentioned order. So let me ask you:

Do you think the origin and maintenance of the order we see in the Solar System, with multiple large planets moving around the Sun for at least thousands of years without any collisions, requires supernatural power?

I think it does. So did the medieval theologians. This is not to deny the possibility of some kind of gravitational pull. Supernatural power can be so subtle that natural causes alone seem sufficient. But since anything worth calling order is caused by intelligence,and since orderly movement between the Earth,sun and moon is needed for life to be sustained on Earth,I think the order is sustained by God.

But the verse specifically says that God opens up a way for the thunderbolt! You can't get more direct than that.

The meaning of the verse would probably be more clear to the Hebrews of the time Job was written. They had a particular cosmology.
It's poetical language,not precise language. It seems to mean that God clears the way for lightning somehow.

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

I am a creationist,because I believe in the doctrine of creation.

As I pointed out in my last post, many theistic evolution supporters, who fully embrace common descent, including the evolution of humans from ancient apes, consider themselves "creationists" - specifically "evolutionary creationists". All of us here agree that God did the creating, as does the Catholic church and Pope Benedict XVI, and so on. If you want to argue against atheists, there is the regular forum for that. Do you recognize that everyone here agrees that God created everything, including life, humans, and so on?

Catholic doctrine does not allow for humans to have evolved from a previous species.

Simply False. Catholic Doctrine allows for theistic evolution, including the evolution of humans from a previous species, with the clarification that Catholic Doctrine requires a belief that at some point in that evolution, God divinely created a soul, making the first human, Adam, and that God was behind the evolutionary process from the start.

The freedom of Catholics to believe evolution was specifically stated as early as 1950 in the official Catholic edict Humani Generis, is promoted in many other Catholic sources, has never been disallowed, and more clearly, is explicitly stated by Pope Benedict, more than once!

You're disagreeing with official Catholic edicts, the official Catechism, and saying that the Pope isn't Catholic.

Of course, as I've pointed out elsewhere, you won't get excommunicated for being a young earth creationist, just like you won't get excommunicated for thinking that the moon is made of green cheese or that unicorns exist (or even having an abortion, for that matter). But it does go against the stated position of the Pope.

You did see my last post, right?

Thanks, and have a good day-

-Papias