• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Where Did Humans Come From?

returnn23

Active Member
Oct 31, 2022
301
41
65
Midwest
✟12,358.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Again, you ignore the post and promote your own version of events. I went to Catholic school. I was not taught anything about young earth creationism. Yet you insist on providing only your version of the story here. Why is that? So, I'll try again. The Biology textbook does not mention God. The theory of evolution does not mention God. It does say that living things appeared through blind, unguided chance. And that it is the sufficient explanation. Right?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,699
13,269
78
✟440,401.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Again, you ignore the post and promote your own version of events.

I'm just showing you what they wrote. No point in denying it.

I went to Catholic school. I was not taught anything about young earth creationism.

Yeah, Catholic schools generally teach science in science classes.

Yet you insist on providing only your version of the story here. Why is that?

I don't know how to explain it any simpler. As you've learned, science is completely unable to say anything about the supernatural. Can't support it, can't deny it. You'll have to get that elsewhere.

The Biology textbook does not mention God.

Neither do physics textbooks and plumbing manuals. For reasons you've already been shown.

The theory of evolution does not mention God.

Neither does the theory of gravitation. Why would you expect it to do that?

It does say that living things appeared through blind, unguided chance.

No. First, evolution isn't about how living things came to be on Earth. As God says, life was brought forth by matter He created. Second, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't by chance. It if was just random variation, nothing would work. It's important for you to understand this, if you want to understand anything about it.

And that it is the sufficient explanation. Right?

Nope. Natural selection is the antithesis of chance. But remember, the Church points out that God can even use contingency in divine providence.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Second, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't by chance. It if was just random variation, nothing would work. It's important for you to understand this, if you want to understand anything about it... Natural selection is the antithesis of chance.

Seems like non-sequitur. You seem to be saying, "Everything works, and continues to work, therefore it could not have been by chance." Evolution is either:
....(A) By chance OR
....(B) By some kind of creator or intelligent designer.

Admittedly you could argue that random chance is only needed for abiogenesis, and thus any future evolution is just the product of adaptable DNA. This still leaves the student, who is sitting in a biology class, with the indoctrination that random chance was the only root cause needed.

Please don't compare this issue to plumbers. Plumbers are intelligent designers, which makes it consistent with creationism. That is in no way a threat to the faith of the Christian.

Gravity remains unexplained. Also, gravity isn't in any obvious competition with Genesis precepts.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,699
13,269
78
✟440,401.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Second, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't by chance. It if was just random variation, nothing would work. It's important for you to understand this, if you want to understand anything about it... Natural selection is the antithesis of chance.

Seems like non-sequitur.

Perhaps you don't know what "non-sequitur" means. What do you think it means?

You seem to be saying, "Everything works, and continues to work, therefore it could not have been by chance."

And once again, you thought up a silly idea and want me to take ownership of it.

In fact, as Karl Popper noted, we do have examples of random evolutionary change, and those cases don't result in increased fitness. Only those changes that have a selective value can be acted on by natural selection. That's what the Hardy-Weinberg equation determines.

Admittedly you could argue that random chance is only needed for abiogenesis

It appears that the physical laws of this universe are such that life is likely to appear whenever specific conditions exist. If you want to call that "random chance", i'd have to disagree.

and thus any future evolution is just the product of adaptable DNA.

You still don't get it. Random variation, by itself, can't do much of anything. But random variation plus natural selection, does increase fitness, which is how new traits and taxa evolve.

This still leaves the student, who is sitting in a biology class, with the indoctrination that random chance was the only root cause needed.

And you've just illustrated why it's a bad idea to sleep in biology class. The average 8th grader knows better than that.

Please don't compare this issue to plumbers. Plumbers are intelligent designers

Here you've confused plumbers and plumbing (and scientists and science). Try to focus here; the key is that both science and plumbing are methodlogically naturalistic. Which is why plumbing manuals don't talk about God.

Even if plumbers are often theists.

hich makes it consistent with creationism.

You have that wrong, too. Michael Denton, as you should have noticed, says that the more evidence we have for the universe being designed, the less credible creationism becomes.

That is in no way a threat to the faith of the Christian.

Nor is evolution or plumbing. The only difference is, plumbing doesn't scare you.

Gravity remains unexplained.

That is only partially true, but it's a good point. Evolutionary theory is more solidly confirmed than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't absolutely sure why gravity works. Also, evolutionary theory isn't in conflict with scripture.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Second, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't by chance. It if was just random variation, nothing would work. It's important for you to understand this, if you want to understand anything about it... Natural selection is the antithesis of chance...In fact, as Karl Popper noted, we do have examples of random evolutionary change, and those cases don't result in increased fitness. Only those changes that have a selective value can be acted on by natural selection. That's what the Hardy-Weinberg equation determines...It appears that the physical laws of this universe are such that life is likely to appear whenever specific conditions exist. If you want to call that "random chance", i'd have to disagree.....You still don't get it. Random variation, by itself, can't do much of anything. But random variation plus natural selection, does increase fitness, which is how new traits and taxa evolve.
Thanks for confirming my reading of you. All these statements amount to the same thing. Perhaps you've become so one-sided, so tunnel-visioned in your thinking that you can no longer be objective? All these statements are saying, ""Everything works, and continues to work, therefore it could not have been by chance."

You're trying to say that natural selection and random chance are mutually exclusive concepts. Not entirely. If you don't, by random chance, get selectively ADVANTAGEOUS combinations, natural selection won't even buy you a cup of coffee.

As I said, random chance is somewhat avoided if the DNA is setup for high adaptability. But it's not stressed in most biology classes that abiogenesis of such highly adaptable DNA is unlikely without God.


Here you've confused plumbers and plumbing (and scientists and science). Try to focus here; the key is that both science and plumbing are methodlogically naturalistic. Which is why plumbing manuals don't talk about God.
Looks like deflection. I don't think that meets the thrust of the objection.
 
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,846
4,331
-
✟747,327.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Evolutionary theory doesn't predict polygenism. It's quite possible for a population to be the result of just 2 individuals. You may have noted here that one of the most outspoken advocates of polygenism (Agassiz) strongly opposed Darwin's theory.
Is it your belief and/or the belief of the Catholic Church that all Homo sapiens originated from Adam and Eve and that their descendants shared their genetic material with other hominins?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,699
13,269
78
✟440,401.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Is it your belief and/or the belief of the Catholic Church that all Homo sapiens originated from Adam and Eve and that their descendants shared their genetic material with other hominins?

The Church teaches that we are all descended from two people, the first to be given living souls directly by God. I don't know when that happened, or even if they were H. sapiens. Would it matter if they were H. erectus? We've evolved from archaic humans, and there was a lot more diversity of humans a few hundred thousand years ago. Worrying about exactly where our first parents fit into that, is missing the point that that God is making for us.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,699
13,269
78
✟440,401.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Thanks for confirming my reading of you.

I think you locked in your thinking much earlier.
All these statements are saying, ""Everything works, and continues to work, therefore it could not have been by chance."

And you're persisting in making up silly ideas and claiming I have to believe them. Don't you see that it doesn't even matter if our existence was from necessity or from contingency? But as Darwin pointed out, natural selection means that evolution cannot be merely random. That's how it works. And it's been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

You're trying to say that natural selection and random chance are mutually exclusive concepts.

Mutually exclusive processes. Random variation produces the raw material from which natural selection tends to increase fitness in a population. The former is by chance. Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for showing that favorable mutations do not appear in response to need. The latter is a very non-random process, and it is directed by the existing phenotype and by environment. And yes, organisms often push back and alter the environment, making it a feedback loop in many cases. Because genetics and biology are largely mysterious things to you, you're having a lot of trouble getting your head around the facts.

If you don't, by random chance, get selectively ADVANTAGEOUS combinations, natural selection won't even buy you a cup of coffee.

You've learned something. Well done. This is why biologists know that natural selection tends to improve fitness. It doesn't always. Hence extinction of almost all populations, over millions of years. A few survive.

This is also the reason we see analogous organisms, like the South American litopterns that look almost identical to the North American horses, but are only distantly related. Natural selection works the same way in each case for the same environment, but the mutations available were different.

Whales and sharks are very analogous, because they evolved in a very challenging environment, and evolved many of the same solutions. But in very different ways, even if they superficially seem very similar. Their brains, swimming motions, digestive systems, and many other things are not homologous, but show the evolutionary track of chordates, vertebrates and tetrapods. Would you like to learn about some of that? It would help you to distinguish between homology and analogy.

As I said, random chance is somewhat avoided if the DNA is setup for high adaptability.

Random variation is a constant. Humans have about 100 mutations not present in either of their parents. DNA has no "setup for high adaptability." It merely incurs errors from time to time. Evidence strongly suggests that the error rate in different organisms is "tuned" to an optimum for stability and change. Which, I'm sure you would realize, if you thought about it, would be a factor open to selection.

But it's not stressed in most biology classes that abiogenesis of such highly adaptable DNA is unlikely without God.

Goes back to the limitations of science. You keep hoping science will shore up faith for you. And it really can't.

Romans 1:20: For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Science won't take you there. But faith and a heart open to God will. Give Him a chance, willya?


(Barbarian notes that science and plumbing won't help you find God, but...)

Looks like deflection.

Here you've confused plumbers and plumbing (and scientists and science). Try to focus here; the key is that both science and plumbing are methodologically naturalistic. Which is why plumbing manuals don't talk about God.

Even if plumbers are often theists.

Your deflection was to conflate plumbing with plumbers. You see, even if plumbers are "designers", plumbing is not a designer. Even if scientists are designers, nature is not.

Part of the problem is you're still confusing evolution and abiogenesis. That's constantly tripping you up. A tighter focus on the issue would solve some of your other confusions.



 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

returnn23

Active Member
Oct 31, 2022
301
41
65
Midwest
✟12,358.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Based on comments here, I reject Biology textbook, so-called evolution. I accept Intelligent Design as the correct answer. And God is the designer. I reject the following statement as not being true.

"Even if scientists are designers, nature is not."
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,699
13,269
78
✟440,401.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Based on comments here, I reject Biology textbook, so-called evolution.

Doesn't matter. It goes on everyday, without our permission. Remember what evolution is? "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Macroevolutionary changes (speciation) is also observed. I think what bothers you is not evolution but a consequence of evolution, common descent.

I accept Intelligent Design as the correct answer.

Einstein agreed with you. He was a Spinozan deist, like IDer Michael Denton.

And God is the designer.

You're selling God short. He has no need to figure things out. The Church points out that He is immutable. Which means He cannot design except in the colloquial sense of "intent."

I reject the following statement as not being true.

"Even if scientists are designers, nature is not."

Suggesting that nature "designs" is a doctrine of panentheism:

Panentheism holds that God is the "supreme effect" of the universe. God is everything in the universe, but God also is greater than the universe. Events and changes in the universe affect and change God. As the universe grows and learns, God also increases in knowledge and being.
What is panentheism? | GotQuestions.org

This is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Nature is merely a created tool of God; it has no consciousness or intent any more than a hammer has consciousness or intent.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,699
13,269
78
✟440,401.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Suggesting that nature "designs" is a doctrine of panentheism:

Panentheism holds that God is the "supreme effect" of the universe. God is everything in the universe, but God also is greater than the universe. Events and changes in the universe affect and change God. As the universe grows and learns, God also increases in knowledge and being.
What is panentheism? | GotQuestions.org

This is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Nature is merely a created tool of God; it has no consciousness or intent any more than a hammer has consciousness or intent.


No, it's quite true. Biochemical systems "design" nothing at all. they are, as your link says, machines that work by natural laws, with no thought required at all.

Design requires ratiocination, something cellular machinery cannot do.
 
Upvote 0

returnn23

Active Member
Oct 31, 2022
301
41
65
Midwest
✟12,358.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Another false statement. The overwhelming evidence for design exists.
In an Op-Ed titled Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, which was published in the New York Times, he makes a number of statements regarding this. An excerpt:

• 'The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”


• “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”


• 'Quoting our late Holy Father John Paul II: “The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,699
13,269
78
✟440,401.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
No, it's quite true. Biochemical systems "design" nothing at all. they are, as your link says, machines that work by natural laws, with no thought required at all.

Design requires ratiocination, something cellular machinery cannot do.

Another false statement.

It's quite true. The panentheism you are advocating has no evidence whatever for it. The operation of these biochemical systems works by natural laws, with no sign of consciousness whatever.

The overwhelming evidence for design exists.

I get that you want it to be so, but in the absence of any such evidence...

'The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

The Church rightly sees purpose and intent in creation. Cardinal Schoenborn often pushes on the boundaries of doctrine, for reasons that seem to be based in a love of God and a desire to be a good shepherd of the faithful. However, it does lead to some issues...

Austria's Cardinal Schönborn: God will not deny same-sex couples a blessing
"The question of whether same-sex couples can be blessed belongs to the same category as the question of whether this is possible for remarried persons or unions contracted without a marriage license," the cardinal told 'Der Sonntag,' a weekly magazine of the Vienna Archdiocese.

"If the request for a blessing is not a show, so not just a kind of a superficial rite, if the request for the blessing is honest, if it is truly the request for God's blessing for the life path that these two people, in whatever condition they find themselves in, are trying to make, then this blessing will not be denied them," said Schönborn, according to an Italian translation by the Swiss Catholic portal catt.ch.

The March 15 decree from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was approved by Francis, banned priests from blessing same-sex unions on the grounds that God "does not and cannot bless sin."
Austria's Cardinal Schönborn: God will not deny same-sex couples a blessing
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,699
13,269
78
✟440,401.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
A cheap diversion.

The good cardinal is a bit of a maverick. Which is germane as to why he seems resistant to the Vatican's teaching that common descent is "virtually certain."

Edit: I should point out that I don't necessarily think that Cardinal Schonborn is wrong in his stance on this; it seems to be in the same spirit as Pope Francis' statement that use of condoms to prevent disease is not a sin in itself, even if homosexual relations are sinful.

If it was wrong to bless sinners, none of us could be blessed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,846
4,331
-
✟747,327.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Suggesting that nature "designs" is a doctrine of panentheism:

Panentheism holds that God is the "supreme effect" of the universe. God is everything in the universe, but God also is greater than the universe. Events and changes in the universe affect and change God. As the universe grows and learns, God also increases in knowledge and being.
What is panentheism? | GotQuestions.org

This is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Nature is merely a created tool of God; it has no consciousness or intent any more than a hammer has consciousness or intent.
Panentheism is not contrary to the teaching of the Church:

Panentheism - OrthodoxWiki

Panentheism - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,699
13,269
78
✟440,401.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Panentheism is not contrary to the teaching of the Church:

I didn't think so, until I found that description of panentheism:
"As the universe grows and learns, God also increases in knowledge and being."

Christians hold that God is perfect and eternal. He does not change. Or at least that's what I've gotten from my teachers in the Church.
 
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,846
4,331
-
✟747,327.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I didn't think so, until I found that description of panentheism:
"As the universe grows and learns, God also increases in knowledge and being."
I think this is called Theistic Finitism. It is not necessarily a feature of Panentheism, otherwise EO, OO, and many RC would not have accepted Panentheism as the articles quoted above show:

"In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, creation is not "part of" God, and the Godhead is still distinct from creation; however, God is "within" all creation, thus the parsing of the word in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity is "pan-entheism" (God indwells in all things) and not "panen-theism" (All things are part of God but God is more than the sum of all things).

"The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have a doctrine called panentheism to describe the relationship between the Uncreated (God, who is omnipotent, eternal, and constant) and His creation that bears surface similarities with the panentheism described above but maintains a critical distinction.

"Most specifically, these Churches teach that God is not the "watchmaker God" or mechanical God of philosophy found in Western European Enlightenment. Likewise, they teach that God is not the "stage magician God" who only shows up when performing miracles. Instead, the teaching of both these Churches is that God is not merely necessary to have created the universe, but that His active presence is necessary in some way for every bit of creation, from smallest to greatest, to continue to exist at all."

Christians hold that God is perfect and eternal. He does not change. Or at least that's what I've gotten from my teachers in the Church.
Yes, this is true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0