"There seems to be in both extremes [of creationism and unguided evolution] an 'either/or' mentality: either everything as we know it was created as it is now by God in the beginning, or there was no creation or God of creation at all."
….
"One can very comfortably believe that God is the Creator, and also hold the theory that creation had within it the seeds of an evolutionary development that would take place over eons."
Creationism is a belief founded in faith and has no place in a secular scientific classroom. The logical consequences of creationism's claims (such as earth being only thousands of years old), however, can be tested like any other scientific hypotheses and be proven or disproven (I suspect the latter). On the other hand, evolutionary theory goes too far when stating that the underlying processes are entirely random. At best one can state that they appear to be random. A great number of phenomena appear to be random, but are actually quite deterministic in nature. Actually, to honest, there is a great deal of ambiguity in the term "random". A process can be random and still be highly predictable. Scientists take advantage of this whenever they state that a process has such-and-such distribution. IOW, one can predict, with varying degrees of precision, future values of variables. Also, some processes may appear random but only really be pseudorandom, such as "random" numbers generated by computers.
What am I getting at? I'm saying that both sides, at least as presented by the media, are wrong. Creationism doesn't belong in schools and evolutionary theory cannot prove that perceived randomness is truly random rather than only pseudorandom. Thus, introducing "intelligent design" into science classrooms is unnecessary. Teachers need only make room for guided evolution by not assuming more or less causality than the data indicate. If fundamentalists want to go farther than guided evolution, they should either not send their kids to public school. Either that or be willing to have their kids taught a broad variety of mythological creation stories from religions representative of America's cultural and religious diversity.
Funky Dung
Comments 9
Here here!
I'm tired of the argument that it's either creationism or Darwin's evolution, esp when it's a reason for disbelief.
They're not mutually exclusive.
Further, either could be true/false to an extent.
In evolution, we can test for general trends, but this assumes that the same conditions were present long ago. If something(s) happen(s) all of a sudden, the assumptions break apart.
In creationism, what if something didn't happen all of a sudden? Evolution didn't pop up suddenly today nor is it going to cease tomorrow.
—
+0
Posted 24 Oct 2005 at 2:32 am ¶gbm3, you hit on the main reason that I don't much like the idea of biology hanging its hat entirely on evolution. "In evolution, we can test for general trends, but this assumes that the same conditions were present long ago. If something(s) happen(s) all of a sudden, the assumptions break apart." That the past was like the present is believed inductively, rather than through deduction, which is the proper method of science. I'm taking a class this semester on the philosophy of science, and the very first thing I noticed when we studied Hume and Popper was that their arguments, which attack induction, serve to undercut rather devastatingly the scienticity of evolutionary theory, which is unfortunate.
I agree with Bishop Wuerl's sentiment that one can, indeed, believe in God as Creator as well as evolution, though there does seem to be one thorn. It seems to me that Darwin's evolution implies polygenism, which causes problems when one talks about the Fall. How could many humans fall simultaneously? Would one person's fall count for everybody? isn't that unfair?
+0
Posted 24 Oct 2005 at 9:56 pm ¶"Random" is just the worod we use to describe how matter and energy behave in space and time. Randomness drives thermodynamics, and thermodynamics (eventually) drives evolution. Randomness doesn't invalidate determiism; it usually just means there are so many deterministic factors operating that the system can respond to virtually indetectable inputs.
I would expect that any universe that allows for free will would have to have a great deal of randomness built into it. And once you have that randomness, i.e. transmissable mutations, coupled with competition for resources, evolution is inevitable.
The Lord, of course, existing external to both space and time, should be able to see the whole thing as a unit. No _real_ randomness there! If the universe doesn't look quite right from beginning to end, then just tweak it until it's good.
We _really do_ have free will, but our free will can't overcome His purpose, since the purpose is built into the system. That's my non-theologian $0.02, anyway.
+0
Posted 25 Oct 2005 at 7:53 pm ¶"I agree with Bishop Wuerl's sentiment that one can, indeed, believe in God as Creator as well as evolution, though there does seem to be one thorn. It seems to me that Darwin's evolution implies polygenism, which causes problems when one talks about the Fall. How could many humans fall simultaneously? Would one person's fall count for everybody? isn't that unfair?"
Unfortunately, the fall cannot be proven. Written/oral history goes only so far.
It's been said that there had to be the fall in history for Jesus to redeem the world. However, Jesus only mentioned the beginning (of humans?) once (as I recall).
He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'
and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate. (Mt 19:4-6)
He doesn't say anything about Adam (or Eve). Only Paul mentions it (a few places?):
For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being.
For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life,
but each one in proper order: Christ the firstfruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ;
then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has destroyed every sovereignty and every authority and power.
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
The last enemy to be destroyed is death,
for "he subjected everything under his feet." But when it says that everything has been subjected, it is clear that it excludes the one who subjected everything to him.
When everything is subjected to him, then the Son himself will (also) be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corr 15: 21-28 )
Does this mean that Genesis should be taken literally? Did one man, Adam, cause our fall? Wasn't it Eve anyway that ate first?
The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. (Gen 3: 6)
Did they eat as community? Maybe humanity fell as community represented by Adam as the head?
In any event, I think more than anything, Genesis should be taken as allegory with a sprinkling of history (in terms of the fall): humanity fell from communion with God through sin.
—
+0
Posted 28 Oct 2005 at 6:18 pm ¶I have no problem with polygenism. Does the Church?
+0
Posted 28 Oct 2005 at 6:48 pm ¶"Adam and Eve: Real People
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 23) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).
The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390). "
http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
What does this mean? I read it a couple of times but still don't know the answer to your question.
—
+0
Posted 28 Oct 2005 at 7:23 pm ¶My next question would be whether than papal statement was infallible. If you regard it as a matter of faith, perhaps it is. If you take it as a matter of science, it's not. Popes cannot infallibly teach science.
+0
Posted 29 Oct 2005 at 1:07 am ¶I think I get it: polygenism is not possible within the Catholic teaching. Right?
"Popes cannot infallibly teach science."
Yes.
But what of an event that science cannot explain or definitely predict?
Ex*: transfiguration event, raising of Lazarus, Jesus raising from the dead…
Take it as a matter of faith? Science can't prove it.
I believe the Ex* took place. As far as the old testament story? Don't know.
—
+0
Posted 29 Oct 2005 at 1:40 am ¶No, Popes cannot teach science with infallibility. But Humani Generis does not pretend to do that. It merely states that polygenism is incompatible with the Fall. Anyway, it's not as though science is about to answer definitively the question of human origin any time soon.
+0
Posted 09 Nov 2005 at 6:53 am ¶Post a Comment