Evidence for Evolution

[Falco Knotwise]

Augustine argued long ago that since the first and second day occurred before the sun and moon were created that it was probably symbolic. He interpreted the first light (I think) as intelligence, if I remember correctly.

There were others upon whose works Augustine was drawing. If I can find something on it, I’ll post it. I think there was something from Villanova University.

I can see Augustine speculating on that. I personally have no trouble believing it as wrote. Elsewhere we get told that

Rev 21:23  And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof

So perhaps God created the light.
If you assume that it was symbolism, then I think Ken’s position ends up a logical assumption.

Like I said, I’m okay with theistic evolution.

Regarding the command of God, Be light made, Augustine reasons: "But if the light which first was ordered to be made and was made is also to be understood as holding the pre-eminent place in creation, this is intellectual life, which, unless it should be turned to the Creator in order to be enlightened, would fluctuate formlessly." 31

That’s not a denial that God did create it. I was only using it to show that Augustine didn’t interpret that literally as a 24 hour day. It was the day that was symbolic.

Here is that link to that paper on Augustine by Villanova U. There’s plenty other examples of how he didn’t insist the days need be interpreted literally.

https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/ar ... 0heaven%20

[Soloist]

Augustine argued long ago that since the first and second day occurred before the sun and moon were created that it was probably symbolic. He interpreted the first light (I think) as intelligence, if I remember correctly.

There were others upon whose works Augustine was drawing. If I can find something on it, I’ll post it. I think there was something from Villanova University.

I can see Augustine speculating on that. I personally have no trouble believing it as wrote. Elsewhere we get told that

Rev 21:23  And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof

So perhaps God created the light.
If you assume that it was symbolism, then I think Ken’s position ends up a logical assumption.

Like I said, I’m okay with theistic evolution.

Regarding the command of God, Be light made, Augustine reasons: "But if the light which first was ordered to be made and was made is also to be understood as holding the pre-eminent place in creation, this is intellectual life, which, unless it should be turned to the Creator in order to be enlightened, would fluctuate formlessly." 31

That’s not a denial that God did create it. I was only using it to show that Augustine didn’t interpret that literally as a 24 hour day. It was the day that was symbolic.

Here is that link to that paper on Augustine by Villanova U. There’s plenty other examples of how he didn’t insist the days need be interpreted literally.

https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/ar ... 0heaven%20

Yeah I wasn’t really quibbling. I tend to think of church fathers in the perspective of the “early church fathers” which I personally would not include Augustine although I appreciate some of what he wrote. I see him as misunderstood by some particularly in the just war theory. Its been a while since I read it though.

[Ken]

The Catholic Church today supports “theistic evolution” and rejects a literal interpretation of Genesis - creationism. (The fact is, most of the Church Fathers did as well.)

Can you support the church father’s claims?
Perhaps as a follow on question, who are you calling church fathers?

The Pope? Does he qualify as a church father? His actual title means "holy father"

From Scientific American: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180953166/

The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang: The Roman Catholic Church is pro-evolution and Big Bang, but with a twist

Yesterday, Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, said that Darwinian evolution is real, and so is the Big Bang, according to the Telegraph. Elsewhere in his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope said:

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.

The Pope's stance on evolution and cosmology still leaves room for a divine creator, says the Telegraph, but places his or her role in the time before the birth of the universe as we know it.

The view, obviously, doesn't fully align with current scientific thought, says Cnet. Yet Giulio Giorello, a philosopher of science, said that he thinks the move is meant to “'reduce the emotion of dispute or presumed disputes' with science,” writes the Telegraph.

As io9 pointed out when Francis was first anointed, the new Pope's quasi-heretical claim isn't anywhere near the first of its kind. The church first brought evolution into the fold in 1950 with the work of Pope Pius XII, writes io9. “At the same time, Catholics take no issue with the Big Bang theory, along with cosmological, geological, and biological axioms touted by science.”

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized Darwinian evolution for the past 60 years. It openly rejects Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism saying that it "pretends to be science." But the Church’s unique take on the theory, what it calls theistic evolution, still shows that Catholics have largely missed the point.

The idea that the idea of a creator and the tenets of Darwinian evolution overlap, writes Dvorsky, is a "'want my cake and eat it too' proposition that largely ignores the potency of Darwin’s dangerous idea as a God killer.”

Darwin’s theory provides for a stand alone system. Evolution is fully autonomous process that does not require any guiding “rationality” (Benedict’s term) to function. It’s an agonizingly slow, brutish, and insanely methodical process, but it works."

Pope Francis' statements yesterday bring the church's stance back in line with its historical position on scientific thought, and away from the creationist- and intelligent design-leaning views of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI.

[Ken]

Augustine argued long ago that since the first and second day occurred before the sun and moon were created that it was probably symbolic. He interpreted the first light (I think) as intelligence, if I remember correctly.

There were others upon whose works Augustine was drawing. If I can find something on it, I’ll post it. I think there was something from Villanova University.

I can see Augustine speculating on that. I personally have no trouble believing it as wrote. Elsewhere we get told that

Rev 21:23  And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof

So perhaps God created the light.
If you assume that it was symbolism, then I think Ken’s position ends up a logical assumption.

I'm not sure which position you are referring to.

I do think there are mysteries in the universe that no amount of science will ever answer. They are articles of faith. So while science can explain the natural world that we all inhabit. Science cannot answer questions of faith and metaphysics. Which is where I think scientists like Behe go wrong. He is actually trying to find evidence of God's manipulation or "magic" within the natural world with his notion of "irreducible complexity," which I think is wrongheaded and fruitless.

What Behe is doing is no different from someone trying to discover the "trick" that Jesus used to walk on water or turn water into wine. No amount of science will ever uncover the trick or mechanism that Jesus used to perform those miracles because they are not of this world. And to spend your life searching for the mechanical or chemical mechanism that Jesus used to walk on water or convert water into wine is a fruitless enterprise. It is an article of faith that such miracles happened and no scientist will ever pull aside the curtain and explain the trick behind the miracle in scientific terms. You can believe they are true, or believe that they are myth. It doesn't really affect the fundamental teachings of Christianity one way or the other. You can take those miracles out of the Bible and it still holds together perfectly.

It is the same with creation. I think the entire field of creation science from the young earth creationists like Ken Miller (who have no scientific basis whatsoever), to the more sophisticated intelligent design advocates like Behe is rather pointless. Because I don't think you will ever be able to use science to detect God or irrefutable signs of his handiwork. The best we can do is use science to understand the natural world that we inhabit and then use faith to understand that God plays some larger part.

[Falco Knotwise]

The Catholic Church today supports “theistic evolution” and rejects a literal interpretation of Genesis - creationism. (The fact is, most of the Church Fathers did as well.)

Can you support the church father’s claims?
Perhaps as a follow on question, who are you calling church fathers?

The Pope? Does he qualify as a church father? His actual title means "holy father"

Church Fathers refers to the early Church Fathers. It’s got nothin’ to do with the pope.

If you need a primer on who the Church Fathers are, this Wikipedia article spells it out —

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers

[Ken]

Can you support the church father’s claims?
Perhaps as a follow on question, who are you calling church fathers?

The Pope? Does he qualify as a church father? His actual title means "holy father"

Church Fathers refers to the early Church Fathers. It’s got nothin’ to do with the pope.

If you need a primer on who the Church Fathers are, this Wikipedia article spells it out —

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers

Well, I doubt the early church fathers commented on evolution since as a scientific theory it is less than 200 years old. There were some early church fathers do did, however, question and discuss the literal interpretations of Genesis and not just creation but other stories such as Noah's ark. And they had many debates over such topics.

[Falco Knotwise]

The Pope? Does he qualify as a church father? His actual title means "holy father"

Church Fathers refers to the early Church Fathers. It’s got nothin’ to do with the pope.

If you need a primer on who the Church Fathers are, this Wikipedia article spells it out —

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers

Well, I doubt the early church fathers commented on evolution since as a scientific theory it is less than 200 years old.

And I never said they did. I simply pointed out that a literal interpretation of creation happening in 7 - 24 hr days was not even insisted upon by the early church fathers, way before Darwin’s theories. Some of them would probably be surprised to see how that literalist interpretation is insisted upon in some circles today.

Also, you didn’t answer my question about Henri Bergson. Have you heard of him? I like some of his criticisms of the model of “mechanics” being applied to the biological sciences. He was a Catholic philosopher, by the way.

[Ken]

Well, I doubt the early church fathers commented on evolution since as a scientific theory it is less than 200 years old.

And I never said they did. I simply pointed out that a literal interpretation of creation happening in 7 - 24 hr days was not even insisted upon by the early church fathers, way before Darwin’s theories. Some of them would probably be surprised to see how that literalist interpretation is insisted upon in some circles today.

Also, you didn’t answer my question about Henri Bergson. Have you heard of him? I like some of his criticisms of the “mechanical model” applied to biological sciences.

No, I'm not really familiar with Henri Bergson. Like I wrote above, I think it is wrongheaded and fruitless to try and use science to explain God or any other articles of faith such as miracles. Which frankly describes the entire endeavor of creation science or creationism.

I also don't dive into things like the mechanical model of the universe or any such thing. Which is not at all the focus of modern evolutionary biology And really falls into the category of philosophy rather than science. It is philosophy because it is a question that can't actually be answered by science. At least not science within our grasp.

The kinds of questions that I'm interested in are really more at the intersection of evolutionary science and ecology. Like will polar bears be able to adapt to a rapidly changing arctic? Or are they doomed to extinction because they cannot adapt fast enough to the loss of arctic sea ice and a changing habitat? And if they do survive, what will some future polar bears look like that are adapted to an ice-free arctic tundra environment? That is a question that requires a lot of interdisciplinary science to answer of which evolution and natural selection is only one part.

[Falco Knotwise]

Well, I doubt the early church fathers commented on evolution since as a scientific theory it is less than 200 years old.

And I never said they did. I simply pointed out that a literal interpretation of creation happening in 7 - 24 hr days was not even insisted upon by the early church fathers, way before Darwin’s theories. Some of them would probably be surprised to see how that literalist interpretation is insisted upon in some circles today.

Also, you didn’t answer my question about Henri Bergson. Have you heard of him? I like some of his criticisms of the “mechanical model” applied to biological sciences.

No, I'm not really familiar with Henri Bergson. Like I wrote above, I think it is wrongheaded and fruitless to try and use science to explain God or any other articles of faith such as miracles. Which frankly describes the entire endeavor of creation science or creationism.

That isn’t what Henri Bergson does at all. He was not a “creation scientist.”

“Creative” in this context means something like “non-determined.”

I also don't dive into things like the mechanical model of the universe or any such thing. Which is not at all the focus of modern evolutionary biology And really falls into the category of philosophy rather than science. It is philosophy because it is a question that can't actually be answered by science. At least not science within our grasp.

Everywhere natural selection is called the “mechanics” of evolution. Bergson was just saying that mechanics was perhaps the wrong model to use for biology. His point is there is more to the story of evolution than can be told with only a “mechanical” model. He doesn’t say it is wrong necessarily, only that perhaps it needs to be supplemented.

[Ken]

I also don't dive into things like the mechanical model of the universe or any such thing. Which is not at all the focus of modern evolutionary biology And really falls into the category of philosophy rather than science. It is philosophy because it is a question that can't actually be answered by science. At least not science within our grasp.

Everywhere natural selection is called the “mechanics” of evolution. Bergson was just saying that mechanics was perhaps the wrong model to use for biology. His point is there is more to the story of evolution than can be told with only a “mechanical” model. He doesn’t say it is wrong necessarily, only that perhaps it needs to be supplemented.

If you say so.

I've never actually heard natural selection referred to the mechanics of evolution.

Textbooks might list natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow as the primary mechanisms of evolution. Just like cell biologists might refer to active transport, diffusion, and osmosis as the primary mechanisms that cells use to maintain homeostasis.

But listing different factors as mechanisms of evolution seems different to me from saying that evolution follows a "mechanical model" whatever that means.