Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right

[speeds]

Ok, back on track. (I am removing my personal feelings about the topic from this thread henceforth.)

Question to anyone who can answer: as a Catholic, is it possible to reconcile the BBT and evolution with Genesis?

 

[barfo]

Perhaps you seek out fault, I tend to look intent.

Is that "Blue Steel" or "Magnum"?

barfo

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Ok, back on track. (I am removing my personal feelings about the topic from this thread henceforth.)

Question to anyone who can answer: as a Catholic, is it possible to reconcile the BBT and evolution with Genesis?

The concept of theistic evolution is well-established. I don't see how they are incompatible at all.

The conflict that most creationists have comes from either a literal interpretation of the word "day" in Genesis 1 (which in my mind is silly, since Genesis has God creating the sun, moon, and stars on day 4; how were the first three days marked with no sun?), or with the phrase "after their own kind", which some suggest means that one species cannot come from another.

I, of course, contend that with God, all things are possible, even macroevolution.

 

[blazerboy30]

What was my context?

It seemed as though you were implying that his recommendation to not be curious had something to do with being open minded about issues like evolution and science.

 

[blazerboy30]

The concept of theistic evolution is well-established. I don't see how they are incompatible at all.

The conflict that most creationists have comes from either a literal interpretation of the word "day" in Genesis 1 (which in my mind is silly, since Genesis has God creating the sun, moon, and stars on day 4; how were the first three days marked with no sun?), or with the phrase "after their own kind", which some suggest means that one species cannot come from another.

I, of course, contend that with God, all things are possible, even macroevolution.

Rep'd.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

The concept of theistic evolution is well-established. I don't see how they are incompatible at all.

The conflict that most creationists have comes from either a literal interpretation of the word "day" in Genesis 1 (which in my mind is silly, since Genesis has God creating the sun, moon, and stars on day 4; how were the first three days marked with no sun?), or with the phrase "after their own kind", which some suggest means that one species cannot come from another.

I, of course, contend that with God, all things are possible, even macroevolution.

You can surely have "light" without the sun. God himself is light. Also, God created light in day 1.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You can surely have "light" without the sun. God himself is light. Also, God created light in day 1.

The issue is not light. The issue is "morning and evening". How can there have been a literal morning and evening with no sun?

 

[crowTrobot]

The concept of theistic evolution is well-established. I don't see how they are incompatible at all.

Theism and evolution are logically compatible, but the implications of evolution certainly undermine the tenets on which Catholicism and other traditional theistic religions are based.

 

[Further]

Theism and evolution are logically compatible, but the implications of evolution certainly undermine the tenets on which Catholicism and other traditional theistic religions are based.

That depends on what type of theism. God of the gaps can work well with evolution: God set forth the laws of nature in the early or pre-big bang which is his way of guiding us all.



By the way, I think this pope is the bees knees.

 

[crowTrobot]

That depends on what type of theism. God of the gaps can work well with evolution: God set forth the laws of nature in the early or pre-big bang which is his way of guiding us all.

There are gaps in our understanding of the evolutionary mechanism itself that God could still be hiding in. It's possible God could have been or still is intervening in/directing evolution. There is no evidence whatsoever for that, and given what we otherwise know about the mechanistic operation of nature it's an impractical hypothesis, but it's at least not a logical impossibility.

 

[Further]

It's a very common belief system by those in the sciences who still claim belief in God. I heard it often as "God got the ball rolling". And although I personally don't see any reason to have that belief in the first place (no evidence) at least it does not contradict any known laws of nature. And considering it is logical that something exists outside our time, something that likely did "get the ball rolling" and science has no means of measuring that point, God can hold that nameplate until science can attempt to correctly explain it.

 

[magnifier661]

It's a very common belief system by those in the sciences who still claim belief in God. I heard it often as "God got the ball rolling". And although I personally don't see any reason to have that belief in the first place (no evidence) at least it does not contradict any known laws of nature. And considering it is logical that something exists outside our time, something that likely did "get the ball rolling" and science has no means of measuring that point, God can hold that nameplate until science can attempt to correctly explain it.

I believe in this way of thinking. I believe if God has truly given us free will, then he would need to start the process and do slight "fine tuning" for life to become what it is today.

 

[crowTrobot]

I believe in this way of thinking. I believe if God has truly given us free will, then he would need to start the process and do slight "fine tuning" for life to become what it is today.

I don't think free will is relevant. Most Christians who subscribe to theistic evolution believe that God imparted "souls" to homo sapiens when he thought the species was fully cooked by evolution, creating what is modern sentient humans. Prior to that true sentience and ability to make free will choices would not have existed, and God would have been free to meddle all he wanted in the course of evolution.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't think free will is relevant. Most Christians who subscribe to theistic evolution believe that God imparted "souls" to homo sapiens when he thought the species was fully cooked by evolution, creating what is modern sentient humans. Prior to that true sentience and ability to make free will choices would not have existed, and God would have been free to meddle all he wanted in the course of evolution.

I don't think that way and I'm christian. How do you know what all theists that believe in evolution think? Got any references?

 

[crowTrobot]

I don't think that way and I'm christian.

You don't think what way? You think non-sentient species have souls and God is concerned about not interfering in their free will?

 

[magnifier661]

You don't think what way? You think non-sentient species have souls and God is concerned about not interfering in their free will?

I think only the human species have souls. So I ask again.

What references do you have that supports your claim? Are you just guessing?

 

[crowTrobot]

I think only the human species have souls. So I ask again.

What references do you have that supports your claim?

What claim is that? All I said was the prevailing thinking among Christians who believe in evolution is souls were not the result of the physical evolutionary process and were in some sense given to homo sapiens by God at some relatively recent point, which is the only explanation I've ever heard from Christians in a lifetime of talking about this. If you disagree with that scenario I'd love to here your alternate theory.

If you're disputing the level at which evolutionary Christians think God intervened in or directed evolution I didn't make any claims about that. Obviously there would be widely varying views about that. What I was saying there was free will would have been irrelevant prior to the existence of modern humans, and it logically wouldn't necessarily have constrained the level at which God could or couldn't have intervened in evolution prior to the existence of modern humans, which includes (almost) the entire course of evolution. Simple point.

 

[magnifier661]

What claim is that? All I said was the prevailing thinking among Christians who believe in evolution is souls were not the result of the physical evolutionary process and were in some sense given to homo sapiens by God at some relatively recent point, which is the only explanation I've ever heard from Christians in a lifetime of talking about this. If you disagree with that scenario I'd love to here your alternate theory.

If you're disputing the level at which evolutionary Christians think God intervened in or directed evolution I didn't make any claims about that. Obviously there would be widely varying views about that. What I was saying there was free will would have been irrelevant prior to the existence of modern humans, and it logically wouldn't necessarily have constrained the level at which God could or couldn't have intervened in evolution prior to the existence of modern humans, which includes (almost) the entire course of evolution. Simple point.

I'm not disputing anything other than your generalization. I don't know what the vast majority of creation evolutionists think because I haven't read anything on what they truly believe.

What I can tell you is that I don't believe in what you described and I am a creation evolutionist. So I'm wondering how you got this idea. Was it just a guess or have you read this somewhere? So far, all you've done is make a claim that isn't referenced.

As I said before. I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your claim is read as it's something "matter of fact". If that's the case, then by all means, provide links and references that support that claim.

 

[crowTrobot]

I'm not disputing anything other than your generalization. I don't know what the vast majority of creation evolutionists think because I haven't read anything on what they truly believe.

What I can tell you is that I don't believe in what you described and I am a creation evolutionist. So I'm wondering how you got this idea. Was it just a guess or have you read this somewhere? So far, all you've done is make a claim that isn't referenced.

As I said before. I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your claim is read as it's something "matter of fact". If that's the case, then by all means, provide links and references that support that claim.

Doesn't seem like you're reading what I write. What exactly is it you think I'm claiming that you don't agree with?

 

[magnifier661]

Doesn't seem like you're reading what I write. What exactly is it you think I'm claiming that you don't agree with?

That the general census of most creation evolutionists think that man didn't receive a soul until it was fully evolved.

 

[crowTrobot]

That the general census of most creation evolutionists think that man didn't receive a soul until it was fully evolved.

What do you mean by "it"? You said animals don't have souls. Obviously the evolutionary lineage leading to modern humans consists of animals for the vast majority of its duration.

Also I said specifically Christians I've talked to who believe in old earth/evolution tend to treat the soul as a relatively recent phenomenon. There are certainly people of other religious belief inc. Jewish and some Eastern religions who seem to think animals have some sort of different soul (or proto-souls developing into full souls in man whatever that means), but I've never heard any other explanation. Typically it's just "animals don't have souls, but The Lord works in mysterious ways and how homo sapiens came to have a soul is one of them".

As noted if you think something different I'd love to hear what.

 

[magnifier661]

What do you mean by "it"? You don't think animals don't have souls. Obviously the evolutionary lineage leading to modern humans includes animals.

Also I said specifically Christians I've talked to who believe in old earth/evolution tend to treat the soul as a relatively recent phenomenon. There are certainly people of other religious belief inc. Jewish and some Eastern religions who seem to think animals have some sort of different soul (or proto-souls developing into full souls in man whatever that means), but I've never heard any other explanation. Typically it's just "animals don't have souls, but The Lord works in mysterious ways and how homo sapiens came to have a soul is one of them".

As noted if you think something different I'd love to hear what.

Human = it

 

[magnifier661]

What I believe is that the soul has always been in humanity. I think the soul "Part of God" was in the evolutionary process to develop man into what we see today.

I think God created the universe with us in mind.

Yada yada yada

No other being has a soul other than man

 

[crowTrobot]

What I believe is that the soul has always been in humanity.

obviously humanity hasn't been a part of evolution until relatively recently

I think the soul "Part of God" was in the evolutionary process to develop man into what we see today.

This seems nonsensical. Are you saying you think a soul is something that god created through evolution in animals?

A bacterium has a .000001% developed "soul" and homo erectus 99% or something like that? What's the difference between a 99% evolved soul and 100%?

No other being has a soul other than man

Really confusing.

 

[magnifier661]

obviously humanity hasn't been a part of evolution until relatively recently

Actually humanity can be part of the evolutionary process if the being that created man through evolution has the "end goal" in mind. Think of a computer programmer making a computer. They know the instructions to get the computer to the end result. The concept of the computer has already been made.

This seems nonsensical. Are you saying you think a soul is something that god created through evolution of animals?

A bacterium has a .000001% developed "soul" and homo erectus 99% or something like that?

Well of course you think that! You only think of things needing a measurable account to be real. I don't think a "soul" is measured because its outside the natural laws of nature. 100% of God could be 100% in a proton of an atom for all we know at the big bang. It doesn't need to fit anywhere but where God intends to put it.

Really confusing.

For someone that is a naturalist it should be confusing. You have no idea what a soul is

 

[crowTrobot]

Actually humanity can be part of the evolutionary process if the being that created man through evolution has the "end goal" in mind. Think of a computer programmer making a computer. They know the instructions to get the computer to the end result. The concept of the computer has already been made.

the end result does not exist during the process, though. it by definition emerges at the end.

Well of course you think that! You only think of things needing a measurable account to be real. I don't think a "soul" is measured because its outside the natural laws of nature. 100% of God could be 100% in a proton of an atom for all we know at the big bang. It doesn't need to fit anywhere but where God intends to put it.

Has nothing to do with measurability.

Also when you use phrases like "need to fit" or "God intends to put it" you are pretty much headed down the same path as other Christians I talk to about this and not really disagreeing with my initial statement.

You have no idea what a soul is

Neither of us do. One of my contentions with any type of metaphysical claim is nobody ever really has a grasp of what they mean when they propose it. It's like the hypothesis "magic exists".

For the sake of this conversation I'm just referring to a sort of standard Biblical definition, which is the non-physical essence of who we are able to exist apart from the physical body.

 

[magnifier661]

the end result does not exist during the process, though. it by definition emerges at the end.

I completely disagree. I don't understand what you are arguing about really. Is it your mission to discredit anything a theist believes in? Seems like a weird concept for life. You and I obviously don't see eye to eye in the matter. When the "end goal" is man; the process in which it gets there is irrelevant. Man is being created and the "end result" was already thought up before it even began.

Has nothing to do with measurability.

Really? Wasn't it you that said a bacterium equals like 0.0000000001% soul? Who is measuring? Are you just taking that back?

Also when you use phrases like "need to fit" or "God intends to put it" you are pretty much headed down the same path as other Christians I talk to about this and not really disagreeing with my initial statement.

my term "needs to fit", etc is based on your concept to measure something that cannot be measured.

Neither of us do. One of my contentions with any type of metaphysical claim is nobody ever really has a grasp of what they mean when they propose it. It's like the hypothesis "magic exists".

For the sake of this conversation I'm just referring to a sort of standard Biblical definition, which is the non-physical essence of who we are able to exist apart from the physical body.

You can try to dig on my belief all you want. The concept of God isn't part of your make-up. But because of that, your ideology of what makes up a Christian or "soul" is hardly supported by some text book you read. And once again, using the "biblical reference" has nothing to do with explaining what a soul is. It's the personal experience man has when they connect with their soul. As I said above. Your text books can't teach you that.

 

[crowTrobot]

I completely disagree. I don't understand what you are arguing about really. Is it your mission to discredit anything a theist believes in? Seems like a weird concept for life.

you've been the antagonist in this conversation mags, which has mostly been about clarification of what Christians believe in, not an attempt to discredit it.

When the "end goal" is man; the process in which it gets there is irrelevant.

well yeah, but you keep circling around the issue of whether souls existed prior to homo sapiens or not.

Really? Wasn't it you that said a bacterium equals like 0.0000000001% soul?

that was a comment on the notion of souls being part of the evolutionary process, not on measurability.

You can try to dig on my belief all you want.

I wasn't trying to dig on anything other than the contradictory nature of your statements.

The concept of God isn't part of your make-up. But because of that, your ideology of what makes up a Christian or "soul" is hardly supported by some text book you read. And once again, using the "biblical reference" has nothing to do with explaining what a soul is. It's the personal experience man has when they connect with their soul. As I said above. Your text books can't teach you that.

Actually I don't trust text books. Tend to triple check most things I read.

I trust learning anything useful about reality through "personal" experiences even less, given different people invariably tend to come to mutually exclusive conclusions through them.

 

[magnifier661]

you've been the antagonist in this conversation mags, which has mostly been about clarification of what Christians believe in, not an attempt to discredit it.





well yeah, but you keep circling around the issue of whether souls existed prior to homo sapiens or not.



that was a comment on the notion of souls being part of the evolutionary process, not on measurability.



I wasn't trying to dig on anything other than the contradictory nature of your statements.



Actually I don't trust text books. Tend to triple check most things I read.

I trust learning anything useful about reality through "personal" experiences even less, given different people invariably tend to come to mutually exclusive conclusions through them.

Homosapien developing and the soul being their from day one of the process is completely compatible. As I said, the soul isn't measurable, so the entire soul could be their from the day the cell first divided, directing throughout its evolution.

 

[crowTrobot]

Homosapien developing and the soul being their from day one of the process is completely compatible.

It's compatible if animals have souls, yes.