Evolution or Creation?

[bluechillj]

To highlight the variation in religious thought on this topic, I decided it would be interesting to look up the recent Catholic teachings on evolution, given that this viewpoint han't been discussed tremendously on here.

Although occasionally an individual official not speaking on behalf of the entire Church will make statements to the contrary, the Catholic Church recognizes the tremendous scientific evidence behind evolution, while viewing it as compatible with teachings on divine-guided creation and free will. There seems to be a lot of the perspective that these are two approaches that answer two different questions (although I haven't spent much time examining exactly how the proposed compatibility works in areas of overlap).

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a sample quote from a 2004 letter sent to all U.S. bishops:

"...Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence. At the same time, Catholic parents whose children are in public schools should ensure that their children are also receiving appropriate catechesis at home and in the parish on God as Creator. Students should be able to leave their biology classes, and their courses in religious instruction, with an integrated understanding of the means God chose to make us who we are."

As a former Catholic who is very sympathetic to the evolutionary perspective, I find this approach quite sensible.

 

[muffler dragon]

I thought it might be of interest to some to read what is written as commentary on the Creation* story of Genesis. This may be a slow mover tonight, because I have a five-month old beckoning me loudly. Bear with me, and I'll try to write more IF people are interested.

* By "Creation", I am not promoting the theory, but instead simply using a title.

The dark blue text will come from my ArtScroll Chumash. The black underlined writing will be the Scripture text. The dark red will be Rashi's commentary.

Please note that I won't be writing everything that is in the commentary. Just the salient points.

Introduction to Parashas Bereishis
(Bereishis = Genesis)
We begin the study of the Torah with the realization that the Torah is not a history book, but the charter of Man's mission in the universe.
<snip>
He (Rav Yitzchak) explains that the reason for the Torah's narrative on Creation is to establish that God is the Sovereign of the universe...
<snip>
As Ramban notes, even after reading how the world and its central character, Man, came into being, we still do not understand the secret or even the process of Creation.
<snip>
Ramban comments that the Torah relates the story of the six days of Creation ex nihilo to establish that God is the sole Creator and to refute the theories of those who claim that the universe is timeless or that it came into being through some massive coincidence or accident. This is implicit in the narrative of the first six days, for Scripture gives no specific details regarding the process of Creation, just as it makes no mention of the angels or other incorporeal beings. The story of Creation tells of when the major categories of the universe came into existence only in very general terms, because it's primary purpose is to state that nothing came into being except at God's command.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth

In the beginning of God's creating. This phrase is commonly rendered In the beginning God created, which would indicate that the Torah is giving the sequence of Creation - that God created the heaven, then the earth, darkness, water, light and so on. Rashi and Ibn Ezra disagree, however, and our translation follows their view.
According to Ramban and most commentators, however, the verse is indeed chronological. it begins with a general statement: At the very first moment - from absolute nothingness - God created the heaven and the earth, i.e., the basic substance from which He then fashioned the universe as we know it, aas expounded in the following verses. the chapter continues the dat-to-day process until it reaches its climax in the Creation of Man - the prime goal of Creation.
Rashi's commentary:

In the beginning of God?s creation of Heb. בְּרֵאשִית בָּרָא. This verse calls for a midrashic interpretation [because according to its simple interpretation, the vowelization of the word בָּרָא, should be different, as Rashi explains further]. It teaches us that the sequence of the Creation as written is impossible, as is written immediately below] as our Rabbis stated (Letters of R. Akiva , letter ?beth? ; Gen. Rabbah 1:6; Lev. Rabbah 36:4): [God created the world] for the sake of the Torah, which is called (Prov. 8:22): ?the beginning of His way,? and for the sake of Israel, who are called (Jer. 2:3) ?the first of His grain.? But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: ?At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was astonishing with emptiness, and darkness?and God said, ?Let there be light.?? But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, to say that these came first, for if it came to teach this, it should have written:?At first (בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה) He created the heavens and the earth,? for there is no רֵאשִׁית in Scripture that is not connected to the following word, [i.e., in the construct state] like (ibid. 27:1):?In the beginning of (בְּרֵאשִית) the reign of Jehoiakim? ; (below 10:10)?the beginning of (רֵאשִׁית) his reign? ; (Deut. 18:4)?the first (רֵאשִׁית) of your corn.? Here too, you say בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אלֹהִים, like בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא, in the beginning of creating. And similar to this is,?At the beginning of the Lord?s speaking (דִּבֶּר) to Hosea,? (Hos. 1:2), i.e., at the beginning of the speaking (דִּבּוּרוֹ) of the Holy One, Blessed be He, to Hosea, ?the Lord said to Hosea, etc.? Now if you say that it came to teach that these (i.e., heaven and earth) were created first, and that its meaning is: In the beginning of all, He created these-and that there are elliptical verses that omit one word, like (Job 3:9): ?For [He] did not shut the doors of my [mother?s] womb,? and it does not explain who it was who shut [the womb]; and like (Isa. 8:4): ?he will carry off the wealth of Damascus,? and it does not explain who will carry it off; and like (Amos 6:12): ?or will one plow with cattle,? and it does not explain: ?if a man will plow with cattle? ; and like (Isa. 46: 10): ?telling the end from the beginning,? and it does not explain that [it means] telling the end of a matter from the beginning of a matter-if so, [if you say that Scripture indicates the order of creation] be astounded at yourself, for the water preceded, as it is written: ?and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water,? and Scripture did not yet disclose when the creation of water took place! From this you learn that the water preceded the earth. Moreover, the heavens were created from fire and water. Perforce, you must admit that Scripture did not teach us anything about the sequence of the earlier and the later [acts of creation].
God?s creation of the heavens and the earth But it does not say ?of the Lord?s creation of? (i.e., it should say ?of the Lord God?s creation of? as below 2:4 ?on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven?) for in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice, and that is the reason it is written:?on the day the Lord God made earth and heaven.?

Note: I am not a reader nor speaker of Hebrew; therefore, I can't comment on the usage of "creating" verses "creation of".

When I first read the above materials, I was surprised at how different it is to the prevalent thought that I had been taught for the majority of my life in Church.

Anyway... let me know if any of you have an interest in my continuing this type of sharing. I'll try to do it when I can if there are any takers.

 

[CookyPuss]

Interesting study:
Morality may have roots in our primate ancestors - Telegraph

Scientists have that discovered monkeys and apes can make judgements about fairness, offer sympathy and help and remember obligations.
Researchers say the findings may demonstrate morality developed through evolution, a view that is likely to antagonise the devoutly religious, who see it as God-given.

Professor Frans de Waal, who led the study at Emory University in Georgia, US, said: "I am not arguing that non-human primates are moral beings but there is enough evidence for the following of social rules to agree that some of the stepping stones towards human morality can be found in other animals."

In tests carried out by Prof de Waal, the primates were given a set of tasks to carry out and rewarded with food and affection.

But researchers discovered that the animals strongly objected if they perceived others were being rewarded more than themselves for the same task. Some even sulked or refused to take part any further.

A separate study found chimpanzees spontaneously helped both humans and each other during controlled tests.

 

[Jake]

I'm too lazy to go through 10 pages of an old thread so if I posted this before, bear with me. The title of this thread suggests there are only two options. There's a third option: we don't know. Evolutionary theory has holes in it and creation only makes sense if one has "faith" in the Bible. It's quite possible that we simply don't know the origins of life.

Edit: I used the search function and found this from June, 2008:

Evolution or Creation?

Both theories have flaws.

Unfortunately, some things in life are beyond our comprehension, even if we choose not to accept it.

I guess I haven't changed my opinion.

 

[MaxBuck]

Evolutionary theory has holes in it ...

What holes? (Aside from the whole life-from-not-life issue, which really has nothing to do with evolution per se.)

 

[Jake]

What holes? (Aside from the whole life-from-not-life issue, which really has nothing to do with evolution per se.)

While I don't accept your life-from-non-life qualification because in order for something to evolve it must first exist, there are still other flaws in evolutionary theory.

Suggestions that mutations can increase genetic information, the second law of thermodynamics, homo habilis, and the assorted assumptions necessary to draw conclusions about the origins of something while testing existing data, all open Darwinism to scrutiny. Evolutionary theory, like all theories, relies on assumptions the belief of which rely on faith. Not necessarily divine faith, but faith in one's assumptions regardless of their basis.

Hence, we don't know. We have theories. Some appear more plausible than others, but in the end they are just theories. We don't know, just like we don't know if there is a "higher power", "god" or not. We don't know. We assume we know, but we don't know.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

While I don't accept your life-from-non-life qualification because in order for something to evolve it must first exist, there are still other flaws in evolutionary theory.

The fact that there is a universe here belies your assertion.... if we are to believe that before our universe exploded in to being from nothing at all, that is.

No.. it seems quite clear to me that life can and importantly did arise from non-life. There really is no alternative... since we're here, and all.... and several billion years ago, there wasn't even a universe in existence, let alone life from which would even could evolve. (That is to say, and ignoring the false dilemma I'm creating here (Which I'm doing to save time, not to "prove" anything), even if G-d created life, that life did not come from existing life... Of course, you could say G-d was existing life... but... then... if he has no creator, then he came from what, then? Non-life? Or has life just always existed?)

I agree with the remainder of your post, though. I don't know what caused this universe in to being and must rely on theories and such to understand even what I can about it.

 

[MaxBuck]

...Suggestions that mutations can increase genetic information, the second law of thermodynamics, homo habilis, and the assorted assumptions necessary to draw conclusions about the origins of something while testing existing data, all open Darwinism to scrutiny.

I have no idea what you just said here.

First off, the second law of thermo has nothing whatever to do with evolution; it simply relates to entropy, which is nothing but a physical property (it has nothing really to do with "order"). In that regard it's like Gibbs free energy or enthalpy.

Secondly, why does the presence of homo habilis in the fossil record "open Darwinism to scrutiny?"

Finally, as to "assorted assumptions necessary to draw conclusions about the origins of something," the origins of life are not within the purview of evolution as a field of study. Evolution deals with life's development, not its origins.

 

[Brewtus]

.
.
....Evolutionary theory, like all theories, relies on assumptions the belief of which rely on faith. Not necessarily divine faith, but faith in one's assumptions regardless of their basis.

Hence, we don't know. We have theories. Some appear more plausible than others, but in the end they are just theories. We don't know, just like we don't know if there is a "higher power", "god" or not. We don't know. We assume we know, but we don't know.

You seem to be confusing "scientific truth" with "divine truth". Nothing in science is known with absolute certainty and never can be regardless of how much evidence is gathered. But that doesn't mean that we don't know things with a very high level of certainty. The Theory of Gravity, the Germ Theory of Disease and the Theory of Evolution are all accepted as scientific truth because they have all been repeatedly tested and have an enormous mountain of evidence supporting them.

Evolution was first proposed by Darwin 150 years ago and since then has been tested by new evidence that Darwin could never have foreseen. But it is such a remarkable theory because as new evidence came to light (such as in the fields of genetics, morphology, paleontology, etc) it only strengthened evolution and did nothing to discredit it. And the fact remains that evolution is by far the best explanation we have to account for the origin of species and diversity of life on this planet. For anyone to claim that other theories are just as valid, you must first propose an alternative theory and then show how it better explains the evidence. In the last 150 years this has yet to happen.

I've never been able to understand how people can accept the idea that criminals and be convicted based on DNA evidence, get flu shots every year, eat food and plants that were domesticated over thousands of years - all of which are possible and explained by evolution - yet still claim that evolution is not certain.

 

[muffler dragon]

Question: is classical Darwinism still the main-stay when talking about evolution? Or has punctuated equilibrium, neo-evolutionary theory or anything else taken the forefront?

I actually find punctuated equilibrium rather fascinating.

 

[MaxBuck]

Question: is classical Darwinism still the main-stay when talking about evolution? Or has punctuated equilibrium, neo-evolutionary theory or anything else taken the forefront?

I actually find punctuated equilibrium rather fascinating.

muffler, I'm not an expert, but I think it's fair to say that although the general concept of evolution is accepted as truth by scientists, the specifics of evolution as viewed by anthropologists, paleontologists, geneticists, psychologists, etc. are still being formed. It's a particularly active area of study.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

muffler, I'm not an expert, but I think it's fair to say that although the general concept of evolution is accepted as truth by scientists, the specifics of evolution as viewed by anthropologists, paleontologists, geneticists, psychologists, etc. are still being formed. It's a particularly active area of study.

Not to change the issue, but I think your last line is important in response to opinions which say Evolution is false/unproven/etc..

As a developing idea, and not a finished product, it's hardly any surprise that there may be holes in the theory as yet. To illustrate - when mankind learned that Jupiter had 4 moons around it, we didn't simply end the inquiry call it a fact and move on to the next thing.... we kept looking and found that 4 moons was not the correct answer, in fact. I don't know, maybe not the best illustration... but the point is - it's a little odd, to me, that people attack Evolution as if it's a finished product.

 

[muffler dragon]

muffler, I'm not an expert, but I think it's fair to say that although the general concept of evolution is accepted as truth by scientists, the specifics of evolution as viewed by anthropologists, paleontologists, geneticists, psychologists, etc. are still being formed. It's a particularly active area of study.

Thanks Max. Obviously, I don't stay up on it. Personally, I would think that any specific consideration of evolution would have to entertain dynamics instead of long term static existence. Hence, my personal "liking" to punctuated equilibrium. If only I hadn't been a YEC before Gould's death. :)

Not to change the issue, but I think your last line is important in response to opinions which say Evolution is false/unproven/etc..

As a developing idea, and not a finished product, it's hardly any surprise that there may be holes in the theory as yet. To illustrate - when mankind learned that Jupiter had 4 moons around it, we didn't simply end the inquiry call it a fact and move on to the next thing.... we kept looking and found that 4 moons was not the correct answer, in fact. I don't know, maybe not the best illustration... but the point is - it's a little odd, to me, that people attack Evolution as if it's a finished product.

Valid statement! Investigation and inquiry are always going to be a part of the scientific process regardless of "level" of satisfaction (so to say).

 

[MaxBuck]

Not to change the issue, but I think your last line is important in response to opinions which say Evolution is false/unproven/etc..

As a developing idea, and not a finished product, it's hardly any surprise that there may be holes in the theory as yet. To illustrate - when mankind learned that Jupiter had 4 moons around it, we didn't simply end the inquiry call it a fact and move on to the next thing.... we kept looking and found that 4 moons was not the correct answer, in fact. I don't know, maybe not the best illustration... but the point is - it's a little odd, to me, that people attack Evolution as if it's a finished product.

Good point. Nothing in science is a "finished product;" we're still studying gravity.

I disagree with the comment that "there are holes in the theory." It is too easy to infer from this language that some scientific observations suggest evolution is possibly not a valid theory. And that just isn't the case. All the comments about 2nd law of Thermo, homo habilis, "doesn't explain the origin of life," etc. are nothing but red herrings - they have nothing to do with the general validity of evolution as the mechanism for the development of life on earth. As to the details, sure, we're still learning a lot about those.

 

[muffler dragon]

First off, the second law of thermo has nothing whatever to do with evolution; it simply relates to entropy, which is nothing but a physical property (it has nothing really to do with "order"). In that regard it's like Gibbs free energy or enthalpy.

Max:

I forgot to ask for your clarification on the statement above. I have always understood entropy to have an "order" parameter to it. Maybe my educators were lacking in their explanation. I understand the "heat transfer" portion, but isn't there an order part to it? Or am I just misunderstanding what you wrote?