Christianity and evolution

[thegreekdog]

My questions:
What does the Catholic church base it's scripture on?

If the holy bible is a reflection of Judaism, then why is Lilith not mentioned, Adam's first wife?

If we are direct descendents of Adam and Eve, then we would basically have no split in our DNA, as Adam was basically cloned, from his rib, to make Eve. How does that explain that we all have different DNA, and it takes parts of both parents chromosomes to make a child?

(1) Use Google.
(2) Don't know. Use Google.
(3) Don't know. Use Google.

[crispybits]

I think I found something on it - evolution is fine but they rigidly stick to the "fact" that we are all direct ancestors of Adam and Eve, that this single initial couple has produced the entire human race.

I'll let one of the people more well versed in biology to explain, if needed, how that particular assertion just doesn't make any sense given what we theorize about genetics, evolution and how species change over time...

Fixed.

I'm pretty sure the bits about minimum viable population size for avoiding inbreeding and harmful mutations through insufficient genetic variation are fairly well established (but I'm no biologist, just an interested amateur).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored. When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.

[khazalid]

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the relationship between science and organized religion was an almost totally beneficent one. The study of the natural world led in a seemingly linear way to recognition of the works of creation, and was actively encouraged in religious circles as being quite conducive to the rationalising of faith. Fideism in these times is almost a logical aberration, in spite of its popularity - so seemingly simplistic and easily digested is the intellectual progression from the revealed secrets of the natural world, to an orthodox theology of literal, biblical creation. It would not for long remain so. With the furthering of the natural sciences, the reconciliation of Genesis and geology was made possible only via typological adaptation. There is, at this juncture, something of an unwitting concession that the grounds for a literal interpretation of the bible are no longer steady enough to support the frame of an enquiring man, and from hereon the true separation of religion and science becomes manifest

"Has the last scene in the series arisen, or has Deity extended his infinitude of resource, and reached the ultimate stage of progression at which perfection can arrive? The philosopher hesitated, and then decided in the negative, for he was too intimately acquainted with the works of the Omnipotent Creator to think of limiting his power; and he could, therefore, anticipate a coming period, in which man would have to resign his post of honour to some nobler and wiser creature, - the monarch of a better and happier world." (ORS 274) - (Hugh Miller, Church Historian, eminent geologist, and all roung good-egg)

"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist." - Charles Darwin

[thegreekdog]

I think I found something on it - evolution is fine but they rigidly stick to the "fact" that we are all direct ancestors of Adam and Eve, that this single initial couple has produced the entire human race.

I'll let one of the people more well versed in biology to explain, if needed, how that particular assertion just doesn't make any sense given what we theorize about genetics, evolution and how species change over time...

Fixed.

I'm pretty sure the bits about minimum viable population size for avoiding inbreeding and harmful mutations through insufficient genetic variation are fairly well established (but I'm no biologist, just an interested amateur).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored. When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.

I'm just saying that we (humans) don't know what happened. Therefore, it's a theory. A theory well-supported by science (for which creationism is not), but a theory nonetheless.

[Lootifer]

Yeah remember god was still taking a pretty direct role here (kicking people out of eden etc etc) so he could have, if he so chose, made up the rules to fit. I mean the guy is all powerful n all that. No point in super imposing science into an area when its boundries are defined by religion.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah remember god was still taking a pretty direct role here (kicking people out of eden etc etc) so he could have, if he so chose, made up the rules to fit. I mean the guy is all powerful n all that. No point in super imposing science into an area when its boundries are defined by religion.

I don't know dude. I just go to church and try to live a good life and help other people.

[AAFitz]

Yeah remember god was still taking a pretty direct role here (kicking people out of eden etc etc) so he could have, if he so chose, made up the rules to fit. I mean the guy is all powerful n all that. No point in super imposing science into an area when its boundries are defined by religion.

I don't know dude. I just go to church and try to live a good life and help other people.

Do or do not. There is no try -Yoda

[jonesthecurl]

Yeah remember god was still taking a pretty direct role here (kicking people out of eden etc etc) so he could have, if he so chose, made up the rules to fit. I mean the guy is all powerful n all that. No point in super imposing science into an area when its boundries are defined by religion.

I don't know dude. I just go to church and try to live a good life and help other people.

Take out the "go to church" bit, and you're describing me.

[Lootifer]

Yeah remember god was still taking a pretty direct role here (kicking people out of eden etc etc) so he could have, if he so chose, made up the rules to fit. I mean the guy is all powerful n all that. No point in super imposing science into an area when its boundries are defined by religion.

I don't know dude. I just go to church and try to live a good life and help other people.

Oh I was just saying that trying to explain Adam/Eve/Eden via scientific methods is both futile and pointless. God was in charge, and regardless of weather or not you have faith, the religion gets to describe the circumstances, not science (and religion makes its own rules).

[PLAYER57832]

My mum who is what I would call a relaxed Catholic (shes a practicing Catholic, just very much on the moderate end rather than strict end) is ok with evolution (along with homosexuality and contraception).

The Roman Catholic Church has officially agreed with evolution for quite some time, now.

Recently, there has been some pressure/interest in reviewing the specifics of human evolution, particularly when the soul actually came about and so forth, but that is more of a spiritual question than a biological one. Also, remember, the church has an institution called the "Devil's advocate". In other words, the fact that they take something up means they want to make sure they are correct, not that they even suspect they could be wrong.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think I found something on it - evolution is fine but they rigidly stick to the "fact" that we are all direct ancestors of Adam and Eve, that this single initial couple has produced the entire human race.

I'll let one of the people more well versed in biology to explain, if needed, how that particular assertion just doesn't make any sense given what we theorize about genetics, evolution and how species change over time...

Fixed.

I'm pretty sure the bits about minimum viable population size for avoiding inbreeding and harmful mutations through insufficient genetic variation are fairly well established (but I'm no biologist, just an interested amateur).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored. When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.

I'm just saying that we (humans) don't know what happened. Therefore, it's a theory. A theory well-supported by science (for which creationism is not), but a theory nonetheless.

Right. If we had perfect access to Reality, then we would simply know anything; it would be the end of science. Everything would be intuitive/commonsense.

Until then, we'll confine ourselves to theories.

[PLAYER57832]

If we are direct descendents of Adam and Eve, then we would basically have no split in our DNA, as Adam was basically cloned, from his rib, to make Eve. How does that explain that we all have different DNA, and it takes parts of both parents chromosomes to make a child?

Why would you assume this? When God created Eve out of Adam, he did not make another identical man, he made a woman. A woman cannot be a clone of a man.

Per the rest, Gene recombination, flat mutations, variations in genetic transfer etc, etc, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm sure someone affiliated with or in the Church has addressed this. Just need to find it.

Found one - Pope Pius XII - Humani Generis

There is a whole wiki page on Catholicism and evolution.

Can you point me to the passage please - the closest I can find is:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

This doesn't actually address the problem. If God just started handing out souls to a special group of primates one day about 250,000 or so years ago then (a) why bother with the Adam and Eve stuff and (b) where does original sin come from? Did a soul-less animal one day give birth to a being with a soul? Did souls evolve the same as organisms, from something tiny to something big and complex? It wouldn't be that important a point except that orignal sin is kinda a big deal for how everything works, and souls are the things we're told we're risking if we don't buy into the schpiel...

(Not having a go at anyone in particular here, which is why I'm trying to keep everything as "the Catholic Church says...", but if the single largest and best resourced christian denomination can't get it's story straight on this even after admitting defeat on the whole evolution vs literal creation debate itself several decades ago, what chance has any other christian group got?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... _evolution

I don't have all the answers to your questions simply because I haven't read any of the texts described in the wikipedia page (or anywhere else for that matter). Long story short, I'm not learned enough to give you answers. I expect that the Catholic Church has answered (or attempted to answer) your questions (mostly because the Catholic Church is pretty diligent on dealing with these types of questions), but I can't point to the answers.

I partially addressed this above, in my brief answer.

The longer answer is that what is being questioned now is the exact point at which we became human, not just physically, but spiritually and how all that happened. This is where Creationists tend to err. See, Evolution does not and never has excluded Godly input.

When and how we actually became human -- that is, where and who the first human was, as opposed to when "real humans" first appear in the fossil record, etc. will likely never be answered. It is actually irrelevant to the whole question of evolution, because even if we don't, say, have the bones of Adam, we do have bones and fossils of many different species that show very clear lines of descent (along with more than a few incomplete lines and plain mysteries). At some point, scientists will more or less stop and say "we are unlikely to find anything more" (well... some will probably always look, but the chances of finding anything new will be slimmer). But religion will always have some question. Even if we could fully identify Adam and Eve, there would still be the question of did they think like us, and has anything else thought "like" us?

As to why the Adam and Eve bit, etc.. its sort of like the old "Chicken and Egg". At some point, there would have been a "first" human. But, remember, too, while God knows all, people can only understand so much. The bit about sin (and note.. Protestants take a slightly different view on some of that, but I am too tired to get into that right now) tells a lesson, a story, an explanation that was understood, not just by the first to know/hear it, but by all who follow the Bible since.

[PLAYER57832]

Right. If we had perfect access to Reality, then we would simply know anything; it would be the end of science. Everything would be intuitive/commonsense.

Until then, we'll confine ourselves to theories.

Science and faith, science and faith... else there is no imagination, no moving forward.

To dream is to believe. To believe is to act.

[TheMissionary]

If we are direct descendents of Adam and Eve, then we would basically have no split in our DNA, as Adam was basically cloned, from his rib, to make Eve. How does that explain that we all have different DNA, and it takes parts of both parents chromosomes to make a child?

Why would you assume this? When God created Eve out of Adam, he did not make another identical man, he made a woman. A woman cannot be a clone of a man.

Per the rest, Gene recombination, flat mutations, variations in genetic transfer etc, etc, etc.

I was just speaking in theory, from a scientific standpoint. We, as humans, can sit and discuss the origins of religion forever. There is simply no proof that God does, or does not exist. Sure we can place things from the bible in history, but we can only go back and prove what we were present for, or we have scientific evidence of.

[macbone]

Lewis wrote about this in God in the Dock. He observed that, in his day, English Christians had no real problem with evolution, whereas American Christians often did. That trend has continued up to the present.

Chesterton's objections to evolution stem from his suspicion that the whole thing was a pretext for explaining away God. As a purely scientific theory, he seemed to have no problem with evolution, but gradually he shifted into becoming an opponent of evolution, mainly because evolution was being used as an argument in favor of eugenics.

From 1903, Chesterton writes:

"Of the thousands of brilliant and elegant persons like ourselves who believe roughly in the Darwinian doctrine, how many are there who know which fossil or skeleton, which parrot’s tail or which cuttle-fish’s stomach, is really believed to be the conclusive example and absolute datum of natural selection? . . . What we know, to use a higher language, are the fruits of the spirit. We know that with this idea once inside our heads a million things become transparent as if a lamp were lit behind them: we see the thing in the dog in the street, in the pear on the wall, in the book of history we are reading, in the baby in the perambulator and in the last news from Borneo. And the fulfilments pour in upon us in so natural and continual a cataract that at last is reached that paradox of the condition which is called belief."

But in 1923, his tone had changed, and his writings are peppered with attacks on evolution.

From 1922:

"The thing that really is trying to tyrannize through government is Science. The thing that really does use the secular arm is Science. And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statutes, and spread not by pilgrims but by policemen—that creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics." (Eugenics and Other Evils, Ch. VII).

Here's a piece here on his shifting attitude toward evolution: here and here.

[crispybits]

Yep, many (not all) religious people are quite happy to embrace science until it puts forward uncomfortable disagreements with whatever their religion tells them. Then suddenly this thing that was marvellous because it gave them better churches/houses and better cars and more effective medicines becomes evil incarnate and "just a theory".

I have yet to see an argument (it would probably look similar to the figurative/literal debate on biblical truth) as to why some science is good, but other science is evil (note - not bad, there can always be incompetent/dishonest scientists, but that following the same scientific methods with the same integrity and honesty in one scientific field (e.g. electronics) is fine, but in another scientific field (e.g. evolution) is not.)

[thegreekdog]

I think I found something on it - evolution is fine but they rigidly stick to the "fact" that we are all direct ancestors of Adam and Eve, that this single initial couple has produced the entire human race.

I'll let one of the people more well versed in biology to explain, if needed, how that particular assertion just doesn't make any sense given what we theorize about genetics, evolution and how species change over time...

Fixed.

I'm pretty sure the bits about minimum viable population size for avoiding inbreeding and harmful mutations through insufficient genetic variation are fairly well established (but I'm no biologist, just an interested amateur).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored. When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.

I'm just saying that we (humans) don't know what happened. Therefore, it's a theory. A theory well-supported by science (for which creationism is not), but a theory nonetheless.

Right. If we had perfect access to Reality, then we would simply know anything; it would be the end of science. Everything would be intuitive/commonsense.

Until then, we'll confine ourselves to theories.

Okay! I mean, it feels nice that you responded to me, but I feel bad that you wasted your time writing an irrelevant post.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think I found something on it - evolution is fine but they rigidly stick to the "fact" that we are all direct ancestors of Adam and Eve, that this single initial couple has produced the entire human race.

I'll let one of the people more well versed in biology to explain, if needed, how that particular assertion just doesn't make any sense given what we theorize about genetics, evolution and how species change over time...

Fixed.

I'm pretty sure the bits about minimum viable population size for avoiding inbreeding and harmful mutations through insufficient genetic variation are fairly well established (but I'm no biologist, just an interested amateur).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored. When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.

I'm just saying that we (humans) don't know what happened. Therefore, it's a theory. A theory well-supported by science (for which creationism is not), but a theory nonetheless.

Right. If we had perfect access to Reality, then we would simply know anything; it would be the end of science. Everything would be intuitive/commonsense.

Until then, we'll confine ourselves to theories.

Okay! I mean, it feels nice that you responded to me, but I feel bad that you wasted your time writing an irrelevant post.

Alright, sir, I'll be more contrarian. I see that you changed 'know' to 'theorize'. What do you 'know', hairy Greek man? Or is 'knowing' off-limits for everyone?

[PLAYER57832]

If we are direct descendents of Adam and Eve, then we would basically have no split in our DNA, as Adam was basically cloned, from his rib, to make Eve. How does that explain that we all have different DNA, and it takes parts of both parents chromosomes to make a child?

Why would you assume this? When God created Eve out of Adam, he did not make another identical man, he made a woman. A woman cannot be a clone of a man.

Per the rest, Gene recombination, flat mutations, variations in genetic transfer etc, etc, etc.

I was just speaking in theory, from a scientific standpoint. We, as humans, can sit and discuss the origins of religion forever. There is simply no proof that God does, or does not exist. Sure we can place things from the bible in history, but we can only go back and prove what we were present for, or we have scientific evidence of.

Maybe that was your intent, but what you brought up were some pretty big misunderstandings. Adam flat could not have been a clone. To go from there to making the assumptions you did about DNA mean you just don't really understand the processes. Those are specifics, not theoretical or esoteric ideas. You just absolutely misstated the science.

As per God, the Christian view is that God created all, including the processes we see today. Young Earth/fundamentalist Creationists tend to look only at final results and ignore the processes, often more or less saying that if God was involved, then he just went "poof"... there it is, instead of allowing that the descriptions given were a non-scientific human understanding of what was actually a very long process. Scientific minded Christians accept that God creating the process is a way of deciding the outcome, even if the variables are too many for humans to actually understand, control and predict. We are not supposed to fully understand it all.. at least not yet.


You want to say that DNA doesn't change. That is just not true. Further, even if it were true, just look around you to see the variety that these single pieces of DNA sequences can create. DNA decides if you are a microbe, a mushroom, a fox, a whale or a human, AND all the individual variations allowed within humanity. We have scientific evidence of the diversification of species, including humanity all around us.

[TheMissionary]

If we are direct descendents of Adam and Eve, then we would basically have no split in our DNA, as Adam was basically cloned, from his rib, to make Eve. How does that explain that we all have different DNA, and it takes parts of both parents chromosomes to make a child?

Why would you assume this? When God created Eve out of Adam, he did not make another identical man, he made a woman. A woman cannot be a clone of a man.

Per the rest, Gene recombination, flat mutations, variations in genetic transfer etc, etc, etc.

I was just speaking in theory, from a scientific standpoint. We, as humans, can sit and discuss the origins of religion forever. There is simply no proof that God does, or does not exist. Sure we can place things from the bible in history, but we can only go back and prove what we were present for, or we have scientific evidence of.

Maybe that was your intent, but what you brought up were some pretty big misunderstandings. Adam flat could not have been a clone. To go from there to making the assumptions you did about DNA mean you just don't really understand the processes. Those are specifics, not theoretical or esoteric ideas. You just absolutely misstated the science.

As per God, the Christian view is that God created all, including the processes we see today. Young Earth/fundamentalist Creationists tend to look only at final results and ignore the processes, often more or less saying that if God was involved, then he just went "poof"... there it is, instead of allowing that the descriptions given were a non-scientific human understanding of what was actually a very long process. Scientific minded Christians accept that God creating the process is a way of deciding the outcome, even if the variables are too many for humans to actually understand, control and predict. We are not supposed to fully understand it all.. at least not yet.


You want to say that DNA doesn't change. That is just not true. Further, even if it were true, just look around you to see the variety that these single pieces of DNA sequences can create. DNA decides if you are a microbe, a mushroom, a fox, a whale or a human, AND all the individual variations allowed within humanity. We have scientific evidence of the diversification of species, including humanity all around us.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The method God used to create Eve, in the basic context, is what we call cloning today. I will admit, I am not a biblical scholar. I am more of an agnostic that sways more towards the fundamentalist side, than the atheist side. I believe in god, I just don't put forth all of my being to showing it. I practice the positive teachings, and nothing more.

[PLAYER57832]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The method God used to create Eve, in the basic context, is what we call cloning today. I will admit, I am not a biblical scholar. I am more of an agnostic that sways more towards the fundamentalist side, than the atheist side. I believe in god, I just don't put forth all of my being to showing it. I practice the positive teachings, and nothing more.

OK, looks like I did misunderstand, but it wasn't cloning. If it were, then both would be identical and a woman is not identical to a man. Some theologians believe its improper to truly call the first being "man", that the original Adam held both male and female and that God split the parts. At any rate, it just wasn't cloning.

[tzor]

I think I found something on it - evolution is fine but they rigidly stick to the "fact" that we are all direct ancestors of Adam and Eve, that this single initial couple has produced the entire human race.

I'll let one of the people more well versed in biology to explain, if needed, how that particular assertion just doesn't make any sense given what we know about genetics, evolution and how species change over time...

Really? I thought this was somewhat settled science, well at least the existence of a common female ancestor based on less mutable non sexually reproducing mitochondria within human cells. Aka. Mitochondrial Eve

Mitochondrial Eve lived later than Homo heidelbergensis and the emergence of Homo neanderthalensis, but earlier than the out of Africa migration. The dating for "Eve" was a blow to the multiregional hypothesis, and a boost to the hypothesis of the origin of modern humans in Africa and spread from there, replacing more "archaic" human populations such as Neanderthals. As a result, the latter hypothesis became dominant.

[tzor]

If the holy bible is a reflection of Judaism, then why is Lilith not mentioned, Adam's first wife?

Well if you knew a little about the history of Judaism (and you actually bothered to ... oh I don't know ... check Wikipedia occasionally) you would realize that Lilith mythology is "developed earliest in the Babylonian Talmud" and that occurred around the 3rd to 5th centuries ... in other words hundreds of years after the christian faith started. She starts out as a demon and only becomes Adam's first wife in the 8th to 10th centuries, a hundred years or more before Francis of Assisi.

[TheMissionary]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The method God used to create Eve, in the basic context, is what we call cloning today. I will admit, I am not a biblical scholar. I am more of an agnostic that sways more towards the fundamentalist side, than the atheist side. I believe in god, I just don't put forth all of my being to showing it. I practice the positive teachings, and nothing more.

OK, looks like I did misunderstand, but it wasn't cloning. If it were, then both would be identical and a woman is not identical to a man. Some theologians believe its improper to truly call the first being "man", that the original Adam held both male and female and that God split the parts. At any rate, it just wasn't cloning.

How do you know they weren't identical? God could have performed an "operation."