Creation or Evolution theories

Hi Mary Ann,

This is a variation of what we can already read in Genesis. It does not add anything new.

 

Evolution is a method (mechanism) but it is not the reason of the life existence

 

It is obvious that we, modern humans, should have the same mitochondrial genome if we evolved from the same ancestor only once (common Africa origin hypothesis).

But that is independent from the idea that humans evolved from animals or were created ex-nihilo. And it will not help to distinguish between the two cases: one way or the other, we would have the same mitochondrial DNA!

 

I see it as a pretty simple thing. I breed and show Newfoundland dogs and over the last 100 years our breed has "evolved" into a larger dog with more massive bone, bigger heads, bigger lungs for swimming. We do this by selective breeding. The Church believes also the possiblility of this same evolution WITHIN a species, but never that a species was CREATED through evolution. The stars did not create life "to express themselves" as one highly acclaimed scientist once stated on the news. I had to laugh! She refused to believe in a Divine Creator, but believed that!...and they think we Christians are crazy Hopefully everyone here has completely read the Bible, several times is best. Not just bits and pieces. In it you will see that there were caveman type people existing when Adam and Eve were created. Cane was banished to their city, where he was afraid of being killed for being different, until God put a mark on his forehead. There are dozens of accounts of uncivilized peoples and giants that were not of the Adam line. The references to these things are so numberous, I can't believe people think we have to decide between the fossils of cavemen and our species. They have never been able to find a genetic link between apes and humans, and even the frozen neanderthal man did not help. I lost my faith in Jr High because of having evolution theories forced down my throat, and it wasn't until I saw Jesus that I understood its really none of our business, and demonic for us to even be messing with it. Ok, have had my say LOL

 

I agree, this is the method the Creator use to develop life on earth, as He use the laws of Physics or Chemistry. I wonder why it is so difficult to understand that for the development of life there are also laws and evolution by mutation and natural selection is one of them.

 

No, it is not obvious . What is actually startling, though it has been muddled in explanations for the general public, that our mithochondrial genes for all of 7 billion people come from ONE woman.

 

Where have you read such a thing? Any magisterial documents?

Where are those evidences about giants?

I think you are not well informed about population and comparative genetics.

 

How, please, could you tell that the mithocondrial genes came from only ONE woman?
Only because mitochondrial genes are inherited from females to offspring?
This is the same to say that the mitochondrial genes of dogs came from only ONE dog. It does not make any sense to me.

The only thing this study can make clear is that modern humans share the same mitochondrial lineage. Not that there was only ONE woman.

 

Dear Jose,

Having done some more digging into the Maria Valtorta question, other supposed dialogues modify the situation somewhat. What I can report is mixed news from a scientific perspective, I think, but what is certain is that a more subtle picture emerges than might be the case on the basis of the above quote in isolation.

Valtorta's writings (e.g. her unpublished 'commentary' on Romans) actually explicitly affirm the reality of evolution throughout cosmic history prior to the coming of human beings. In terms of cosmology, the six days of creation are explained as sidereal epochs - so no Young Earth creationism here, which is a relief ... So the remarks in the passage above about the supposed transition from apes to humans really concerns the final moment, i.e. the question of how the first human being came about. A sympathetic reading might be that 'Jesus' here is describing the impossibility of getting across the barrier between non-human and human by a gradual process. As I mentioned earlier, the brilliant French polymath Jean Staune (who organized an important series of conferences entitled 'Science and the Spiritual Quest' at UNESCO featuring a number of Nobel Laureates back in the 1990s) has been arguing something very similar in his re-evaluation of Darwin on the basis of the work of researchers such as Anne Dambricourt and Michael Denton.

Where a definite conflict undoubtedly remains between MV and with evolutionary biology in its present state, however, is in the insistence on human descent from one perfect human being, 'Adam', created by the direct action of God. Specifically excluded by 'Jesus' are hypotheses in which the first chapters of Genesis can be taken as descriptive of a group of human beings, or the idea (which is attractive for those of us seeking to reconcile Church teaching and science) that God infused a spirit into the first humans as they evolved from the primate stage.

So ... where does this leave us in terms of logical options, given that there is a clear tension between MV and mainstream evolutionary biology. Do we:
a) take the view that science demonstrates conclusively that the words of 'Jesus' recorded by Maria Valtorta are necessarily false and therefore show that she must be considered a false mystic? Quite a lot is at stake here, as if Valtorta falls, so logically does Medjugorje. The same would presumably apply to the critiques of evolution found in quotes attributed to Jesus/Mary by Mari Loli of Garabandal, Luisa Piccaretta, Guido Bortoluzzi, Ottavio Michelini ...
b) take the view that the mystics are right and that consequently we have to bin evolutionary science en bloc?
c) recognize a serious tension, but also acknowledge that, like it or not, this tension is present in any case in discussions of Scriptural interpretation (e.g. the question of how to deal with the New Testament insistence that sin came through one man, or the whole issue of what to do with Genesis 6), and that the whole debate concerning human origins is far from over. This view would see the dialogues on evolution in Valtorta and others as challenging given their conflict with existing scientific paradigms but not necessarily conclusive for an overall verdict on the mystical corpus; future scientific developments may reveal this conflict to be de facto in the light of science at a specific historical juncture, not de iure in terms of the incompatibility of the supposed mystics with firmly established fact as opposed to an interpretative schema.

I absolutely understand that in terms of professional praxis, any thinking biologist has to work with evolution as the 'best explanatory hypothesis' currently available. I get the impression that those of us who don't practice science on a daily basis don't understand the intellectual weight it carries and the obstacle it constitutes to the acceptance of the views found in Valtorta. I acknowledge that the burden of proof in a logical argument (for those who don't approve of a retreat into fideism) is with those who disagree with the scientific consensus. However - and I know this may be wishful thinking - my own feeling is that there is sufficient controversy within contemporary evolutionary biology itself to suggest that the essence of the 'historical Adam' view (i.e. that sin came into the world through individual responsibility and that humanity originated in a Divinely caused qualitative leap) may have life in it yet. So I'm going to opt for c), given that option a) seems too hasty to me and b) too crude an interpretation of the writings in question.

The interesting conundrum here is that for many supporters of MV, the prime evidence in her favour is ... scientific, from the work of archeology, i.e. the fact that her monumental 'Poem of the Man-God' mentions many place-names that were only discovered by historical research AFTER the time of writing. Nobody has yet explained that away. I might see this differently if biology was my daily bread, but my sense is that when it comes to the relative epistemic weight to accord to archeological discovery as opposed to evolutionary theory I'm going with the former. But that's just personal and doesn't mean that anyone has to agree with me!

Grace,

Peter

 

Jose, I think you need to sit down, as an adult, and read the Bible. I think with your human knowledge, if you studied the Bible, you would be amazed at what God does tell us. Yes there are numerous references to giants in it (Goliath?) Yes there are Church documents (and by the way, Wikipedia is something ANYONE can post, so should never be used as a factual source). Also as I said, I am not really interested in man's theories about these things. One of these days God will take back the earth and finish off the pride of man and his "knowledge" (see the story of the tower of bable). He also knows that man's heart is evil and was grieved that He made man (the story of Noah and the Ark). Trying to figure out God's secrets is not something His friends spend their time doing. Where your treasure is, there is where your heart is....

 

Jose, I would chose the Bible's account of Creation one million times over scientific theory. God isn't trying to get papers published in scientific journals or tenure. He is saying I created you from dust and I love you and I want you to be in my kingdom forever. That is our goal and from the sound of it, we do not have unlimited time to figure it out. Does the Time of grace sound familiar? Probably because Our Lady has talked about it 50 times or so and said repeatedly to use it to draw oh so very close to her Son. I don't want to quibble with you over how man came into existence, that is a no brainer for me, I just wanted to add that a humble invalid nun was given a vision of Adam and Eve and I would bet my bottom dollar that she is enjoying heavenly bliss and the beatific vision as opposed to say for example, Carl Sagan.

 

Dear Peter,

I understand your concern but, as I explained above, the way to perform experiments or to look at the problem that "Jesus" is explaining is not acceptable as coming from God. You insist that this is in conflict with modern evolution theory. No, this is already in conflict with science in 1940 as I explained somewhere else. Independently of creationism or evolution, what "Jesus" propose to convince people is -sorry for insisting and in no way meant to be disrespectful- nonsense. That is why when I read that I saw the big red flag concerning those writings.

I would be interested in knowing more about the place-names discovered by archeology mentioned in "Popem of Man-God".

I do not necessarily conclude that Maria Valtorta is a false mystic. I conclude that those writing explaining evolution cannot be from Jesus because they are full with simple mistakes.

If the critic of evolution from other mystics or seers are as poor and disappointing as the ones from Valtorta, I will not have any problems to conclude that those words did not come from God.

It is in the hands of the Church to say which ones of those mystics are "true" ones. I will be very interested in reading those critics of evolution by the other mystics.

 

Evolution,..is the biological theory which teaches that all forms of plants and animals, including man, living on the earth today have developed through a long series of progressive modifications from lower or simpler primeval types.
The teaching of revelation or in tradition includes such truths as; God is the first cause of all things, even of whatever evolutionary development may have occurred; and the soul of every man, including the first man and woman was created by a special act of God and did not develop from anything previously existing. Moreover, Catholics may not deny that that the whole human race decends from a single pair, Adam and Eve.
Evolution, if it does not include a denial of God or of any truth revealed by God or taught by the Church, is a scientific hypothesis that must be accepted or rejected on the basis of its own scientific evidence.

 

If we evolved from apes then why are there still apes? hehe

 

Mary Ann and Carmel,

Faith cannot contradict reason. In my case it does not.
I suggest to keep serious in this thread. If expertise in science is asked I am here to answer the questions.
I am not going to answer anymore posts sending me to read the bible and to chose between God or Carl Sagan.
If somebody feel -with all my respects- not sufficiently prepared to ask seriously, please, refrain from debating this issue.

 

What you're suggesting re. Maria Valtorta is the other logical possibility (I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, just a logical possibility). I presume then that the argument would be that in these cases she confused her own subjectivity with Divine inspiration - as John of the Cross points out frequently happens with supposed locutionaries. This would be a solution of sorts, although there are some problems with this, as the critiques of evolution occur in a number of different passages over several years. This would imply that MV's powers of discernment were questionable not only on one occasion but on a number - and the passages are highly extended and linguistically sophisticated, making the idea of confusion between the seer's subjective imagination and Divine locution less likely as a middle position between authentic locution and conscious fabrication. The question then is: to what extent would the stance you advocate invalidate the rest of the Valtortian corpus for you?

 

I think Sunburst gave a very eloquent explanation of what the Catholic Church teaches in this area above. This has been what I have understood for years now.

Jose, I'm sorry if I have not picked up on your exact views but what exactly do you believe in this area? Do you feel that your views are in line with what Sunburst mentioned above? Actually, do you believe in what the Church teaches in this area? I'm just trying to understand what exactly it is you believe in and if it lines up with Church teaching.

 

Well, I do not know. Actually is in the hands of the Church to discern what is a real mystic. I can only give my opinion about what I know.
Now if you ask me personally, if she said that this was a divine locution I will be not able to distinguish what was divine and what not. So, I would remain agnostic regarding M. Valtorta.

 

Hi Jimmyiz,
Yes, that is why I gave a "like" to Sunburst.
I think evolution is a true scientific theory with many facts that support it and that men have a soul. I am convinced by genetic and fossil records that modern humans and apes share the same common ancestor and that God used the laws of evolution as He used the laws of Physics and Chemistry for the unfolding of life on earth.

Now I have to leave....

 

I think Jose is a friend of God and this was a very unfair statement. I admire Jose, his honesty and his frankness, they are to be applauded in any individual. Much of this is lost today.. He is here because he believe in and wants to serve God.