From John
At the Vanilla Bean this afternoon I read that in 1837 Charles Darwin scribbled in his notes that “life originated only once.” This was a remarkable thought-provoking idea during that time of civil unrest much about the economic issues discussed today here at the Cafe – the economic breach between the common folk and the wealthy gentry.
No, Darwin wasn’t thinking about a divine event that happened 5 or 6000 years before. He was only six months back from his five year voyage on the Beagle around the world, still a rare feat back then. I haven’t read enough to learn how he concluded that “life originated only once” but he is clearly right. If ‘life’ evolved from non-life more than once after a long time span between the two events, we probably would not recognize it and this second lifeform would not likely survive long enough to be detected.
This is some of the thinking I had to deal with when trying to write a three page essay for a client’s application to the EPA that had to do with the danger of creating unwanted new life forms as the result of escaped recombinant DNA.
This original event pondered by Darwin was an improbable stochastic event which once begun would likely out compete and erase any unlikely later origin-of-life events. How do we know that this happened only once? In 1964, the genetic code was systematically cracked in Marshall Nirenberg’s lab at NIH. This was the genetic code for the E. coli bacterium. It did not take even a decade to determine that humans and all other life forms had the same genetic code. This is consistent with “life originating only once” … some 3 billion years ago.
In my own bench mark discovery my colleagues at Max-Planck and I sequenced the human protein beta-actin, the most abundant protein in all replicating eukaryotic cells. This protein is fundamental to all eukaryotic cell life (cells with a nucleus). We had other reasons for wanting to determine the sequence of this protein, but what came out was that this protein is essentially the same in sequence as actin in yeast, the lowest eukaryotic life form. This demonstrated that this protein was the highest conserved protein in evolution from yeast to humans. A few years later I cloned the human beta actin gene and proved to myself that the genetic code was correct (in 1982) in that I was able to predict the mutation that I had discovered in this protein and its gene in terms of the gene’s altered nucleic acid sequence, and then found it to be true.
Oddly, it was only a year ago when writing that three page essay I mentioned that I discovered a not well-known paper that presented the discovery of an actin gene in a strain of cyanobacterium, a photosynthetic bacterium that lives in the ocean. This is the only known example of such an occurance. Since the actin gene and its protein is now well understood in terms of its roll in higher life forms it could be concluded that the actin gene escaped from a marine invertebrate into the cyanobacterium probably while the bacterium was passing through the gut of the marine invertebrate – a stochastic event. So I was able to make a strong argument that there has been no unwanted escape of a recombinant gene from an engineered organism. But I had to end with the caveat that the most highly conserved gene in eukaryotic life escaped into a bacterium in a millennial timeframe (there are rare examples of transkingdom transfer of other genes). Heck, our mitochondria and plant chloroplasts are assimilated bacteria. What is even more surprising is that cyanobacterium expressing actin survived and competed within the biosphere so that it could be discovered. So it’s not only the mutations that occur in genes that spur evolution and natural selection, it’s also transkingdom transfer of genes between distant organisms.
I had the chance to meet Carl Sagan when he visited Linus Pauling at our institute in Palo Alto in 1984 or 85. Anne Druyan was there too. He was trying to raise money for the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). When I put the thought that “life originated only once” together with the idea that there might be extraterrestrial life, I can only conclude that if it exists elsewhere it will be nothing like life on Earth. In fact, there may be good reason not to try and contact them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxfJfv9tirU&feature=related
John- I think you and other cafer’s would like this video that relates to the subject you have mentioned. I’ve been following astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson partially because of my interest in the topic and partially because he is such a captivating speaker- often hard to find this combination in the sciences. Here he is speaking of extraterrestrial life and he puts it into an interesting perspective. When you stated that “there may be good reason to try and not contact them”, I thought of this video.
Hope you enjoy it.
John,
According to a Wikipedia article, in 1837 Darwin WAS referring to a Divine event and Creator. Apparently, he grappled, for most of his life, with the idea of whether or not God exists. In his later years, he described himself as an agnostic and not an atheist. In 1860, he wrote this:
“With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.[62].”
Here’s the link to the article if you would like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_religious_views
Newcomer, Wikipedia is not my source. If I were to use wikipedia as my source in my work, I would be laughed at by the client and fired by my employer. You are absolutely incorrect in your first statement, and you miss the point of what I have said.
John,
I’m certainly not suggesting that you or anyone should use Wikipedia as a source akin to a professional journal. So no, I wouldn’t think that you would deem it credible enough to use in your professional pursuits. The articles there are usually put together by common folk and some are more thorough than others; cite sources more properly and accurately than others. The info in any given article should be discerned in light of this.
That being said, if you look at the wikipedia article that I linked to, you can review the multiple source citations for yourself. Darwin himself is directly quoted in some of them.
There are multiple other sources you and anyone can consult if they so choose to explore the background and perspective that shaped Darwin and his theories.
At the time of his voyage on the Beagle, he had been studying Anglican (what we refer to as Episcopalian in the U.S.) theology. He was clearly conflicted about it, as he was raised with a mix of Unitarian and Anglican influences along with the writings of his own grandfather Erasmus Darwin. Erasmus also challenged the prevailing religious doctrine of his time.
I’m not incorrect in my first statement because it comes from a quote from Darwin himself. Although he is the darling of today’s neo-atheistic movement, he himself struggled all of his life to answer the question for himself as to whether or not God exists.
The Darwin quote that you cited, along with what you learned and proved through your own scientific research and experimentation seems to me to demonstrate that your Darwinian quote was correct: “life originated only once”. I believe and accept that theory from a position of faith and you seem to accept it from a position of science. Either way, we seem to agree about the conclusion even if we disagree as to how the conclusion came to be.
He went to the Univ. of Edinburgh. He was being pressured by his father to be a physician but he was revolted by the site of blood. So he basically had no other choice but to go to Cambridge which was controlled by the Angican church to become a country minister, the common path of the gentry. I’m sure he said a lot of things including that he “prefered to be called an agnostic” but if you look at the context of these statements, he was more concerned with receiving his slice of the family fortune from his father to pursue his own interests as a naturalist. He was also sensitive and respectful to his wife’s (Emma) devout Angican Christianity. I don’t have time to take apart everything you said above. Perhaps I can refer you to his preeminant body of work, “Origin of the Species” and “Descent of Man” not to mention his journal on the 7-year voyage. These are better sources than Wikipedia.
Finally, of what I have said in the article above only the statement “life originated only once” was taken from Darwin. The rest are my own thoughts, not weighed down with extensive quoting and distracting links to the Internet. Obviously those four words could speak to any theory of the origin of life, but I considered this to be a profound thought that hints at many things. I would rather hear your own original ideas rather than others’ mis-stated and taken out of context to suit your own needs.
It seems to me that the only thing that stands between the theory of evolution and belief in God is the insistence, on the part of Christian fundamentalists, on interpreting the bible literally. When I began asking questions about certain themes in my own Catholic education,my mother made the simple statement to me that the Bible consisted of allegorical truths, not literal truths, and that it was the moral lessons that were important to being a good Christian.
Before they go too far down this rabbit hole I’d suggest that Newcomer and John make sure they agree on what the words atheism, agnosticism, gnosticism and theism mean or this could be a long and frustrating exchange…
Thanks,
Kevin
The more you know, the more you know (that) you don’t know.
So true Harry.
Kevin,
Good suggestion. As I understand these terms, an atheist believes there is no such thing as God/God does not exist. An agnostic allows for the possibility that God exists, but isn’t sure/convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore, declares he/she “doesn’t know” for themselves whether or not God exists. For theism, I think most folks think of monotheism, or one God, when they use the terms theism. This is contrary to my Catholic belief in a consubstantial, Triune God.
Gnosticism is an ancient heresy in which one is basically a god unto oneself. For some reason, it keeps making a comeback every so often throughout the history of mankind. It was big in the middle ages as well, which is also the time period where the “New Age” nonsense (which isn’t “new” at all) stems from. Why did you bring up gnosticism? Is it making another comeback (God-forbid)?!
John,
I don’t actually have any original thoughts about Creation vs. evolution, nor about the statement that “life originated only once’. I believe in both the Biblical account of Creation in the Book of Genesis and evolution. I think I stated that at the Cafe once before. I don’t see how the two are mutually exclusive and I don’t see how either Darwin’s quote, nor your research contradict my beliefs. On the contrary, I understood your desciption above to mean that your findings validated Darwin’s statement that you quoted. That works for me.
I accept that God created man and everything else in six days and then uses the process of evolution to take it from there.
I believe that “life originated only once” because I’ve never seen or heard anything scientific that convinced me otherwise. Now admittedly, I don’t follow scientific discoveries very well and I usually only hear about the big stuff that makes it to network news. But still, if life on earth had ceased to exist at some point and that can be proven by science, wouldn’t it be such a big discovery that it would be common knowledge by now? Maybe it is and I missed it anyway.
I don’t understand your last two sentences.
The point I was making was the remarkable nature of “life originated only once”. It makes sense based on modern genetics on earth. This is why finding life on another planet will be so fascinating. As I said, I don’t know Darwin’s basis for writing that down but maybe as I read on, I will.
JTO,
The comments you relay above about what you learned from your mother are very, very common post Vatican II concepts. I was taught the same thing in my youth and have since learned that the same division that exists in U.S. politics between liberals and conservatives, also exists in the Catholic Church, especially in the U.S., in a BIG way. What I was taught as doctrinal and liturgical changes made during Vatican II aren’t even in Vatican II. These are things you mentioned like the Bible stories being allegorical and not literal, along with a host of others.
Understand that I’m not criticizing, nor blaming you or your mother. Our liberal priests, bishops, and religious were responsible for properly catechizing us and did not. JPII and B16 are both conservative and did (in the case of JPII) and are (in the case of B16) trying to turn the ship around.
Myself, I’m a traddie. I imagine you and I would end up having some rather lively discussions were we to ever take it up in person sometime!
John,
In your #12, I did miss that part of what you said. I was focusing in on life originating only once and only on this planet. I wasn’t considering life on other planets. I can’t and don’t see why God couldn’t or wouldn’t decide to create life on other planets in terms of plants or other types of critters. I wouldn’t expect to find other life akin to humans, but that’s nothing more than a wild guess on my part.
With God, all things are possible.
I guess religion really does soften the mind. How can one believe in the biblical account of creation and evolution? Obviously they are, to any rational person, mutually exclusive. It is rubbish to attempt to say otherwise.
You can be a religious person and believe in your church, but denying evolution, which is of course what creationism or “intelligent design” does, is nonsense to any rational and educated person.
doubtful,
The only part of the debate where Creation and evolution are mutually exclusive is when one must choose to either accept the Big Bang theory, or some other theory about how earth was made, versus choosing to accept the Biblical account that God created Heaven and earth. Any and all of these are technically theoretical because the big bang theory can’t be proven scientifically any more than the existence of God can be proven.
Beyond that initial decision, Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. There’s nothing wrong with believing that God intially created earth and everything/everyone in it and that He also instituted the evolutionary process to accomplish His work from that point on.
I’ve heard of some fundamentalist churches that do feel that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive but that doesn’t make it true for everyone in all instances. One can be religious and accept and integrate both theories into their belief system.
Newcomer, The “evolution” you are describing – Is this evolution over a 6000 timespan?
John,
This is not my area of expertise either so I had to dig out my trusty Bible timeline and look it up in order to answer you. My timeline doesn’t specify a 6,000 year timespan per se, but if I’m reading it correctly, that timeframe could certainly fit in.
My timeline lists both “secular history” and Biblical history for reference. The first of the 12 periods of Salvation History is termed “Early History”. It does not specify a date of Creation and leaves it open. So, on my timeline, the “Early World” is defined as beginning at an unspecified date listed as “Creation” and the Early biblical period ends at 2,000 B.C. It notes that the Great Egyptian pyramids were built circa 2,685 B.C. and that Stonehenge begun circa 2,000 B.C. During this secular period (again, unspecified beginning date to 2,000 B.C.) the “Early Period” Biblically covers Chapters 1-11 in the Book of Genesis. So that means that according to the timeline that I have, Genesis Chapter 11 would end acout 2,000 B.C. and Genesis Chapter 12 would begin about then.
Does that answer your question at all? I tried anyway, feeble attempt as it may be…
So you ignore the fossil record and radiometic dating. Hmmm.
I’m not sure that I ignore it. The way that I’m reading this timeline and since the Bible doesn’t list a date when God created the earth, the timeline leaves the exact date of “The Beginning” open. This leaves the door open for more scientific discoveries. My timeline begins with Creation but doesn’t start to match up years in history until “the middle”, I guess. The timeline starts listing years in history, both secular and Biblical at the time of the great egyptian pyramids.
I’m not sure that I’m explaining that clearly, or not but just because the the timeline doesn’t start recording history until the great pyramids doesn’t mean it denies anything occuring before the great pyramids. It doesn’t dispute the Ice Age, for example. It simply doesn’t begin to match up secular and biblical history until after the Ice Age.
All I can say is I am glad my mother and I are not being blamed for the schism in the modern American Catholic Church! What a relief!
And I hope people see what I mean about the influence of Christian evangelicals on perceptions of science, law and economics and it’s impact on our politics.
I read a great quote the other day:
“If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. “
The reason I said anything about you/your mother was because in the past when we’ve disagreed, sometimes you’ve taken my remarks to mean that I was going on the attack against you. Since the topic of religion is a very personal one, I wanted to make it clear to you that was not the intent of my comments.
But does the time span of the fossil record and the findings of radiometric methods of determining how long ago life existed agree in general with you view of the time of creation?
Yes JTO, I think we have just experienced a remarkable display of how the influence of Christian evangelism can distort perceptions of science, law and economics in a way that quality of life issues can never truly be addressed in a practical manner. Likewise, we can see how a political party could exploit these fears and misperceptions in order to distract from issues that are truly important to the progress of humanity. Instead of talking about the calamitous effects that this economy has had on people and developing practical strategies toward helping them, the republicans would rather go after gay marriage, illegal immigrants, and abortion laws.
Like religion, the republican party usurps morality and attempts to arbitrate it- all while innocent people continue to truly suffer as a result of republican inaction on issues that really matter to the majority of people.
NC – I know; my response was intended to be humorous.
I don’t really much care about the time of creation. We have enough with which to contend in the present.
Newcomer, Somewhere here you suggested that there is compatibity between evolution and divine creation. I can’t find it so I may be wrong. Is there any compatability between the two? If you wanted to write an essay on this we would post it on the front page.
You got it LibDem. At this point I don’ t know who is using who. I used to think the Republican power brokers were manipulating the evangelicals to their ends. Now I think they have a lion by the tail.
John-
See post #16 from Newcomer in response to my #15. After that one I gave up.
I like the stork theory
Everyone has a problem with teaching about Creation – I get that. You all think it’s a silly fable that can’t be proven, while the theory of evolution is hard and fast science. I’m not an idiot. I can read and comprehend your point of view. And for the 547,692nd time, I’m not a republican. I am registered as unaffiliated. I’m also not a member of a fundamentalist denomination of Christianity.
I still disagree with you folks, despite the fact that you all find my position “appalling”.
Before I explain why, I want to clarify what I mean when I suggest “teaching” Creation because I don’t think I’ve done that yet and clearly need to (not that it will make any difference to you).
When I use the word “teach” I don’t mean teaching a year-long course on Creation in public schools, either in addition to, nor in place of, science. By “teach”, I mean that students and their teacher should be allowed to discuss Creation during a course about evolution and/or the big bang theory, or whatever else, and neither the school nor the teacher should have to cower in fear at the thought of some atheist becoming offended at this and suing the school. As it stands right now, students in our public schools who are being raised in religious families are discouraged from voicing their thoughts and asking Creation-based questions, or making Creation-based comments during discussions of evolution because schools get sued if there is any mention of God. This happened within the last three years in WMS to a friend’s child. The student took the position of rejecting part of the big bang theory in favor of the Creation theory and was firmly and sharply instructed to cease any discussion involving God. That’s censorship and it’s not only wrong – it’s offensive. it’s also anti-education, if you ask me.
We’ve abandoned any notion of a classical liberal arts educational model in this country. That model is going the way of the dinosaur, if it hasn’t already. In a classic liberal arts classroom of days gone by, no theory or position was off-limits because everything from free exchange of ideas, to lectures and discussions, to full-blown debates was not only fair game in our classrooms, it was encouraged. This kind of critical thinking, debating, and critiquing of ideas and theories is a key part of the educational process. Nowadays we just preach at the kids; lecture to them and make sure they can regurgitate the info back on a state standardized test. This is a problem.
Our classrooms hold students who are as much a melting pot as the larger population of the nation. They are microcrosms of race, ethnicity, political persuasions (that they hear at home from adults), learning styles, physical and cognitive abilities (able-bodied and differently abled), and yes, even microcosms of religious views. It is absurd that our students who are religious (no matter which religion) can’t explain to their classmates during a classroom discussion why they believe what the Bible, Torah, Koran, Book of Mormon, or any other revered source teaches them about how the earth and man began. That can be compared and contrasted, and hopefully discussed and debated respectfully among students so that atheists can explore religious views and kids of faith can explore atheistic views. If we adults can all do that here, why shouldn’t our kids be allowed to do the same? The goal in the classroom (as I hope it is here and now with our present discussion) shouldn’t be about converting someone or influencing them to change their mind. That’s when education turns to indoctrination, no matter what the subject matter. But if you want future elected officials and responsible citizens who develop an awareness of opposing viewpoints and learn to work with, and even respect and admire, people whom they completely disagree with, that starts in youth. That should be the case in any subject taught in school, not just science.
Climbing down off of the soapbox. Now you can all post back about how this idea is also appalling and I’ve been brainwashed by fundamentalist republicans…
We are not the thought police, Newcomer. No one is saying you can’t talk about your beliefs. I always enjoyed History more than any other subject. There is much in History that was mentioned about Christianity and the struggles between various religious forces such as in the inquisition, the reformation, Roman history, the religious wars etc. Open debate about these subjects is okay. But to have a course in which Christian beliefs is mandated and then taught at the Elementary or Middle School, or High School levels is unjustified. There is nothing to prevent the Academy from teaching Christian values because they are private even though they are supported by taxpayers. However, this belongs as an elective at the college level just like molecular biology and even, God forbid, Evilution. I took religion courses in college because the professor, a graduate fro Yale, was an inspiring teacher. I would love to hear your thoughts on the compatibility of devine creation and the origin of life by evolution.
NC – whether it is “teaching” or “discussing” Creationism, this is a Christian belief and does not belong in the public schools. There are plentiful other venues for teaching of religious beliefs, so you or others are not being prevented from having these discussions. I would find it very offensive if Creationism WAS taught or discussed in my children’s public school classroom.
This issue has bee reviewed again and again by the courts which always arrive at the same conclusion. Your persistence in ignoring the Constitution, the law, the USSC are shocking. It is an example of the ned to remain vigilant to the influence of the Christian fundamentalists on the Republican party and their threat to our personal liberty.
Comparative religion courses are available in most colleges and universities, as are liberal arts curricula, so these statements are untrue and unrelated to the teaching (or discussion) of Creationism in public schools. If anything, the critical thinking skills and exchange of religious views you refer to would serve to undermine the elaborate, entirely man-made belief system of the Catholic Church.
John, without reference to the Bible, why is the theory of evolution inconsistent with a belief in God?
Bravo, Newcomer. You are a credit to the Cafe, and to all Communities.
JTO, I was hoping Newcomer would shed some light on the compatibility of divine creation and the origin of life by evolution. Frankly I am not a student of the ‘Christian beliefs’. I read carefully for the first time Genesis 1 through 3 when I posted it. I found it interesting to read. I would like to learn that they are compatible and how for personal reasons.
This weekend I will post some data on who believes what. Either way Darwin was right that “life originated only once.”
Hurrah for Obamacare
JTO,
Catholics do not believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church are an “elaborate, entirely man-made belief system”, unless you believe that Jesus was only a mere mortal like the rest of us and not the Son of God. If you believe that, that’s heresy, not Catholicism.
Catholics believe that the Church teaches the Word of God, which is literally the Bible. And Holy Scripture refers to Jesus as “The Word made flesh”. Since Catholics believe that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and that He made Peter our first Pope when He said, “You are Peter and upon this rock, I will build my Church”. By extension of that teaching, we also believe that the third person of the Most Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God who dwells in the World today, continuing to lead and guide the Holy Father and the Catholic Church. These are some of the basic foundations of our faith and for a practicing Catholic, they aren’t open for debate.
Now just because I’m publicly telling you all of this in a discussion and entertaining any dissenting opinions that you might hold, where is the harm in including such similar discussions in a public classroom as long as both people who may hold opposing views are permitted to express them and question each other about them openly? Indoctrination is me lecturing to you about my beliefs without giving you any opportunity to dispute or disagree. That’s not what I’m calling for. But if you would insist that a religious public school student must, by law, be taught the theory of evolution without being allowed to express his/her concerns and questions about how that theory may or may not conflict with his/her personal beliefs – then that is very deliberately – indoctrination. That’s the “thought police” that John described and I know of one case of it happening in Woodstock already. I’m sorry, but that just shouldn’t be.
It’s the very presentation of diverse cultures, religions, and races that enrich education and I believe they should be allowed and encouraged in our public classrooms.
So, I’m sorry, but I continue to respectfully disagree with you about this.
John,
I haven’t been ignoring your request. I’ve been grappling with how best to go about it. Just as you mentioned that you aren’t a student of Christian beliefs, I’m in the same boat with evolution and big bang theory. I have a basic familiarity with it from my school days, but I haven’t kept up with it since. I’d be glad to give you some Catholic Christian perspective but as far as comparing and contrasting it with evolution, you and I would probably need to find some way to do that collaborateively because I lack the scientific background as much as you lack the Christian background.
Newcomer – sorry to disappoint but Catholics have been debating interpretations of the teachings of Christ since, well, the Crucifixion. And, sorry again, but the bible was written by man, and you have no evidence to the contrary. Your selective, absolutist interpretations, and calling people “heretics” who do not believe Creationism should be taught in the public schools, make it clear you are simply incapable of viewing a mere lay document, like the Constitution, as having superior weight in the making of public policy, relative to your personal religious beliefs. And no one is disputing the value of comparative religion courses at the appropriate level; this string started with your stated desire to teach Creationism in public schools as an equivalent theory to that of Evolution, so stop shifting you argument.
How could Evolution and Devine Creation both be right? Assuming there really is a God? Simple. Why would God’s “day” necessarily be one of ours? His “day” could easily be one or three or whatever million of our years.
Genesis was written when people had no concept of truly large numbers. Research shows humanoid counting began as “one, two, many”. Nomadic gatherers had little need to tabulate things. As mankind settled into an agricultural lifestyle, numbers became more important. But even by the time Genesis was actually put in writing, a million of anything was almost totally unimaginable.
So here we have Creationists trying to “fit” God’s work into a metaphorical 7 days. This effort would be funny if it weren’t so sad. It is so typically anthropomorphic to assume that one of God’s days = our current 24 hours. One would think these folks believe that God was created in Man’s likeness, that He must follow our rules, not we His.
The formation of our star took about 20 million years. When Genesis (KJV) reads, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”, sounds about right except that this verse actually combines the formation of Earth with the formation of our star. For the star, darkness came first; for Earth, light came first. Oh well, minor detail
The point is, that there is no reason why an omniscient God should have followed the timetable of a primitive creature who initially couldn’t count past 2, which is precisely what is required to interpret The Creation in Genesis literally. So don’t! Get out the salt shaker and acknowledge that God moving in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform could easily have set everything in motion with a clap of thunder, aka, Big Bang, and then just sat back and smiled as all Creation unfolded.
On newscientist.com is an article, “Life: is it inevitable or just a fluke?”, by Nick Lane, which proposes WHY, as Darwin said, “life only originated once”, and consequently, why the advanced life forms on Earth may actually be more unique than we’ve been led to believe.
And Diane is appalled that we haven’t embraced Newcomer’s hysteria. Why do I feel like banging my head against a wall?
JTO,
Debate is one thing, rejection of Church doctrine is quite another. Usually throughout history when people have not accepted the Church teaching, they’ve either left the Church, not entered the Church, or left to form their own new church. Post Vatican II, Catholics have been allowed a huge amount of latitude to dissent because the bishops have been shy about enforcing excommunications and witholding Holy Communion. Little by little, things are beginning to go back to the way the Church has always conducted itself and that is to say that if someone doesn’t accept Church teaching, they are always free to either reconcile or they are free to leave.
It would be nice if there could be some brief explanation of what the Creation theory is. That’s technically teaching. But as I think of it, any such explanation would have to be very, very general because even among different denominations of Christians, there are a variety of different interpretations of the Creation story. It isn’t possible to teach them all, nor should such a thing be attempted, but I don’t see a problem with mentioning that it exists and some people feel strongly about it. If the courts have ruled against that, then I disagree with the courts too.
Thanks, Diane. I’ll have to read that article. I just found it.
Diane,
Thanks for jumping into the discussion! A few of us who are Cafe regulars can only benefit from you adding another perspective to the mix.
As to your comments above about the Creation story, there are some Christian denominations (and yes, some of them are fundamentalist) who interpret even the literary devices literally (ie. 7 days). There are other denominations that do not interpret the literary constructs per se in any literal way, but they interpret the concepts literally that the literary devices convey. Catholicism does the latter. I personally conjure images in my own head in terms of 7 days because I think it’s just my habit from hearing and reading the Genesis story over and over through the years. But the Catholic church does not hold to the time constraint of 7 days for creation. It is the fact that God is creator that matters most. There are other things that we learn about God and His plan through the creation story in Genesis that the Church affirms as Truth. So much has been written about this topic that it’s hard for me to thoroughly convey it here.
Forgive me for the fact that what follows will be quite long, but you asked me once before at the Cafe about a soul and now you seem to be sincerely exploring both religious and scientifc concepts of creation. I’m not attempting to sway you in any particular direction, but I’d like to relay some key elements of the Catholic take on it so you can add it to the collection of ideas that you seem to be exploring.
The numbers that will be listed below are the Article # where each entry can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The CCC is a published volume explaining what the Catholic Church teaches and why.
(CCC 282): “Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves: “Where do we come from?” “Where are we going?” “What is our origin?” “What is our end?” “Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?” The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions”.
(CCC 283): “The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give Him thanks for all His works and for the understanding and wisdom He gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements…for wisdom, the fashioner of all things taught me”. (Wisdom 7:17-22)
(CCC 284): “The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called “God”? And if the world does come from God’s wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it”?
(CCC 285): “Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to Him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manicheism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as a watchmaker who, once He has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human”.
(CCC 286): “Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through His works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of the truth: “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”
(CCC 287): “The truth about creation is so important for all of human life that God in His tenderness wanted to reveal to His People everything that is salutary to know on the subject. Beyond the natural knowledge that every man can have of the Creator, God progressively revealed to Israel the mystery of creation. He who chose the patriarchs, who brought Israel out of Egypt, and who by choosing Israel created and formed it, this same God reveals Himself as the One to whom belong all the peoples of the earth, and the whole earth itself; He is the One who alone “made heaven and earth”.
(CCC 288): “Thus the revelation of creation is inseparable from the revelation and forging of the covenant of the one God with His People. Creation is revealed as the first step toward this covenant, the first and universal witness to God’s all-powerful love. And so, the truth of creation is also expressed with growing vigor in the message of the prophets, the prayer of the psalms and the liturgy, and in the wisdom sayings of the Chosen People”.
[Just a note here that the "Chosen People" are the Israelites].
(CCC 289): “Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation – its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation.”
(CCC 290): “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”: three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb “create” – Hebrew ‘bara’ – always has God for its subject). The totality of what exists (expressed by the formula “the heavens and the earth”) depends on the One who gives it being.”
(CCC 291): “In the beginning was the Word…and the Word was God…all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3)
“The New Testament reveals that God created everything by the eternal Word, his beloved Son. In him “all things were created, in heaven and earth…all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. The Church’s faith likewise confesses the creative action of the Holy Spirit, the iver of life,” “The Creator spirit” (“Veni, Creator Spiritus”), the “source of every good”.
(CCC 292): “The Old Testament suggests and the New Covenant reveals the creative action of the Son and the Spirit, inseparably one with that of the Father. This creative cooperation is clearly affirmed in the Church’s rule of faith: “There exists but one God…he is the Father, God, the Creator, the author, the giver of order. He made all things by Himself, that is by his Word and by his Wisdom,” “by the Son and the Spirit” who, so to speak, are “his hands.” Creation is the common work of the Holy Trinity.”
There’s a lot more, but I think I’ll take a break at this point.
John, in reading through this, are you beginning to understand what I’m trying to explain when I tell you that Catholics are free to believe in both the creation story and in evolution? I figured I probably couldn’t explain it properly so I decided it best to just present the Church teaching in their own words. I’m hoping this might explain what I’m trying to say clearer than I’m able to do on my own.
Diane – if you read my comments above, you will see that I do not believe that belief in Evolution, in and of itself, necessarily precludes a belief in the existence of God, for the reasons you describe.
NC – I am not going to debate your religious beliefs except to say you are free to believe what you believe. I would ask a simple question, and ask that you refrain from a religious lecture, or changing of the question, in responding.
Do you recognize the authority of the U.S. courts, including the U.S.Supreme Court, to prevent the teaching of Creationism in public schools?
Newcomer, You are really pushing your luck with the 11 or 12 paragraphs of scripture. This is not a church or a place for a sermon. Just your own thoughts, please, with an occassional citation.
John,
I’m not trying to push my views on anyone and I think I prefaced my last post by saying that to Diane. I’m trying to show that different denominations teach different views about these subjects. In our discussions, especially between LibDem and I, I sometimes come away with the sense that some of you think that all denominations of Christianity believe the same way as the fundamentalist denominations do. I’m simply trying to make it clear that’s not the case. In American politics, it does seem that fundamentalists have the loudest voice at times, but they don’t define or represent all denominations of Christianity.
Beyond that, I was also trying to give you a good sampling of Catholic teaching regarding creation to show you that Church doctrine does not prevent any Catholic from accepting evolutionary theory, as long as some foundational truths about God are maintained as we find them in Genesis. The point is that it’s about what is being said more than how it is being said.
JTO,
You asked, “Do you recognize the authority of the U.S. courts, including the U.S.Supreme Court, to prevent the teaching of Creationism in public schools?”.
No. I recognize and obey man’s law unless and except when it tries to usurp God’s authority as Lawgiver. I will obediently adhere to every law in the United States as long as it doesn’t force me to disobey one of God’s laws. Once it tries to do that, it violates my freedom to practice my religion and at that point, CIVIL disobedience is in order.
So, in the case of making reasonable accomodations for people to express their faith in God in public schools, I question the authority of the federal government.
Another example is the HHS mandate that is now not only mandate but the law of the land, I support those of my fellow Catholics who declare, “We will not comply”.
Loadstar was not excommunicated. J
Re: #43
You know, guys, Lodestar hasn’t weighed in recently (did you excommunicate him, John?) but LibDem is beginning to sound suspiciously similar with his condescending dismisal of views with which he disagrees. Do you suppose that all along, they’ve been one and the same? Deliberately taking opposite points on the stage so as to exacerbate differences and polarize us? Hmm… how Machiavellian
Has NC written here in an hysterical fashion? I didn’t see that. In fact, in the earlier comments, I was quite impressed at his failure to descend into infantile anger or hostility in the face of being baited and slammed, ie, “religion softens the mind”, NC’s comments are a “remarkable display of how the influence of Christian evangelism can distort”.
So the hysteria to which LD refers must be NC’s OPINION. Ahhh… see what I mean? NC holds views contrary to those LD appears to embrace so he calls NC’s ideas “hysteria”. Thus we liberals’ ideas must be enlightened, reasoned, rational.
And then there’s me. Because I agreed with NC on just the one point that it is possible for Evolution and the Creation story in Genesis to coexist, like LS might have done, LD now accuses me of embracing hysterical notions. Do you suppose that next he’ll attribute my “hysteria” to “that time of the month” [[eg]]?
NC – You are reinforcing my point about the danger of Christian fundamentalists mixing their religious beliefs into the making of public policy; in this case the teaching of Creationism, a religious belief, alongside Evolution, a scientific theory, in the public schools. Can you tell me where or when God commanded you to preach Creationism in the public schools? I must have missed this in my own training, but then I was in Catholic schools.
Diane – if you are looking for an example I would say NC’s comment just above expressing her belief that, by being disallowed from preaching her religious beliefs in the public schools, based on interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by the Supreme Court, her religious freedom is being impinged, as it conflicts with a commandment by God himself that she do so, provides a good example of hysteria.
You know, guys, Mary Mapes hasn’t weighed in recently but Diane is beginning to sound suspiciously similar with her sanctimonious attitude and conspiratorial slant. Do you suppose that all along, they’ve been one and the same? Deliberately taking opposite points on the stage so as to exacerbate differences and polarize us? Hmm… how Machiavellian
Lol. Do you see how childish this sounds Diane? I’m really surprised that you have stooped to such a level.
Regardless, point taken. I apologize.
Religion is a very sensitive topic and it is ridiculous to try to reason someone out of something that they were never reasoned into (or so the saying goes). I never should have tried and I never should have instigated this conversation.
I sincerely do not “get” religion. I was not raised in a religious household. My parents openly abhorred religion and my mother loved to point out its hypocrisy. The cult-like behavior of believers, the blind faith, the dismissal of science, the sanctimonious rhetoric, the mysticism, the fear, the idea of original sin, the involvement in politics, are some of the reasons that have shaped my opinion.
When I hear the religious jargon used by Newcomer it raises the hair on the back of my neck. What may come across to a religious person as sounding perfectly acceptable, comes across to me as delusional, coercive, zealous, bordering hysteria. It is hard for me not to get offended.
Nevertheless, I never should have personalized my frustration and for that I sincerely apologize to Newcomer, you and anyone else to whom I may have offended.
Please know that I hold steadfast to my opinions though. I truly believe that a healthy opposition to religion is essential. When there was not opposition and religion was not marginalized, it proved to be a corrupt, exploitative, and downright plague to humanity. JTO has pointed out some of this historical context. Religion must be kept in check and the division between church and state must be strengthened- without compromise.
LibDem,
Thank you for the apology but these days, I become offended by you much less frequently than I used to. Chalk it up to Darwin’s theory of adaptation!
I’m glad that you apologized to Diane though. I like her. Please don’t scare away the sane liberals – there seems to be so few of them left.
Separation of Church and State would not be the problem, if we would implement it properly. That would involve abandoning the current position of: “either you go, or I go – and I’m not going anywhere”, when what is called for here is compromise and tolerance. Every coin has a flipside. Respecting the environment you describe being raised in, perhaps there are also people raised in religious families, especially during the WWII era, where those of a particular religion were persecuted by the government. That can never be permitted to happen again and anti-religion sentiments have been known to rise to a fever pitch if they catch on. We have to work out some way to co-exist respectfully – even in school.
If government shouldn’t adopt an official “state” religion (and I don’t believe that it should), then it also shouldn’t suppress religious expression. If government were to do either of those, it would be dictatorial. THAT’S the point that I continually fail to make with you. You seem to continue to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Do you feel as though the U.S. Government is suppressing your religious expression? Is it really that important to have public display of your religious expression?
I am sensitive to governments persecuting people for their religious beliefs, particularly fascist persecution of the Jewish people. And yes, that should never be permitted again.
However, persecution of one religion by another seems to be more of a consistent issue,historically, don’t you think?
I would think that governments would wish the people to embrase the opiate of the masses.
Are you kidding? Persecution of one religion by another is de rigeur.
LD – I’m glad you too get your tongue stuck in your cheek occasionally
I fully understand and share your frustration that there are people who hold themselves out as Godly but behave so very badly. And yes, history is full of dispicable examples of hypocrisy and inhumanity in the name of some religion or another. But is that the fault of the religion or of those who pervert that religion for their own earthly gain?
I think most highly of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. To me, his lessons were far and away the truest in the murky world of prophets and saviours. Son of God? I’m not even sure there is a God, much less that He had a Son but when I look at those who do believe this to be true, I have to ask are these folks reading the same advice that I have read? Love those who dispise you? Turn the other cheek? Lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven, not on Earth? Does celebrating the murder of Osama bin Laden qualify as following the advice of Jesus? Or making war to enrich a relative few? When self-righteous Evangelicals climb into bed with Big Money, I think of Him throwing the money changers out of the Temple. And don’t EVEN get me started on drones!
So keep opposing corruption, lies, blatant thievery and bailouts of the big corps but put the blame on the SOBs who perpetrate those evils and remember that going to church doesn’t make them Christians nor to temple, Jews nor to the mosque, Muslims. Their god is Mammon.
Diane is 100% on the mark with her last comment. There is a major difference between people who are honestly striving to live out the virtues of their faith, versus those who practice their faith in name-only and set about perverting and corrupting everything it stands for by their words and deeds.
Yes I agree with Diane as well, but to a point.
It is easy to blame those on top- church leaders, politicians, CEO’s. However is there not some complicity on the part of the followers, the electorate, the worker for allowing and quietly standing by as their leaders pervert the institution?
Is not inaction as harmful as action in some cases?
How many Catholics openly admonished their church when it knowingly shifted pedophiles to other parishes? Not enough.
How many citizens who complain about government get involved in politics? Not enough.
How many workers will whistle blow their employers who act without ethics? Not enough.
Now I understand that to put oneself on the offense can be very risky. But there is a lesson to be learned from the cock who crowed thrice. Is there not?
NC – so then if one person practices their faith- related principles but ignores the organizational aspects, and the other follows all the organizational aspect, but ignores the principles, which of the two gets through the pearly gates?
JTO,
I have no idea, but possibly both.
The whole purpose of the organizational structure is to give accurate guidance according to Scripture as to how a person of faith should live out the principles. If one believes that the organizational structure they were raised in is not correct, then should they persevere to understand the organizational structure better, seek another that is the “right”/”correct” one, or throw their hands up and quit?
If you are brainwashed, it’s very hard to make the correct decision and/or quit. Cult behavior has demonstrated this over and over again. Remember Jonestown?
For my #62, I meant possibly neither, not both. Churches provide guidelines for believers, but ultimately it’s only God alone who decides who gets in and who doesn’t…
John, if we’re talking about cults where one is isolated from the outside world like Jonestown or Warren Jeffs, then I agree with you. But it’s different with mainstream organized religion. Even a strict form of Christianity such as the Amish allow for a period of time to explore alternatives before deciding to fully commit oneself to the faith.
They weren’t isolated before they left northern CA for Jonestown. The Peoples Temple was based in and around San Francisco and existed for two decades.
NC – don’t you think the organization might explain its various beliefs in a way that makes sense rather than insisting they are a mystery that cannot be understood by man, but must be accepted by man, lest they be excommunicated, committed to eternal fires of hell, etc?
I have to say I think most modern religions are essentially cults built around individuals – Christ, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, etc. The various Protestant faiths have some core beliefs that vary but at least they can articulate what they are. I know little about the Jewish faith and I view the Hindu and Buddhist faiths as entirely different forms of belief.
JTO,
Your views are your views. I’ve been pretty open about the fact that I’m a traditionalist in terms of my Catholicism. You’re not. It’s not my place to judge you and I won’t. All I can do is to say that I disagree with you and why I do, as well as hear you out when you disagree with me.
As far as the Jewish faith, I’m sure you’ll recal from your catholic schooling that the Jewish faith is the foundation for the Catholic faith. Our Bible begins with the Pentateuch, specifically Genesis being the first Book. That’s an ancient Hebrew Scripture along with the next 4 Books after it. You may know more about the Jewish faith than you realize.
@LD #60
Your accusing “the followers, the electorate, the worker” who fail to act in the face of wrongdoing of “complicity” with “those on top” is inaccurate. Complicity means one has knowingly participated in an unlawful act. One is not complicit when one does not know or refuses to believe that a crime has been committed. Ignorant? Foolish? Stupid? Quite possibly, but not complicit. If they can be convinced of the wrongdoing and still do nothing about it, they MIGHT be guilty of being accessories after the fact. But they cannot be complicit in a crime in which they did not participate.
Like this guy Diane…
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57459002-504083/philadelphia-priest-sex-abuse-trial-monsignor-william-lynn-convicted-of-child-endangerment/
You don’t think he is complicit? Just ignorant, foolish or stupid??