If monkeys evolved into human beings, then why are there still monkeys?

Monkeys did not evolve into human beings. According to the theory of evolution by natural selection, both monkeys and humans evolved from earlier forms of primates. Further, even if one of those earlier forms continued to live today, this would not invalidate the evolutionary theory: It is species that evolve, not individuals. Those portions of a species that were living in an environment that did not have adverse conditions leading to differential survival rates for individuals with different traits would experience no evolution. Those portions living amidst adverse conditions that allowed only those with certain traits to survive would see a change in traits over generations as survival of those better adapted to the environment would prevail.

Which adverse conditions lead to which differential reproductive changes which led which earlier forms of primates to evolve into humans while other primates, living alongside them, did not?

As see here, evolution is a heap of implicit premises none of which are proven.

Evolution happens on a micro scale all the time. From the development within insect species of resistance to a pesticide to development in bacterial species of resistance to antibiotic. In a general sense, given enough time, differential rates of survival, and thus of reproduction, can lead to changes in a species to a great enough extent that groups are reproductively isolated from each other. Time is really the key. I am not sure what is implicit about the premise. The premise is pretty straightforward. If it's wrong, maybe you can explain to me why it is.

As to your question about humans, I am no expert on primate evolution, so I don't know all those prehistorical details. But given several million years (and I realize some contest the premise that life has been around a long time), populations can be split by geographic features, migration, local environmental changes,different reproductive behavior, etc. If populations live in different conditions, the traits favoring survival (and thus reproduction) will not be the same in each situation. If over long stretches of time, these populations do not interbreed, they may reach a point when they have enough genetic differences that they are not able to reproduce successfully with each other any more. At that point, they would be considered different species. (We see cases of species which are on the borderline of being reproductively incompatible, as in the ability of the horse and donkey to produce sterile offspring.)

Hi Brian, Evolution on a "micro scale" as you state can also be defined as adaptation. The big difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is of course time, but more importantly micro-evolution/adaptation happens only within a species. Like bacteria mutating. No new organism/creature is formed. With macro-evolution the magical time factor gets the job done with new creatures formed. Like reptile to bird. Or a primordial soup gets hit by lightning and a living single-cell creature arises from the BIG POW and evolution has begun........

Hi Marija, thanks for the message. While your explanation of the difference between micro- and macro-evolution does provide useful operational definitions, change within a species--given adequate time--can certainly lead to speciation. In other words, the process that gives us micro-evolution is the very same process that can lead to reproductive isolation (behavioral, temporal, or geographic differences causing some groups of the species not to reproduce with each other) which in turn can lead to different changes in allele frequencies within the separated groups. Eventually (and yes, it takes a long time), the populations can become genetically different enough that they can no longer interbreed successfully. At that point, macro-evolution has occurred, by your definition of the term.

As I mentioned in my post above, we do have multiple cases where speciation has taken place, but not completely. The horse and the donkey are speciated to the point where they cannot produce fertile offspring together, yet they can produce sterile mules or hinnies. Are horses and donkeys in the same species? We generally say they are not, but clearly they are less genetically different than are two species that cannot produce any offspring together at all. Yet there have been rare exceptions when mules have given birth after mating with a horse or donkey, showing that whether two types of animals are in the same species or not is not always a black-and-white question. This can be explained if micro-evolution and macro-evolution are really the same process, viewed at much different time scales.

I am not sure why you would use the word "magical" to mock the notion that given enough time, through successive changes in allele frequencies, the formation of new species can occur. That is the type of word we hear disrespectful atheists use to mock religious beliefs (e.g., "God magically parted the Red Sea.") It doesn't reflect a respectful dialogue when they do it, so I would respectful suggest we shouldn't really play that game either.

A BIG POW (as you put it) as a means of bringing about life could describe an atmosphere filled with organic molecules and lightning, or it could describe God commanding that it happen, "and it was so." So I hope you are not suggesting that a BIG POW occurring is an implausible way for life to have been created. Life on earth did have a beginning, after all. Either of those explanations for how it started (and I'm not sure they are mutually exclusive at all) seems to be worthy of further consideration and respect. And neither of them represents magic.

It is not my burden to prove that the premises of evolution are wrong. True science does not depend on premises but on observable and testable results. A view of origins resting on unproven premises about what happened in the past is not science but historical anthropology.

It's interesting that you endorse a strictly empirical approach to science. Many of your supporters on this site are very opposed to this and insist on starting any examination of life on earth by accepting certain premises, for example, regarding the necessity of special creation of every species as it presently exists and no possibility of evolution. I am in agreement with you, that science ought not to start with any premise and to base its findings on that which can be observed and tested.

I also agree that it is not your burden to prove anything. I am not normally one to comment on this site and only did so to respond to the question one of your supporters asked: "If monkeys evolved into human beings, then why are there still monkeys?" I responded to him or her, hoping to help with an understanding of what evolutionary theory actually posits about this question, and then my later response was an attempt to answer the question this first response generated from you. I have nothing but the greatest respect for your reputation and the role you have played in many matters of great import to Traditional Cathoics. I had no intention of challenging you to prove anything.

"Micro evolution" is just fancy talk for adaptation within the genetic limits of kinds. Pesticide-resistant bugs are the same bugs and will always be the same bugs.

There is no proof whatever of transformism--the evolution of molecules into men--which would require the accidental assembly over time of entirely new body plans, which is impossible on the genetic and molecular level.

Mr. Ferrara, if you don't like the term "micro evolution," we are actually in agreement. I don't care for it either. I only used "micro" to offer a concession that changes on a small scale are not necessarily proof of changes on a large scale. "Micro-evolution" as something distinct from "macro-evolution" is usually something postulated by those who do not believe in the overall concept of evolution by natural selection, but who do acknowledge that changes can occur in populations.

"Transformism" is also not a biological concept. I am actually unfamiliar with that term. But I am in complete agreement with you that molecules do not evolve into men. Honestly, these arguments are just red herrings. Evolution is something that ONLY happens to species, not to individuals, and certainly not to molecules. Evolution does not involve any individual thing--molecule, organism, or man--transforming into something else. (Lamarck's discredit hypothesis of the inheritance of acquired traits is an example of faulty thinking in this regard.) Rather, evolution by natural selection says just this: That individuals which are better adapted to prevailing environmental conditions are more likely to survive, and thus to reproduce, than other members of a species. As a result, the species may change, given enough time, as more and more individuals are produced that have those advantageous traits. It is not anti-God, it is not anti-Creation, it is not anti-Catholic, it is not mythical, it is simply based on empirical observations and very basic logic.

The Catholic Church has never definitively ruled that Genesis must be understood in a way that endorses or that precludes evolution as part of the explanation. Pius XII in Humani Generis does set down some important limits, but he clearly leaves room for the possibility of evolution of the body (though definitely not of the soul). It is my carefully considered view that an evolutionary explanation is in fact the most plausible, but I certainly admit that there is much that remains to be learned. I hope you would join me in agreeing there is much we do not know and that we should await a better understanding before casting aspersion on others who may disagree with us over which explanations are most compelling, particularly if their views are within the parameters set down by Pius XII.

Thank you, J Adams. Mutations do add to genetic variability. And genetic variability is important to the concept that individuals in a population will differ how likely they are to survive and reproduce in the particular enviornmental conditions.

Peter, do you believe that the universe and each object in it began to exist simultaneously and instantly? If you do believe that, please tell us why Genesis says that Adam began to exist before Eve began to exist. Do you think the simultaneity Vatican I describes implies that no event happened earlier than any other one did, that no events happened one after another? I believe each thing the Church teaches. But I'm suggesting that during our conversation, we need to distinguish between causing something to begin to exist keeping in existence.

Moderator,

Unable to post the comments below regarding the Matt/Ferrara interview just before the OATM. Could you kindly get it on the thread?

Dear Mr. Ferrara,

You say: "the PBC does not rule out the idea that there were ages before the emergence of life..". But the suggestion of creation in stages is invalidated by the magisterial teaching that all things were created body and soul, instantaneously in their whole substance "ex nihilo".

The short duration of creation is confirmed by Lateran IV. "God ...creator of all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once (Latin "simul" - meaning altogether at the same time) ...created..."

Also by the words "in their whole substance" Vatican I (canon 5) : "If anyone does not confess that the world, and all things contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing...

These teachings are part of traditional Creation theology as taught by the Church Fathers, e.g. Sts. Augustin and Bonaventure (see catholicorigins.com), the idea of creation in stages is not mentioned.

Peter

Creation in stages is what Genesis plainly teaches. That's not the issue at all.

My paleontology professor taught us that in the most general sense of the word, evolution is genetic change in a population over time. So it seems to me that in that sense, populations self-evidently do evolve.

Evolutionists pull a sleight of hand with the word "evolution." They use this one word to refer both to "genetic change in a population over time" and as the "mechanism" for their belief in common ancestry. These are two different things, two different claims.

Critics of evolutionism often use the terms macro and micro to distinguish the two senses of evolution, while most evolutionists I have ever talked to prefer to obfuscate this difference and choose to use micro-evolution (mere change) within a population as some sort of argument or proof for macro-evolution (common ancestry of all life on earth). This sort of obfuscation demonstrates that we are not dealing with reasoned arguments but with an a priori belief system.

We know that populations change genetically because we know that, say, bacteria mutate to resist antibiotics. Sometimes drug companies may even need to invent new antibiotics because some bacteria become immune to the current ones. But fossils won't show those changes when the bacteria are too fragile to fossilize. Soft tissue usually won't fossilize because it usually decays instead. After I die, who will find a fossilized piece of my skin? No one.

We know that bacteria do not mutate into multi-celled organisms nor create new higher systems within themselves for which they do not already contain the coding for. Mutations do not lead to new kinds of life forms arising from a given population, but rather alter individuals within populations with usually bad results.

A mutation is a mistake in the passing on of the genetic code. It is not a creative force. Evolutionists claim that life basically creates itself in all its different manifestations through a blind "process" that has no basis in actual science or any proper understanding of cause and effect that we know of.

Zong, you probably won't find a wolf who gave birth to a dog, but dogs still descend from wolves. So, for me, the question is, "How much genetic change needs to happen to produce a new natural kind?". My brother Dan told me that he watched a TV program where a biologist said he discovered that human DNA showed that people relate genetically to Neanderthals. But since a human soul is what causes a human person to be a human person, a Neanderthal would have had a nonhuman soul. If I'm right about that, although the human body may have descended from a Neanderthal one, that doesn't mean that any human person descended from a Neanderthal. So I wonder whether there was a common ancestor that a human body may have descended from, though no human person descended from a nonhuman one.

To me, debates about whether people evolved from a common ancestor usually seem metaphysically shallow. But the chief difference between a human person and a genetically similar nonhuman creature is a metaphysical one that too many natural scientists ignore because they ignore metaphysics. If the theory of evolution contradicts Catholic doctrine, I'll reject that theory. I haven't accepted it. I haven't rejected it either, since I don't know what to think of it. Still, I suggest that we need to reflect more deeply it and creation if we think they exclude each other. Most people I talk with seem not to know the difference between creating and forming it. That's partly why I cited the Catholic Encyclopedia's article about creation. That article's author denies that creation is a change. If God weren't creating, nothing would be changing. If there were no God, there would be no one at all and nothing at all.

Dogs are the result of breeding, so it's recombination of the DNA of various individuals in the population to favor only certain traits drawn from the wider population. The breeds are actually losing wolf information since it's been bred out of them to one degree or another in favor of choosing specific characteristics.

Winnowing down the available genetic information from "the kind" leads to peculiar problems because it's not natural selection at work but human selection.

Yes, at some point, some groups may lose the ability to mate with members of their wider kind because of this or a similar process, but my understanding is it's more of a loss of information than a true divergence which is claimed by evolutionists. It's an 'evolutionary' dead end because - there is no macro-evolution - all it does is isolate a group from the rest and limit their access to genetic information. Extinction is then more probable unless natural selection "works" for that group. This is more in line with what we see. There are kinds that go from a high order of information available to more divergent groups with less information available, which then eventually become extinct, leaving only the most fit to survive until they also go extinct. Things are winding down, not winding up.

Neanderthals were human, so that claim doesn't make sense. Just a particular group of humans - like the dog breed scenario. Their traits are now absorbed into the whole human gene pool and/or they fizzled out.

"So I wonder whether there was a common ancestor that a human body may have descended from, though no human person descended from a nonhuman one."

There is no need to speculate about this since you could never know it.

Tell me, Zorg, if Neanderthals were human persons, did they descend from Adam and Eve or did Adam and Eve descend from them? I say that although Neanderthals were human-like, they were nonhuman because their souls were nonhuman. To be orthodox about human origins, I need to believe that, for example, Adam and Eve were the first two human people. If Neanderthals descend from them, were Neanderthals primitive because our first parents had sinned in the Garden of Eden?

You're right when you say that metaphysically naturalistic atheists deny that we need God. But the rarely even wonder why there's anything at all. If they don't tell you that the existence of the universe has no explanation of any kind, they the gave a big problem: There's no empirical way to to discover that its existence is a brute fact. How do you tell the difference between an uncaused material object and a material object with an undiscoverable cause.

To know that the universe existed brute-factually, you would need to explain why its existence has no explanation. If that's doable, which I doubt, there's still a big problem with inductive reasoning that scientists use to argue for their theories. An inductive argument is always inconclusive when it supports its conclusion. If you think all the marbles in a huge can, your belief may be highly probably when you've already counted a million blue ones, there could still be a non-blue one hidden in there. You contradict yourself when you write that although all the canned marbles are blue, at least one canned one isn't blue. A deductive argument is conclusive when it proves its conclusion because if you affirm the premises while you deny the conclusion. But in an inductive argument, your conclusion may be more probable enough to make it unreasonable to doubt it. But it could still be false, even when all the premises are true.

Darwin is "throwing it up"- the Illuminati symbol for "shhh". thanks for posting

An outspoken enemy of Intelligent Design went to the moon and upon seeing a little pile of rocks began to think he might have company up there.

LOL. "Appearance of design". It must have worked on him.

An interesting note on this topic is the recent voluntary euthanasia of David Goodall, a noted evolutionary botanist. Being blessed with a very long life of 104 years, it seems he spent his last years sitting around in boredom and depression. A life of pursuing evolutionary science had left him with no purpose and no hope and no belief in an afterlife. Without the spiritual dimension he ended a life he regarded as empty by flying off and having himself terminated.

Horrible! Was he related to Jane Goodall?

I couldn't find any mention of a relationship on the internet. And there's quite a bit written about him - mostly praising his suicide decision. No one seems to be of the opinion that he should soldier on to the end as determined by God.

Random mutations? Really? What about random? Is there anything random in God's universe? Say you spill a box of toothpicks on the floor. Here we have an example of randomness. And yet the ratio between those toothpicks that have another toothpick laying on it and those laying alone turns out to be the number pi! 3.14 . . . or 22/7. Who would have guessed that? And yet one of the pillars of Darwinism is random mutations. In any case most mutations represent degradations of the organism. Darwinism is a theory that depends heavily on ignorance of the true nature of things. Is your computer the product of randomness? Well, if we are then it is also. But it certainly has all the ear marks of design, so are we to conclude that design is itself randomness disguised? Finally we discover that random is itself self contradictory. If we know the plan the result is not random; when we are ignorant of the plan it is random. So much for evolution.

If we look at those who have studied the matter and still insist on evolution by means of random genetic changes and survival of the fittest, they do not reject God because they accept evolution as scientifically proven; rather, they accept their extremely flakey Darwinian theory because they first reject God's existence. These people are probably beyond being convinced by rational argument.
When we debate them, therefore, the real targets whom we are trying to educate and persuade are the audience and the bystanders. This is a bit like the presidential debates, where the candidates are obviously not trying to convince one another, but to sway the undecided who are watching.
If we can demonstrate the real shortfalls of Darwinian evolutionary theory and force our atheist enemies to admit that they are Darwinians because they are first atheists, and that this is so even though Darwinism has gaping holes in it which they cannot explain, we have done most of what can be done for the benefit of the undecideds among the listeners. Once these undecideds understand that nothing can be without there first being a Creator--an Intelligent Designer, if you will--they are most of the way to being on our side.
This, I believe, is the real business which we should be pursuing. Discussions about how God implemented His obviously very intelligent designs (and how many days or eons He used to do it) are interesting in their own way, but of somewhat secondary significance. Conversely, the kind of intramural disputes which seem to engross some of us here seem to me to be mostly a distraction from the real business. We are--or should be--trying to make converts, not convince ourselves and those who already think like us that we are more-orthodox-than-thou.

Well spake

Perhaps it is timely to apply Darwinian thought to the 'evolution' of religions as physical entities. Apart from Christianity there are 5 or 6 other world religions all competing with each other for living space and resources. The struggle is fierce and only those religions well adapted to the current global cultural environment will survive and flourish at the expense of the 'less fit' ones. We need to ask, how is Christianity faring in this elemental struggle?
The answer appears to be, not very well! The reason for this relative failure is paradoxically due to its embrace of the very theory of evolution. How can we overcome the world when we allow the makers of cultural policy to set the rules and agenda under which we are forced to make our way. Only by and through spiritual opposition to the world can we clear the ground and provide an environment in which true religion can flourish. The "adjusting to the times" of Vat II was a mistake of fundamental proportions.

More like natural selection. The weak, those variations of "Christianity" who capitulate and conform to the world will not survive. They will be eaten by the world. The strong, those who will not compromise will survive and multiply.

Scripture is not a science text. It is designed to teach us most of what we need to know to live as the Lord wishes and to spend eternity with Him.
If there was not literally a pair of first ensouled creatures from whom the rest of us are descended, whose names may or may not have been Adam and Eve ;) , then there never have been any ensouled creatures and therefore the Faith is a fiction designed to direct superstitious inclinations and moderate social behavior. No Catholic could be inclined to believe that.
Nevertheless, if the Genesis stories of our origin are not literally true, that doesn't change the eternal truths underlying those stories. The same could be said of the stories of Job, Jonah, Noah, etc.

"Scripture is not a science text."

Any so-called science should stand on its own, and any explication of the Word is
given ultimately to the Church only. These are two different realms of
knowledge with different rules and approaches. Introducing the idea of a
dichotomy between Scripture and science does no service to either and
doesn't constitute an argument for any particular point. It's just
rhetoric.

It isn't Catholic/Christian to reject Genesis, Job, Jonah, Noah, etc. Many of these people and events are referenced in the NT by Jesus, Paul, etc. The dichotomy that some wish to present between "eternal truths" and "those stories" is not any part of Catholic teaching that I know of.

As a Catholic, it is necessary to believe that Adam and Eve were created directly by God and were our first parents. From these personages and events is derived the doctrine of the fall and original sin. It is claimed directly in the NT that Jesus is descended from Adam in the genealogies.

The Bible is taught by the Catholic Church to be the Word of God. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something else.

The brightest people no longer see Darwinism or neo-Darwanism as a valid explanation of life on earth. Life is way too complicated and intricate to be the result of randomness. Jordan Peterson is wrong on a number things. He is good in his area which is psychology but outside of that he tends to fall into the conventional thinking. There are all kinds of things wrong with Darwin's theory. It gained popularity at a time when people wished to ditch Christianity.

Mr. Wilder is right when he says that only God is eternal. But if you study St. Thomas Aquinas's thought, you'll know the the difference between being eternal and being everlasting. God is eternal. He's uncaused, his existence is built into him, and his nonexistence is impossible. But everlasting things have causes. Your soul began to live at the moment when your dad's sperm fertilized your mom's egg. But exist it'll last forever. Everlasting things last forever after they begin to exist if they do begin to exist. If the universe has always existed, it'll still exist while God sustains it. But since it has a cause, it's not eternal in the sense I mean when I remind you that God is eternal. Sometimes we use "eternal" and "everlasting" interchangeably, but they're not synonyms of each other.

Sadly, many young earth creationists I've met seem to ignore philosophical a theological distinctions I'm trying to explain.

Here's more information about what it means to say that God creates out of nothing.

"It is important to recognize a distinction between creation,
understood as God's causing the universe to be, and the account of the
'six days of creation' set forth in Genesis. As Augustine and Aquinas
observe, what is essential to the Christian faith is the fact of
creation, not its manner or mode. The explanation of the six days is
really an account of the formation of the world, not its creation.
Such explanations, given by Patristic and medieval thinkers in their
hexaemeral literature, involved a commentary on Genesis rather than a
philosophical treatment of creation. Often in this hexaemeral
literature we find elaborate attempts to discover a concordance between
the description of the formation of the world and contemporary
scientific knowledge of the world. On the other hand, the philosophical
and theological treatment of creation of dependence of all that is on
God. In the language of metaphysics, creation is a dependence in the
order of being. Thus questions such as, how does the first cause give
being (existence) to creatures, and how do creatures receive the being
that is given to them, are central to such an investigation" (pages
3-4).

"When we think of the first creation we should not
think of God's activity as occurring over a period of 'six solar days'
as though God works in time. The creation in Genesis occurred
simultaneously: 'He made that which gave time its beginning, as He made
together, disposing them in an order based not on intervals of time but
on causal connections" (page 8).

Aquinas, Thomas St. "Aquinas on Creation: Writings on the Sentences of Peter Lombard", Book 2, Distinction 1, Question 1. Trans. Steven E. Baldner and William E. Carroll. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1997.

"As Augustine and Aquinas
observe, what is essential to the Christian faith is the fact of
creation, not its manner or mode. The explanation of the six days is
really an account of the formation of the world, not its creation."

Not sure what you're trying to argue against here. Certainly, creatures were not 'created' before they were 'formed,' were they? That doesn't make much sense and is a very strange distinction to attempt to make. Genesis is very plain in its language, so I'm not sure what the controversy is supposed to be.

"When we think of the first creation we should not
think of God's activity as occurring over a period of 'six solar days'
as though God works in time."

If this is indeed Aquinas, it doesn't seem to have any theological import as it is certainly not against the Faith to believe in six days of Creation. The Fathers taught this and Scripture says this. Clearly, God does work in time, so the six days are totally in keeping with how the world functions and how God acts in the world ever since. I don't see the distinction you are trying to make as having any relevance to anything - whether you can cite Aquinas or Augustine on it or not. They can have varying opinions on things which are not essential to faith.

Genesis speaks as if its referencing 24 hour periods since it speaks of morning and evening of this day and the next day and so forth. In our world, universe, milieu, which Genesis is referencing, a day is a 24 hour period. Genesis is speaking to human beings, and everybody knows what a day is. It also seems to be the basis for the seven day week and the Sabbath - and therefore some of our NT theology as well concerning Heaven and eternal rest. It could have just as easily said six ages, but it didn't.

The order of the world IS based on time as well as causal connections, so I don't follow what the distinction between time and causation is supposed to demonstrate since they are inextricably linked from the beginning.

"Sadly, many young earth creationists I've met seem to ignore philosophical a theological distinctions I'm trying to explain."

Maybe that's because the points have no real relevance? Every Christian must be a "Creationist" by default. If you are addressing "young earth" claims, then you should use different arguments since nothing of what you said has to do with the age of the earth, does it? The age of the earth is not a matter of faith, but it is a fact that Evolutionism requires a very very very long time in order to "work," otherwise it becomes too silly for even the atheists to contemplate. Such people use the concept of time as a weapon against God since they wish to ascribe to it creative powers that it doesn't have in the same way that they ascribe powers to material things that they don't have. It's hard to have any "faith" in so-called scientists and their institutions and establishments when they are also mostly atheistic in their thinking about origins and how they tie life and cosmology to "science."

By the way, everyone, Dr. Dennis Bonnete, whom John Vennari recommended, wrote a an Ave Maria Press book called "The Origin of the Human Species". In that book, he says that though he doesn't know whether the theory of evolution is true, he believes that it's compatible with Catholic doctrine.

https://www.amazon.com/Orig...

It's important to understand that evolutionists claim that God (or any intelligent agent) is not needed, so therefore it's false for anyone to claim that this belief system is "compatible with Catholic doctrine." It is not. it is directly contradictory to Catholic teaching. The teaching is actually that life evolves without direction or design or meaning or purpose. Is that compatible with Catholic teaching? No, it is not.

Please be straightforward about what evolutionists teach and believe. Don't pretend there is a Catholic version of it. There isn't. That would be something completely different from evolutionism. It would have God creating the world and then guiding development of life - a completely different doctrine not only theologically but scientifically. It would have the same problem in that there is no scientific evidence for such a theory in the first place.

Evolutionism is built entirely upon the a priori assumption of philosophical materialism - which is necessarily atheistic. They claim that Nature is all there is. Period. There is no Catholic version of atheism or materialism or naturalism. Those who attempt to create a Catholic version of evolution do so out of a fear that Darwin's doctrine concerning common ancestry is real science and therefore requires a Catholic apologetic, but it's doesn't because it isn't.

A so-called Catholic version of evolution proves to be nonsensical as well since it would have to assert BOTH that God is the sole Creator and Cause of all things AND that He chose to preordain a guided 'evolution' (which is not evolution as the materialists mean it) while ALSO choosing to INTERVENE with this non-evolutionary 'evolution' in order to CREATE the souls of Adam and Eve (whose bodies 'evolved' from ape ancestors which 'evolved' from single-celled organisms, which is still not evolution but some sort of slow-walked Creation) instantaneously in order to save the whole thing from looking like atheistic evolution.

Sorry, but this is plain nuts. It's introducing an idea stolen from atheistic "science" solely as an out against being targeted for ridicule as "anti-science" by the atheists, but then it also offers an out for Christians by reintroducing the concept of special creation at the proper time to supposedly save it from heresy. And it's not even a real act of creation since it splits man's soul from his body. God is said to use a "process" for the body but not the soul. Why introduce a dichotomy between the creation of the soul and body of man when this is totally uncalled for? It is a self-evident mash-up of conflicting philosophical and theological ideas thrown together in order to score points with self-aggrandizing atheistic moderns who claim to know all about how we came to be.

That's interesting because John Vennari would not have agreed with that statement. Vennari was a fierce critic of the philosophy of Evolution and believed it was in no way compatible with Catholic doctrine. Vennari has recorded talks against Evolution.

I seem to remember that Mr. Vennari recommended Dr. Bonette because he, Bonette, is the Thomist professor who replaced Dr. Waters at the Aquinas School of Philosophy after Dr. waters died. I've read some Vennari articles about the theory of evolution. But since I've forgotten what he says in them. From what I can tell, though, Christian young-earth creationists I know of criticize their misinterpretations of the theory maybe because they ignore some philosophical distinctions that would help answer their criticisms.

Here's a lecture by Dr. Bonette.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Mr. McEnaney,

Although, Dr. Dennis Bonnete is unknown to me, his belief that the theory of evolution is compatible with evolution is incorrect. My article below (posted 3 hours ago) explains why.

Peter

Mr. Wilders,

Please forgive me because in other posts, I've misspelled your last name when I hadn't noticed the "s" in it.

Thank you for your article. But I'm afraid that to me, the theory of evolution still seems compatible with creation out of nothing because I've already explained why the theory of evolution presupposes that God creates even evolutionary processes if there are any. Remember, I told everyone that if there were no God, there would be no fossil record gaps because there would be nothing at all.

Though I wonder what you mean by "naturalism," it's pretty clear to me that Pius XII knew that metaphysical naturalism contradicts Catholic doctrine because it implies that there's no God and nothing like him. The metaphysical naturalist believes that the natural world is the only world there is and that each object is a material one. But since Pius says that it's okay for experts to study the evidence that the human body evolved from preexisting matter, I suggest that God can ensoul a body that he had prepared for it. Is Genesis teaching literally in Genesis 2:7 where I learn that God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nose to cause him to be a living person? When a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, God puts an immortal soul into already-living matter.

You're right to say that God creates instantly. That's why I reminded you of the difference between sustaining something by constantly giving it existence and causing something to begin to exist. If you think that everything in the universe began simultaneously to exist, then do you believe that God created in six calendar days? Maybe you agree with St. Augustine when he writes that they could have been indefinitely long maybe even geological ages long?

By the way, have you noticed that Genesis never teaches us that, "There was evening and there was morning, the seventh day."? Why doesn't it teach that? Because we're still on day seven. God doesn't need to rest literally. But while he rests metaphorically, he still sustains each and all his creatures while they survive.

We can talk about metaphysical naturalism. But Catholic theistic evolutionists aren't metaphysical naturalists. How could they be metaphysical naturalists when metaphysical naturalism implies that there's no God?

It seems to me that some young-earth creationists, including John Vennari, ignore philosophical and theological distinctions that may help show that evolution theory is compatible with Catholic doctrine. I took paleontology many years ago. So I've forgotten a lot that I learned about the theory of evolution. But I've never heard any young-earth creationist answer the objection about fossil record gaps and the idea that the idea that those gaps need God to sustain them.

Young-earth creationists seem to believe those gaps imply that God intervenes each time he creates a new species. But in the sense of the verb "to create" I mean, God's infinite power enables his creatures to be secondary causes, i.e., causes that derive their causal ability from him. Catholics aren't occasionalists. Occasionalists believe that although God's creatures seem to cause events, only he causes anyone and anything. You can type a com-box post because he gives you that ability to press your computer's keys, think up what to write, and so forth. If occasionalism were true, we would only think we could cause anything. If occasionalism were true, God would be fooling us into believing that we had causal power.

Again, I'm happy to let the Church correct me. Still, to me, occasionalism and young-earth creationism seem absurd.

"But since Pius says that it's okay for experts to study the evidence
that the human body evolved from preexisting matter, I suggest that God can ensoul a body that he had prepared for it"

No pope has jurisdiction over odd claims like this. It's a personal
opinion, just as JPII's unfortunate statement of "more than a
hypothesis" was a personal opinion.

How is anyone going to "study" this question? There is no evidence for it. It's not possible to study or test. It's a belief about origins propagated as science. Perhaps in the abstract it's not contrary to reason to suggest the possibility of a divinely guided 'evolution' of sorts, but it's not any kind of real science or history, and it sure isn't a defense of the Faith in any way, shape, matter, or form. So, at best, it's useless. We don't need it to explain any phenomena, and it's not part of Divine Revelation.

"When a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, God puts an immortal soul into already-living matter."

Those cells come from the parents, who are human, who procreate over time as God ordained. This is not an argument for humans coming from pre-existing ape material.

"Young-earth creationists seem to believe those gaps imply that God intervenes each time he creates a new species"

Not at all. Young-earth creationists don't accept "the fossil record" as demonstrating large gaps in time anyway. The fossils and the strata are believed to have been caused by the Flood. Flows of water cause stratification and fossils result from quick burial caused by flooding.

Dear Mr. McEnaney,

I respect your opinions as a person, but they do not concur with of the Church's position on Creation. Her canonical teaching based upon the Firmiter of Lateran IV, which I sent you, correctly understood precludes, absolutely, the myth of evolution. This is unassailable doctrinal teaching. I submit your opposition to, it by your personal views, is counterproductive. As you must recognise, arguments based upon a myth are 'ipso facto' illogical. This is why, for Catholics , only those founded upon the Church's Magisterium can be relied upon.

By reason of Lateran IV, the Church teaches infallibly that Adam was the first man. He had no predecessors. All living things were created together within the period of Creation, which was no longer than six days but could have been instantaneous (St. Augustine - confirmed by the Church Fathers).

References to young earth creationists, occasionalism and fossils as a defence of the evolution myth have no place in traditional Creation theology. To argue otherwise is to misrepresent the magisterium and the council of the Church Fathers. (See catholicorigins.com/).

Peter

Peter, thank you for the link to the site where I downloaded an article called "Creation and Time." I'll be happy to read the article and to reply in detail to it. A com-box is the wrong place to post a long paper. But you just might see that paper published in a Catholic periodical because I think I can show that what I'm telling you is compatible with Catholic doctrine. Meanwhile, if you wouldn't mind, please quote the council you mention because I'm sure you'll find its documents online in, say, EWTN's Document Library in the directory called "councils". Better yet, here's a link to them.

https://www.ewtn.com/librar...

By the way, I've been reading Fr. Chad Ripperger's disappointing little book called "The Metaphysics of Evolution." Why does it disappoint me? Because in its tiny bibliography that lists about six sources, I haven't found the publication information about any book where the author argues for the theory of evolution. All but one source is a secondary source written to criticize it. If you're going to criticize what Plato thinks about the immortality of the soul, you'll read the Phaedo, the dialogue about it, won't you?
You probably won't get all your information from a secondary source.

Peter,

I think my points are compatible with believing that Adam is the first man.

But who or what would count as a predecessor of his? You already know that Pope Pius XII lets experts study scientific evidence that the human body evolved. So please let me remind you that a body differs from a corpse because bodies live and corpses don't do that. Being a body implies being alive.

St. Thomas distinguishes at least implicitly between bodies and corpses when he explains the the difference between a substantial change and an accidental one. A substantial change turns something of one kind into something of another kind, into something with a different nature. For example, if you burn a cigarette to ashes, the ashes replace it because the burning destroys it. Chip a tree limb in a wood chipper and you'll reduce it to a pile of wood chips. But a pile of wood chips is not a tree limb.

Your body will change into a corpse when you die because your soul, the thing that makes you a human person, will leave it. You're not your soul, it's a part of you. You're made up of your body and your soul. You're a human person because you have a human soul. In fact, the relationship between your soul and your body is as close as the one between a statue and the marble you sculpt to make it.

An accidental change is one that someone or something can survive when he or it undergoes that change. You survive when you get a haircut, gain a pound of muscle, grow new skin where you cut your finger . . . Some people say, "I'm not the person I was 10 years ago." If I say that, I don't mean that, for example, though I' Bill McEnany now, ten years ago I was my favorite singer Jussi Bjorling. I mean that I now have some properties that I didn't have then.

Each living creature has a soul. If there were human-like creatures before Adam lived, they were nonhuman because their souls were nonhuman. So let's suppose I'm right when I say that each body is a living creature and that the creature's nature makes him the kind of creature he is. A human soul makes someone a human person. A horse soul causes an animal to be a horse, and so forth.

Again, Pius XII taught that it's okay for experts to study evidence that the human body evolved from already-existing matter. He taught that after the council you cite, which suggests that he thought what he wrote was compatible with what that council taught.

A creature with a nonhuman soul wouldn't precede Adam in the human species. He wouldn't descend from that creature, since human people descend only from other human people. But a nonhuman body can become a human one when God gives it a human soul. You can call a human an sperm and a human egg human beings because only human people can make them. But the human egg isn't a human person. Neither is the human sperm. They still predated the new human person, though.

With these things in mind, do you see why a nonhuman body may have lived before Adam's body did and why it wouldn't have been his body? The point is that if human people can descend only from other human people, Adam's body still might have had a nonhuman ancestor, though Adam didn't have any ancestors.

Now please feel free to argue against what I've just explained. Please quote the council you cite if you think the quotation shows that the distinctions I've made just now don't matter in our conversation.

"Again, Pius XII taught that it's okay for experts to study evidence that
the human body evolved from already-existing matter. He taught that
after the council you cite, which suggests that he thought what he wrote
was compatible with what that council taught."

What an absurd equivocation. That silly comment by the pope is not in any sense a teaching! Using the word "taught" and then comparing it to solemn teaching of the Church regarding where we come from and our first parents is seriously off base. The pope could say you can study time travel if you want to and it would mean just as much.

A lot of these modern popes have said many stupid things because they inexplicably take a lot of what the world says at face value. They are naive (or worse) when it comes to a lot of things having to do with culture, science, politics, etc. The popes are bound to teach what has been received. They have no authority beyond that. Nothing whatsoever having to with this modern junk regarding evolution was received and is part of our Faith.

What, you think the Church is going to someday "teach" that man came from apes after some "study" is done? Or that there will be a "teaching" that this belief is "compatible" with Catholic Faith? Utterly ridiculous. It's utterly extraneous to Catholicism. The Church cannot "teach" on it because Jesus Christ didn't teach on it. Get it?