At the very least, from a secular lens, I believe we can all agree that intelligence is a factor that contributes to adaptation and survival. A chameleon camouflaging, or an octopus literally shapeshifting are signs of consciously (intelligently) driven changes in response to the environment. It follows that the moth's appearance has also formed in part due to an intelligent response behind the wheel. From a secular evolution perspective, this would be a change occuring reasonably from some kind of intelligent self-change over time over the course of generations (not merely random chance). The premise stands that these designs we see are present due to intelligence and the ability for consciousness to shape things. Intelligent design can be accepted as a secular premise. And although secular, would not exclude the further premise of an unseen larger conscious force shaping things. Like ants forming a superorganism, it stands that if distinct intelligences can shape the body, collective consciousness may also contribute to that shaping. If we observe only biological life as we know it and interpret super-organism structures as an emergent property of individual organisms working together, we end up with something akin to a Gaea model. So from a secular point of view, you could make a reasonable case for a Gaea-type superorganism.
If instead we assume the super-consciousness existed first and becomes manifested in the world by individuals which channel its energy, you end up with something more akin to God of Christianity.
Failed species
From a Catholic perspective, going down the figurative interpretation of the genesis creation story which accepts evolution as a premise, of course you would have failed branches of specialization. And if evolution was the chosen creation method, evolutionary dead ends could be by design (not a mistake).
From a Catholic perspective, going down the figurative interpretation of the genesis creation story which accepts evolution as a premise, of course you would have failed branches of specialization. And if evolution was the chosen creation method, evolutionary dead ends could be by design (not a mistake).
Sorry but no. If God doesn't make mistakes, then there'd be no failed species. I don't get how you think the word salad helps your cause when it can be boiled down to a simple statement that has yet to make sense analytically.
Just because you think that, doesn't make it true.
You could try explaining it, then we can actually converse. Instead of you pretending you've won something because you think you're just that damn clever.
I'd live to hear what God gains from making more failed species than successful ones.
I'd love to hear how animals going extinct today are benefitting God by doing so.
Just because you think that, doesn't make it true.
Back at you. Now are you going to address the arguments or just make statements about how you feel about a topic?
You could try explaining it, then we can actually converse. Instead of you pretending you've won something because you think you're just that damn clever.
I've seen your type before. You are quick to shoot from the hip and will overlook the arguments being made.
Let me lay this out again:
1) Evolution and Catholic doctrine are compatible 2) Catholics are free to believe in evolution and some do 3) Catholics are free to take a figurative interpretation of the creation process described in Genesis, which can mean in broad strokes that "man was formed from dust of the ground" could be describing a simple organism evolving into protohumans and from that form God created Adam. (There are nuances with Catholic doctrine that restrict some kinds of interpretations, but no need to get into that here).
I'd love to hear how animals going extinct today are benefitting God by doing so.
You have to remember that for a God that can bring creatures back to life, the concept of death and evolutionary dead ends would still mean that He could bring whatever creature into heaven, etc.
The whole premise of the end times is that eventually humanity stops being mortal and gets to a point of ceasing to have children. The context of that is that humanity ends up in heaven or hell, and the old world fades away. From a biological context, this would be an "evolutionary dead end" because humans stop reproducing. Is that a problem? Does that make humanity a mistake? Of course not.
Your premise "evolutionary dead ends would be evidence that God makes mistakes" is not a good one, and you have in no way meaningfully defended your premise.
If you want to double back and claim that "failed species" means something different than "evolutionary dead end", feel free to make that point. If that is your approach, I still don't see what "failed species" means, nor whether it would be a valid description of anything.
"...Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" - Romans 9:20b
"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory" - Romans 9:22-23
Why would you call an evolutionary dead end a mistake? I don't accept your premise.
This isn't a question you've asked. You're quoting Paul who is waxing esoteric about theological interpretation of why we suffer.
I can think of three actual statements you are trying to imply with this passage, and then you can clarify for me.
First, the Theological Interpretation is referencing vessels of wrath and mercy in regard to people and nations, not a biological process. This is stretching the statement beyond its scope.
Second, the implied arguement about evolutionary failure leads to God creating species as vessels of wrath, implying god created all those species, more than what survive today, just to display his power. How very egotistical of God, how ,human, of God. This thought raises many more questions about God, his nature, and displays wastefulness in creation. What purpose does extinction serve in divine glory?
Third, this science vs religion aspect. Evolution doesn't make any claims about God, just shows us how life changes and mutated along the way. God can exists within evolutions framework with zero issue, yet your types always have issue with evolution, odd. Believing "God did it" when it comes to evolution is fine on a personal level, but it's not good enough for a scientific explanation.
Fourth, why does God have to destroy his own creation to show us goodness? Seems rather limiting for an omniscient and omnipotent being.
Fifth, this passage was meant to be philosophical, not an explanation on life and the biological process of evolution.
Once again, God doesn't do the real just because a book says so. If that's the case then all my dnd gods are just as real and you better watch out for that Vecna guy, he's the one who kicked off the entire TTRPG setting for most people! Scary guy that Vecna...
Why would you call an evolutionary dead end a mistake?
This is stretching the statement beyond its scope.
The context of its usage in Romans 9 is about mankind and salvation. That doesn't remove the fact that the statement itself is a general truism. God is the potter, the creations are His clay. He has the power to do what He wishes with the clay. This can include displays of power, etc. He is limited to only do what is in His nature. Your premise is essentially "Why would God create something just for the purpose of destroying it?" And there are a number of potential explanations. I don't need to know the exact reason. It can be left as a mystery so long as it is possible within His nature to do.
Your position on the other hand appears to be a claim that it is either necessary or compelling that God and evolution would be incompatible. You haven't explained why you feel that way nor on what basis you are making that claim.
How very egotistical of God, how ,human, of God. This thought raises many more questions about God, his nature, and displays wastefulness in creation.
If you concede your premise and accept that it is possible that God used evolution as a creation technique, we can dive more into the details about possible motive and purpose. This argument in some respects loops back to the Epicurean dilemma. "Why do bad things happen"
Believing "God did it" when it comes to evolution is fine on a personal level, but it's not good enough for a scientific explanation.
I agree in the sense that science is an observation of happenings and does not speak to the presence of absence of God. But science is not the only source of truth.
Once again, God doesn't do the real just because a book says so
Try to approach it this way: Christianity represents a school of thought. Within that school of thought there are base assumptions. From those base assumptions the worldview forms.
You can have different worldviews that start with base assumptions. No need to throw everything out. Instead, try to take each worldview and bring it into its strongest form. Once it is there, check for internal consistency. Then compare worldviews to see which one you find most compelling.
When I am presenting verses to you, it is for the purpose of showing you that a concept can be interpreted to be consistent with the text. I'm not necessarily showing you the line as direct proof of God as though I would expect you to see the line and exclaim:
"this verse got it right about something in reality! That must mean the whole thing is authoritative"
That's more of an Islamic approach. If I wanted to convince you of the existence of God I would start with Plato's the Republic and go from there.
[ + ] BoozyB
[ - ] BoozyB 2 points 1 weekApr 20, 2025 12:06:38 ago (+3/-1)
Nature is clever.
[ + ] mahavishnunj
[ - ] mahavishnunj 2 points 1 weekApr 20, 2025 10:30:58 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] __47__
[ - ] __47__ 1 point 1 weekApr 20, 2025 19:00:58 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 1 weekApr 20, 2025 12:44:10 ago (+2/-2)
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 0 points 1 weekApr 20, 2025 20:55:27 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1 weekApr 21, 2025 09:11:51 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto -1 points 1 weekApr 21, 2025 16:25:58 ago (+0/-1)
If instead we assume the super-consciousness existed first and becomes manifested in the world by individuals which channel its energy, you end up with something more akin to God of Christianity.
From a Catholic perspective, going down the figurative interpretation of the genesis creation story which accepts evolution as a premise, of course you would have failed branches of specialization. And if evolution was the chosen creation method, evolutionary dead ends could be by design (not a mistake).
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1 weekApr 21, 2025 16:42:59 ago (+0/-0)
Sorry but no. If God doesn't make mistakes, then there'd be no failed species. I don't get how you think the word salad helps your cause when it can be boiled down to a simple statement that has yet to make sense analytically.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 1 weekApr 21, 2025 17:11:42 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1 weekApr 21, 2025 19:16:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 1 weekApr 21, 2025 23:09:38 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1 weekApr 22, 2025 04:13:41 ago (+0/-0)*
You could try explaining it, then we can actually converse. Instead of you pretending you've won something because you think you're just that damn clever.
I'd live to hear what God gains from making more failed species than successful ones.
I'd love to hear how animals going extinct today are benefitting God by doing so.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 1 weekApr 22, 2025 08:12:13 ago (+0/-0)
Back at you. Now are you going to address the arguments or just make statements about how you feel about a topic?
I've seen your type before. You are quick to shoot from the hip and will overlook the arguments being made.
Let me lay this out again:
1) Evolution and Catholic doctrine are compatible
2) Catholics are free to believe in evolution and some do
3) Catholics are free to take a figurative interpretation of the creation process described in Genesis, which can mean in broad strokes that "man was formed from dust of the ground" could be describing a simple organism evolving into protohumans and from that form God created Adam. (There are nuances with Catholic doctrine that restrict some kinds of interpretations, but no need to get into that here).
You have to remember that for a God that can bring creatures back to life, the concept of death and evolutionary dead ends would still mean that He could bring whatever creature into heaven, etc.
The whole premise of the end times is that eventually humanity stops being mortal and gets to a point of ceasing to have children. The context of that is that humanity ends up in heaven or hell, and the old world fades away. From a biological context, this would be an "evolutionary dead end" because humans stop reproducing. Is that a problem? Does that make humanity a mistake? Of course not.
Your premise "evolutionary dead ends would be evidence that God makes mistakes" is not a good one, and you have in no way meaningfully defended your premise.
If you want to double back and claim that "failed species" means something different than "evolutionary dead end", feel free to make that point. If that is your approach, I still don't see what "failed species" means, nor whether it would be a valid description of anything.
"...Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" - Romans 9:20b
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1 weekApr 22, 2025 16:42:05 ago (+0/-0)
You are the one making a bold claim that God exists, I'm simply saying that evolution is real, because it is.
We aren't arguing from the same podium you retard.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto -1 points 1 weekApr 21, 2025 17:03:09 ago (+0/-1)
Why would you call an evolutionary dead end a mistake? I don't accept your premise.
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1 weekApr 21, 2025 19:19:12 ago (+0/-0)
I don't say there can't be a God. You just can't use the Bible as proof for God's existence.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto -1 points 1 weekApr 21, 2025 23:10:13 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1 weekApr 22, 2025 04:33:03 ago (+0/-0)
I can think of three actual statements you are trying to imply with this passage, and then you can clarify for me.
First, the Theological Interpretation is referencing vessels of wrath and mercy in regard to people and nations, not a biological process. This is stretching the statement beyond its scope.
Second, the implied arguement about evolutionary failure leads to God creating species as vessels of wrath, implying god created all those species, more than what survive today, just to display his power. How very egotistical of God, how ,human, of God. This thought raises many more questions about God, his nature, and displays wastefulness in creation. What purpose does extinction serve in divine glory?
Third, this science vs religion aspect. Evolution doesn't make any claims about God, just shows us how life changes and mutated along the way. God can exists within evolutions framework with zero issue, yet your types always have issue with evolution, odd. Believing "God did it" when it comes to evolution is fine on a personal level, but it's not good enough for a scientific explanation.
Fourth, why does God have to destroy his own creation to show us goodness? Seems rather limiting for an omniscient and omnipotent being.
Fifth, this passage was meant to be philosophical, not an explanation on life and the biological process of evolution.
Once again, God doesn't do the real just because a book says so. If that's the case then all my dnd gods are just as real and you better watch out for that Vecna guy, he's the one who kicked off the entire TTRPG setting for most people! Scary guy that Vecna...
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 1 weekApr 22, 2025 08:31:39 ago (+0/-0)
Why would you call an evolutionary dead end a mistake?
The context of its usage in Romans 9 is about mankind and salvation. That doesn't remove the fact that the statement itself is a general truism. God is the potter, the creations are His clay. He has the power to do what He wishes with the clay. This can include displays of power, etc. He is limited to only do what is in His nature. Your premise is essentially "Why would God create something just for the purpose of destroying it?" And there are a number of potential explanations. I don't need to know the exact reason. It can be left as a mystery so long as it is possible within His nature to do.
Your position on the other hand appears to be a claim that it is either necessary or compelling that God and evolution would be incompatible. You haven't explained why you feel that way nor on what basis you are making that claim.
If you concede your premise and accept that it is possible that God used evolution as a creation technique, we can dive more into the details about possible motive and purpose. This argument in some respects loops back to the Epicurean dilemma. "Why do bad things happen"
I agree in the sense that science is an observation of happenings and does not speak to the presence of absence of God. But science is not the only source of truth.
Try to approach it this way: Christianity represents a school of thought. Within that school of thought there are base assumptions. From those base assumptions the worldview forms.
You can have different worldviews that start with base assumptions. No need to throw everything out. Instead, try to take each worldview and bring it into its strongest form. Once it is there, check for internal consistency. Then compare worldviews to see which one you find most compelling.
When I am presenting verses to you, it is for the purpose of showing you that a concept can be interpreted to be consistent with the text. I'm not necessarily showing you the line as direct proof of God as though I would expect you to see the line and exclaim:
"this verse got it right about something in reality! That must mean the whole thing is authoritative"
That's more of an Islamic approach. If I wanted to convince you of the existence of God I would start with Plato's the Republic and go from there.
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1 weekApr 22, 2025 16:40:52 ago (+0/-0)