Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DarkSavant
I'm planning on reading this, but before this thread passes by, I'd like to throw out what I consider to be serious problems with evolutionary theory from a Scholastic/Aristotelian perspective.

First, assuming that evolution is true and that creatures are in a continual, never-ending process of transformation (note: change in form), how would we be able to say with certainty that we are of the same species as Jesus, that His human nature was the same as ours?

It's my understanding that in circumscribing permissible belief regarding human origins, evolutionary theory may be permitted, but we must assert that evolutionary processes stopped with Adam and Eve, for the reason given above.

Secondly, it seems to me to be plainly absurd to speak of the continual transformation (change in form) of species when the notion of the transformation of species assumes the existence of stable forms (species) that are universally apprehensible, in contradiction to the assertion that species are continuously transforming. For example, if we assert that pigeons arose from Archaeopteryx, how can I know that what I understand as "pigeon" and "archaeopteryx" is what you understand to be "pigeon" and "archaeopteryx," or what was understood as "pigeon" and "archaeopteryx" 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago, if all things exist in continuous transformation?

I don't see any solution to this epistemological problem.

15 posted on 12/08/2005 5:51:42 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Aquinasfan
First, assuming that evolution is true and that creatures are in a continual, never-ending process of transformation (note: change in form), how would we be able to say with certainty that we are of the same species as Jesus, that His human nature was the same as ours?

Because from the records we have of human beings 2000 years ago, we know that the human form has changed very little since then.

It's my understanding that in circumscribing permissible belief regarding human origins, evolutionary theory may be permitted, but we must assert that evolutionary processes stopped with Adam and Eve, for the reason given above.

I don't think so. At any rate, human evolution is a very slow process, especially with the advent of technology, which has greatly reduced selective pressure on our species.

Secondly, it seems to me to be plainly absurd to speak of the continual transformation (change in form) of species when the notion of the transformation of species assumes the existence of stable forms (species) that are universally apprehensible,

It assumes no such thing. Species are merely an artifical human construct that makes classification easier, nothing more.

For example, if we assert that pigeons arose from Archaeopteryx, how can I know that what I understand as "pigeon" and "archaeopteryx" is what you understand to be "pigeon" and "archaeopteryx," or what was understood as "pigeon" and "archaeopteryx" 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago, if all things exist in continuous transformation?

First of all, the rate of transformation is not constant. Sometimes it may even stop for periods.

Second, the differences between pigeon and archaeopteryx are so different as to make the distinction unporobelmatic. However, you are correct, that when two animals are very simlar, where you drawn the line between speices can be somewhat arbitrary.

17 posted on 12/08/2005 6:27:12 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson