That makes it even worse! You’re not taking a single adverb and building a non-Scriptural narrative out of it – you’re making eisegetical claims of your own design from scratch!
There is no comaprison between proven mathematics and Darwin’s “fanta-tree of life”.
So you should; and in turn, I respect that you respect the creativity of my imagination.
Ah, now that you’ve explained your point, your point is better understood. It certainly wasn’t obvious from your previous posts. But is your posit in fact true? Have you any evidence at all that: “the scientific community and millions of other people are obsessed with ramming a completely useless theory down the throats of everyone possible”? I don’t think you have. Compared to other scientific pursuits, such as space exploration, or energy efficiency, I think evolution has minimal public exposure, and even more minimal public funding. I think you have invented a straw horse to jump around waving a wooden spear at, which has no bearing on reality.
Well, no. Evolution, useful or not, is a wonderful, coherent, comprehensive foundation for the understanding of the whole of biology. It is the equivalent of the atomic theory for chemistry or quantum theory for physics. I have spent much of my life immersed in it, and find a witness of God in every new manifestation discovered. There is no aspect of his power, his intricacy, his imagination, his fatherhood and his joy which is not illuminated by the light of evolution. For those deceived by the Old Testament into thinking of God as a stroppy old hobbyist whose train-set keeps going wrong (which, let’s face it, is really the cause of most atheism), the glory and grandeur of evolution can lead them back to truth.
I assume, in perfect confidence, that we will be resurrected as one physical-spiritual being and not grown within a physical uterus. So, the problem may lie in our understanding of what we call matter. After all, Jesus did appear in a closed room to His disciples and before His time had come to die, He managed to avoid a crowd intent on killing Him. And, we have the Eucharist. Reality may be very different than what we imagine, far simpler I believe, the spirit being the most real and the material, an illusion in comparison. It is not unreasonable to contend that if the basis of an understanding of the world is wrong, then the entire argument will be askew. That is how logic works, leading to a truth that is as valid as its assumptions.
A couple things.
Does the catechism not state that Jesus is the Son of God? Is the official church teaching not guided by the Holy Spirit?
Actually, they’re not. They’re applications of facets of the theory of evolution – selection (natural or otherwise), as well as mutation, and optimization.
And that’s bad, because…?
Your claim, in response to the discussion of the age of the earth, was that Scripture shows that the earth was created and then after (ostensibly, a looong) time, God created life. If you make that claim from Scripture, you make it by appealing to the word “when” – the claim is “the earth had already existed, but when God created life, it was later.” If you don’t even have the word “when” to hang onto, then the whole argument vanishes, without any Scriptural fingerhold to grasp. So… eisegesis.
and many many “vestigial” organs removed from humans.
What a pity there is no empirical evidence that a kind doesn’t evolve into another kind and that the fossil record in many way contradicts evolution (sudden appearance, stasis and a distinct lack of transitionals) - but let’s not let inconvenient facts spoil your illusion. I guess a godless creation story with lots of holes in it is better than no story at all.
This statement is too absurd to even comment on - save that it is manifestly delusional.
I’m not surprised. When it comes to ultimate reality, science is so puny as to be irrelevant.
How does the Creed begin? “We believe …”. It doesn’t begin with, "We know … ".
You’re typing all this on a computer, which wouldn’t exist without science.