Belief in evolution leads to what in the real world

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom_of_Assisi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah the Big Bang comes in handy with the Cosmological Arguments.

Yes, that is one of the many reasons which makes me proud to be a Catholic and respect the Vatican, that the Church is not afraid to use science in its arguments in theology.

As I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia (the New Advent) the Church has no problem with the theory of Evolution, it just understandably frowns on Darwinism.

A lot of the vehement protests over Evolution that I have viewed tends to stem from the Protestants, and not the Catholics.
 
40.png
adnauseum:
In short, knowing the nature of created things always enlarges us, and always helps us reflect properly on God. Even if the theory is wrong, it is the pure desire to know, the insight of knowledge, and our judgements of truth that are inherently good. We simply must trust that over time, through trial and error, we will reach as much truth as is ordained for us to have on this earth.

God Bless all who struggle with this difficult topic. But I ask you one and all to consider that the danger is not in the theory itself, but only in the attitude of the scientist who sees in nature not the marvellous works of Yahweh, but a way to denigrate man, as in the case of modern Marxism.

Peace to all.
Click to expand...
I think adnauseum’s post is the only one that really addresses the question posed. For Catholics of faith we know that the church has no problem with the theory of evolution as long as it does not take away from God the ultimate source of creation.

The theory of evolution poses problems when God and his revelations are removed from science. Adnauseum has mentioned how the theory has been used to denigrate man as just another animal on the evolutionary tree that possibly has a few more neurons.

Additionally the theory has been used to deny the free will of man. We hear so frequently how this or that behavior is the result of some advantage for our prehistoric ancestors. One reason that evolution is so important to atheists is that they will immediately go to the theory to determine why the human animal created God or why humans express love etc. It is the atheists replacement for God.

And I think it is a tool used to create the impression of foolishness to believe in the Bible or God. The atheist uses it to discredit the Bible as mere invented mythology while at the same time elevating evolution as proof that God need not exist in order to explain the physical world.

That is why evolution is such a controversial and divisive theory. It is both because of the militant Genesis literalists (who the atheists can so easily dismiss and use against religion) and to the atheists who so foolishly make evolution their God (and insist on universal acceptance because it is “science”).
 
Kevin Walker:
I do believe in Evolution (but not Darwinism)

P.S. Don’t forget that Galileo was right!

.
Click to expand...
I never meant to suggest that the Vatican or any Catholic should be “afraid” of science. It’s a strawman argument to suggest that people who question the idea of one living species turning into other ones are fearful of science.

How does evolution without Darwin work exactly?

I did seem to forget that Galileo was right: I forgot that the Earth circles the sun in a circle, I forgot that the sun was the center of the universe, I forgot that the Earth’s rotation caused the tides, and I forgot that scientists were qualified to infalibly interpret scripture. Thanks for reminding me…very sorry to have doubted him.

Is that what you meant? 😉
 
Tom of Assisi:
I never meant to suggest that the Vatican or any Catholic should be “afraid” of science. It’s a strawman argument to suggest that people who question the idea of one living species turning into other ones are fearful of science.

How does evolution without Darwin work exactly?

I did seem to forget that Galileo was right: I forgot that the Earth circles the sun in a circle, I forgot that the sun was the center of the universe, I forgot that the Earth’s rotation caused the tides, and I forgot that scientists were qualified to infalibly interpret scripture. Thanks for reminding me…very sorry to have doubted him.

Is that what you meant? 😉
Click to expand...
Yes, of course.
 
“How does evolution without Darwin work exactly?”

Darwin put forth a godless and purely mechanical model of evolution. The mechanical aspect, that it is purely a matter of environmentally impacted death that pushes certain genetic constructs to survive to reproduce has been largely discredited and modified. We now know that genes “remember” previous models, and bring them forth according to environmental changes; the death of segmants of a population is not necessary for evolution, at least at later stages. Furthermore, this model does not rule out God, because it says nothing of intentional changes in the genetic structure that God could bring about, therefore the godless aspect of evolution can be easily abandoned. Darwin, therefore, is not required for an understanding of evolution.
 
“How does evolution without Darwin work exactly?”

Darwin put forth a godless and purely mechanical model of evolution. The mechanical aspect, that it is purely a matter of environmentally impacted death that pushes certain genetic constructs to survive to reproduce has been largely discredited and modified. We now know that genes “remember” previous models, and bring them forth according to environmental changes; the death of segmants of a population is not necessary for evolution, at least at later stages. Furthermore, this model does not rule out God, because it says nothing of intentional changes in the genetic structure that God could bring about, therefore the godless aspect of evolution can be easily abandoned. Darwin, therefore, is not required for an understanding of evolution.
 
quote=PhilVaz God used evolutionary creation of plants, animals, and some hominids; followed by special creation of Adam & Eve, the parents of all modern humans, in a literal Garden of Eden several tens of thousands of years ago.
(2) God used evolutionary creation, including modern homo sapiens; followed by special creation of Adam & Eve, as representatives of all existing and future humanity, in a literal Garden of Eden.
(3) God used evolutionary creation, including modern homo sapiens; followed by special selection of Adam & Eve, as representatives of all existing and future humanity, in a literal Garden.
(4-6) The same as 1-3 above, except the Garden of Eden story is an allegorical re-telling of some other historical event. The historical details of The Fall are unknown, but it involved revelation from God, choice, and rebellion.
(7) Same as #1 above, but occurring 5 million years ago with the Genesis flood (a local flood) corresponding to the filling of the Mediterranean basin; Abraham (Genesis 12) is a modern person.
(8) God used evolutionary creation, including modern homo sapiens. The story of Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden is an allegorical version of some actual historical event, in the distant past, where God revealed Himself to a group of humans (perhaps more than two), and the humans rebelled. The Fall was not inevitable, but a choice. Original sin “spread” from this group who received the first “revelation” outward to eventually include all humans.
(9) Same as #8, but the story of the Fall is a telescoping of multiple events of revelation and rebellion in human pre-history.
(10) Same as #9, but taking into account the slow development of hominid intelligence and self-awareness over time. Analogous to the gradual development from the ordinary self-centeredness of an infant into the sinful selfishness of a toddler.
(11) Same as #10, but the eventual sinful state of humanity was inevitable, given the number of opportunities for it to happen.

Phil P
[/quote]
  1. Did God use evolutionary creation to change Aaron’s rod into a serpant?
  2. Did God use evolutionary creation to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, etc?
  3. Did God use evolutionary creation when he fed the 5000?
  4. Did God use evolutionary creation when the power of the Most High overshadowed Mary the Mother of God?
  5. Did God use evolutionary creation to resurrect Lazarus? Remember that Lazarus’ corpse had been rotting for 4 days - essentially it had returned to dust.
  6. Did God use evolutionary creation to resurrect His own body after having been placed in the tomb 3 days earlier?
  7. Will God use evolutionary creation to resurrect your own body on the last day?
I could go on and on, but I’ll stop there. The point I am trying to make is that God does not need evolution to make his creatures and we should not be so quick and so bold as to hold him to it. Remember, we are like grasshoppers to him.

As I have said before, I find evolution somewhat reasonable. I also find it reasonable that the Almighty God does not need evolution. So, I will stay undecided on this subject for as long as I live or until God reveals it directly to me. Fortunately and unlike some, I have not wagered mine or my family’s livelihood on the evolution theory.
 
I could go on and on, but I’ll stop there. The point I am trying to make is that God does not need evolution to make his creatures and we should not be so quick and so bold as to hold him to it. Remember, we are like grasshoppers to him.
Click to expand...
It’s not a question of what God is bound to, but rather what the evidence points to. God could certainly have created the world in six 24-hour days, but all evidence indicates that God didn’t. God is not bound by anything, but we are bound by evidence. We can take it on faith that certain events occured, but we must never casually discard natural evidence, espescially when said evidence doesn’t even contridict the faith that we hold to.
 
Stevo << 7. Will God use evolutionary creation to resurrect your own body on the last day? >>

Hello, do you know anything about science or the scientific method? Miracles are not scientifically testable. And thanks for ignoring all my points on the possible scenarios reconciling evolution with original sin and Adam/Eve. I will answer your seven points with a quote from Darrel Falk, Ph.D. biologist and author of Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology (Intervarsity, 2004). You should get this book:

“The fact is that Christianity has core beliefs that are not accessible to the scientific method…The resurrection, existence of the Holy Spirit and immortality are all beyond the realm of scientific testability. Even testing the power of prayer will probably not bring scientists to their knees. The history of life on earth, however, is in a much different category. It has been possible to explore this using scientific methods…For the past century and a half, thousands of scientists from disciplines as diverse as physics, geology, astronomy and biology have amassed a tremendous mass of data, and the answer is absolutely clear and equally certain. The earth is not young, and the life forms did not appear in six twenty-four-hour days. God created gradually…We now know more about the nature of divine action. We now know a little about how God created life, and any time we understand something new about the activity of God, it brings us one step closer to God.” (Falk, Coming to Peace with Science, page 213, 214, emphasis added)

Now what do you think this means? I think it means some things are scientifically testable, and some things are not. Miracles and the doctrines of the Church are accepted on faith, by divine revelation, or by the authority of the Church (if you are Catholic), not because we have scientific evidence in support. It is my understanding that modern miracles are only accepted as such by the Church after the scientific testing for natural explanations has been exhausted (e.g. miracles of Fatima, etc).

Get the Darrel Falk book, although written by an evangelical, it is outstanding in my opinion. The Church fully supports modern science, and says some things lay outside the “domain of the natural sciences.” I’ll quote the Catechism again:
  1. 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…
  2. 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…
Figure out what the Catechism means by “a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences” and you’ll have the answer to your questions (1) through (7) above about miracles. Also read paragraph 159 which supports modern science.

This stuff is really not that hard to figure out, I don’t know why so many people in here have difficulties distinguishing between scientific questions and religious / faith issues. Reconciling them both can be difficult, but figuring out which are testable by science is easy.

Phil P
 
Stevereeno said:
1. Did God use evolutionary creation to change Aaron’s rod into a serpant?
  1. Did God use evolutionary creation to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, etc?
  2. Did God use evolutionary creation when he fed the 5000?
  3. Did God use evolutionary creation when the power of the Most High overshadowed Mary the Mother of God?
  4. Did God use evolutionary creation to resurrect Lazarus? Remember that Lazarus’ corpse had been rotting for 4 days - essentially it had returned to dust.
  5. Did God use evolutionary creation to resurrect His own body after having been placed in the tomb 3 days earlier?
  6. Will God use evolutionary creation to resurrect your own body on the last day?
.
Click to expand...

It seems many atheistic evolutionists believe that miracles cannot be tested by the Sacred and most Holy Scientific Method. So if a rod turned into a snake…we would have no way of testing it via the Most Holy and Sacred Scientific Method…so we could never say that it happened…even if we saw it…

and most people who accept the naturalistic explanations of the origins of human life also reject the virgin birth and the other supernatural miracles…
 
Tom of Assisi: I think you have it completely backwards. It’s the Church that does not recognize modern miracles without rigorous scientific testing, not scientists who believe miracles can’t be tested. On the contrary, a miracle is by definition something that occurs outside the “normal” boundaries, and these boundaries can only be established and tested by scientific methods. Scientists absolutely believe that miracles can be tested, and the Church absolutely believes that miracles must be tested.
 
TomA << miracles cannot be tested by the Sacred and most Holy Scientific Method. So if a rod turned into a snake…we would have no way of testing it via the Most Holy and Sacred Scientific Method >>

Miracles cannot be tested as such, but the Church does use all the scientific methodology it can to test for natural explanations before affirming a modern miracle.

It’s not holy and sacred, it just works. That’s how you got your computer, your car, and your helicopter. 😃

I wanna be your friend TomA, send me your home address in private Email and I’ll mail you my Best of PhilVaz two CD set, contains many debates of William Lane Craig demonstrating Christanity is true based on historical and yes, scientific methods. He shows the best explanation for the empty tomb, the origin of the Christian faith, and the appearances of Jesus alive after his death, is that God raised Jesus from the dead. And he uses the Big Bang cosmology for the existence of God. Science can be very useful in apologetics, but some things go “beyond the domain of the natural sciences.”

Phil P
 
One important issue is the lack of a fossil record. We were once taught of a hunched over skeleton that proved the link between gorillas and humans. Later it was admitted the skeleton was of an elderly human who had severe arthritis.

Also, scientists have observed changes within a kind of species (canine - dog and wolf)(equine - horse and zebra) but a dog has never been bred to become a horse. Changes between species have never been observed. That makes evolution very suspect. In fact, it takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution due to the lack of fossils. For this reason I wonder at the motives for teaching the religon of evolution in our public schools at the expense of creationism.
 
Kev << One important issue is the lack of a fossil record. >>

Lack of a fossil record found here

Kev << We were once taught of a hunched over skeleton that proved the link between gorillas and humans. Later it was admitted the skeleton was of an elderly human who had severe arthritis. >>

Hominid Species you should look at here

All about Neandertal here, which I think you mean

Kev << but a dog has never been bred to become a horse. >>

Well, we have quite a good horse evolution sequence, of course dog to horse is a little bit silly, right? :rolleyes:

Kev << Changes between species have never been observed. That makes evolution very suspect. >>

Nice try, but see these observed instances of speciation

Kev << In fact, it takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution due to the lack of fossils. >>

Well, not really since we have many more lines of evidence

Kev << For this reason I wonder at the motives for teaching the religon of evolution in our public schools at the expense of creationism. >>

Thank you Mr. Creationist. Now read this God and Evolution FAQ

Hooray, TalkOrigins comes through again. 👍

And of course can’t forget my favorite new anti-creationism quote:

“…‘scientific’ Creationism fails to be a science not because of what it says…about a Divine Creator, but because of what it does not say about the natural world. The theory has no infrastructure, no ways of articulating its vague central idea, so that specific features of living forms can receive detailed explanations.” …“Creation ‘science’ is spurious science. To treat it as science we would have to overlook its intolerable vagueness. We would have to abandon large parts of well-established sciences (physics, chemistry, and geology, as well as evolutionary biology, are all candidates for revision). We would have to trade careful technical procedures for blind guesses, unified theories for motley collections of special techniques. Exceptional cases, whose careful pursuit has so often led to important turnings in the history of science, would be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Nor would there be any gains. There is not a single scientific question to which Creationism provides its own detailed problem solution. In short, Creationism could take a place among the sciences only if the substance and methods of contemporary science were mutilated to make room for a scientifically worthless doctrine.” (Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism [MIT Press, 1982], pages 126, 164)

Phil P
 
I continue to find it disturbing that some basic and damming points that go contrary to the theory of evolution are simply not taught to students in school.

The assumption of the absolute, unarguable truth of the theory evolution is applied to no other scientific theory. For example, scientists will freely debate the origin of the universe, Big Bang versus Steady State; they will discuss the possiblity that Newton’s laws of physics may be flawed; they will debate whether or not Einstein was right in his theories - BUT under no circumstances will they allow any calm discussion of evolution. The moment you start to question evolution you are branded as primitive, unintelligent, fundamentalist (perhaps the ultimate insult today) and obviously beneath contempt.

In fact, when a person quietly suggested to the Catholic Education Office in my city, that the faults in the theory of evolution should be taught alongside the arguments in favour of it, that idea was howled down in ridicule as not only unthinkable, but as postively dangerous and damaging to the children.

I have to keep asking myself why this particular theory, in all of science, is the only one that cannot be debated. Especially given that it is on this particular theory that the credos of Nazism, with its doctrine of the master race and Communism, with its doctrine of absolute materialism, are founded.
 
Dear Philvaz,

There are answers to your answers on creationism.org website. It would be interesting to continue the debate in this forum but how to do so without becoming persnippity? I care very much for your opinions and wish for you whichever theory helps you to love your God and your neighbor with your whole heart. Seems like some people spend all their energy trying to win an argument when it might be better spent serving our Lord and fellow man. I know I am as guilty of this as anyone. Happy Sabbath, Philvaz.

God Bless you,
Kev
 
40.png
rjs1:
I continue to find it disturbing that some basic and damming points that go contrary to the theory of evolution are simply not taught to students in school.

The assumption of the absolute, unarguable truth of the theory evolution is applied to no other scientific theory. For example, scientists will freely debate the origin of the universe, Big Bang versus Steady State; they will discuss the possiblity that Newton’s laws of physics may be flawed; they will debate whether or not Einstein was right in his theories - BUT under no circumstances will they allow any calm discussion of evolution. The moment you start to question evolution you are branded as primitive, unintelligent, fundamentalist (perhaps the ultimate insult today) and obviously beneath contempt.

In fact, when a person quietly suggested to the Catholic Education Office in my city, that the faults in the theory of evolution should be taught alongside the arguments in favour of it, that idea was howled down in ridicule as not only unthinkable, but as postively dangerous and damaging to the children.

I have to keep asking myself why this particular theory, in all of science, is the only one that cannot be debated. Especially given that it is on this particular theory that the credos of Nazism, with its doctrine of the master race and Communism, with its doctrine of absolute materialism, are founded.
Click to expand...
The old commies hated any form of a belief that permitted its subjects to have any form of individualism and viewed the churches as little more than rival political entities to be crushed and substituted with mild indoctrination.

geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics-pt2.html#anchor14

Even beyond the shrill hype of the doctrine above it is clear that any attempt to undermine an individual’s faith by a superfluous doctrine whether it is called Russian communism or scientific empiricalism is met by a counter reaction.

Through the efforts of really intelligent participants here I now recognise that it is not just a simple choice between creationisn and evolution but rather a vastly different and more complex situation.I checked the journals from the mid 19th century which preceded Darwin’s ‘Origin’ and they support evolution which is what you expect after a few centuries of geology and the study of fossils.

bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1845.4.x.57.354.x.454

Darwin published in 1859 while the article above is from 1845 ]

Rjs 1, about the same time as Ussher(with great regret) was super-imposing the Genesis chronology on to the calendrical system there was another Catholic bishop - Nicolas Steno, who was founding the principles that give rise to the discipline of geology which in turn set the stage for the one accurate thing there is,that the development of animate life on the planet took a very,very long time.

I guess the arguments are rigged to suit the worse type of reactions with neither side giving any thought to Christ or Christianity.
 
Kev says << There are answers to your answers on creationism.org website. >>

All right, let’s examine this site a little bit.

Creationism.org says << “Young Earth Creationists” believe that there is no good evidence supporting the notion that the Earth could be over 10,000 years old. The true evidence just isn’t there. But there is very good evidence supporting belief in a very young Earth. >>

Okay, what is that very good evidence for a young earth?

Creationism.org says << Why couldn’t humans and dinosaurs have lived at the same time? They’d probably keep mostly separate and then get buried separately if there was a catastrophe, but this could be theoretically possible, correct? There are at least two places known today with human and dinosaur tracks in the same sedimentary layer: one is in Paluxy, Texas, the other in Eastern Turkmenistan. >>

Are you sure you wanna go with that? John Morris, son of Henry Morris the founder of ICR, abandoned the Paluxy dinosaur “man-track” thing 20 years ago. All about Paluxy here. Here is what AnswersInGenesis thinks of Carl Baugh, the main promoter of the Paluxy “man-tracks”

In response to “4004 B.C. … you can’t be serious!!” from their FAQ

Creationism.org responds << But other creationists, like those contributing to this web site have continued learning … and have come to the understanding (or belief, if one prefers) that there really is no good scientific evidence supporting evolutionism at all; and there is no way that the Earth could be over 10,000 years old. This is complicated, but many of these “young earth creationists” really do believe that 4004 B.C. is probably pretty close to the original creation date. >>

Are you sure you want to go with this?

Phil P
 
Wow, I’ve just been reading all the material philvaz has been putting into these evolution threads. How can you put so much time into this and still be a faithful servant? I’d be worried that my duties as a father, husband, lector, CCD teacher… would suffer. Here is the key then. For me TV used to be the idol, 20 hours a week vs. maybe 2 for God, 1 at church and maybe 1 praying. I haven’t had a TV for 2 1/2 years now. It’s nice because instead of being fed nonsense and immorality from the tube I now search out sense and morality, mostly thru reading a book a day. Haven’t gotten to the evo/crea stuff yet though. I’m not saying you have to give up this arguing for evolution hobby like I gave up TV, but put your pet in its place. If it takes more time than you give to God, it’s time to rearrange priorities to get more fulfillment out of life. Pray to Jesus about this, you’ll know the answer is of Him when it offers both clarity and fulfillment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top