Catholics and evolution

[Meatros]

Melchior:

I hope not. Since it is a disproven theory. Macro evolution that is. Chrsitians should be on the forefront of making sure they know all the ALL the information. Not just atheistic, ivory tower egg heads with a forum and an axe to grind. By asdsumiong these guys are the only authority regarding science we are acting like lemmings.

Mel

You realize that bearing false witness is a sin, don’t you Mel? Since I’m assuming you do, I should hope you correct your mistake in your unfounded assumption that evolution is a disproven theory.

Just because you don’t understand something (as evident in the other thread) does not mean that it’s disproven.

Oh, and another thing, most Christians worldwide do not have a problem with evolution. In fact-as you’ve been told, but chose to ignore-many Christians are active evolutionary biologists.

 

[UnworthySoul]

You have all put forth some incredibly interesting theories. May I now ask a question of all of you?

What exactly, according to all of your different theories, was the sin in Original Sin?

I’m just curious to see everyone’s take on it. I hear a good many people here mentioning it in relation to your respective theories, but no one has gone into what the sin was.

Just curious for everyone’s take on it according to the theory you believe.

 

[Matt16_18]

PhilVaz

I think this is an interesting interpretation of Genesis that solves the problem of reconciling evolution (where death does rule, since it is a normal part of life today) and the pre-Fall Genesis state (where death does not rule, and Adam/Eve were originally immortal bodily).

I wouldn’t want to take credit for this idea. It is obvious that Genesis is speaking about the creation of the universe that contains the garden of Eden, and that entire universe is a universe that must be free from death, if one accepts the doctrines of the Catholic Church. As you have noted, the Catechism says that physical death is caused by the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and their disobedience occurs after the creation of the universe described in Genesis. Catholic theology about creation must accept this point, and work out from there.

Adam and Eve once possessed immortality and lived in the garden of Eden. What would be the meaning of time in such a world? Our perception of time is a perception that is governed by the fact that time brings to us the decay of our bodies that will ultimately lead to our death. Time and death walk hand and hand in our universe. Who knows, perhaps Adam and Eve lived hundreds of billions of years in the garden of Eden if we measured their time in the garden by our mortal standards of time. There is nothing in Genesis that forces a person to believe that the pre-Fall universe described in Genesis is only a few thousand years old.

The problem that I have with Protestant fundamentalist creation “science”, isn’t so much a problem with their bad science. After all, if humans are on this earth for another thousand years they will probably think that our present science is bad science. No, the problem I have with creation “science” is it’s bad theology, a theology that denies many Catholic doctrines when it is closely scrutinized.

 

[Matt16_18]

UnworthySoul

What exactly, according to all of your different theories, was the sin in Original Sin?

Inordinate self-love is the sin of Adam and Eve (inordinate self-love is the sin of pride).

Just curious for everyone’s take on it according to the theory you believe.

You can see my take on this topic in captainkidd’s thread “Original Sin”. :banghead:

 

[StephenBlue]

Thank You TWF for your link to AIG. I was paraphrasing from a book by Dr. G. S. Mclean called “The Evidence for Creation”. The AIG web page was very helpful and informative.

I was taught to believe evolution was true in school and tried to harmonize it with scripture. I have since realized – by reading many books ( Ken Ham is wonderful for this) – that Genesis can be reconciled with science. Everything in Genesis happened exactly as it says.

Another eveidence for a young earth is the earth’s magnetic field. Data recorded over the last 130 years show that the earth’s magnetic field has been getting weaker and weaker every year.
If you were to draw a graph using this data and assuming that the rate of decay has been the same in the past – the strength of the earth’s magnetic field would have been equivalent to a magnetic star only 10,000 years ago! 30,000 years ago the strength would have been strong enough to generate temperatures in excess of 5000 degrees Celsius!

There are many more indicators of a young earth.

Thanks again!

 

[Demerzel]

Hello,

I too believe in evolution. But only because people I believe to be reliable support it. I believe we went to the moon. Not because I physically saw them land, but because the preponderance of the evidence and reasonable people have said it is so.

However, I was curious how Catholic Theologians would reconcile evolution with original sin? If there was no Adam who disobeyed God by eating from the tree of good and evil then where did original sin come from? And why are we Baptized to erase a sin that never happened?

Thanks in advance…

Demerzel…
Dr. Colossus:

. I myself believe in evolution.

 

[Demerzel]

Good point!

Even if God created an Adam an Eve I still have a problem with death and decay. Besides the fact I don’t like it because it’s happening and going to happen to me, why would God create tigers and other animals with teeth specifically designed for carnivors? We have teeth designed for omnivors don’t we? Some animals are designed as parasites to live off the body of another. Where they created that way? It seems all of creation was designed to kill each other.

I don’t have answers to these questiongs but wish I did.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

Demerzel…

twf:

My biggest problem with God using evolution is that it would mean that God created the world, prior to sin, to be a place of death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed. This is a ‘very good’ creation?
If God created the world as a place of death, disease, and bloodshed…why? (I’m not asking why is there death and suffering, I’m asking why there would be such PRIOR to sin). And if so, then how is it that the universe is groaning and in decay BECAUSE of sin. And in what way is Christ to restore the universe, if it’s been in such a sad state to begin with? Both Scriptures and the Catechism seem to teach these concepts. (CCC#279 is where the section on creation begins;

God bless

 

[Matt16_18]

Demerzel

• Even if God created an Adam an Eve I still have a problem with death and decay. Besides the fact I don’t like it because it’s happening and going to happen to me, why would God create tigers and other animals with teeth specifically designed for carnivors? We have teeth designed for omnivors don’t we? Some animals are designed as parasites to live off the body of another. Where they created that way? It seems all of creation was designed to kill each other. *

Excellent observations about nature.

Creation was not intended by God to be “red in tooth and claw”. Death came into the universe through the sin of Adam and Eve. The universe that God created in Genesis was a universe that was free from death and decay. The universe that we live in is subject to decay and death because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Original sin gave lions teeth and claws. Original sin brought blood-sucking parasites into creation. Original sin has given us cancer, old age, and disease. God did not intend mankind or creation to suffer from decay and death.

Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply while they were still in the garden. God had predestined all of mankind for a joyful life in a paradise universe that was free from decay and death. We were all supposed to live in the terrestrial paradise until we received the even greater glory of becoming fully “divinized” through the tree of life.

But Adam and Eve brought sin and death into God’s holy creation. They were like mean little vandals that defaced a masterpiece. In spite of the evil that Adam and Eve committed by bringing death to themselves and all their progeny, they did not change God’s will that all men should become partakers in the divine nature. God the Father loves us, his rebellious and ungrateful created beings, with unconditional love. God the Father loves us so much, that he sent what he loves most, his only begotten Son, into death-world to die for our sins. God the Father willed that his only begotten Son should die for us so that we might still become partakers of the glorious divine nature.

In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins.
1 John 4:10

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,
by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.
2 Peter 1:3-4

 

[Demerzel]

Matt,

Thank you for your comments.

Are you saying that when Adam sinned Tigers suddenly had claws and carnivorous teeth and parasites appeared where none existed before? When Eve was busy being “fruitfull and multiplying” and bringing kids into the world where no cells were killed during the birth process?

Hmmm, doesn’t that seem to be a bit of a stretch to you?

Thanks…

Demerzel

Matt16_18:

Creation was not intended by God to be “red in tooth and claw”. Death came into the universe through the sin of Adam and Eve. The universe that God created in Genesis was a universe that was free from death and decay. The universe that we live in is subject to decay and death because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Original sin gave lions teeth and claws. Original sin brought blood-sucking parasites into creation. Original sin has given us cancer, old age, and disease. God did not intend mankind or creation to suffer from decay and death.

 

[Matt16_18]

Demerzel

• Are you saying that when Adam sinned Tigers suddenly had claws and carnivorous teeth and parasites appeared where none existed before?*

In paradise, the lion played with the lamb - that will happen once again when creation is restored at the end of time.

There was a transformation that happened to the lion as he was originally created by God - original sin transformed the lion into a carnivorous killer in the Kindgom of Darkness. That transformation happened because Adam and Eve’s sin brought death into the created world. From God’s point of view, we might say that that transformation happened in an instant, since God is outside of time. There are deep mysteries in the Fall, and the bible doesn’t speak about the details. The bible only says that all creation fell because of sin. We can look at evolution in our world as the punishment for original sin if we wish.

• When Eve was busy being “fruitfull and multiplying” and bringing kids into the world where no cells were killed during the birth process?*

Adam and Eve never had children in the garden of Eden. It was God’s perfect will that all of Adam and Eve’s children were to be in paradise, but this never happened because Adam and Eve were banished from paradise before they had their first child. Eve bore all her children in pain and anguish in Satan’s Kingdom of Darkness because of her disobedience to God.

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel. . . . What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. . . . The dead will be raised imperishable. . . . For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.
1 Cor 15:35-37,42,52,53

 

[G.Frege]

Poisson:

Personally I don’t see a problem with evolution as long as you believe that it was God was the source of it. Scripture does not say HOW God created the world.

Is there such a thing as evolution-- macro or micro-- without randomness? And is there any randomness in God’s governance? Either learn what evolutionary theory states or learn about God’s nature.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Melchior:

I hope not. Since it is a disproven theory. Macro evolution that is. Chrsitians should be on the forefront of making sure they know all the ALL the information. Not just atheistic, ivory tower egg heads with a forum and an axe to grind. By asdsumiong these guys are the only authority regarding science we are acting like lemmings.

Mel

Quelle surprise, mon ami! Would you care to as in your other posts in which you have used this term, define for us macroevolution as you understand it? More importantly, since you claim that it has been disproven, can you provide the data which have done so and the appropriate citation(s) to the peer reviewed literature which has reported these data?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Melchior:

Also there is no proof of Macro Evolution using the scientific method. In fact the entire theory does not even begin with the scientific method. Which ironically makes it unscientific. It has never gone beyond theory. It has however, been taught as fact though there is not one shred of transitional stage or fossil evidence that stands up to scrutiny. What’s that saying about a lie repeated often enough?

Micro Evolution, change within species, on the other hand is true. It is observable and can be proven by real science. Macro Evolution, change from one species to another, is nothing more than a modern myth.

On what explicit grounds does evolutionary biology fail to meet the philosophical requirements of a scientific theory? If there are no transitional fossils, will you please offer a coherent explanation for the anatomy of say, *Euparkeria capensis *or Microraptor gui, or Sinornithosaurus millenii, Confuciusornis sanctus, Archaeopteryx lithographica, Presbyornis pervetus, Juncitarus gracilis…the list could go on but you have a nice little assortment of archosaurs there. Please detail why this forms, usually considered transitionals or morphological intermediates between one level of organization and another, are not so. Moreover, if macroevolution is the origin of new species, then would you care to explain observed instances of speciation? Moreover, to be sure we are all on the same page, could you please specify the species concept to which you adhere?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Lorarose:

The fossil record has shown the exact opposite of what Darwin’s theory suggested we should find.
In fact the Cambrain Explosion (the biological “big bang”) amazingly supports the genesis record - that God created the birds/animals/fish -all creatures prior to His creation of man.

Fish and birds are subsets of animals, first and foremost, and thus to say “birds/animals/fish” is redundant. Secondly, neither Aves nor “fish” (it’s paraphyletic) appear in the Cambrian. Thirdly, the Cambrian “explosion” has largely been relegated to a fairly simple episode of adaptive radiation in light of the Vendian fauna and the cataloguing thereof. Moreover, the fossil record overwhelmingly corroborates evolutionary biology and you sole cited example, is scarcely evidence to the contrary.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Melchior:

It doesn’t. It ignores the scientific method. Which Phil’s favorite website seems to completely miss.

On what explicit grounds?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Melchior:

Actually this notion is false from a Christian and historical perspective. Modern western science came directly out of the Church. It was Christianity that advanced the cause of science and in better days the sophisticated scientist called Theology the Queen of the science. The very western Christina worldview that gave us the sciences believed this and it was what drove them.

Historical examples? The reaction of the Office of the Holy Inquisition to the work of Galileo, perhaps?

But the reality it is Atheism 0 0a wrold view that drive and drove Evolutionary theory. Is starts with the assumption that there is no God and everything happened by random chance. Evolutionist science is driven by it’s Religion - Atheism.

It is thus curious that by papal encyclical, the Vatican has no difficulties with evolutionary biology so long as one injects ontological disparity.

So it is just as biased as Creation Science.

So you admit that “creation science” is biased. I would never have suspected.

Thankfully the rules of Logic can and do disprove the premise that evolution is a theory that grew out of neutrality.

Care to elaborate which ones those are?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Edwin Taraba:

There is no evidence that life has become more complex over time.

It is by no means a major tenet of evolutionary biology that such an orthogenic scala naturae has occurred.

Were you there for thousands of years observing this?

Were you there 6,000 years ago to witness the Creation?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Benjamin:

You evolutionary people can believe what you want, but there is no way that I will ever believe that I “evolved” from slime crawling out of the mud fifty billion or what ever years ago. When you look at what side of the religious aisle the fanatics of evolution come down on, does it not make you pause? They uphold that there is no God. They use evolution as a tool to disprove God. I know that the Lord works in mysterious ways, but to my way of thinking this would be way to mysterious. The extremes that they go to defend the theory also gives me pause

Extremes? Only that of evidentiary support and reason, they can be quite pesky. Would you be so kind to illustrate where in any major work on the structure of evolutionary theory (e.g., Mayr 1942, Williams 1966, Maynard Smith 1975) it states as a central assertion (or even any assertion) of evolutionary biology that a god does not exist, and that evolution can prove this? i checked my copies of all three of those texts and found no reference to any such statement, but perhaps you have better access to the literature than I do.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Melchior:

Amen, Benjamin. Excellent post.

Creationism (not necessarily young earth) should be common sense to the Christian.

It is apparently not common sense to the Vatican, which as has been noted multiple times hasn’t the faintest problem with evolutionary biology with the caveat that ontological disparity be injected therein. Perhaps the Vatican simply has not benefited from the munificence of your wisdom.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Intrntsrch:

Um,

I have a question. Can anyone provide a valid scientific experiment or demonstration of the evolution of a specific animal? It would be very helpful. I think in order to be true to the scientific method, a description of the event that includes the mechanism by which the evolution happened would go a long way to clarifying some confusion.

The recent speciation event in *Icterus *comes to mind. You can find the appropriate article in the 2003 Auk.

Oh, one last request. Please avoid using the fossil record because it does nothing to explain the mechanism of evolution. Without knowing “how” it happened only leads to rationalized conjecture.

Why, because the fossil record problematically offers substantial corroboration to evolutionary biology?

Vindex Urvogel