Darwin or Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhilVaz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolltide said:
I don’t revel in other people’s dispair and lost faith, ever. I revel in knowing that this actually helps prove Catholicism true, since it can handle such a theory as a religion and many, if not most, Protestant denominations can’t. It utterly reinforces my faith. And in any case, both John Paul II AND Benedict XVI have ruled that it’s compatible, although they won’t rule on whether it is definitive. Are you going to deny the very word of the Church on the matter?
Click to expand...
You guys really have to stop saying the Church believes in evolution, and that by denying evolution I am somehow going against the Church, that is not accurate at all, and you’re misrepresenting the Churches and the Holy Father’s position for your own benefit.

The idea of the Church being true and the Bible worth anything and evolution being compatible is a joke. The Bible would be a complete fairy tale, the opening book is wrong on all accounts from end to end. Sorry but if you accept we came from a man-chimp, but somehow buy the “rest” of the Bible minus the creation and fall of man well that’s you. But if you’ve ever read the Bible, the entire Bible especially mans fall and redemption is based off of Genesis, which is completely false if you buy evolution. No if I’m a man-chimp, I would leave the Church tomorrow, men-chimp are just animals, I’m not.
 
Saint_Michael said:
The Church does not, it leaves open the possibility of God using evolution to bring mans physical body into the picture, but in no way does it say evolution is true, that’s misspeaking for the Church.

Anyone who believes in evolution and the Bible are deluding themselves, they are mutally exclusive, one negates the other.
Click to expand...
In a hypothetical situation, if the pope tomorrow pronouced infallibly that Genesis was to be interpreted as a parable and theistic evolution was correct, how would you react? No judgement here, just curious.
 
Saint_Michael said:
You guys really have to stop saying the Church believes in evolution, and that by denying evolution I am somehow going against the Church, that is not accurate at all, and you’re misrepresenting the Churches and the Holy Father’s position for your own benefit.

The idea of the Church being true and the Bible worth anything and evolution being compatible is a joke. The Bible would be a complete fairy tale, the opening book is wrong on all accounts from end to end. Sorry but if you accept we came from a man-chimp, but somehow buy the “rest” of the Bible minus the creation and fall of man well that’s you. But if you’ve ever read the Bible, the entire Bible especially mans fall and redemption is based off of Genesis.
Click to expand...
But you misrepresent the Church’s position more. It definitively leaves open the possibility of either belief. For now, it is ok to personally believe in Creationism, and it is ok to personally believe in theistic evolution, as long as one does not deny that God created life, that there was an Adam and Eve, and so on. My position, as per the exact words of the pope, is not unacceptable.

Edit: You are correct though on one point. The church does not believe in evolution. (Neither does it believe in creationism though, not definitively.)
 
Rolltide said:
In a hypothetical situation, if the pope tomorrow pronouced infallibly that Genesis was to be interpreted as a parable and theistic evolution was correct, how would you react? No judgement here, just curious.
Click to expand...
I would leave the Church before he even finished his sentence.
 
Michael << The Church does not, it leaves open the possibility of God using evolution to bring mans physical body into the picture >>

“Possibility” was the way Pius XII spoke of evolution. That was in 1950. The statements from John Paul II and Benedict (the International Theological Commission) are more definite. The later language is basically “evolution is true, the evidence is in.” See especially paragraph 63 of the ITC statement endorsed by Ratzinger in 2004. I don’t know how much clearer he could make it.

Michael << Anyone who believes in evolution and the Bible are deluding themselves, they are mutally exclusive, one negates the other. >>

We’ve been through this in many other threads. The main two objections are “death before the Fall” and “Adam and Eve through hominid evolution.” Both have been dealt with in some detail.

Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record deals with some of this

And Animal Death before the Fall by an evangelical author deals with the other objection, many other articles can be found as well

I have quoted Benedict/Ratzinger from his commentary on Genesis. He has no problem with human evolution, sees Genesis telling us “who we are” not “how we got here” – and No, he is not deluding himself either. :rolleyes:

Phil P
 
PhilVaz said:
Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote this:

“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.” (In the Beginning… Ratzinger’s commentary on Genesis)

The Pope on Genesis

Hate to quote the same things over and over. Just search for and see our previous 4.5 billion creation-evolution threads in here since May 2004. But there are always new people who haven’t seen this stuff yet. :rolleyes:

My evidence for evolution summary again

Phil P
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: The Holy Father leaves the option for evolution on the table, he in no way endorses it. Sorry I don’t have to accept it, I’ve seen the evidence and I don’t on faith. I could care less how many patronizing message board anthropologist wannabes throw smiley after “rolleyes” at me…
 
PhilVaz said:
Michael << The Church does not, it leaves open the possibility of God using evolution to bring mans physical body into the picture >>

“Possibility” was the way Pius XII spoke of evolution. That was in 1950. The statements from John Paul II and Benedict (the International Theological Commission) are more definite. The later language is basically “evolution is true, the evidence is in.” See especially paragraph 63 of the ITC statement endorsed by Ratzinger in 2004. I don’t know how much clearer he could make it.

Michael << Anyone who believes in evolution and the Bible are deluding themselves, they are mutally exclusive, one negates the other. >>

We’ve been through this in many other threads. The main two objections are “death before the Fall” and “Adam and Eve through hominid evolution.” Both have been dealt with in some detail.

Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record deals with some of this

And Animal Death before the Fall by an evangelical author deals with the other objection, many other articles can be found as well

I have quoted Benedict/Ratzinger from his commentary on Genesis. He has no problem with human evolution, sees Genesis telling us “who we are” not “how we got here” – and No, he is not deluding himself either. :rolleyes:

Phil P
Click to expand...
They’re grasping at straws trying to make our faith compatible with evolution, if you believe in evolution then the entire Judeo-Christian idea of God, man, creation, the fall, salvation etc… is so far off the mark that only scared people could possibly believe it.

I’ve been an agnostic before, and I believe on faith that we are specially created beings from God seperate from any species discovered within the fossil record. Without that, my religion is not compatible with the book it’s based off of at all.

The only thing atheists respect less than a creationist are religious people who espouse evolution, but “theistic evolution”.
 
Saint_Michael said:
:rolleyes: The Holy Father leaves the option for evolution on the table, he in no way endorses it. Sorry I don’t have to accept it, I’ve seen the evidence and I don’t on faith. I could care less how many patronizing message board anthropologist wannabes throw smiley after “rolleyes” at me…
Click to expand...
In defense of Saint Michael, the Church definitely still allows belief in Creationism, if one so chooses.
 
PhilVaz said:
The point is Behe accepts common descent, he accepts natural selection, he accepts random mutations. All he has are examples that science and the mechanism of evolution have yet to explain. “Problems with evolution” or things “not explained yet by evolution” is not evidence of design or evidence for creationism. The ID people themselves will tell you “we don’t believe everything was designed” so even they accept evolution and natural causes at some point. Articles attempting to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum scientifically here

The Flagellum Unspun by Ken Miller
Evolution of the bacterial flagellum by Musgrave
Evolution is Brownian Space by Matzke

Phil P
Click to expand...
Thanks for the articles, I’ll take a look at them.

It occurs to me that the really interesting question regarding evolution as accepted by Christians is, did God get exactly the world He intended, or did He just set the machine in motion and accept whatever it produced? For example, as far as bacterial flagellums (I’m sure that’s not the correct plural), did God somehow insure that they would evolve, or did He not care if they evolved or not, and they just happened to do so?

Of course, being omniscient He knew what He would get anyway. But did He arrange to get the world that exists, or did He simply know that this was the world He would get, without “loading the dice” in any way? In which case, could human beings, created in His image and likeness and with immortal souls, have developed as entirely different types of creatures?
 
Michael << The idea of the Church being true and the Bible worth anything and evolution being compatible is a joke. The Bible would be a complete fairy tale, the opening book is wrong on all accounts from end to end. >>

Then what do you do with this from Fr. Stanley Jaki. The Bible implies the earth is flat. Yes or No?

“If asked about his physical surroundings or about the physical world at large, the typical Israelite would have given a reply very irritating to the modern mind. It is irritating to say the least to hear that the earth is a flat disk, the sky an inverted hard bowl, and that the two form a vast tent-like structure. Of course, other inhabitants of the ancient Near-East would have given similar answers…To be sure, much the same would have been done by a typical ancient Egyptian and Babylonian…The hardness of the sky, but especially the immobility of the earth, had to appear all the more a divinely ordained physical fact as, according to the Bible, a mere man, Joshua, could be authorized by God to stop the sun and the moon in their tracks and, apparently, for a whole day…Obviously, to modern eyes dazzled by space rockets cruising along ‘world lines’ set by Einstein’s four-dimensional cosmology nothing could seem more jarring than the Bible’s physical world, which is little more than a glorified tent. To that tent the Bible assigns the sky as its cover and the earth as its floor, though hardly in a consistent way. In Genesis 1 the sky is a firmament, that is, a hard metal bowl, whereas in Psalm 104 and Isaiah 45:24 it is more like a canvas that can be stretched out…Herein lies one of the non-trivially unscientific aspects of the world as described in the Bible…Well before the advent of modern science, and indeed of heliocentrism, the contrast between that biblical world-tent and the world of Aristotelian-Ptolemaic geocentrism had to appear enormous.” (Fr. Jaki, Bible and Science, pages 19-25)

Do you throw out the Bible, or do you recognize that the Israelites had the same “scientific worldview” as the Babylonians and Egyptians? We didn’t know the earth was a sphere until the later Greeks of the 4-5 century B.C. But God apparently did not communicate that to His people in His Scriptures.

The Evolution of Bible-Science: Young Earthers, Geocentrists, Flat Earthers by a skeptic, but what he says is correct and I have improved his argument slightly. Perhaps you need a more sophisticated understanding of the Bible and the history of science ? We’ve come a long way, baby 😃 since Galileo. :confused:

Phil P
 
PhilVaz said:
Do you throw out the Bible, or do you recognize that the Israelites had the same “scientific worldview” as the Babylonians and Egyptians? We didn’t know the earth was a sphere until the later Greeks of the 4-5 century B.C. But God apparently did not communicate that to His people in His Scriptures.

The Evolution of Bible-Science: Young Earthers, Geocentrists, Flat Earthers by a skeptic, but what he says is correct and I have improved his argument slightly. Perhaps you need a more sophisticated understanding of the Bible and the history of science
Phil P
Click to expand...
A flat Earth has nothing to do with my creation, the fall of Adam etc… A flat Earth means nothing to me frankly, I believe a lot of stories are allegorical. Genesis is not one of them.

IMO a religious person who believes in evolution simply gave up. You have no faith in God if you think we’re man-chimps. The all knowing, all powerful God who created man in His image does not do so through man-chimps (unless God was once a manchimp???)

I have faith in God, not you, or any other anthropologist with an agenda and sole access to the fossil record…👍
 
Rolltide << In defense of Saint Michael, the Church definitely still allows belief in Creationism, if one so chooses. >>

Well of course, just as the Church definitely still allows belief in a Flat earth, a Hollow earth, and a non-moving, non-rotating earth (geocentrism), a Young earth or any other long discredited ideas of science.

I’m not saying the Church requires evolution like it does the Eucharist or any other dogma. I’m saying the Church, since Pius XII in 1950, definitely says evolution is true, that the scientific evidence is in. And the Church definitely says there is no incompatibility between Genesis rightly understood and evolution. I’ve quoted Benedict/Ratzinger, the ITC statement, and the Catechism (159, 283-284) repeatedly.

Fr. George Coyne, the Vatican astronomer from 1978-2006 on creationism is relevant as well:

“…creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God…” (Coyne full statement on I.D. and evolution here)

Phil P
 
Be honest Michael, have you ever read a single book defending evolution? Yes or No?

Have you read Finding Darwin’s God? Have you read Perspectives on an Evolving Creation? Have you read Coming to Peace with Science? Have you read The Language of God?

We know the answer is No. You’re not gonna learn anything if you don’t read anything on evolution. :rolleyes: Yes another roll eyes. :rolleyes:

Benedict clearly believes we and the chimps had a common ancestor. And he clearly has faith. And he definitely says Genesis tells us “who we are” not “how we got here.” I agree with him. I call the Pope to the witness stand, your honor. 😃

Phil P
 
Saint_Michael said:
I don’t accept evolution, I don’t care what the evidence is. I have faith. If they can dismiss God no matter all the evidence for a creator, I can dismiss evolution.

If evolution is true, then hang em up, the Bible is just a fairy tale. No creation, no Adam, no Eve, no fall, no need for a savior.

The only thing worse than people like me who bury their heads in the sand and hold onto faith, are the people who try to hold onto some view of “theistic evolution”, or that we came from a man-chimp ancestor yet somehow that still jives with the Bible (it doesn’t at all). No if we came from a man-chimp ancestor “eat and drink for tomorrow we die”…

I can’t stand the triumphialism evolutionists have. They seem to revel in others despair and lost faith, it’s bizarre why this would please people.
Click to expand...
First off, some credentials: I am a Catholic and love my Church; I am enrolled in the Carmelite scapular; I pray the Liturgy of the Hours; I receive the Eucharist on the tongue; I frequent adoration when possible; and I go to daily Mass every morning at eight. From there, I go to work at the University, studying the evolution of the immune system, especially as it pertains to the various strains of influenza.

I won’t waste my time or yours in trying to convince you that evolution happens. (Although I believe it to be an indisputable fact: Evolution *does *occur–population genetics change over generations.) Rather, I have to take issue with the way you present it as a dichotomy: Religion or Evolution. To present the issue in such a way is misleading and potentially scandalous.

If the Holy Father maintains that evolution is more than a “mere hypothesis,” who am I to contradict him? If he can reconcile the scientific concept of evolution with Scripture and Tradition, who am I to second guess him? I don’t understand this need to maintain that science and faith are incompatible. To my view, the one answers the “hows?” of life, the other, the “whys?”.

Quite frankly, I feel that the only thing worse than “the people who try to hold onto some view of “theistic evolution” …] that we came from a man-chimp ancestor …] that still jives with the Bible,” is the idea that the God I worship is some sort of trickster, putting false clues in the form of fossils and DNA that make it appear that evolution occurs, when it in fact doesn’t. That is not my God.

Pax tecum,
Alberich
 
PhilVaz said:
Be honest Michael, have you ever read a single book defending evolution? Yes or No?

Have you read Finding Darwin’s God? Have you read Perspectives on an Evolving Creation? Have you read Coming to Peace with Science? Have you read The Language of God?

We know the answer is No. You’re not gonna learn anything if you don’t read anything on evolution. :rolleyes: Yes another roll eyes. :rolleyes:

Benedict clearly believes we and the chimps had a common ancestor. And he clearly has faith. And he definitely says Genesis tells us “who we are” not “how we got here.” I agree with him. I call the Pope to the witness stand, your honor. 😃

Phil P
Click to expand...
LOL I was an agnostic for nearly 8 years I used to insult and belittle people who believed in a literal creation of man. You have no clue what I’ve read Phil, and just when I thought you couldn’t get any more patronizing.😃 :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Saint_Michael said:
I would leave the Church before he even finished his sentence.
Click to expand...
Were you really to feel that way, you would have quite the conundrum.

To be able to leave the Church, you must not believe at least one of the following: that Jesus founded the Church, that Jesus gave the Popes the ability to bind and lose, and/or that Jesus ensured that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.

Again, were you to feel that way, your position could be summed up as follows: I believe the Church when its position corresponds with that which I already hold, or wish to believe. But when it contradicts something I believe, the Church loses its infallibility in the realm of faith and morals. Do I represent the situation adequately?

Pax tecum,
Alberich
 
Michael << You have no clue what I’ve read Phil, and just when I thought you couldn’t get any more patronizing. >>

Fine. Give me a few book titles then. 😃 Your understanding of Genesis, the history of science, evolution, and the doctrine of the Church is very simplistic. In my opinion. That’s all I can say. Once again, read Ratzinger/Benedict’s commentary on Genesis.

You haven’t shown explicitly where Genesis or Church doctrine is incompatible with evolution. You said it is. I say No. I’ve quoted the Pope, I’ve quoted the Commission endorsed by the Pope. I’ve given you answers to the two main objections: “death before the Fall” and “Adam and Eve through hominid evolution.” Do you have anything else? 👍

Sorry, I’m warming up for my Friday meeting with thousands of creationists at the U.S.F. Sun Dome. Just practicing on you. 😃

Phil P
 
OK you Catholic anti-Darwinists, you think you can dismiss the Popes, right? 😃

Pope John Paul II: “…new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution…”

Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger): “…Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism…”

But you can’t dismiss Fr. Mitch Pacwa 😃 who says…

And I quote 👍

Fr. Mitch: “…now if it’s more than a hypothesis, that means it’s a FACT…if it’s more than a hypothesis, that means it’s the TRUTH…”

Don’t believe he said that? Well…

Want to hear the AUDIO of this one? 😃 This was from a 1996 Mother Angelica Live program talking about the JPII statement on evolution.

You see, what happened is Fr. Pacwa does not think the Pope wrote “more than a hypothesis” – but he admits that IF that is indeed the correct translation, that means JPII said evolution is a FACT and the TRUTH. And Jimmy Akin has confirmed from the original French and subsequent clarification from the Vatican newspaper that was indeed the correct translation.

“More than a hypothesis” = evolution is a fact and the truth.

Pacwa has spoken, the Catholic Darwinist case is closed.

The FULL PROGRAM is also available as .ra Real media from EWTN audio.

Phil P
 
Alberich said:
Were you really to feel that way, you would have quite the conundrum.

To be able to leave the Church, you must not believe at least one of the following: that Jesus founded the Church, that Jesus gave the Popes the ability to bind and lose, and/or that Jesus ensured that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.

Again, were you to feel that way, your position could be summed up as follows: I believe the Church when its position corresponds with that which I already hold, or wish to believe. But when it contradicts something I believe, the Church loses its infallibility in the realm of faith and morals. Do I represent the situation adequately?

Pax tecum,
Alberich
Click to expand...
To believe the Church I am required to believe that the Church is lead by the Holy Spirit and unable to err when pronouncing matters ex-cathedra. If the Pope came out and told me I am required to believe I am a chimp-man hybrib then all I have to do is look at scripture and realize that contradicts God to the very core. The Church would cease to be true because it floundered on the very cornerstone of our faith, our creation by a personal loving God IN HIS IMAGE. Was God a chimp man? How were we created in HIS image if we are chimps-men? I would be free to leave since infalibility would be completely debunked.

You guys sound like the Mormons who just can’t accept American Indians are not Jews but of Asiatic descent. The DNA proves it but they scramble and try to come up with alternative theories. I would have more respect if they just said DNA SmeeNA they’re Jews and stuck by their guns. Now they just sound ridiculous trying to explain why there isn’t a trace of Hebrew DNA in American Indians yet the BofM labels AI’s the principle ancestors of Jewish tribes that immigrated to the Americas and filled the lands with their descendants.

Fact is the Church taught for about 1,950 years exclusively we are created beings in God’s image in line with scriptures, to say now we are really chimp-men, well??? To remain faithful and believe that I think is stretching the bounds of reason. Pick your side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top