Darwinism/evolution

[JulieAA]

I am extremely confused about what I am reading from the Vatican. Please clarify this for me:

What exactly is the Catholic Church hoping to understand about this issue? Is it not clear that God created man from the dust of the earth and created the animals lower than man. How then can they believe in a possibility that apes evolved into humans?
I really must be missing something here. So many of my non-catholic friends are bombarding me with tons of questions that I have no clue how to answer. Are we not to take the Bible literally???

 

[bpcatholic]

I don’t think evolution says we came from apes. That’s just what a few scientists are saying. I could be wrong. Someone probably knows better that me.

 

[Nat2]

The Church supports micro-evolution, but it denies macro-evolution.
(micro = the scientific law of how creatures can change & adapted over generations for survival….the whole “survival of the fittest” thing is in this, too)
(macro = the theory that humans were once in-organic material, like a rock, and then evolved into organic specials and grew, like blade of grass < frog <dog < monkey < human *)

There’s a big difference between Darwinism & evolution. Darwin was a Bible-reading Christian (for the beginning of this life) and He believed in his micro-evolution law (which has been proven true since his death), but he knew that there were some major issues in his macro theory. In fact, he spent more time in his book disusing the lack of evidence for his theory then actually explaining it. He didn’t what to publish his book (cuz he knew how it could potentially take the credit away from God) but his wife eventually persuaded him to.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a more modern believe that is based on Darwinism and it is continually changed and modified so as to make people still believe it’s true. I personally think that evolutionist spend more time trying to cover up evidence against there theory then perfecting it.

In short, evolution is false. The only reason that it is the main belief of modern scientist it because it is the only belief that does not involve God, crediting Him as our creator.

So… if you’re a Christian, you don’t believe in macro evolution.

*

 

[aslan963]

What is important to remember here is that the Church does not ignore truth revealed by science. At one point Catholics believed the creation story because we as humans did not know all life was related through common ancestry.

The creation story conveys in non-scientific terms that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is contained within. I could not find the quote I was looking for but it went something like: ‘science and religion both pursue the truth and they should agree’.

Catholics do not literally interpret the bible.

 

[Nat2]

What is important to remember here is that the Church does not ignore truth revealed by science. At one point Catholics believed the creation story because we as humans did not know all life was related through common ancestry.

The creation story conveys in non-scientific terms that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is contained within. I could not find the quote I was looking for but it went something like: ‘science and religion both pursue the truth and they should agree’.

Catholics do not literally interpret the bible.

Catholics do not literally interpret parts of the bible, the parts that were not written literally, like the creation story, because, (like you said) a day in “God-terms” could have been zillions of our 24-hr periods.

Catholic do, however interpret literal writtings literally, like John 6, “This is my Body & this is my Blood”

 

[aslan963]

Catholics do not literally interpret parts of the bible, the parts that were not written literally, like the creation story, because, (like you said) a day in “God-terms” could have been zillions of our 24-hr periods.

Catholic do, however interpret literal writtings literally, like John 6, “This is my Body & this is my Blood”

Amen

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Church supports micro-evolution, but it denies macro-evolution.

No. Indeed, the Pope has written that common descent of all living creatures on Earth is “virtually certain.”

In short, evolution is false. The only reason that it is the main belief of modern scientist it because it is the only belief that does not involve God, crediting Him as our creator.

Chemistry doesn’t involve God. Do you mean I can’t believe atoms exist?

So… if you’re a Christian, you don’t believe in macro evolution.

The Pope isn’t Christian?

 

[VociMike]

I am extremely confused about what I am reading from the Vatican. Please clarify this for me:

What exactly is the Catholic Church hoping to understand about this issue? Is it not clear that God created man from the dust of the earth and created the animals lower than man. How then can they believe in a possibility that apes evolved into humans?
I really must be missing something here. So many of my non-catholic friends are bombarding me with tons of questions that I have no clue how to answer. Are we not to take the Bible literally???

Start with a basic premise: truth cannot contradict truth. God’s revelation, as partially contained in the bible, is truth. Authentic science also reveals truth (with some error or incompleteness, which is gradually diminished over time).

So, either a vast segment of scientific research and theorizing - cosmology, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, anthropology, biology, etc - is wrong, and always wrong in the same way, OR, this segment of science is revealing something true about God’s creation.

If we take the latter view (the only one a reasonable person can take, IMO), then we are left with the task of reconciling what appear to be contradictory truths. But this is only if one assumes that the bible is a science text, which it is most certainly not. And the Catholic Church knows that it is not, and that the truths contained in the creation account are not scientific truths, but deeper truths about the nature and creation of the world and of humanity.

And then there’s the short answer: why is it perfectly OK that humans came from dust, but a terrible notion that they came from lower life forms?

 

[oriel16]

I am extremely confused about what I am reading from the Vatican. Please clarify this for me:

What exactly is the Catholic Church hoping to understand about this issue? Is it not clear that God created man from the dust of the earth and created the animals lower than man. How then can they believe in a possibility that apes evolved into humans?
I really must be missing something here. So many of my non-catholic friends are bombarding me with tons of questions that I have no clue how to answer. Are we not to take the Bible literally???

Here is what you do - if you go walking along the hills or along a beach,look at those places where the rock is exposed.You will notice that they appear in layers and it is these layers where evolution all began with bishop Steno -

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/history_04

Now,the idea of a shark’s tooth in rock or seashells inside rocks on top of mountains should puzzle people even today but Steno left that question open as all good scientists do and it took many centuries for one man to come up with an answer -

ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

The next big issue will be finding out how the fractured crust of the Earth moves but at least you get the rough outlines of geological evolution without having to consider God,faith and all the other things Christians seem to worry about when approaching these things,however,there is nothing stopping you for praising God in putting these lovely people on Earth to provide insights for us to enjoy but that is about it.

Biological evolution is not much different as it is tied closely to geological evolution.As they began to work with bishop Steno’s idea that newer layers of rock sit on top of older layers of rock they noticed that the fossils of animals and plants not only changed,some of the fossils showed that the animals which they represented existed no longer.Remember,all this is before Darwin -

strangescience.net/smith.htm

If you enjoy this brief detour into genuine scientific tradition you will probably be puzzled at the present situation where there is no clear direction from the Church and you know what ?,I am too.

Christians and the wider population are being put in an impossible position,they believe if they reject Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution it means they reject evolution altogether and therefore must accept a literal Genesis.The Church has lagged behind in explaining that Darwin’s injection of a ‘cause’ for evolution is entirely anti-scientific and undoes the work of those great men such as bishop Steno,Smith and Wegener in using fossil evidence to paint a picture of a much older and much more interesting planet in terms of diversity of life,climate,geological events,you name it.

So,if you go out for a walk and enjoy God’s creation,be sure to spare a few thoughts for men who took a little more notice than other people do when looking at rocks and soil layers and discovered they contained a great story that is still continuing to this day and for as long as the Earth moves.

 

[Donald45]

Consider this from Pope Benedict XVI:
“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…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 herewith* two complementary---- rather than mutually exclusive----realities*” (In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation & the Fall, p. 50).

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[edwest2]

If there is any confusion about this subject, it is not coming from the Catholic Church. It is coming from those who say that random mutations and natural selection are the reasons you and I are here. As one man, Stephen Jay Gould, said, if we could rewind evolution then things would have been different. The atheist-materialist love of no God and the desire to stamp out belief in God removes God’s will from any process like evolution that may have occurred.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

We are not haphazard mistakes.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

The Catholic Church’s position is that faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the very same Creator.

The Church is interested in fruitful dialogue with science. The Church can illuminate science.

 

[oriel16]

Consider this from Pope Benedict XVI:
“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…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 herewith* two complementary---- rather than mutually exclusive----realities*” (In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation & the Fall, p. 50).

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

The only thing saving denominational Chrsitianity at the moment is unfamiliarity with the principles,methods and insights centering around the topics of astronomy and evolutionary biology/geology but that excuse is fast disappearing as it begins to move in an unholy direction towards ‘two ways of knowing’ or variations on that theme.

The problem is that these Papal declarations are made on an empircal playing field insofar as empircists have been effective in extracting the productive scientific tradition within denominational Chrsitianity and setting it up as a separate entity.The fact that the empirical premises and conclusions such as Newton in astronomy and Darwin in biology generate plenty of heat and no light is lost on the Church and the wider population who have no idea that the empircial approach in astronomy,geology and evolutionary biology is approaching bankrupcy as they have painted themselves into conceptual corners.The recent explosion in attempts to find life outside the Earth is just a symptom of this desperation.

There are no words to express the horror of “two complimentary realities” yet it may be adopted by denominational Chrsitianity signaling a continuation of catastrophic period in human history.Empircism is never science even though it now operates with impunity as the Church has all but conceded its valuable scientific heritage to the false empircial doctrine for a pittance.

On the same day as Darwin ,a great man was born on the planet who was no stranger to an impossible position.Facing a situation where the festering conviction of the empircists to wipe out Christianity and on the other side,the absolute laziness and inability of Christians to appreciate their own scientific heritage,I too must defer to the only option left -

“I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for the day.” Abraham Lincoln

If the Church does not wake up and shake itself of this lethargy then denominational Christianity and its once stabilising effects is finished but I assure anyone here,if the Church adopts this ruinous position of two separate edifices of science and religion then the consequences are far worse.

.

 

[oriel16]

The Catholic Church’s position is that faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the very same Creator.

The Church is interested in fruitful dialogue with science. The Church can illuminate science.

Tell me something,what makes you believe that faith is separate to reason in order to find opposition between the two ?.

Faith or intuitive intelligence lights up reason -

“The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world”
usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm

The ridiculous way scientists approach material which requires a high degree of intuitive intelligence ,such as astronomy of evolutionary geology/biology, is the same as it ever was ,only now with the dominance of a ‘mathematical’ approach,nobody appears to be capable of recognising how silly mathematicians/empircists can be.

Pascal,a great Christian and mathematician knew something that is now almost lost to humanity when dealing with sacred Christian matters or that of creation -

“The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it.”

leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees-SECTION.html

All these numbskulls looking for definitions or trying to figure out creation like an exercise in building a house is just plain silly.Many will say ‘this is how science works’ but it really means ‘this is how mathematicians/empircists operate’.

So what if only a few can feel their way through the complicated cross currents of data that go into forming a working principle such as Copernicus did with astronomy,or Steno and Wegener in geology,in the end the insights can be made understandable and enjoyable.

 

[Chipper]

I am extremely confused about what I am reading from the Vatican. Please clarify this for me:

What exactly is the Catholic Church hoping to understand about this issue? Is it not clear that God created man from the dust of the earth and created the animals lower than man. How then can they believe in a possibility that apes evolved into humans?
I really must be missing something here. So many of my non-catholic friends are bombarding me with tons of questions that I have no clue how to answer. Are we not to take the Bible literally???

It just so happens I am having this debate with my brother right now. He is convinced that (his words) “…the Vatican has sold out the doctrine to accommodate the current way of culture thinking only to appeal to the zealots of science with the hope of not seeming as un intelligent simply because of a belief in things Unseen or Unproven…”

This is basically my response to him.

I think you miss the point of the Vatican.

The vatican is not saying that God did not create life. There is no argument that God created the Universe and all life in it.

Fundamentally all the Vatican and me are saying is that the Bible is not a “Handbook” on how to create man. All this stuff about Evolutionists versus fundamental creationists ( and this a definition I need to refine), is just an argument on “How” God created life. When I say fundamental creationists I am basically referring to the ones who basically think God created man in perhaps 30 seconds or less.

The Vatican is merely saying no-one knows exactly "HOW" God created man. There is no argument that God created man.

I am not smart enough to know how to create a man, therefore I don’t know how he did it.

In fact, to further confuse the matter, I read Genesis and I see clear References to Evolution.

Genesis: 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it." And so it happened: 12 the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was.
13 Evening came, and morning followed–the third day.

This is God talking himself, and he clearly says let the “Earth” bring forth. He didn’t say I bring it, or I create it, no he said “Let the Earth bring forth”. Definately sounds like evolution to me.

And then again in:
Genesis 1:24 “Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds.” And so it happened:"

Again this is again, God talking he said “Let the earth bring forth”, once again he did not say I create, or I bring forth, he said “Let the earth bring forth” - another evolutionary statement.

Now to be clear I don’t claim to know how God did anything I wasn’t there, but I can definately see support for both sides of the story of “How” God created, be it evolution, or be it the snapping of his fingers.

And frankly I don’t see how it makes any difference to our life anyways, as long as we accept that God Created the Universe and every living thing in it, then there is no problem.

 

[The_Barbarian]

"…the Vatican has sold out the doctrine to accommodate the current way of culture thinking only to appeal to the zealots of science with the hope of not seeming as un intelligent simply because of a belief in things Unseen or Unproven…"

In other words,he thinks the Church is wrong, and he is right.

 

[Chipper]

"…the Vatican has sold out the doctrine to accommodate the current way of culture thinking only to appeal to the zealots of science with the hope of not seeming as un intelligent simply because of a belief in things Unseen or Unproven…"

In other words,he thinks the Church is wrong, and he is right.

In other words you are forming a conclusion without a valid premise.

 

[oriel16]

"…the Vatican has sold out the doctrine to accommodate the current way of culture thinking only to appeal to the zealots of science with the hope of not seeming as un intelligent simply because of a belief in things Unseen or Unproven…"

In other words,he thinks the Church is wrong, and he is right.

Biological and geological evolution is one of the most enjoyable things a person can study as it is full of planetary history,dinosaurs,ices ages,moving continents,changing landscapes and lifeforms and extends into human history as people escaped geological or climatological events,even enormous floods -

glaciallakemissoula.org/

The hoopla of science vs religion is a consequence of people being neither scientific or religious where it matters,if somehow,the Church is playing along with people who try to attempt to make investigation of celestial/terrestrial phenomena an issue of faith then it is their own fault if the wider population ignores them as a dull ‘moral authority’ when it once provided rich soil for scientific investigation .Darwin did not discover evolution and what he did do was so contrived and so silly that a Christian should be excommunicated for being stupid playing along with these numbskulls.

The great planetary stage on which evolution is played out is the bigger loser in all of this yet genuine people actually love how evolution appeared as a topic to investigate beyond the cardbopard cutout version centering around Darwin.If people made a genuine attempt to look a little closer they would see this phony science vs religion thingie for what it is .

ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/steno.html

ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/smith.html

It is up to the Christian community to save the Church for the Church authorities appear to have no competence is matters which genuine people enjoy.

 

[Chipper]

It is up to the Christian community to save the Church for the Church authorities appear to have no competence is matters which genuine people enjoy.

When you accuse like this, you should probably take a closer look at your self.

As I stated earlier this evolution vs. Creationism is nothing more thatn argument of “Method”. Neither one of these can confirm or deny that God Created the Heavens and earth and all living things in it.

The Method (the how) of God may probably never be known. This is all the Church is saying.

 

[oriel16]

When you accuse like this, you should probably take a closer look at your self.

As I stated earlier this evolution vs. Creationism is nothing more thatn argument of “Method”. Neither one of these can confirm or deny that God Created the Heavens and earth and all living things in it.

The Method (the how) of God may probably never be known. This is all the Church is saying.

You are simply another nuisance who can’t tell the difference between empircism and genuine science for had you bothered to look at who created the framework for evolution via evolutionary geology I would not have to watch you dribble out lame junk about affirming or denying God’s creation,unless you haven’t noticed,the Earth is in the heavens/celestial arena.

You all want to speak for the Church or defend God against evolution but that reflects your own beliefs, the state of denominational Christianity and the horrible anti-scientific atmosphere of this era in matters of astronomy and evolutionary biology/geology.

I accuse nobody, the documents of the original discoverers are placed before you and if you or anyone else wishes to make Darwin important then fair play to the empircists,as far as I am concerned they may be right that there is nothing left of denominational Christianity only a ‘moral authority’ shell.