Now it’s hardly anyone’s fault that some physics (which is waaay over anyone’s head who is posting here) suggests that that is not necessarily the case.
you (or I) have zero chance of following the maths so saying that it definitely does not will make you look ignorant as well.
Be careful… you’re coming close to their argument that we sheeple take on blind faith which our betters (scientists, in this case) tell us we must believe.
How do you know they are true, since an evo formed brain is not a reliable truth detector?
Umm… pardon? Don’t you realize that, if you argue from that position, you’re effectively arguing that you, yourself, are not a reliable truth teller?
Evolution asserts (to use your word, but again it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt) that divine intervention is not required to explain the diversity of life. Period. There is no divine component to it, and there is no aspect of life’s diversity that is not explained by it.
Maybe we’re talking past each other. Maybe I’m making assumptions that you’re not grokking. The ‘ethos’, commonly associated with a
philosophical evolutionism, looks backward beyond ‘diversity’ and posits a genesis of life. It asserts an abiogenesis.
This theory, then, posits a lack of a need of a divine being – and, more interestingly, takes it a step further and asserts that, since there is no
need, therefore,
God does not exist. This is the ‘ethos’ that Ratzinger is discussing.
If you take the Bible literally, and some of Catholicism’s dogmas (like Original Sin), Evolution does pose several problems for you.
The Catholic Church does not teach fundamentalist hyperliteralism. Nor does it require a literalistic hermeneutic in its expression of the doctrine of Original Sin. Therefore, since your premises are false, your assertion of evolution as “problematic” fails to hold water. Sorry.
If you are willing to bend your beliefs, and look at the Bible as allegorically and not historical, you can fit evolution into religion. But it is nearly impossible to fit it into orthodox Catholicism.
Not so fast. It is “nearly impossible to fit it into”
traditionalist Catholicism, or maybe into
Scripturally literalist Catholicism. However,
orthodox Catholicism – which is merely what the Church teaches – already allows for it, and therefore, it is not ‘impossible’:
it’s already reasonable.
The same is true for gravity, which is why several scientists were killed in the middle ages.
I have no idea why you’re bringing up gravity. Perhaps you’re lamenting medieval defenestrations?
