Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[Hope1960]

Now you misread me; I said that the Church DOES teach that God created Adam & Eve (and to be Catholics we must accept this)

As a Catholic you are then free to accept or dismiss evolution
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Now you misread me; I said that the Church DOES teach that God created Adam & Eve (and to be Catholics we must accept this)

As a Catholic you are then free to accept or dismiss evolution

No I’m not misreading you. How did Adam and Eve come to be IF evolution occurred?

 

[Uriel1]

The Bible tells us that God made Adam from the dust of the earth and then breathed the spirit on him; why do you seek to disagree with what the Church teaches?
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[Hope1960]

The Bible tells us that God made Adam from the dust of the earth and then breathed the spirit on him; why do you seek to disagree with what the Church teaches?

Ok,

1. how can this part about being made from the dust of the earth be literal when Catholics have been given the green light to believe in evolution, which, as I said earlier, I do?
2. IF evolution occurred how could the development of Adam and Eve happen the way you describe?
3. how do you reconcile science and what the vast majority of scientists teach with the literal Scripture on Adam and Eve? BTW, I believe God breathed a soul into Adam and Eve. My question is how did they get here and become our first parents in light of evolution?
   Can a Catholic who believes in evolution also weigh in on this?

 

[Uriel1]

If you are Catholic, have you read the relevant CCC teachings and if so do you accept these?

Have you read Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[Hope1960]

Y

If you are Catholic, have you read the relevant CCC teachings and if so do you accept these?

Have you read Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII?

Yes, I read them. Now can you please answer my questions?

 

[Uriel1]

The CCC and Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII already answer your questions, and Col 2:3 tells us that, “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ”
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[Hope1960]

The CCC and Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII already answer your questions, and Col 2:3 tells us that, “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ”

The CCC says: “The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE when it affirms that ‘then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Man whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.”

According to CAF and Pope PiusXII in Humani Genesis: “Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul . Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.”

How does the above answers my questions?

 

[edwest]

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” ( Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Source - Catholic Answers

 

[Bradskii]

The Bible tells us that God made Adam from the dust of the earth and then breathed the spirit on him; why do you seek to disagree with what the Church teaches?
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Have you been looking for any examples of posters using evolution to deny God? Remember you claimed that that was happening? You’ve had enough time so can we presume that you have found none (because there are none) and you can retract what you said earlier?

Of is your modus operandi going to be just like Ed’s: Make unsubstantiated claims and ignore requests to back them up in the hope that they’ll go away.

 

[Bradskii]

Correct, but the OP is that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is not scientific
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

There must be some mental gymnastics going on in your head. Are you trying to prove that something you say doesn’t exist is not scientific?

Going back to the Santa example, it’s like claiming his reindeer can’t really fly.

You’re in the wrong thread, buddy. This thread is based on the fact that evolution is the process whereby we exist but that some feel that it’s not scientifically based. You need to be in the thread entitled ‘Evolution doesn’t exist - who agrees with me?’

 

[Hope1960]

Ok,

1. how can this part about being made from the dust of the earth be literal when Catholics have been given the green light to believe in evolution, which, as I said earlier, I do?
2. IF evolution occurred how could the development of Adam and Eve happen the way you describe?
3. how do you reconcile science and what the vast majority of scientists teach with the literal Scripture on Adam and Eve? BTW, I believe God breathed a soul into Adam and Eve. My question is how did they get here and become our first parents in light of evolution?
   Can a Catholic who believes in evolution also weigh in on this?

1. I have another thread I posted which kind of relates to this thread. I’ve been toying with the idea of checking out a non-denominational church whose beliefs take Genesis literally. I believe in evolution. For those of you who take Genesis literally, how do you reconcile that with science and the overwhelming number of scientists who believe in evolution vs a literal belief in Genesis?
2. A poster on that thread said that Catholics aren’t allowed to believe in evolution, and to believe in it is to be “not Catholic”. I thought Catholics are most certainly allowed to believe in evolution. Am I wrong?

Anyone ELSE care to tackle my questions?

 

[otrrl]

There are more than 1000 responses. I think Darwin’s theory is a scientific theory. That’s a word game that has little significance. Observations are important to science in formulating hypotheses that CAN be tested.

Einstein proposed ideas that took over a century to validate. What amazes me is that the early experiments were so successful in supporting those ideas.

There were improvements in measurement of the speed of light which can only be called scientific, even though the earlier estimates were not accurate.

Development of Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is an example at the cellular level of what evolution might look like on a larger scale.

The development of vision was very important in the success of species, as well as other special adaptations to sometimes very hostile environments. This was passed on widely to other species as time went by.

The development of technology is a form of evolution that is parallel to biological evolution.

Genetics has expanded and undergirded the concepts of biological evolution. If the world was just created some 5700 years ago, evolution has been taking place since then, for sure.

I have a copy but I have not read the Origin of Species. I have Newton’s Principia, haven’t gotten to that either, although I think I would have enjoyed reading about planetary motion.

Sure, there’s a lot of inspiration in Darwin, maybe a lot of mistakes, but that is what science looked like in his day. The nature of “science” is to build theories especially with observations and a strategy of replication. Science makes progress.

Look at cancer research. Is this not science? just because a new experimental drug does not work? Science learns from mistakes and successes. God gave us a mind to use, for good or for bad, to learn things and change things.

 

[otrrl]

Genesis is not about science, as many wish it were. It is about establishing the point that God is the creator of everything. Created things are not gods, and are not to be worshiped.

Genesis teaches other lessons but this is the relevant one here.

 

[Uriel1]

You said, “IF evolution occurred how could the development of Adam and Eve happen the way you describe?”

It is the Bible, not I, which so describes it. You are free to believe God, or like Satan did to reject Him
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[Hope1960]

Genesis is not about science, as many wish it were. It is about establishing the point that God is the creator of everything. Created things are not gods, and are not to be worshiped.

Genesis teaches other lessons but this is the relevant one here.

Do you care to address my questions in post #1401?

 

[Uriel1]

You think “Darwin’s theory is a scientific theory” but evolutionists claim it is a “fact”, distorting the concept of “theory” and that insistence on it being a “fact” is the error, and non-scientific

Bacteria indeed evolve/adapt but they remain bacteria and don’t become cats
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[PickyPicky]

Do you care to address my questions in post #1401

Catholic teaching is not my field, but let me try. If, as you say, the Church permits belief in evolution but insists on belief in a literal Adam and Eve; and if, as you say, the Church teaches that each soul is implanted in each human, not inherited from parents; then presumably one can hold that Adam and Eve were simply the first people to have souls implanted in them.

 

[Bradskii]

You think “Darwin’s theory is a scientific theory” but evolutionists claim it is a “fact”, distorting the concept of “theory” and that insistence on it being a “fact” is the error, and non-scientific

Bacteria indeed evolve/adapt but they remain bacteria and don’t become cats
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

This sums you up in one post. You build straw men and ignore any challenges to back up what you say.

Yes, theories are not facts. Yes, people who say that are distorting the concept of theory. But that does not mean the theory itself is unscientific just because you say so.

And now that you have said that people have claimed this, I’m going to ask you to back that statement up and show me anyone in the thousands of posts on this matter where someone has actually said a theory is a fact.

You’re ignoring the last challenge to show anyone who claimed that evolution denies God and I expect nothing less than you to completely ignore this as well. The silence will be telling.

And if you keep on indicating your ignorance of biology by stating that ‘bacteria are still bacteria’, then people are going to be even less inclined then they are at the moment to treat anything you post seriously. I can only imagine there are just the one or two who do anyway. And they know as much about the subject as you do.

 

[rossum]

You well know what I was asking, but you ducked.

You asked about information. I showed information. If you are using a different definition of information (there is more than one) then you will need to be more specific about what kind of information you mean. I am not a mind reader.

rossum

 

[Uriel1]

You said, “You’re ignoring the last challenge to show anyone who claimed that evolution denies God and I expect nothing less than you to completely ignore this as well. The silence will be telling.”

Hope1960 has just quoted, “While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.”

“Atheistic evolution” is precisely what is being claimed by several posters on this site (a metaphysical claim with no scientific proof)
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange