Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[rossum]

Anyone ELSE care to tackle my questions?

OK, I’ll have a shot.

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

God said “Let the earth bring forth…” to create animals. Hence, animals are dust/earth/clay, having been brought forth from the earth. God then uses evolution to shape one of those animals to form a human body. The process is dust → animal → human body. The Bible omits the intermediate step as that has already been explained. Compare Matthew 1:1 for omitting intermediate steps explained elsewhere: “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

1. IF evolution occurred how could the development of Adam and Eve happen the way you describe?

A human-like ape evolves with an animal, not human, soul. God takes one of those apes, which has “nostrils”, and gives it a human soul. Eve can either be specially created from a rib or just be a female of the same almost-human species to which God gives a second human soul.

1. how do you reconcile science and what the vast majority of scientists teach with the literal Scripture on Adam and Eve?

Adam and Eve are humans with souls in a wider population of physically similar apes with compatible DNA. Adam and Eve have children, to whom God gives souls. Those children mate with the surrounding population, Cain’s wife for example. If either parent has a human soul then God gives the child a human soul. Since any grandchildren are descended from both Adam and Eve scriptural descent is correct. Since the compatible genes from the wider population are included in the true human group the problem with no evidence of a genetic bottleneck is avoided.

$0.02

rossum

 

[Uriel1]

The problem with @rossum’s answers is that as he is a Buddhist his understanding of creation IS NOT that taught by the bible
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[bobperk]

What answers will make you happy? There are TONS of evolution and Adam and Eve posts on CAF . . .you’ll save time by reading them (this thread has over 1400 replies) instead of asking questions that have already been answered. Or why don’t you just go to that other church and ask them why they believe what they do?

 

[Gorgias]

The problem with @rossum’s answers is that as he is a Buddhist his understanding of creation IS NOT that taught by the bible

Yeah, but I’m a Catholic, and that’s the explanation I would’ve given, too. So… put away the ad hominems, please.

@Hope1960: the Church doesn’t teach a specific scientific theory of evolution. She merely says that we are allowed to investigate it and tells us that it can be accepted, given certain caveats (which are described in Humani Generis, as quoted to you). What you do with these statements is up to you. The Church isn’t going to take a stand on this one, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask what it thinks of various attempts at harmonization.

You can believe in evolution, as long as it doesn’t run afoul of Church teachings. Full stop.

 

[Uriel1]

The problem is that @rossum wrote, “God said “Let the earth bring forth…” to create animals. Hence, animals are dust/earth/clay, having been brought forth from the earth. God then uses evolution to shape one of those animals to form a human body. The process is dust → animal → human body.”

THIS IS NOT BIBLICAL TRUTH, but is UNSCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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

How do you know some of them don’t become cats in 4 billion years?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The problem with @rossum’s answers is that as he is a Buddhist his understanding of creation IS NOT that taught by the bible
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A good example of an ad hominem attack. Even a Buddhist can give an answer that is compatible with the bible and indeed the Catechism. You did not address the answer per se, but only the source of the answer. Tsk, tsk!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The problem is that @rossum wrote, “God said “Let the earth bring forth…” to create animals. Hence, animals are dust/earth/clay, having been brought forth from the earth. God then uses evolution to shape one of those animals to form a human body. The process is dust → animal → human body.”

THIS IS NOT BIBLICAL TRUTH, but is UNSCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Rossum’s telling of the story is not strictly implied by scripture, but it is compatible with it.

 

[Uriel1]

As I said his retelling, which is contrary to the revealed word of God, is NOT BIBLICAL TRUTH, but is SPECULATIVE UNSCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As I said his retelling, which is contrary to the revealed word of God, is NOT BIBLICAL TRUTH, but is SPECULATIVE UNSCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

1. You said it, but did not support it.
2. Whether or not evolution is biblical truth has no bearing on whether it is a scientific theory. Pick a lane.

 

[Uriel1]

Ad hominem, my granny. On a Catholic site we have many dangerous trolls.

Buddhism has no creator God in its theology.

To explain the origin of the universe Buddhism teaches that present events are caused by past events, and present events are the cause of future events.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ad hominem, my granny. On a Catholic site we have many dangerous trolls.

Buddhism has no creator God in its theology.

To explain the origin of the universe Buddhism teaches that present events are caused by past events, and present events are the cause of future events.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

You are only confirming my diagnosis.

 

[o_mlly]

So, IMHO: entropy doesn’t disprove evolution. Evolution doesn’t disprove God.

I agree. It is important to note that the other poster put up this red herring/straw man fallacy – the argument contra evolution, the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), is identical to the second law of thermodynamics. And then he proceeds to argue against the second law of thermodynamics as contra evolution theory.

I agree that the law of entropy does not refute evolution; never claimed it did. What I do claim is that the PSR, as a philosophical premise, does argues against evolution.

 

[Uriel1]

The difference is that I am a diagnostician while you, who fails to realise that Buddhism has no place on a Catholic discussion, are not
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[rossum]

THIS IS NOT BIBLICAL TRUTH, but is UNSCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY

It is an interpretation of the Bible which disagrees with your interpretation but is (AIUI) allowed by the Catholic Church. It also seems to me to be in accordance with Humani Generis.

rossum

 

[cathapolo]

Still can’t answer the question. Where is the missing link? Still missing in action. Hence we can see why it is actually easier to believe in fairy-tales than to believe in evolution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The difference is that I am a diagnostician while you, who fails to realise that Buddhism has no place on a Catholic discussion, are not
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

But we are not debating Buddhism. We are debating a statement, which happened to be made by a Buddhist, but which stands or falls on its own, independent of the religion of the speaker. To dismiss that statement solely on the basis of the religion of the speaker is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack.

 

[Uriel1]

@rossum, this is your grave error. Catholics just do NOT interpret scripture without the other 2 legs of the 3 legged theological stool.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[Uriel1]

Not at all. Catholics just do NOT interpret Scripture without the other 2 legs of the 3 legged theological stool, but Buddhists like @rossum do do “sola scriptura”, thus misinterpreting Scripture.

So, you are utterly wrong in suggesting ad hominem
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not at all. Catholics just do NOT interpret Scripture without the other 2 legs of the 3 legged theological stool, but Buddhists like @rossum do do “sola scriptura”, thus misinterpreting Scripture.

So, you are utterly wrong in suggesting ad hominem
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

I am beginning to doubt that you know what an ad hominem is. Unless you can address rossum’s statement without referring to Buddhism, you are are employing an ad hominem attack.