P
Pariah
Guest
Nope. There’s absolutely no historical or even empirical evidence in allignment with the theory. I don’t believe in evolution for a moment.
- Status
A
AnubistheJackal
Guest
Yes. It’s a scientific fact.
K
Kevan
Guest
No.
As for theistic evolution, exactly what does it claim? Matter, if left uninterrupted, behaves randomly and tends toward disorganization. Does theistic evolution claim that God caused things to happen through mutations and natural selection that couldn’t possibly happen without divine intervention? (You know, like hydrogen becoming science teachers and stuff like that.)
If so, do you have any theories of just what divine interventions took place? What did God “do” to make evolution occur? It seems to me that the theory requires that he intervene billions and billions of times to make matter behave in a way contrary to what scientists observe on a daily basis
Or, if these billions of contra-natural events did not take place, then what does the “theistic” mean in the expression “theistic evolution”?
As for theistic evolution, exactly what does it claim? Matter, if left uninterrupted, behaves randomly and tends toward disorganization. Does theistic evolution claim that God caused things to happen through mutations and natural selection that couldn’t possibly happen without divine intervention? (You know, like hydrogen becoming science teachers and stuff like that.)
If so, do you have any theories of just what divine interventions took place? What did God “do” to make evolution occur? It seems to me that the theory requires that he intervene billions and billions of times to make matter behave in a way contrary to what scientists observe on a daily basis
Or, if these billions of contra-natural events did not take place, then what does the “theistic” mean in the expression “theistic evolution”?
T
Techno2000
Guest
P
Pariah
Guest
Not really. Evolution doesn’t have any empirical evidence. It certainly can’t be compared to aerodynamics or gravity, which have tangibly empirical value.
Astrology is also a science…Should that be taught in a science class?
Something to note however is that the latter’s conclusions were based on mythology. The former’s conclusions were based on actual documented history.
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
I don’t really like the term “believe” when used with evolution, as though evolution should be an article of Faith. Actually, I don’t think about it that much. I accept the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and the evolution of species, but that does not mean that I think that they cannot be wrong and that, 400 years from now, the theories will look exactly as I do now.
What I DO object to is the idea that evolution (or science) somehow disproves (or proves) the existence of God. I don’t see why it’s an either/or deal. Most people believe that a baby is a miracle, but they also accept the natural explanation for the creation and development of children. I haven’t heard any child or teenager proclaim that learning about sexual reproduction and gestation destroyed their belief in God. In short, I don’t object to the theory of evolution, but the atheistic philosophy that masquerades and evolutionary biology.
What I DO object to is the idea that evolution (or science) somehow disproves (or proves) the existence of God. I don’t see why it’s an either/or deal. Most people believe that a baby is a miracle, but they also accept the natural explanation for the creation and development of children. I haven’t heard any child or teenager proclaim that learning about sexual reproduction and gestation destroyed their belief in God. In short, I don’t object to the theory of evolution, but the atheistic philosophy that masquerades and evolutionary biology.
G
GuanYuWarGod
Guest
I believe in evolution. I believe in God. Unlike other Christians, it is important to note here, that the Catholic Church does not encourage the idea of evolution, neither does it go against it.
Unfortunately, it is often a public perception in many countries to think that all Christians are against evolution, and the RCC is streotyped and must be against it.
The topic of evolution vs. creationism is quite old and rotten. The idea that there is a science vs. religion idea that has been put forth by some Fundamentalists should not be the case. In fact, both science and religion should be able to compliment, not contradict, for it is human nature to search for truth and to survive by that truth even if imperfect man balks the ability to attain a perfect truth.
Unfortunately, it is often a public perception in many countries to think that all Christians are against evolution, and the RCC is streotyped and must be against it.
The topic of evolution vs. creationism is quite old and rotten. The idea that there is a science vs. religion idea that has been put forth by some Fundamentalists should not be the case. In fact, both science and religion should be able to compliment, not contradict, for it is human nature to search for truth and to survive by that truth even if imperfect man balks the ability to attain a perfect truth.
R
rossum
Guest
Evolution has a mountain of evidence. We can observe bacteria evolving to resist antibiotics in the lab. We can observe mosquitos evolving to resist insecticides in the lab. We can observe elephants evolving smaller, or no, tusks to avoid being shot by poachers. We can observe Australian snakes evolving smaller mouths to avoid being poisoned by large Cane Toads.
There is plenty of empirical evidence for evolution.
Astrology is only a science under the definition used to try to get that other non-science Intelligent Design into science classes. I refer to Professor Behe’s testimony at the Kitzmiller trial. Under the standard definition, neither Astrology nor Intelligent Design is science.
How do you know? Homer recorded the history of Troy and Mycenae, which have both been found by archaeologists - does that make the greek gods real? Parts of both Homer and the Bible are history; other parts are not. Genesis is neither history not science.
If you think that Genesis is history then Genesis 2:20 mentions cattle. What is your evidence for the existence of cattle from the early geological record? A Cambrian cow would blow a huge hole in the theory of evolution - so let us see your evidence. If you do not have evidence for cattle then you can use sheep [Gen 4:2], birds [Gen 2:20], fish [Gen 1:28], fruit trees [Gen 1:29] or seed bearing plants [Gen 1:29].
rossum
O
Orogeny
Guest
Do I believe evolution? As in the science? Yes, I believe it is true based on the overwhelming evidence. Evolution is a fact. Do I believe IN evolution? No. This is what I believe: ecatholic2000.com/pray/prayer7.shtml
By the way, evolution doesn’t deal with the creation of the Grand Canyon.
Peace
Tim
I don’t know who “they” are, but creationism is an accepted viewpoint as far as the Church is concerned.
About 4.5 billion years old.
Until the 16th century, everyone was sure that the sun orbits the earth. That was the Christian world view.
Well, the “evolutionist” would be right and the creationist would be wrong. The geology is pretty straight forward regarding the Grand Canyon.
By the way, evolution doesn’t deal with the creation of the Grand Canyon.
Peace
Tim
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
New species are not being developed by that, but existing ones adapting if your examples above are proved accurate.
Can you state in simple terms how a seed bearing plant became a bird over time- or did a bird become a palnt?
R
rbarcia
Guest
When was evolution proven. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
How does similarity in DNA prove one life form evolved from another?
My first car in 1993 looks like my current car. They have 4 wheels, windshields, rearview mirrors. Can I deduce then that my car from 1993 gave birth to some ancestor of my current car?
No they were based on a common design. So based on observing how many things look alike, I can deduce they were based on a common design, and therefore a designer.
How do you know by looking at a painting there was a painter? Dud, look at the painting.
By Creation, all know God exists. Denying creation of the world denies God.
**
Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. **20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, **21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
**
God made the world through “Spoken words”.
**
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
**
That word is Christ.
**
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
**
The World Was made by Jesus Christ. Why would anyone who trusts in Christ, not trust His Word, and what He has done. Instead you exchange the truth for a lie. And it is a ridiculous lie at that.
How does similarity in DNA prove one life form evolved from another?
My first car in 1993 looks like my current car. They have 4 wheels, windshields, rearview mirrors. Can I deduce then that my car from 1993 gave birth to some ancestor of my current car?
No they were based on a common design. So based on observing how many things look alike, I can deduce they were based on a common design, and therefore a designer.
How do you know by looking at a painting there was a painter? Dud, look at the painting.
By Creation, all know God exists. Denying creation of the world denies God.
**
Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. **20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, **21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
**
God made the world through “Spoken words”.
**
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
**
That word is Christ.
**
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
**
The World Was made by Jesus Christ. Why would anyone who trusts in Christ, not trust His Word, and what He has done. Instead you exchange the truth for a lie. And it is a ridiculous lie at that.
M
Melchior
Guest
Not for humans, no. We have to actually disbelieve the Biblical account and nearly any orhtodox intepretation of it. Adam and Eve were in a supernatural state before the Fall and not subject to death. Death entered the world through the Fall, not before it. Despite some really painful arguments I have heard. People seem to choose to completely dismiss the biblical account in it’s details and make up some general theology about God ensouling humans evolved form lower species. The devil is in the details (or lack of them) as they say. In all these discussion I never see the actual Genesis account (of the Fall) specifically exegeted. It is also just vaguely referred to ever evolving (sorry for the pun) scientific theory is treated as gospel truth while scripture is reduced to less than allegory. Why less? Because Adam and Eve, the Fall account and death entering the world are not factored in, yet are vital to sound Chirstian theology. In fact if there was no real first Adam there was no need for a second Adam.
Anticipating the “but didn’t microorganisms die? Didn’t plants have to die for Adam and Eve to eat” argument. It is pretty clear that the definition of physical death was in reference to living creatures and a spiral of decay. Plus, creation before the Fall was clearly of a different “nature” and order. Non of this can be seriously harmonized with Christian belief and the Scriptural account without doing violence to scripture and the faith.
Beyond that, the ancient Hebrew and Christian believe in the person does not seperate soul and body in a gnostic fashion. Our bodies are as much who we are as our souls. We are not merely enfleshed spirits. One of the things that makes death such a horrible and unnatural thing is the seperation of what was never intended to be seperated by God. Even the saints in Heaven are not whole until the resurrection.
When it comes to harmonizing the faith with science, theology has suffered greaty and be greatly watered down. People are thinking more about the science and more shallowly about the theology. This should make Christians study the depths of theology in relation to this more, not less. Saying "well it doesn’t matter if scripture is reliable as long as everything difficult (that doesn’t match the spirit of the age) can be allegorized even if it is not literarily or historically tenable. The marriage atheistic scientific philosophy and higher criticism (as a stand alone means of biblical scholarship) has done great harm to the church. As the Pope says (paraphrase) scripture is the be read with faith.
Beyond that Jesus and the Apostles believed in a literal Adam and Eve. I think Jesus was qualified to know.
Anticipating the “but didn’t microorganisms die? Didn’t plants have to die for Adam and Eve to eat” argument. It is pretty clear that the definition of physical death was in reference to living creatures and a spiral of decay. Plus, creation before the Fall was clearly of a different “nature” and order. Non of this can be seriously harmonized with Christian belief and the Scriptural account without doing violence to scripture and the faith.
Beyond that, the ancient Hebrew and Christian believe in the person does not seperate soul and body in a gnostic fashion. Our bodies are as much who we are as our souls. We are not merely enfleshed spirits. One of the things that makes death such a horrible and unnatural thing is the seperation of what was never intended to be seperated by God. Even the saints in Heaven are not whole until the resurrection.
When it comes to harmonizing the faith with science, theology has suffered greaty and be greatly watered down. People are thinking more about the science and more shallowly about the theology. This should make Christians study the depths of theology in relation to this more, not less. Saying "well it doesn’t matter if scripture is reliable as long as everything difficult (that doesn’t match the spirit of the age) can be allegorized even if it is not literarily or historically tenable. The marriage atheistic scientific philosophy and higher criticism (as a stand alone means of biblical scholarship) has done great harm to the church. As the Pope says (paraphrase) scripture is the be read with faith.
Beyond that Jesus and the Apostles believed in a literal Adam and Eve. I think Jesus was qualified to know.
B
buffalo
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
Both processes are happening, species adapt and new species develop. I can provide an example of two different species which have merely three differences in their genes. Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa downesi are two North American lacewings. C. carnea is light green in summer, brown in autumn and breeds in winter and summer. It lives in deciduous trees, hence the colour change. C. downesi is dark green and breeds in spring. It lives in pine trees, hence the constant dark green colouring. These two do not breed in nature since they live in different habitats and breed at different times. Both morphologically and reproductively they are separate species.
There are three differences in their genes. One carries the colour difference and the other two control the time of breeding. Given that the range of C. downesi is entirely contained within that of C. carnea, it is highly likely that C. downesi is the newer species having originated from a single change in the gene for colour that allowed it to exploit a different habitat in pine trees. Since the cross-breeds have an intermediate colour they are not camouflaged in either pines or deciduous trees so there is selection pressure against them. The changes to the breeding cycle would probably have come later, having an advantage in reducing the number of cross-breeds which represent a wasted effort in evolutionary terms.
Three mutations to create a new species from a previous species. Different colouring, different habitat and different breeding season.
Neither. Both plants and birds have a common ancestor far enough back that it would have been single celled. From the population of common ancestors some specialised in making their own food from sunlight and evolved into plants. Others specialised in getting their food by eating other organisms, some of them evolved into birds, others into other animals. You need to learn more about evolution so you can ask relevant questions. Try starting with the Tree of Life. Start from Eukaryotes (those single celled ancestors I mentioned) and trace the branches to get to the seed bearing plants (Spermatopsida). When you have done that go back to the Eukaryotes and trace the branches to the birds (Aves). Tracing those branches is tracing the path of evolution.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Are they different kinds?
R
rossum
Guest
Between 1859 and about 1900 it became clear that evolution was by far the best explanation we had for the origin of species.
Evolution has snakes with legs. The Bible has a talking snake with legs. Which is closer to a fairy tale?
This is a good point, common design can have the same result as evolution. One way to differentiate is to look at mistakes. A designer may make a mistake once, but will not repeat the mistake. Evolution will blindly copy any mistake that is not actually deleterious.
Most animals can make their own vitamin C. Primates are an exception, no primate - including humans - can make vitamin C. All primates, including humans, can get scurvy if they do not get enough vitamin C. Normally this is not a problem since primates generally eat a lot of fresh fruit and vegetation.
When we examined the human genome we found a pseudogene for one of the genes in the vitamin C synthesis pathway. This was a copy of the correct gene, but with a mistake (mutation) that rendered it useless. That is why we cannot make vitamin C.
When we examined the chimpanzee genome we found a pseudogene for one of the genes in the vitamin C synthesis pathway. This was a copy of the correct gene, but with a mistake (mutation) that rendered it useless. That is why chimps cannot make vitamin C. Chimps have exactly the same mistake in exactly the same gene as we do.
When we examined other primate genomes we found a pseudogene for one of the genes in the vitamin C synthesis pathway. This was a copy of the correct gene, but with a mistake (mutation) that rendered it useless. That is why primates cannot make vitamin C. Other primates have exactly the same mistake in exactly the same gene as we do.
For evolution this is easy to explain. A common ancestor of all primates got a mutation that knocked out this particular gene. Being a plant eater this ancestor got enough vitamin C from its diet and passed on exactly the same faulty gene with the same mutation to all its descendants.
For a Designer this is more difficult to explain. Why did the designer copy exactly the same mistake into all primates? We know that there can be other mistakes - Guines Pigs also have a broken vitamin C synthesis system but that is a different mutation in a different gene. Why did the designer duplicate its mistake into all primates?
On that basis (and this is not the only example of a pseudogene) I prefer the evolutionary explanation.
‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’
(Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63)
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Evolution is defined as the change in the genetic makeup of an interbreeding population over time. Those experiments demonstrate a change in the genetic makeup of an interbreeding population of bacteria over time. Those experiments demonstrate evolution.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Actually it speaks of a serpent or dragon.
J
jpasta
Guest
Nice posts rossum…thanks!
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
I’ll keep that in mind, but seeing how your single cell thesis is only conjecture that developed into all forms of life to include human is fanciful and without merit. I remember tracing those branches back in grade school and found them illogical then. High school biology did little to support your view either, and college biology only proved the many gaps in the theory of evolution.
You need to learn more about God to conclude relevant answers. Life was created pretty much as described and known if not fully understood. If you consider the near global life ending events that have taken place in Earths history, some as recent (comparably) as a few million years ago- the time it takes for your view of adaptaion/evolution is illogical and unsupported. If approximately two-thirds of animal species, including the dinosaurs were killed by a comet/meteor impact 65 million years ago- how did that process revert to make such life as we know today? All those branches you follow do not take into account these events because they would disprove the theory of evolution as presented.
- Status