Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Like you said the only available food was chemicals and sunlight, after that… nothing.Animals can’t create their own food there has to be a source, after chemicals and photosynthesis(sunlight) it was a dead end for Mr. Mutant Cell.
Sunlight hasn’t stopped yet. Chemicals round hydrothermal vents haven’t stopped yet either. Eventually, when the Sun stops shining and the earth cools sufficiently then life on earth will indeed stop. That will be in a few billion years time. Until then, life can carry on since there is sufficient energy (name removed by moderator)ut to sustain it.

rossum
 
Sunlight hasn’t stopped yet. Chemicals round hydrothermal vents haven’t stopped yet either. Eventually, when the Sun stops shining and the earth cools sufficiently then life on earth will indeed stop. That will be in a few billion years time. Until then, life can carry on since there is sufficient energy (name removed by moderator)ut to sustain it.
The bacteria that live round hydrothermal vents are still…bacteria.
 
The bacteria that live round hydrothermal vents are still…bacteria.
The mammals that evolved into humans are still… mammals. Do you have any idea how large the classification “bacteria” is? There is room for a great deal of evolution within “bacteria”. A lot more room than there is within “mammal”.

If you go with “bacteria” as a single created kind, then there are only two other created kinds: Archea and Eukaryotes. With three kinds, Noah only had one arche, one bacterium and a pair of eukaryotes (slugs say) on the Ark. That does rather reduce the problem of finding space on the Ark and keeping the animals fed and watered.

rossum
 
I don’t understand what you are saying.The whole Ecosystem works as a Machine if the top or bottom is missing it won’t work. Everything is tied in together working as a whole.
Thank you for bringing up the concept of ecosystems and the analogy of a machine.

A machine works like a system in equilibrium. It may be thought of as existing on its own, but is part of a larger system, the universe, which supplies it with the energy to work, the materials which provide the various components that constitute its structure and the laws that govern how it works. It also needs someone to make and operate it.

One might think that the machine exists as itself. Alternatively, it may be thought of as a collection of fabricated components brought together. Its possible to subdivide those components into smaller things such as atoms, and even the subatomic. We know it to be an expression of the physical laws of the universe, formed and maintained as it is for a purpose held by its Maker.

This isn’t a science forum, but I’m going to assert that various findings such as what happens in the slit experiment and the fact that hot water in a cup cools down suggest that the machine does exist as more than an intellectual projection of our minds.

Whatever. But, we do know that we exists as one being, is ourselves. As persons, we see, think, feel, move things about. We are a system, like the machine, connected to, integrated within, related to what is outside of us. What we have are all sorts of abilities, which allow for a very special relationship with one another, with the world and with God. Animals perceive, feel and act on instinct. These living systems, be they e coli or the largest whale, exist as themselves and are made up of complex component systems, which are themselves composed of proteins, fats, carbohydrates and so on.

The pond ecosystem is pretty much stable within the larger ecosystem that is the earth, within the cosmos. To exist and maintain its integrity, its components are required to relate in the manner that they do. It is just as necessary that they be a part of the bigger whole that is the universe. Animals and plants, the sun, water, air and earth come together as a temporal whole which is in a state of flux.

We are part of that system, but with the capacity to actually cause things to happen. Atoms are what they are as forms of being, doing what they do. Living forms incorporate that matter to be what they are. We are like all of that, and more. We have been given a responsibility to tend to the garden.

The way things work is from the top down. We, as a body-mind unity move matter, because we are spirit and because we are matter - one. We don’t create the matter of which we are constituted and we do not give ourselves being with its nature of knowing and doing. We are definitely not created by matter, but by God who brings it and all this into existence.

Today’s reading is about a mustard seed. The image appears over and over. God plants seeds. Things don’t come fully formed. The ecosystem is like a flower, having come to bloom, whole from small origins.
 
Last edited:
On a Catholic forum, it is important to know what the Church teaches when science makes certain claims. Science cannot decode the Bible, that is left up to the Church. Which is why some can and do deny the Bible or call parts of it symbolic or written for simple people. The Bible could easily have told those simple people: “Ages ago, men were like animals and lived like animals and had an understanding like animals. But man changed over the ages and became the men you are now.” It Does Not Say That but my point is - Science is not a Bible Study Institution.

I’ll stick with Church teaching.

"5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

“6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.”

“37. 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Humani Generis
 
Last edited:
Definitely agree here. From very simple organisms to reproduction by these very simple organisms and on to greater complexity for no reason. Say, I’m the first organism. I’m living the high life. No predators, just sunlight and/or chemicals. Then the impossible happens, another organism appears out of nowhere. Does it want to eat me? Why bother? It’s got plenty of sunlight and/or chemicals and there’s plenty of room for both of us. The odds of that happening are extremely low.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Aloysium:
The way things work is from the top down.
Evolution says it starts from the bottom up… from the very bottom…NOTHING!!! :crazy_face:
That’s where can see the Word of God, bringing everything into existence, at the beginning, here and now, and at the end of time, causing all things to exist as they are.

They don’t do it themselves. We should know this because we can’t do it. All we can do is move premade stuff around; we call that creativity. Not looking up, we think we are it. That nothing can be higher.

Your post got me thinking how God creates systems - material, living and spiritual, beings in themselves, existing in relation to other systems. He brought forth an ecosystem on earth, growing it from the ground up. He created atoms and molecules and brought them together. This didn’t happen haphazardly but was planned and executed by God, who then brought into existence new forms of being that contained them. A living being has a soul which makes it what it is, while being comprised of smaller necessary forms of material being.

The modern pond ecosystem would have been arround for a very, very long time, to my way of thinking. Before the turtle there would have been the fish at the top of the chain; and before that it would have been insects and plants. Before that things that one needs a microscope to see, were all that life was about, each creature relating to others and the compounds that it used to construct its material body. And, life flourished, each of its individual expressions surrendering to life, in such a way that, led by God’s inspiration, nature should grow, in all its vastness and diversity.

Well, until we, a new creation on the scene, brought sin into the world, and pretty much everything now knows suffering. That’s another thing evolution can’t account for, why it hurts; it really does. What it is that it is so real and reaches into the core of our being? Who is it that is hurting? How has that person, the undeniable truth of our own existence, how have we come to be?

Evolution as a modern world-view like others before it, not grounded in the truth, has got it backwards.
 
Last edited:
Definitely agree here. From very simple organisms to reproduction by these very simple organisms and on to greater complexity for no reason. Say, I’m the first organism. I’m living the high life. No predators, just sunlight and/or chemicals. Then the impossible happens, another organism appears out of nowhere. Does it want to eat me? Why bother? It’s got plenty of sunlight and/or chemicals and there’s plenty of room for both of us. The odds of that happening are extremely low.
And where did the second organism come from? How long did take for it to evolve the ability to eat the first ? Is the first good for food ? What else was there to eat other than the first ?
 
Now we’re getting somewhere. Organism number two may have ignored organism one or gave one a bite and decided it was bad stuff. “Do not eat again.” But how did organism two communicate that info to his fellows? Maybe organism one was poisonous to organism two - then we’ve got a real problem. All organism two’s are at risk of dying off.
 
Now we’re getting somewhere. Organism number two may have ignored organism one or gave one a bite and decided it was bad stuff. “Do not eat again.” But how did organism two communicate that info to his fellows? Maybe organism one was poisonous to organism two - then we’ve got a real problem. All organism two’s are at risk of dying off.
I thought there was only one single mutant cell and from there everything branched off.
 
Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.
Matthew 6:26
 
That’s the assumption. The first cell is our first ancestor which, through some unknown method, produced a mutant. How that mutant gained any information to become something different from its parent is unknown. Just as it is said that humans and apes had a “common ancestor,” there is no reasonable explanation as to how an ape suddenly produced something more human while other apes remained apes to the present day. Why didn’t modern-day apes develop a brain as sophisticated as ours between then and now? No credible explanation. Just as we have single celled organisms today. Why didn’t every one of them upgrade?
 
The first cell is our first ancestor which, through some unknown method, produced a mutant.
The first cell couldn’t evolve it’s own food, it had to come from an outside source…1. Chemicals 2.Sunlight. If it mutated into something new it too would only have those two limited food/energy sources.It seems to me that this would be a brick wall for its evolution.
 
Let’s see. Organism one produces a mutant that also uses sunlight and/or chemicals to survive. However, we can’t ignore the alleged fact that these two organisms develop more complex digestive systems in the future, without explanation. Here’s the real problem: some of these mutants will turn into fish, some into plants and so on. How do we get flowers and trees on land while everything is first swimming around a few billion years ago? Lots of unsolved issues here.
 
However, we can’t ignore the alleged fact that these two organisms develop more complex digestive systems in the future, without explanation.
The point I’m trying to make is, even if it was to develop a more complex digestive systems there is only chemicals and sunlight out there for it to use… that’s it. Where is the new food source coming from, for a new creature ?
 
Last edited:
The only possibility is that the new creature eventually begins eating the other organisms like itself. Meanwhile, evolution keeps spitting out new mutants of various types. And some of these single celled organisms begin to produce multi-celled organisms by unknown means. Too many mysteries to solve. Supposedly, the process produces fish and crabs and algae and so on. Instead of DNA, we start with RNA. As far as I can tell, the first cell, even if it spits out a lot of mutants over a billion years, has no reason to evolve. It and its mutant offspring would be very much alike and would have no compulsion to change their diet from sunlight and chemicals. So, brick wall it is.
 
Last edited:
The only possibility is that the new creature eventually begins eating the other organisms like itself.
That’s kinda like growing a Monster from your own body… only to have it eat you. And still that is only food source 3. it would have to keep mutating and eat itself… but how long could this go on ?
 
Last edited:
The older one gets, the more one sees what random mutations bring - a decrease in one’s social circle, if one is able to temporarily avoid those profound health issues, oneself. In addition to cancer, we all get old, things wear out. A baby starts out so fresh and new. What possible random mutation of genetic material would have caused this most amazing trait, exhibited by all life from its beginnings in time?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top