Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[setarcos]

A problem I see with this particular anology is that, in keeping with the steam engine anology, you seem to be indicating that while the possibility of the actualization of the steam engine and it’s use was made by God its realization and use was done by man and there in lay the difference, however at times God seems to bring into realization and use the same kind of steam engine directly himself there after. Simply because man first used the steam engine does this clear God to create and use other steam engines where steam engines did not exist before?

 

[Techno2000]

Just when I think you can make pertinent and legitimate statements on which one may discuss with you with reason you go and make asinine comments. If you believe you represent a “good” and true Catholic then I can only feel saddened for your future.It is clear from scripture that scientific fact and faith should be integrated with each other with reason not alienated. Only a person blinded of both scripture and science by their biased and self serving opinion and ironically lack of faith in God would believe otherwise.
Never the less…may God bless you on your journey to truth.

Science and the Supernatural have nothing in common.

 

[rossum]

Science and the Supernatural have nothing in common.

So, God didn’t make the material universe which science studies? Did He only make the spiritual universe?

I suspect that a lot of Christians and others would disagree with you there. God made both the natural and the supernatural, so they both have God in common.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

God made both the natural and the supernatural, so they both have God in common.

True, but science can’t measure or study the supernatural.

 

[rossum]

True, but science can’t measure or study the supernatural.

Science can measure the effects (if any) of the supernatural on the material world. See: Benson et al (2006) Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients.

If a scientist were present when God parted the sea for Moses, then that scientist could have measured the parting. Science cannot measure the supernatural directly, but it can measure some effects of the supernatural.

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

The claims of science depend on the reasoning and intelliegence of fallible man. Therefore science is fallible. If you choose fallible science over the infallible Scriptures, you are falling into the “evoluion” trap that Satan set for you.

If you think “fallible science” and “the inerrant Word of God” are in conflict with each other, you are falling into a trap that Satan set for you.

Don’t get me wrong – there are those who attempt to morph ‘evolution’ into a philosophy of life. These folks take a scientific theory and attempt to turn it into a philosophical and theological worldview. Are these folks in error? Without a doubt. Are they espousing ‘evolution’, as Darwin explained it? Nope… they’re taking it far beyond its scientific underpinnings.

Do Catholics accept the philosophical worldview of some of the adherents of a Darwinist theology when they consider scientific Darwinism? Absolutely not. Is it possible to adhere to scientific Darwinism without accepting neo-Darwinist theology? Absolutely. Is it a rejection of Catholic belief to accept scientific (but not neo-Darwinist theological) Darwinism? Not at all.

 

[Rau]

Science cannot measure the supernatural directly, but it can measure some effects of the supernatural.

And note that Science does not attribute anything to the supernatural. Such events are “unexplained” or attributed to something natural on a probabilistic or speculative basis.

 

[Glark]

Psst… a “normal day of 24 hours” happens as a result of the rotation of the earth and the appearance of “sunrise” and “sunset”. The first creation narrative has an “evening” and “morning” before the sun is created. Are you sure you want to stick with “literal 24-hour day”?

It is mysterious, but there is no getting away from the fact that the words “there was evening and there was morning” is an obvious description of the length of one day - Sun or no Sun. Perhaps, as some Jewish scholars suggest, before the creation the Sun, “there was evening and there was morning” refers to a period of one literal day and not to a literal sunset and sunrise,

Wait… you’re asking why the command to observe the Sabbath references back to the first ‘Sabbath rest’?

No, I’m asking why in Exodus 20 the Lord directly compares six days of human work (v. 9) to six days of creation work (v. 11). “Six days you shall labour and do all your work … for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them”.

The word “for” in this sentence obvious serves to introduce the reason for “six days” of labour, which is the "six days’ of creation.

According to you, the reason the Lord designated “six days” of work is that creation took billions of years. Makes so much sense!

Because the Bible teaches salvation, not science.

Science? Who said anything about the Bible teaching science? Genesis is describing a miracle - creation. It is futile to explain a miracle with science, that’s why creation is described in terms of HISTORY, not science. Genesis is a book of history.

Scripture doesn’t attempt to explain any miracle in terms of science; it merely describes what happened (history), not how it happened (science).

Yeah… I guess all those references to times of the day in the OT, let alone the Gospels, were inserted later.

We’re not talking about the time of the latter OT or the Gospels; we’re talking about the time of Moses (as far as I know, Moses wrote Genesis). So in the time of Moses, what unit of time is used in the OT to describe a period less than a day?

I’m sorry that you think Church teaching is nonsense.

I’m sorry that you can’t tell the difference between an potentially fallible opinion and an ex cathedra teaching.

 

[NowHereThis]

What about all the Catholic Answers apologists who have pointed out that God is not an object in the universe?

 

[Glark]

From the Catholic.com2 tract on ‘creation and Genesis’:
Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took.

The reading I’ve done suggests that a literal interpretation (6x24 hours) of the six days of creation was practically unanimous … which is hardly surprising, since before the nonsense of evolution came along, no one had any reason to question the obvious meaning of the text.
Augustine was one of the very few exceptions - he reckoned creation took but an instant (not exactly supportive of billions of years of evolution). However, Augustine also said that the 24-hours interpretation was acceptable.

 

[Glark]

Your belief does not negate the evidence of billions of years of death. Have you any idea how many dead animals there are in rocks like the White Cliffs of Dover? Besides, Romans 5:12 says, “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” (emphasis added). Original sin did not have any effect on animals, just on men. Animals have always died; we have their fossilised bones and shells from well before the first men. Plants also died; every time a seed or nut is eaten a plant dies. Death existed before man.

The Lord described his creation as “very good”. Is death “very good”? Is a lamb being ripped apart and eaten alive by a pack of wolves “very good”? Is the violence evident at every level of the animal world “very good”? Are parasites “very good”? Is ageing “very good”? Is disease “very good”?

“cursed is the ground because of you (Adam) … thorns and thistles it shall bing forth to you” - Genesis 3:17.

“because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay … the whole creation has been groaning with labour pains together until now … and not only the creation, but we ourselves” - Romans 8:21-23.

"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb: and the leopard shall lie down with the kid: the calf and the lion, and the sheep shall abide together, and a little child shall lead them.
The calf and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall rest together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp: and the weaned child shall thrust his hand into the den of the basilisk.

They shall NOT HURT OR DESTROY in all my holy mountain" - Isaiah 11:6-9.

God offered only plants and their seeds as food to Adam and Eve and all the other creatures before the Fall.(Gen 1:29-30)

 

[Rau]

before the nonsense of evolution came along, no one had any reason to question the obvious meaning of the text.

Not just evolution stands in contradiction to a literal reading of the text. Cosmology, astrophysics, geology, natural history…rather an extensive array of science…and for most of this, the only basis to dismiss it lies in a literal interpretation of the bible. [It seems creationists in fact contend the totality of the universe was created in “6 days”.]

How perplexing that scientific evidence from many fields piles up in opposition to literal biblical readings. It would be much simpler if the evidence told the same story as a literal reading of the biblical story! Otherwise, we are left to contemplate why God crafted so much deception to feed our enquiring minds!

 

[Glark]

I see. So on the age of the earth matter, have we made an error in interpreting evidence suggesting life has existed longer, or was that evidence created (by God?) to deceive us?

Yes, an error has been made. Life on earth did not start billions of years ago - more like only 5778 years ago. (In my earlier post, I said “5887” years ago, but I meant 5778, not that is matters much.)

On the matter of the age of the universe, can we judge this by any means or evidence other than Scripture?

I don’t know.

 

[Rau]

Yes, an error has been made. Life on earth did not start billions of years ago - more like only 5778 years ago. (In my earlier post, I said “5887” years ago, but I meant 5778, not that is matters much.)

So either there are a great many careless scientists, repeatedly making the same error, or God has set many deceptions for the enquiring and reasoning minds he gave us.

 

[Glark]

So this is the basis on which you feel free to prefer your scriptural interpretations over the Church’s? It may be better for the Church

On this point, I believe the Church is in error.

 

[IWantGod]

On this point i think Young Earth Creationists are in error. Attempts to legitimize young earth creationism from a scientific point of view is painfully ad-hoc, does little for ones mental health, and does nothing to further our understanding for why the world is the way it is. You would have to believe that God made the world look old and buried dinosaur bones to fool us. All the hallmarks of a paranoid delusion.

 

[ChunkMonk]

20 And I became to the Jews, a Jew, that I might gain the Jews: 21 To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law, (whereas myself was not under the law,) that I might gain them that were under the law. To them that were without the law, as if I were without the law, (whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that were without the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all.
1 Corinthians 9:20-22

Not even hard.

 

[Glark]

Ask a priest about how evolution fits into the Scriptures? LOL! Your average priest wouldn’t know where to start!

 

[superblue]

an low, i became the easter bunny at easter and hid coloured eggs , some plastic eggs filled with candy, that all who enjoy bunnies and candy and coloured eggs may be saved.

 

[Rau]

Ask a priest about how evolution fits into the Scriptures? LOL! Your average priest wouldn’t know where to start!

Sadly, the one thing you might reasonably expect a Priest, indeed the Church, to know about - a proper interpretation of Scripture - is the very thing on which you say they are in error.