Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[IWantGod]

There are two types of evolution. Microevolution refers to changes within the same kind of animal, such as the development of new species. It has been observed and is a fact of science. However, macroevolution, which refers to one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal, has never been observed and is believed by faith.

There is no need to reconcile evolution with Catholicism because evolution is majorly flawed. The Kolbe Center provides a Catholic critique of evolution. Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis also have good arguments against evolution.

If there is no evidence of macro evolution then surely all the animals today should be the same throughout history for as long as there have been animals; excluding those that have gone extinct of course…

The thing is, as long as you accept Micro-evolution you cannot discount the possibility that incremental changes in one kind of animal cannot result in the existence of a completely different kind of animal compared to what you started with.

Over millions of years it is not hard to see how macro evolution could account for the differences we seen in creatures today when compared to creatures that have lived before.

 

[setarcos]

Dear scholar,
In your zealous attempt at enlightening Joe your being somewhat misleading and using a good bit of sophistry.
Lets reverse your questions and apply them to ourselves in order by their logic we may see if there are actually any such things as theists as well.

1. Do theists know everything there is to know in the Universe?
2. Do theists know HALF of all there is to know in the Universe? (What percentage do we know?)
3. Might God NOT exist in the half we do not know? Presuming this is the half that theists have faith in God existing in since if God had been proven to exist in the half we do know about all other points would be mute except they aren’t mute points since God hasn’t be absolutely proven to exist by the half we do know about. There is no known acceptable direct proof of Gods existence to date only ancillary evidence describing the possibility. Coincidentally the exact same may be said of Atheistic ideas.
   So moving on … #1 can only be answered “no” by theists as well. #2 can only be answered “no” as well by theists if theists are to fair in applying this logic equally to themselves. Therefore, #3 can only be “yes” for theists as well.
   Now then as you say, if one does not know at least HALF of the Universe even as a theist then God might not be “over there” as well and now YOU can no longer be a theist if your contentions must be proven to be one, but you must declare yourself an AGNOSTIC as well having “proven” by your reasoning that there can be no such thing as theists as well.
   Now where does this take us? In a circle it would seem. Lets carry on…

Question #4 So now we’ve proven you’re an Agnostic as well which means you must also be a doubter, right? (Your only possible answer is also “yes”), unless you’d care to reassess your reasoning?

You last question #5 What kind of doubter are you? Honest or dishonest?

If by this point you still think you have a valid reason to declare no such thing as Atheists then Know this
"An honest theist believes there is a God but acknowledges he cannot know there is a God because he cannot prove it, a dishonest theist Knows there is a God because he believes he has proven it and does not want to know that he hasn’t. So which kind of theist are you?
At this point by your reasoning you would have to be a former theist saying “…uhhhmmm”. Just like the former atheists, if your honest.

 

[Zaccheus]

Joe – there is no such thing as an Atheist. Please consider asking your dad three questions:

1. Do you know everything there is to know in the Universe?
2. Do you know HALF of all there is to know in the Universe?
3. Could God exist in the half you do not know?

#1 can only be answered “no”. #2 can only be answered “no”. Therefore, #3 can only be “yes”.

If one does not know at least HALF of the Universe, then yes of course God could be over there; and now your Dad is no longer an Atheist, but is an AGNOSTIC.

Question #4 — So now you’re an Agnostic, a doubter; right? (The only possible answer is “yes”.)

Last question #5: “Are you and HONEST doubter, or a DISHONEST doubter?”

Your Dad will ask, “what do you mean?”
"An honest doubter does not know if there is a God, but wants to know; a DISHONEST doubter does not know, but does not want to know. Which are you?

Every last (former) Atheist at this point, can only say: “…uhhhhmmmm”

And the atheist will reply along these lines:

You are demanding I prove a negative. I can’t prove that God’s existence is impossible but you can’t prove that God actually exists. If you can be sure without being able to prove the positive then I can be sure even if I can’t prove the negative.
Further, your questions are loaded. You’re not offering an honest argument: you’re trying to trap me with tricky words. Come back when you want to have an honest discussion.

 

[setarcos]

Catholics are only required to believe that God created the human soul. How the physical body came to be is irrelevant since God created the laws of physics in the first place. Its quite possible that God created a physical reality that designs itself which is consistent with the theory of evolution and God as a Creator. I don’t see a problem with that. The Universe may very well be a blind watchmaker

The problem with this is that the body informs and houses the soul. A physical reality that designs itself after an initial set of conditions wouldn’t guarantee the development of a humanity of which God said “let us make man in our image”. Mans image is an integration of mind, body, and soul. In this synthesis the soul is the God given breath of life which animates the body which informs the mind which gives rise to human nature which defines humanity which God called good. There was no guarantee in evolution that consciousness would have even ever developed to our level or kind of self reflection. God would no longer be the “creator” he would merely be the “actuator” so to speak.

 

[theCardinalbird]

:crunch crunch crunch

 

[IWantGod]

A physical reality that designs itself after an initial set of conditions wouldn’t guarantee the development of a humanity

I’m not sure that guarantee is necessary. Not to mention there are billions of stars and galaxies. And perhaps billions of universes. So who knows enough to argue what is more likely than not. Some would argue that given enough time all possibilities become actual. Not everything is by chance; things act according to their nature and thus certain conditions are more likely to arise than not at all.

God would no longer be the “creator” he would merely be the “actuator” so to speak.

It is evident that there are secondary causes, that things act according to their nature. When a baby is born it naturally develops into an adult. Nobody would say that God is just an actuator just because he allows things to act according to their nature.

 

[qmitchell30]

Are you saying Adam on Eve were not historical people? If so I would like to direct you to what 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).

Also, the Catechism states this, "“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).

Basically, there was an Adam and Eve. We are all decedents of Adam and Eve and we receive our state of Original Sin from them.

 

[Techno2000]

Why can’t we find any animals today that are in the process of changing from one species into another species ?

 

[IWantGod]

How do you know that’s not the case? How does one identify a macro change that requires incremental micro changes? One can only identify it after the fact after millions of years.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Abraham is the first to be regarded as a Historical figure, biblically. This is because Abraham is the earliest historic person in the Old Testament. Scholars of Scripture agree that Abraham lived, he was real.

Thats why Abraham, our adopted earthly father, is the earliest historical figure. Jewish and Biblical Scholars might be able to discuss this further. I am just learning. It might make a good new thread- discussing the early historical figures.

So yes, we have the figures before Abraham. We have teachings and stories about them and their lives that are Canon- authoritive and sacred scripture. We know Original Sin , we know Noah and the flood. We know the early earth humans became quite evil in their ways and worshipped false gods.

Having Abraham agreed as the first historical person in no way degrades our faith, in fact , abraham as real and living and breathing at one time, enriches us beyond measure.

 

[Techno2000]

How do you know that’s not the case? How does one identify a macro change that requires incremental micro changes? One can only identify it after the fact after millions of years.

Are you replying to me ?

 

[IWantGod]

Yes human, i’m replying to you. You have 5 seconds to reply before we invade your planet.

 

[rossum]

Ask yourself this: does it make sense that a creature with half-formed, useless, but still energy consuming organs will be “more fit” for survival than the creature without?

There are many such organisms. Our sense of smell is useless and half-formed compared to a dog’s sense of smell. Our eyes are useless and half-formed compared to an eagle’s eyes.

We can see the development of our organs in other organisms, and each organisms has a functioning and useful version of that organ. A jellyfish has functioning and useful nerves, but no brain. A Lancelet has a functioning and useful simple brain that is sufficient for it to survive.

rossum

 

[rossum]

But there is no evidence of a SINGLE TREE – pre-Cambrian strata are void of life, then comes the “Cambrian Explosion” – sudden appearance of MULTIPLE trees, simultaneously.

This is false. Whatever source you got that from was either ignorant of the facts or lying to you. Have a look at the Precambrian fauna, such as the Ediacaran. Precambrian strata are not “devoid of life”. Stromatolites are another example.

nowhere in the geological stack do we have evidence of NO FREE OXYGEN.

Again your source is misinforming you. The banded iron formations are evidence of the lack of free oxygen prior to their formation.

The amino acids produced were very simple, nowhere near Human base proteins of adenine, cytosine, thymine, and guanine.

Your source is confused about chemistry. Adenine, cytosine, thymine, and guanine are not proteins.

The amino acids produced were in EQUAL quantities of right-handed isomers and left-handed; all life uses only left-handed.

At last a true statement from your source. However your source has not read Noorduin et al (2008) Emergence of a Single Solid Chiral State from a Nearly Racemic Amino Acid Derivative which shows how a chiral (all the same handedness) mix of amino acids can form naturally from a racemic (50-50) mixture.

The “experiment” was OPEN, it had a circulation system (non-naturally occurring!)

Tide are "not naturally occurring? Ocean currents are "not naturally occurring? You really need to examine your sources more carefully before posting them here.

The circulation system had an AMINO ACID TRAP, placed to carefully catch and protect any amino acids; the trap is non-naturally-occurring, and without the trap the destruct rate was BILLIONS to ONE – no amino acids would have been produced!

Evidence please. Remember that water shields from ultraviolet light, and this reaction was taking place in the sea.

You are using unreliable sources here.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Even if life arose from inanimate matter i fail to see how that would conflict with the idea of a Creator.

That is the same as what the Bible says: “Let the seas bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” Both the seas and the earth are “inanimate matter” from which life arose. There is no conflict there.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Darwin was quoted “if the fossils do not expose a single tree of life evolving, the whole theory would have to be scrapped.”

Reference please. Where did Darwin say this?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Why can’t we find any animals today that are in the process of changing from one species into another species ?

We can. Dalmatian lizards are a good example. On a slower timescale lions and tigers are also in the process of separating – Google “liger” and “tigon”. Horses and donkeys are even further separated as mules are sterile.

You can also have a look at ring species. The intermediate stages in the ring are separating, but not yet separated while the ends of the ring have separated.

rossum

 

[ChunkMonk]

Does it say that Adam and Eve had no further children between Cain, Abel, and Seth? Does it say that Cain took a wife immediately after slaying Abel?

Cain’s wife was on of his (many) sisters.

 

[ChunkMonk]

ChunkMonk:

Ask yourself this: does it make sense that a creature with half-formed, useless, but still energy consuming organs will be “more fit” for survival than the creature without?

There are many such organisms. Our sense of smell is useless and half-formed compared to a dog’s sense of smell. Our eyes are useless and half-formed compared to an eagle’s eyes.

We can see the development of our organs in other organisms, and each organisms has a functioning and useful version of that organ. A jellyfish has functioning and useful nerves, but no brain. A Lancelet has a functioning and useful simple brain that is sufficient for it to survive.

rossum

That is absolutely not true. Our olfactory systems are fully developed and specialized. Our ocular systems are also fully developed and specialized.

You just said the jellyfish has a developed and specialized nervous sysyem… Ok then we’re not talking about jellyfish, they are already developed. We have to go back and find the creature that has a half-nervous system, where some parts of it exist but not quite the whole thing. And then the creature with the quarter-nervous system, and the eight-nervous system.

Or we have to assume that a creature with absolutely no nervous system at all was the progenitor of a creature with a fully functioning nervous system, with no “slow, gradual” process between the generations. Hence the “chicken born from a lizard egg” theory.

 

[Techno2000]

Why can’t we find any animals today that are in the process of changing from one species into another species ?

We can. Dalmatian lizards are a good example. On a slower timescale lions and tigers are also in the process of separating – Google “liger” and “tigon”. Horses and donkeys are even further separated as mules are sterile.

You can also have a look at ring species. The intermediate stages in the ring are separating, but not yet separated while the ends of the ring have separated.