Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Rau]

With all due respect - honest questions: What did God do? When? Where? To what?

Created all that there is. Do you expect to understand how? You seem to oppose scientific evidence that conflicts with your human expectations or assumptions - and with all due respect, that is to seek to constrain God.

 

[Rau]

And just to add, HG only explicitly cited problems and concerns with polygenism accounts of evolution. It expresses no issue with monogenism accounts of the evolution of man. Before stating that modern evolutionary science doesn’t present monogenism accounts, that’s not the point. Obviously there’s some degree of symbolism that can be accepted in the Genesis account if human evolution from other species in a monogenism fashion isn’t ruled out side-by-side with certain features of a polygenism account.

AFAIK, science would presume polygenism because that would be what one would judge more likely. Hugely so. I don’t know whether it is within reach of science to prove whether every man that ever lived had the same ultimate two parents. We Catholics believe that is so. The “How”, may be scientifically unexplained and scientifically unexplainable.

 

[Rau]

Atheist/materialist evolution is all that natters. God needs to be kicked out. That book of fairy tales called the Bible was written by men. Men. And what man - not some stupid religion - thinks is ALL that matters.

Condemn men who make unfounded unscientific claims, by all means. But the endeavour of science which is about man applying his (God given) intellect to understand (God’s creation) is not condemned simply because many of its practitioner say we need no God.

 

[Rau]

My question is - and will always be - where does the theistic part occur? How does it fit in at all?

Are you demanding to see the precise place of God in the ‘act’ of creation. Is science only good if it incorporates God?

 

[fisherman_carl]

But the endeavour of science which is about man applying his (God given) intellect to understand (God’s creation) is not condemned simply because many of its practitioner say we need no God.

And many of those practitioners who say that we don’t need God perhaps have never studied philosophy to any great degree as it doesn’t seem to be emphasized as much anymore.

 

[IWantGod]

I won’t pretend to be psychic, but i am willing to put good money on it that in his mind science is not good if it does not incorporate God as a cause.

 

[Glark]

I try not to post on anything where I have limited knowledge. Except where the discussion is likely to lead me to a greater understanding of the matter at hand. You would do well to follow that principle. Because all you are doing, all you have been doing, is exhibiting your ignorance of the subject matter.

Now that in itself is not a problem. I am ignorant of many things. It’s one of the reasons I post on the philosophy section of the forum. I get to learn about attitudes that others have about matters I consider important and it prompts me to search for information.

Oh, I get it … since I don’t accept evolution, I must be ignorant of that particular sphere of (so-called) science. What an original thought! Only a deep thinker could conceive of such a novel idea - no wonder you spend so much time discussing philosophy.

But seriously, I wish I had a dollar for every time an evo-denier has been called ‘ignorant’! I myself have copped it innumerable times. (You think the penny would have dropped by now, but not only am I ignorant, I’m evidently slow and stupid as well.)

“It is absolutley safe to say that , if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” - Richard Dawkins.

Do I need to have a Ph.d. in astronomy to conclude that the sun rises in the east and sets the west?
Nope.
Do I need a Ph.d. in evolutionary biology to conclude that it’s suspect? Nope

And let me guess, you would argue that anyone who believes in God must be a pitiable victim of “ignorance” as well?

 

[Glark]

Erm… I know for a fact that it is possible for a catarrhine primate to build a computer.

I meant it is impossible for a monkey to invent and build a computer … just as it would be impossible for a monkey to figure out how to split the atom and build a nuclear reactor

. Oh yes, and scientists do calculate probabilities like the chance of being hit by a meteor.

If they calculated the probability of a meteorite hitting my house every day for a year it would be effectively zero. But I don’t need a scientist to tell me that - it’s common sense.

. If you want to convince scientists then, yes, you do need to calculate probabilities. And yes, you will need to study some chemistry in order to do so. In chemistry, H2O is a lot more probable than HO2. Ignoring chemistry will get you a false result.

Right, so if I told scientists that it is impossible for me to win Wimbledon next year, they wouldn’t believe me if I didn’t prove it mathematically?

Some probabilities are impossible to calculate - the probability of a living cell arising from inanimate matter, for example. There are so many uncertainties that it would be stupid to even try.

 

[Rau]

Do I need to have a Ph.d. in astronomy to conclude that the sun rises in the east and sets the west?

Nope.

Do I need a Ph.d. in evolutionary biology to conclude that it’s suspect? Nope

I agree with you there. But I am struggling with the idea that you will in due course have a degree in Science (I assume from a real university), and will simultaneously hold to the idea that no life existed on earth more than 5778 years ago. [I suppose the fact that you hold this position based on an article of faith (though, importantly, not doctrine) is better than if you held the view based on personal views about flawed science.] It is of course open to you to decide that your personal faith decision was in error as you learn more.

 

[Glark]

The author of genesis wrote that. What tenet of the Catholic faith said that the lord wrote that as a scientific fact and therefore we must take it literally?

Consider Job 26:7, which says God “hangs the earth on nothing.” Is it not a scientific fact that the earth is suspended in space? Who knew? Verse 8 says, “He binds up the waters in his thick clouds.” Another scientific fact.

What about Job 26:10? … “He has described a circle upon the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.” This could be describing either the curvature of the earth that can be seen at the boundary between the surface of the ocean and the sky or what earth looks like as viewed from space.

Isaiah 40:22 says God “sits above the circle of the earth”. Sounds awfully like a reference to a spherical earth, doesn’t it?

Isaiah 40:12 is also interesting: “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?” All this measuring and weighing sounds very scientific. wouldn’t you agree?

Solomon described a “cycle” of air currents two thousand years before scientists discovered them. “The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits” (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

 

[Glark]

I find it curious that you are quoting someone making reference to God - you don’t believe in God.

 

[Glark]

I have zero respect whatsoever for the authority of your personal interpretation of scripture, that is certainly correct! And no i am not an atheist. I am a Rational Catholic.

I can’t blame you for your erroneous acceptance of evolution - the Church’s leadership on this matter has been appalling.

Is a Rational Catholic one that considers the authority of men (viz-a-viz science) to be above the authority of Scripture? If so, you ought to check out the Biologos forum - you’ll feel right at home there among the “Catholics” who worship Scientism.

 

[Glark]

Dobzhansky was a devout Russian Orthodox Christian, you are doing him a disservice here. You would do well to read the entirety of his article: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.

Here are of Dobzhansky’s interesting points of view:

He claims that the only reasons for someone not accepting the theory of evolution are “emotional blocks or plain bigotry.” Sound familiar?

Dobzhansky thinks human embryos have “gill slits”!

He describes “natural selection” as the process that produced all forms of life, but “natural selection does not work to any foreordained plan”. In which case, I would love this genius to explain how a blind, directionless process managed to produce a creature made in the image of God - namely, a human being.

He points out the danger of using the Scriptures as a science textbook, which might lead to “blashemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.” Dobzhansky seems blissfully unaware that his believed theory of evolution does exactly that … the Creator describes in his Bible the exact opposite of billions of years of evolution of life - all life on earth created over four days. Such deceit!

By calling Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, “one of the great thinkers of our time”, Donzhansky reveals himself to be a CLOWN with no credibility at all. Teilhard de Chardin - the Patron Saint of Evolution to Catholic Darwinists - was infamous for his wacko-jacko ideas about existence - such as “evolution is a light that illuminates all facts” - the words of a deluded and deceived soul. Teilhard de Chardin is also considered by many (including Stephen Jay Gould) to have been complicit in the Piltdown Man hoax.

Isn’t it interesting that charlatans attract other charlatans?

 

[Glark]

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” - Dr. Alan Feduccia

 

[Glark]

Because it is credible in many details

… and incredible in many others.

it explains a great deal

ToE contains some elements of truth - natural selection, for example. Thinking a theory explains a great deal doesn’t mean it’s of any use.

and studying the universe is in satisfaction of our God given curiosity using our God given intelligence.

Nothing wrong with studying the universe. But coming up with an untestable, useless theory is kinda pointless.

 

[HarryStotle]

Survival of the fittest is the opposite of what Jesus teaches.

Being “fit” as far as a zebra is concerned has nothing to do with being strong, or fast, or intelligent. It is merely the capacity to blend in and be indistinguishable from the herd. Any slight distinctive anomaly puts a lion immediately on your tail.

Not sure that blending in with the crowd and being like everyone else is necessarily opposed to what Jesus teaches, although he did say wide is the path that leads to destruction (implying that we shouldn’t follow the herd,) so maybe you got me there. But then there is all that talk about sheep and shepherd and stuff, so I guess it all depends upon the crowd that you are seeking to blend in with and be like – so still not precisely “the opposite” of what Jesus teaches.

 

[Glark]

Holding that life on earth changed over time as described in the theory of evolution doesn’t rule God out of the equation.

I agree. It’s trying to squeeze the “square peg” of evolution into the “round hole” of the Bible that’s the problem.

 

[Glark]

Also, for those of you interested in a possible Catholic interpretation of the book of Genesis here is a very interesting interview with Jimmy Akin that I recommend.

In this video interview, Jimmy Akin states that the “six days of creation” of Genesis 1 is a literary device based on the “six days of work- one day of rest” followed by the Israelites. Hasn’t he got it back-to-front?

Exodus 20:8-11 says,
“Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. SIX DAYS SHALT THOU LABOUR and shalt do all thy works … FOR IN SIX DAYS THE LORD MADE heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.”

So the “six days of work-one day rest” regime is based on the “six days of creation” - the OPPOSITE of what Akin reckons.

 

[Glark]

Some Catholic Darwinists believe that the process of evolution is blind, aimless and random, yet produced a creature made in the image of God - ie, a human being.

Why are you struggling to accept this perfectly logical and rational proposition?

 

[Glark]

Why do those who believe in evolution post here over and over again? Why the ongoing campaign to convince us that evolution is somehow compatible with our beliefs? Why the continuing commentary that wanders around to create confusion where none should exist?

1Cor 14:33 - “God is not the author of confusion” … but Satan is.