Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, if God would require us to disbelieve the ever-growing mountain of evidence and predictive power of evolution, He’d have to be some kind of trickster, wouldn’t he?
 
I’m sorry to be blunt, but if you have to ask questions like these, you don’t have even a rudimentary understanding of how biological evolution works and shouldn’t be discussing it until you educate yourself about the matter at least a little.
Joe1 said:
If evolution were to exist, why would it happen? Why would apes reproduce and suddenly have a different kind of species (homo sapiens). Or if it was in “stages”, why would those stages happen out of the blue?
Click to expand...
 
I assume you can tell me how evolution works?
If you notice I’m the one who started this thread which was “does Darwin’s theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?” As you can see you are correct, I have no idea how evolution works.

Those question were a in fact just questions that I wanted someone to answer. Sorry that I didn’t ask the right questions. I’m was trying to find someone to educate me about this and explain if Catholicsm and this theory were compatible.

So instead of saying I don’t understand evolution why not help me understand?
 
Last edited:
If you actually read the Bible, you would understand.

If they had died out millions of years ago, they wouldn’t have accurate depictions carved on ancient buildings and painted on pottery all over the world. There is only so much the bones alone could tell them.
 
I apologize, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to try and explain biological evolution to you here. If you are earnest in your desire to educate yourself on the matter, I’d suggest that you get to your local library. I highly recommend “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne, and “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins (this book does not contain any polemics against religion) as good introductory texts. Ian Tattersall’s “Masters of the Planet” is the best book regarding the gradual - not sudden - evolution of homo sapiens that I know of. For further reading, I’d recommend “The Ancestor’s Tale”, by Dawkins. It’s dense but very illuminating, and Niel Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish”. Even my young son has some basic introductory evolution books, all of which are likely available at your local library, if you want something really basic.

Happy investigating.

As for whether evolution is compatible with Catholic teaching or not, it appears that it is for many. I have personally not had an easy time reconciling Christianity and evolution, although I have tried. In his book “Rock of Ages”, Stephen Jay Gould proposes that science and religion are non-overlapping Magisterium (NOMA), and if approached as such, evolution should cause no problems for one’s religious faith.
 
Techno2000 said:
A muskellunge fish and northern pike fish produces a sterile tiger muskie fish.
Click to expand...
Psst… male tiger muskie are sterile; females are often fertile, and cross-breed back. 😉

Note, however, that in both of your examples, you’re talking about hybridization, not creation of a new species. So… apples and oranges?
 
RoseofMary1 said:
You are being lied to by atheist scientists. The whole theory revolves around species transitioning into other species. This is in direct contradiction to the Bible that says God created everything according to its own kind.
Click to expand...
So, here’s the thing: science can refute science, and theology can refute theology… but neither can science refute theology nor theology refute science. They’re different disciplines, dealing in different questions and different considerations.

If you find a scientist who says that science refutes religion, then he’s misunderstanding what science can prove. Similarly, if you find a theologian who says that theology disproves science, then he’s misunderstanding the difference between the disciplines. 🤷‍♂️
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
Techno2000:
A muskellunge fish and northern pike fish produces a sterile tiger muskie fish.
Click to expand...
Psst… male tiger muskie are sterile; females are often fertile, and cross-breed back. 😉

Note, however, that in both of your examples, you’re talking about hybridization, not creation of a new species. So… apples and oranges?
Click to expand...
Its rossum who thinks hybridization is a great sign of evolution, not me.
 
IWantGod said:
From the perspective of science, blind, aimless, and random mutation just means that physical objects move and act according to their natures. In other-words their movement and behavior is natural as opposed to being like puppets on a string moved by the hand of God toward a specific goal. Gone are the days of Zeus; that worldview is dead. God is involved in the process but not in the same sense that intelligent design theorist would have us believe. God creates things for a purpose but science cannot know that purpose…
Click to expand...
This is kinda confusing to my fragile, egg-shell mind. So it’s “natural” for a blind, aimless, random process to produce a complex machine - like a human being? Did God have a say in the production of this human being?
 
edwest21 said:
Careful, you’re making sense and refusing to bow before the god of Scientism.
Click to expand...
Evo-infidels like me deserve to be stoned to death! They attempt to retard the advancement of science and thus the evolution of human beings … all because they are stupid enuf to believe is a book written by some primitve troglodytes. It’s a damned shame.
 
edwest21 said:
If anyone is an evo-denier, they are rejecting the most important theory in the Universe! Or something.
Click to expand...
A theory that can never be tested and is actually 100% useless in any practical sense is worshipped by billions as the greatest discovery in the history of science. That is flat-out bizarre.
 
Last edited:
edwest21 said:
Does it make you wonder if this discussion is really about science but about a belief system based on science which could care less about about what Catholics believe, except to get more converts for Scientism?
Click to expand...
Oh, I’m well past the wondering stage … I realzed decades ago that evolution isn’t a product of science, but of atheism. Sadly, many Catholics have been deceived and dragged into what is actually a demonically-inspired cult masquerading as science. Evolution has “antiChrist” written all over it.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
40.png
edwest21:
Does it make you wonder if this discussion is really about science but about a belief system based on science which could care less about about what Catholics believe, except to get more converts for Scientism?
Click to expand...
Oh, I’m well past the wondering stage … I realzed decades ago that evolution isn’t a product of science, but of atheism. Sadly, many Catholics have been deceived and dragged into what is actually a demonically-inspired cult masquerading as science. Evolution has “antiChrist” written all over it.
Click to expand...
You should take it up with the hierarchy:

“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Here’s his email address: av@pccs.va

Let me know how you get on…
 
Glark said:
So it’s “natural” for a blind, aimless, random process to produce a complex machine - like a human being? Did God have a say in the production of this human being?
Click to expand...
What we observe may be indistinguishable from a random process. This does not eliminate God from creation.
 
RoseofMary1 said:
Here is a point to ponder: Every ancient culture has dragon lore. The word dinosaur was only invented in 1890. But, for evolution to be true, dragons/dinosaurs had to become extinct millions of years ago…
Click to expand...
The book of Job details huge creatures called “Behemoth” and a “Leviathan”, which sound very much like a dinosaur and a dragon respectively (Job 40:10-41:25). It seems very odd that these creatures are written about as if they were in existence at the same time as Job, if one had been extinct for millions of years and the other never existed at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top