Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[poche]

The first evidence for feathers in tyrannosauroids came from the small species Dilong paradoxus, found in the Yixian Formation of China, and reported in 2004. As with many other theropods discovered in the Yixian, the fossil skeleton was preserved with a coat of filamentous structures which are commonly recognized as the precursors of feathers.[35] Because all known skin impressions from larger tyrannosauroids known at the time showed evidence of scales, the researchers who studied Dilong speculated that feathers may correlate negatively with body size—that juveniles may have been feathered, then shed the feathers and expressed only scales as the animal became larger and no longer needed insulation to stay warm.[35] However, subsequent discoveries showed that even some large tyrannosauroids had feathers covering much of their bodies, casting doubt on the hypothesis that they were a size-related feature.[36]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-things-we-dont-know-about-tyrannosaurus-rex-180951072/

 

[poche]

yes, that is true. Someone was able to get DNA from a tyrannosaurus rex and the result was a cross between an alligator and a chicken.

 

[Glark]

Or, more plausibly, a hippo and a croc, respectively.

Read the text. Neither hippo nor croc fit the descriptions.

It’s only odd if you conclude – on the basis of very sketchy interpretation – that Job is talking about ‘dinosaurs’ and ‘dragons’. Otherwise, it’s a very natural description of very naturally existing animals.

No extant creatures fit the descriptions.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Or, more plausibly, a hippo and a croc, respectively.

Read the text. Neither hippo nor croc fit the descriptions.

I have. And they do.

 

[Glark]

A hippo has a tail like a cedar tree and a croc has fire and smoke coming out of its mouth? Like I said, read the text.

 

[Glark]

I believe I said Answers in Genesis is a good place to learn creation science. I don’t endorse any anti-Catholic rhetoric.

At least they make an attempt to respect the authority of Scripture, which is more than I can say for most evo-Catholics.

 

[Glark]

All are debunked as frauds or are ambiguous enough to be inconclusive.

What else would you expect Darwinists to say? Atheists use similar reasoning when denying miracles.

 

[Glark]

Science works by finding testable explanations

Er … the explanation that all life on earth evolved from unicellular life-forms is IMPOSSIBLE TO TEST.

but if the explanation your invoking is compatible with any possible observation, your explanation cease to have any utility at all. Thus the aphorism “Invoking God explains everything, and thus explains nothing.”

It’s ironic that you should bring up the subject of “utility”, because the aforementioned theory has no utility at all. There is no reason why a Genesis literalists like me could not become competent in any field of applied biology - because said theory is as useless to real-world science as a fairy tale.

And since when does a mere explanation equate to utility? Does String Theory have utility? Does explaining why the sky is blue have utility? Does the theory of tectonic plates have utility? Does the Big Bang Theory have utility? Does Quantum Loop Theory have utility? There are probably thousands of scientific explanations that don’t have utility.

At the end of the day, science is agnostic on the existence of God. It cannot prove or falsify God’s existence

Science is also agnostic on the theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular life forms - because this theory cannot be proven or falsified.

 

[Glark]

You are being lied to by creationist websites here. There is a great deal of evidence for evolution all the way from bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics to the evolution of lactase persistence in some modern humans. Do not believe creationist websites that lie to you.

Well, these are examples of microevolution (or adaption) that no one disputes are facts. Technically, they are forms of “evolution”, but their relevance to the theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms is highly questionable - to say the least. Can’t see the connection, myself … but what I do see is wishful thinking on a grand scale.

Evolutionists assume that small changes automatically mean huge changes are possible. That’s not science - that just wild extrapolation and rank speculation.

Beware what evolutionist sites tell you is “evolution”. They like to play word games. For example, Darwinists will say bacteria “evolve” antibiotic resistance, but the medical profession says bacteria “develop” antibiotic resistance. The idea of this sort of Darwinist “evo-speak” is to create an link between antibiotic resistance and bugs evolving into humans.

 

[tweedlealice]

There was a time the CHURCH thought it was scientific. It got hot for a few ppl long ago. I was taught that the church/Bible tells us THAT GOD CREATED. Science tells us HOW GOD CREATED.
The Holy Spirit gave a simple story to explain God’s presence. Scientific knowledge did not exist then (as Today). Darwinism is getting challenged today w INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Lord, help us understand Your truths. Have mercy on us. In Jesus name.Amen

 

[Roseeurekacross]

well now, show me what examples on pottery are being described as dinosaurs. Given Dinos and humans never co -existed.

 

[Glark]

Not at all. There are very many people indeed who understand it extremely well and yet prefer to accept a biblical version of creation. But you show every indication of not even understanding the basics. You are arguing from a position of ignorance.

Yes, yes, I heard all this many times before from evo-worshippers. Try and come up with something original.

I wonder how I passed that “Evolutionary Biology” elective with flying colours if I didn’t know the basics? (I chose that elective because I figured I probably knew most of it already so it would be easy credit - I did and it was.)

 

[Roseeurekacross]

please stop using the term ’ evo-worshipper’. By using this term you are accusing Christians who also believe evolution to be a thing, and scientists, also Christian or not, as breaking the first commandment.

its wrong and incredibly uncharitable.

 

[Rau]

Does Quantum Loop Theory have utility?

Time will tell, or would you have us abandon it now so we’ll never know? It’s constituent theories sure did prove useful!

 

[Rau]

For example, Darwinists will say bacteria “evolve” antibiotic resistance, but the medical profession says bacteria “develop” antibiotic resistance.

And yet both forms of expression seem completely apt.

 

[Glark]

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”.

Mention the word “God” to Richard Dawkins and he starts frothing at the mouth in rage … so he can be relied on to objectively and dispassionately access the evidence regarding the origins of life! Coyne is also a militant atheist with an agenda to pursue. 99% sure Shubin is an atheist. Tattersall says “religion is man-made” so he may be an atheist as well.

I’m sure all these gentlemen would love to introduce a Christian like Joe to their godless world via their pseudo-scientific atheology.

Ian Tattersall’s “Masters of the Planet” is the best book regarding the gradual - not sudden - evolution of homo sapiens that I know of.

Re the evolution of humans:

“All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that’s a load of nonsense.” - Mary Leakey, archeologist and paleo-anthropologist.

“Look, I’m a person who says in this book [Human Diversity, 1982], that we don’t know anything about the ancestors of the human species. All the fossils that have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors, we haven’t the faintest idea whether they arancestors … All you’ve got is Homo sapiens there, you’ve got that fossil there, you’ve got another fossil there … and it’s up to you to draw the lines. Because there are no lines.” - Richard C. Lewontin, Prof. of Zoology, Harvard

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.

That’s fine if you want to disassociate Catholicism from the Bible - which is kinda difficult. Most Catholic Darwinists solve the problem by simply ignoring Scripture.

 

[Glark]

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.”

The question is not whether evolution is compatible with creation or not; the question is whether evolution is compatible with Catholicism … and therefore, the Scriptures.

The Church says evolution can be accommodated by the Scriptures. Is this an ex cathedra declaration?

 

[Glark]

What we observe may be indistinguishable from a random process. This does not eliminate God from creation.

Ah, but we’re not talking about creation (abiogenesis) are we? We’re talking about the evolution that supposedly came after the initial creation. You seem to believe that after the creation of the first life form(s), God just sat back and let it go it’s own way (a bit like blowing up a balloon and letting it go); there was no further intellectual (name removed by moderator)ut from God. His initial creation was left to mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly wander where it will.

 

[Glark]

But seriously, you really shouldn’t discourage Joe from reading science books. You did recommend that he read “both sides of the story”, but your posts cause me to doubt that you have taken your own advice.

Please elaborate.

One side, the side of overwhelming consensus across multiple scientific disciplines, should probably be given a fair shake, too, when endeavouring to learn about something in the domain of science.

Are you saying you are a victim of “herd instinct”? You are a gullible “follower”?

 

[Glark]

please stop using the term ’ evo-worshipper’. By using this term you are accusing Christians who also believe evolution to be a thing, and scientists, also Christian or not, as breaking the first commandment.

its wrong and incredibly uncharitable.

You make what seems to be a fair point.