Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[ChunkMonk]

How long did the Cell have wait for all it’s parts to evolve…it can not work with missing parts, they all have to be in place at the same time.

Exactly, and this holds true for every single step in the process from cell to crab to monkey to man. But dollars to dimes says you’ll get a handwaved “it doesn’t work like that” answer that denies the very real dichotomy of either spontaneous generation or gradual evolution. It can’t be both and there is no third option. Logically speaking, it can’t. Eliminate logical consistency as a requirement and it works great, because then mutually exclusive beliefs are… Well what’s wrong with them? If there are no foundational principles then up can be down and left and right and none of them at all, all at the same time.

 

[Techno2000]

“it doesn’t work like that”

Exactly, but they never say how.

 

[Rau]

I could just ask the evolutionist to explain all the things I listed in relation to evolution. What was the Original Sin and what was the nature of the man who committed it? What is the soul and can we have “untrue men” who do not have them? How did the nature of man change when he sinned? Are the various covenants of God purely metaphorical/allegorical concepts of were they real, flesh and blood promises with real, flesh and blood people?

I have responded to all this. These things are not in the evolutionary science. Why do you place such limits on God, and yourself? Do you have to deny realities to believe in God? Do you have to “dumb down” God to fit some model you have in your mind. The “snap your fingers” kind of God?

Quite frankly, I don’t think anyone knows in all cases where to draw every line between allegory and historical fact. And I am quite sure it does not matter, because your salvation does not lie there.

I think you are tying yourselves in knots, and I think you feel the knots evaporate with the “snap your fingers” approach to envisaging God.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Causation is a property of our current observable universe. It’s far too earlier to declare that it is a property of any other hypothetical universe, or even of other regions of our universe

If you are going to throw causation under the bus then you are also throwing away reason and logic. Without reason or logic we could not do science or philosophy. Without a consistent universe where the laws of nature are the same everywhere science would be useless. Of course science can not tell us everything about reality even in principle. And to think that only science can give us true knowledge about the universe is itself a philosophy and can not be empirically proved by science. So it is contradicts itself.

Philosophy touches on things science can not even dream of touching. The very metaphysical propositions that science itself rests on and takes for granted.

Science is built on certain axioms. For instance that the universe is reasonable. If the universe is not reasonable then it is a shaky existence. And if the very foundation of the universe is unreasonable then what is your existence about then? Where the foundation of reality is on shaky ground? But, that is what you are suggesting when you say causation breaks down when you get to the first cause or the foundation of the universe.

 

[Techno2000]

niceatheist:

Causation is a property of our current observable universe. It’s far too earlier to declare that it is a property of any other hypothetical universe, or even of other regions of our universe

If you are going to throw causation under the bus then you are also throwing away reason and logic. Without reason or logic we could not do science or philosophy. Without a consistent universe where the laws of nature are the same everywhere science would be useless. Of course science can not tell us everything about reality even in principle. And to think that only science can give us true knowledge about the universe is itself a philosophy and can not be empirically proved by science. So it is contradicts itself.

Philosophy touches on things science can not even dream of touching. The very metaphysical propositions that science itself rests on and takes for granted.

Science is built on certain axioms. For instance that the universe is reasonable. If the universe is not reasonable then it is a shaky existence. And if the very foundation of the universe is unreasonable then what is your existence about then? Where the foundation of reality is on shaky ground? But, that is what you are suggesting when you say causation breaks down when you get to the first cause or the foundation of the universe.

niceatheist likes to throw out a smokescreen of the abstract, how could one ever deal with that ?

 

[Techno2000]

ChunkMonk:

I could just ask the evolutionist to explain all the things I listed in relation to evolution. What was the Original Sin and what was the nature of the man who committed it? What is the soul and can we have “untrue men” who do not have them? How did the nature of man change when he sinned? Are the various covenants of God purely metaphorical/allegorical concepts of were they real, flesh and blood promises with real, flesh and blood people?

I have responded to all this. These things are not in the evolutionary science. Why do you place such limits on God, and yourself? Do you have to deny realities to believe in God? Do you have to “dumb down” God to fit some model you have in your mind. The “snap your fingers” kind of God?

Quite frankly, I don’t think anyone knows in all cases where to draw every line between allegory and historical fact. And I am quite sure it does not matter, because your salvation does not lie there.

I think you are tying yourselves in knots, and I think you feel the knots evaporate with the “snap your fingers” approach to envisaging God.

If the Catholic Church said we are free to believe… lets say…“Earwin’s Theory of Satan”, but you and others believe there are a ton of flaws in this theory, could you in good conscience just let your fellow Catholics go merrily on their way and believe in this theory ?

 

[ChunkMonk]

Well if it fits in nice and easy then why don’t you take a crack at coming up with the theologu of it instead of hand-waving it away with a “I’m sure it works” approach?

You say evolution has nothing to do with all this. You’re factually incorrect. If you’d make the theological attempt, you’d see why. Eventually you’ll either lose faith in evolution or lose faith in the traditional Catholic understanding of those topics.

Your salvation may not lie there. For someone else… Who knows?

 

[rossum]

You’re trying to confuse the issues, I’m taking about two creatures that had to mate with a Penis and a Vagina and all the stuff that go with it.

There are other ways to mate. Many organisms use external fertilization. The female dumps a lot of eggs into the water, and the male dumps his sperm into the water, and when a sperm meets an egg… A lot of sessile molluscs and similar use this method, since they cannot move to meet each other they have to let the water carry sperm and egg between individuals. Some fish use the same external fertilization method.

You have already been referred to a “cloaca” which is an already existing orifice converted to a dual purpose. Some birds have cloacas as do amphibians. You can look up lizards for yourself.

A vagina is a second opening alongside the cloaca. A penis is a way to get sperm inside the cloaca/vagina more efficiently than leaving it at the opening. I am not sure whether a penis evolved before a vagina or not: a penis can penetrate a cloaca as easily as a vagina, so those developments are independent. IIRC some birds, like ducks, have a penis but still use a cloaca, so that might indicate the order they developed, at least in birds. Both are relatively minor changes to the already existing system. Again, a little research on the development of Metazoans would have shown you most of this.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Doesn’t fit the description. For that I would ask, where is the non-functioning but still mostly extant cloaca?

Google “anus”. It is cloaca that has lost some of its original functions, but still retains one function.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

I am not sure whether a penis evolved before a vagina or not:

That’s the point, there’s no time to wait for anything to evolve, it has to happen in the now, or life stops.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Well no, that would be an even more specialized organ that is fully functional. I was asking about a non-functioning half-organ in the seventeenth generation of development out of the seven-hundred generations it took to develop.

 

[rossum]

That’s the point, there’s no time to wait for anything to evolve, it has to happen in the now, or life stops.

Start with cloaca-to-cloaca sex, as in lizards and some birds. That works. Penis-to-cloaca sex also works, as in ducks. I cannot think of a species that uses cloaca-to-vagina sex, but there might be one. That would work as easily as cloaca-to-cloaca sex. The final step from either of those two last is penis-to-vagina.

There are working intermediate systems on the route between lizards and placental mammals. All evolution needs is a working intermediate. You seem to be ignoring the role of the cloaca in amphibians, lizards, birds and IIRC monotremes. It is not surprising if you cannot see how things work if you ignore one of the working parts.

For a fun fact, have a look at Kangaroo penises and vaginas.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Well no, that would be an even more specialized organ that is fully functional. I was asking about a non-functioning half-organ in the seventeenth generation of development out of the seven-hundred generations it took to develop.

You misunderstand evolution. All organs in all our ancestors functioned well enough to allow those ancestors to reproduce. Any animal that did not reproduce has no living descendants today. That ancestor may not have had all the parts that our current organs have, but they had enough parts to function. Maybe they didn’t function as well as our current versions, but they worked well enough for the time.

Our sense of smell does not function as well as a dog’s sense of smell. However, our sense of smell works well enough to allow us to reproduce. Our sense of smell is not “fully functional” in the sense you appear to mean, when compared to a dog. Our eyesight is not “fully functional”: we cannot see into the ultra violet as some birds can.

All evolution requires is “functional enough to reproduce”. By your “fully functional” definition, many of our systems are not “fully functional”. Can you outrun a cheetah over 200 metres?

rossum

 

[Rau]

Well if it fits in nice and easy then why don’t you take a crack at coming up with the theologu of it instead of hand-waving it away with a “I’m sure it works” approach?

I didn’t say “it fits in nice and easy” - I just noted there is overwhelming evidence for evolutionary processes and for life on earth much, much longer ago than 5778 years. I simply don’t need to understand how the truths of the faith were made manifest in the observable world. That’s something you’re struggling with - I’m not. It’s not that I’m cleverer or have some insight that you don’t - it’s just that I can wait.

 

[RoseofMary1]

No, the pottery is there to be seen. It’s on many documentaries and in books. It’s there to be found. Just saying nah-nah, that’s been debunked does not “debunk” the facts.

 

[stavros388]

Glark: Your understanding of science is very poor (even if you basically claim to understand it better than almost all of the world’s scientists). I think you know better, though, deep down. But the show must go on, right? How exhausting it must be to insulate yourself from reality and to desperately and constantly try to keep your cherished fundamentalist worldview from crumbling in the face of overwhelming evidence. Good luck. Carry on!

 

[ChunkMonk]

Okay, so you believe in the spontaneous generation theory where one creature has an empty socket and the next creature has an eye-ball. One creature has legs, boom! gives birth to a creature with fins and tail.

That seems highly unlikely, and we’ve never observed that happening in nature, and it flies in the face of what we know about genetics, but I agree that it is 1 of only 2 options for evolution. The other being the slow, gradual change theory.

For thr umpteenth time: pur sense of smell is fully functional. Fully functional does not mean “functions better than any other” it means that it performs its functions. My car is fully functional. That doesn’t mean it is $10 million race car, it just means it functions well enough at what it is designed to do.

So in every step of the evolutionary process, we either have to have a huge, sudden mutation where as fully-functional organ pops up when there was no organ at all before… Or we have to have a slow gradual change where an organ develops over dozens and dozens and possibly thousands of generations, and for many if those generations it is not fully functional at all. The fins are a bit longer and a bit longer and a bit longer and all of the sudden they are proto legs, but in those intermediate generations they didn’t function as legs.

You are right to reject the second, but embracing the first is just as scientifically questionable.

 

[stavros388]

No, the pottery is there to be seen. It’s on many documentaries and in books. It’s there to be found. Just saying nah-nah, that’s been debunked does not “debunk” the facts

I’ll be quite happy to send you some links, if you’d like. Of course, you could do the research yourself. After all, while it would be fun to debunk your claims, it takes time and energy to debate with someone who actually believes that dinosaurs and humans co existed, energy I think would be wasted and which I’d rather conserve for having fun with my family this weekend. Google “dinosaurs pottery debunked”. There’s lots of good info out there. And please read some science and natural history books not written by biased creationists.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Oh… Well then that’s okay, but then you really have no place in the discussion. You’re literally just hand-waving it away saying “that doesn’t interest me” which is totally fine, but that thing which doesn’t interest you is the thing being discussed here.

If there is a forum about cars and whether one specific type of engine would work well or not, I’m not gonna roll in there and plant my flag on one side of the debate if I really don’t know anything special about engines and actually the whole thing bores me anyway.

What you basically seem to be saying is: scientists have said there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. God says these things must be true. Since those two groups have equal weight and authority, they must be reconcilable, but you don’t care how.

Well, I don’t give equal weight to scientists as I give to God, I don’t just assume things are reconcilable without good reason, and I happen to find it all very interesting.

 

[Techno2000]

Right, how could creature even function and survive if its half one thing and half another.