Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The key is the evidence presented within the frame of reference it is in. To say you cannot conclude there is a God through scientific evidence is itself a conclusion you’ve made. Based on what? To say the scientist hasn’t proven God exists or doesn’t exist based on the evidence presented is again itself a conclusion which you must base on something if it is to be valid. It is of note that the Vatican itself includes in its miracle validation process scientific inquiry.
 
setarcos said:
The key is the evidence presented within the frame of reference it is in. To say you cannot conclude there is a God through scientific evidence is itself a conclusion you’ve made. Based on what? To say the scientist hasn’t proven God exists or doesn’t exist based on the evidence presented is again itself a conclusion which you must base on something if it is to be valid. It is of note that the Vatican itself includes in its miracle validation process scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not the key at all. If I scientifically frame an argument about a matter to which science lacks application, you’re not required to try to apply science to defeat my argument. You simply need to call me out.

The Vatican goes to lengths to conclude that there is no known scientific explanation for the events (candidate miracles) it studies. The scientific conclusion is that: the event is unexplained. Or is it your understanding that scientists must admit “here was a miracle?”
 
Last edited:
dixieagle said:
I think that what really gets under the skin of folks who refuse to entertain the idea that evolution is real is the fact that some of its proponents make the mistake of trying to use it to disprove God, which is an impossibility; because they are mistaken about God, their message must be in error. In actuality, their opinions have no effect on reality.
Click to expand...
I think there is a deal of truth in this.
 
The Church seems to disagree. The first is of Adam and Eve. The second is the (abbreviated) path to Adam. Hence they are not exclusive. Genesis explains why. Evolution explains how.
 
Source? Considering what modern popes have taught, this quote seems out of place, unless there’s a context that has been lost.
 
Exactly right and that is the crux of all of this. An original, literal human couple that are our first parents, passed Original Sin to all of us through generation, beginning with them. Our identity is a mix of biology and Divine Revelation. Period. There is nothing the Church can add or take away from this theory, except to say it cannot be verified.

From the purely scientific side, as the complexity of the data increases regarding DNA, the possibility of all this - us - happening by chance drops to zero. And claims of hominids are claims about animals, not pre-humans.
 
Techno2000 said:
And Charles Darwin did ?
Click to expand...
The question wasn’t about Darwin, but about whether the “great scholars of the Church” could have missed something as important as evolution. There really was no reason for them to think about it.

While Darwin had the basics down, he had no idea about DNA and the genetic code. Even today we continue to learn with the help of modern advancements. (Interestingly, a fairly recent development with regard to how parents can affect the genetic expression in their children gave a bit of a nod to the Catholic scientist, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.) As we acquire new methods to evaluate data, there will likely be refinements to the theory of evolution; none of that will have anything to do with the existence of God, which is, in my view, a separate, and settled, question.
 
That is a nonsense slogan repeated over and over. Evolution, so-called, is painting itself into a corner of ever-increasing complexity. From the Catechism: "295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."142 Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all”; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made.“143”
 
It is clear evolution has no practical value. Scientists can only study what is alive today, without any reference to evolution.
 
Techno2000 said:
You can’t have both… something’s gotta give.
Click to expand...
By the way… why they never show a woman slowly evolving into a human, she would have had to become one at the exact same time as the man…what perfect timing.
 
dixieagle said:
40.png
Techno2000:
And Charles Darwin did ?
Click to expand...
The question wasn’t about Darwin, but about whether the “great scholars of the Church” could have missed something as important as evolution. There really was no reason for them to think about it.

While Darwin had the basics down, he had no idea about DNA and the genetic code. Even today we continue to learn with the help of modern advancements. (Interestingly, a fairly recent development with regard to how parents can affect the genetic expression in their children gave a bit of a nod to the Catholic scientist, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.) As we acquire new methods to evaluate data, there will likely be refinements to the theory of evolution; none of that will have anything to do with the existence of God, which is, in my view, a separate, and settled, question.
Click to expand...
At what point in man’s evolution did God hold him responsible for his sins.
 
setarcos said:
I would say God created the universe to follow certain rules of which man may naturally discover. Science is what this discovery process has been labeled by man.
Click to expand...
Fully agree. God created the universe that operates consistently within its framework of natural laws. That does not restrict God from intervening when he wants to demonstrate His powers nevertheless. If his miracles and demonstrations are all within the natural framework, that is hardly convincing that he has divine powers because it raises the possibility that any Tom, Dick and Harry can do it also. But raising a dead person to life, that is convincing plus a number of other miracles.
 
Techno2000 said:
You can’t have both… something’s gotta give.

By the way… why they never show a woman slowly evolving into a human, she would have had to become one at the exact same time as the man…what perfect timing.
Click to expand...
We have been conned big time! Every time someone glue pieces of artwork in a series, we are lead to believe that was what actually happened over time. Evidence seems unnecessary. For example, DNA of chimps and Man are 98% (only if you exclude many other genes) similar. Therefore we are descended from a common ancestor. That is a fallacious argument really because nothing scientific has been provided to prove that common descent. Fossils of animals arranged neatly in a row does not prove that they evolved from one to the other. It only meant that one found bones that bear visual similarity. That’s all the clues that one might get.
 
And I don’t see where the supposed contradiction is.
Also, in case it was missed in the hubbub of all the conversation, but where is your source for the Pope Leo III quote you posted. I’m curious to its context.

And as one last thing, earlier in this thread you asked how it would affect us if evolution got disproven. You said for yourself, it wouldn’t matter a bit but as, if I’m correct, you seem to be a literal creationist, how would it affect you if it were proven true? Just curious as to the flipside.
 
ericc said:
40.png
Techno2000:
You can’t have both… something’s gotta give.

By the way… why they never show a woman slowly evolving into a human, she would have had to become one at the exact same time as the man…what perfect timing.
Click to expand...
We have been conned big time! Every time someone glue pieces of artwork in a series, we are lead to believe that was what actually happened over time. Evidence seems unnecessary. For example, DNA of chimps and Man are 98% (only if you exclude many other genes) similar. Therefore we are descended from a common ancestor. That is a fallacious argument really because nothing scientific has been provided to prove that common descent. Fossils of animals arranged neatly in a row does not prove that they evolved from one to the other. It only meant that one found bones that bear visual similarity. That’s all the clues that one might get.
Click to expand...
When the first true human was born from two Neandertals did he know that his parents weren’t human like he was?
 
Techno2000 said:
At what point in man’s evolution did God hold him responsible for his sins.
Click to expand...
That would be when - as the Sisters of St. Joseph taught - God breathed a soul into the creature known as Adam who then, with his wife Eve, chose to disobey.

But you knew that. 😉
 
edwest21 said:
Evolution, so-called, is painting itself into a corner of ever-increasing complexity. From the Catechism: "295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."142 Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all”; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made.“143”
Click to expand...
Ed, nothing about a universe that appears to have started with a bang 15bill years ago and includes biological evolution contradicts your quote.
 
edwest21 said:
It is clear evolution has no practical value. Scientists can only study what is alive today, without any reference to evolution.
Click to expand...
But it sure does earn disdain in some quarters, but not for rational reason, but for what some people fear others may (mis)use it to assert.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top