Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Rau]

Evolution is preached as scientific dogma at every level of education. And you haven’t noticed?!

I think this simply reflects your bias.

You haven’t explained why so much emphasis is placed on a scientific theory that is UNPROVEN and UNTESTABLE and is COMPLETELY USELESS in any practical sense. Or why the Church bends over backwards to accommodate same. I’m amazed that so many intelligent, educated adults don’t find that peculiar.

I don’t need to explain your ambit claims.

What “facts”? How can a theory that is UNTESTABLE and UNPROVEN be a “fact”? You’ve been indulging too much atheist propaganda, my friend.

Good luck in your science degree.

 

[Gorgias]

If the last figure is Adam, then his two parents are soulless monkey creatures

And that’s a problem, because…?

also when did Eve pop out on the scene for him to procreate ?

Same time Adam “popped out on the scene”, I guess. Again, if the construct is that God made Adam a “true human”, why is a problem that He made Eve a “true human”?

 

[Gorgias]

Glark:

Gorgias:

Like Augustine, who claimed that a historical reading of Genesis that flies in the face of scientific evidence just makes us Christians look silly?

A citation, please.

Certainly. Augustine, from The Literal Meaning of Genesis 1:19

Gorgias was correctly referring to Augustine, as is confirmed by Thomas Aquinas.

Thanks, rossum! That’s what I was referencing!

 

[Gus1]

For Darwinism to be true there has to be a moment in time when Chemistry and Biology intersect.
When I was studying science in the 1950’s this intersection seemed very plausible.
With advances in modern micro biology and DNA and the scientific knowledge that once simple cell has become a lot more complex.
I prefer adaptionism to evolution as one proven fact the other becomes more absurd as we gain knowledge.
If you are a Darwinist I would suggest you go in the back yard and pick up a rock.
In simplistic terms human beings evolved from that rock.
Do you believe that’s possible?
Is that in any sense less plausible than a talking serpent.
Darwinism becomes less and less plausible as we progress .
So if Darwinism is faulty ,which it is ,to use it to refute anything is scientifically dangerous.

 

[Techno2000]

For Darwinism to be true there has to be a moment in time when Chemistry and Biology intersect.
When I was studying science in the 1950’s this intersection seemed very plausible.
With advances in modern micro biology and DNA and the scientific knowledge that once simple cell has become a lot more complex.
I prefer adaptionism to evolution as one proven fact the other becomes more absurd as we gain knowledge.
If you are a Darwinist I would suggest you go in the back yard and pick up a rock.
In simplistic terms human beings evolved from that rock.
Do you believe that’s possible?
Is that in any sense less plausible than a talking serpent.
Darwinism becomes less and less plausible as we progress .
So if Darwinism is faulty ,which it is ,to use it to refute anything is scientifically dangerous.

The devil appearing as serpent is way more plausible than human beings evolving from a rock.

 

[Techno2000]

And that’s a problem, because…?

Because, it’s not true according to the Bible.

Same time Adam “popped out on the scene”, I guess. Again, if the construct is that God made Adam a “true human”, why is a problem that He made Eve a “true human”?

Because, it’s not true according to the Bible.

 

[edwest21]

I have to agree. Scientists are finding more and more complexity. “Junk DNA” turned out to be a false assumption.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

And that’s a problem, because…?

Because, it’s not true according to the Bible.

Really? Are you sure about that? The Bible just says that Adam is made of physical stuff and that God breathed the breath of life into him.

In fact, the Bible says that God created animals first, before He created Adam, which would fit nicely with this idea, don’t you think?

Techno2000:

Same time Adam “popped out on the scene”, I guess. Again, if the construct is that God made Adam a “true human”, why is a problem that He made Eve a “true human”?

Because, it’s not true according to the Bible.

Again… it’s not? One account has Eve proceeding from Adam, but the other account simply asserts that Adam and Eve were made human at the same time. That’s exactly what we’re discussing here, right?

 

[Techno2000]

Why would God wait Billions and Billions and Billions years for man to evolve when he can just make him one in a day ?

 

[Gorgias]

Why would God wait Billions and Billions and Billions years for man to evolve when he can just make him one in a day ?

I dunno. Why would God wait thousands and thousands of years for man to sin when he could have just sent Jesus on the first day?

The answer is simple: God’s plan is God’s plan. It didn’t require our assent to set it in motion, and doesn’t require our assent today. As we read in the Book of Job, we weren’t there when He created the heavens and the earth, so we’re kind of out of our league in terms of critiquing it or even understanding it totally.

 

[Techno2000]

Again… it’s not? One account has Eve proceeding from Adam, but the other account simply asserts that Adam and Eve were made human at the same time. That’s exactly what we’re discussing here, right?

So Adam and Eve were both raised by souless monkey creatures ?

 

[Gorgias]

So Adam and Eve were both raised by souless monkey creatures ?

Scripture doesn’t tell us.

If the answer were “yes”, how would that run afoul of Scripture, or contradict the teachings of the Church? (The answer is “it wouldn’t.”)

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

So Adam and Eve were both raised by souless monkey creatures ?

Scripture doesn’t tell us.

If the answer were “yes”, how would that run afoul of Scripture, or contradict the teachings of the Church? (The answer is “it wouldn’t.”)

Do you think Adam and Eve’s inlaws were disappointed when they got expelled from the Garden of Eden ?

 

[rossum]

The devil appearing as serpent is way more plausible than human beings evolving from a rock.

Humans did not evolve from a rock. They evolved from an ape ancestor, similar to a chimpanzee. Rocks do not evolve; living organisms do.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

The devil appearing as serpent is way more plausible than human beings evolving from a rock.

Humans did not evolve from a rock. They evolved from an ape ancestor, similar to a chimpanzee. Rocks do not evolve; living organisms do.

rossum

If you can’t explain how living organisms got started, then Humans might as well have evolved from a rock.

 

[edwest21]

The proposal is that non-living things became - somehow - more complex. Somehow, they acquired the necessary mechanisms to absorb food/energy. Then they “learned” how to reproduce. So yes, the rock analogy holds. We’re just bags of chemicals.

 

[Rau]

We’re just bags of chemicals.

Is your soul chemical? Perhaps describing our bodies (colloquially) as a bag of chemicals would be better?

 

[rossum]

If you can’t explain how living organisms got started, then Humans might as well have evolved from a rock.

The short answer is chemistry. See Powner et al (2009) Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions for just one example.

rossum

 

[frobert]

“Junk DNA” turned out to be a false assumption.

Not so fast. You have to keep in mind that science being self-correcting is not a bug but a feature.

At Least 75 Per Cent Of Our DNA Really Is Useless Junk After All

The code that makes us is at least 75 percent rubbish, according to a study that suggests most of our DNA really is junk after all.

After 20 years of biologists arguing that most of the human genome must have some kind of function, the study calculated that in fact the vast majority of our DNA has to be useless. It came to this conclusion by calculating that, because of the way evolution works, we’d each have to have a million children, and almost all of them would need to die, if most of our DNA had a purpose.

But we each have just a few children on average, and our genetic health is mostly fine. The study therefore concludes that most of our DNA really must be junk – a suggestion that contradicts controversial claims to the contrary from a group of prominent genomics researchers in 2012.

[T]hroughout the 2000s, a number of studies purported to show that junk DNA was nothing of the sort, based on demonstrating that some tiny bits of non-coding DNA had some use or other. These claims proved popular with creationists, who were struggling to explain why an intelligently designed genome would consist mostly of rubbish.

[However,] if most of our DNA is functional, we would accumulate a large proportion of harmful mutations in important sequences. But if most of our DNA is junk, the majority of mutations would have no effect…Taking into account estimates of the mutation rate and average prehistorical reproduction rate, [the researchers] calculated that only around 8 to 14 per cent of our DNA is likely to have a function.

This ties in nicely with a 2014 study that compared our genome with other species and concluded that around 8 per cent of it is functional.

Graur is one of many researchers who didn’t believe ENCODE’s claim. The heart of the issue is how you define functional ENCODE defined DNA as such if it showed any “biochemical activity”, for instance, if it was copied into RNA. But Graur doesn’t think a bit of activity like this is enough to prove DNA has a meaningful use. Instead, he argues that a sequence can only be described as functional if it has evolved to do something useful, and if a mutation disrupting it would have a harmful effect.

 

[edwest21]

You’re deflecting from my point. The human body, minus the water, is just a bag of chemicals - nothing more. That’s why some people believe this life is all there is, and then we’re food for worms after we die. There’s nothing and no one.