Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Techno2000]

Galileo was wrong, needless to say.

But. you said it anyway

 

[Emperor_Markus]

True. It’s a misnomer.
It needs to be said, that Galileo was wrong.

 

[Glark]

Its implications are not lost to people like Dr. R. Dawkins, but evidently to various Catholic posters on this forum

Many atheists deny it’s implications as well. Many of them insist that morality actually matters to a bunch of atoms that accidentally formed a biological machine called a human being. They also insist that "“life is meaningful”.

 

[Techno2000]

True. It’s a misnomer.
It needs to be said, that Galileo was wrong.

Can you elaborate…please.

 

[Glark]

That is actually a good answer. One does not need to understand evolution. As long as you accept it without thinking about its obvious faults and obvious misuse - you’re checked off as OK. You’re no longer on the target list. Some con-men will lead you further along - speaking generally

Evolution is one of the most effective weapons the devil has ever invented. He doesn’t like dissenters interfering with his plans, that’s why Genesis literalists are on his target list.

Btw, it’s been my experience that Catholic evolutionists not only reject a literal interpretation of Genesis, a lot of them think Satan is a fairy tale as well.

 

[Glark]

According to most of the recent Popes, no. I imagine they are always mindful of St. Augustine’s warning not to interpret scripture in a way that even nonbelievers know to be false.

Like many atheists (and theistic evolutionists), you have misinterpreted Augustine’s warning. For starters, it can’t possibly apply to what the Catholic Church has declared to be perfectly acceptable to the faithful - ie, a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

 

[Glark]

If you don’t believe in a God or gods, you are an atheist.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

According to most of the recent Popes, no. I imagine they are always mindful of St. Augustine’s warning not to interpret scripture in a way that even nonbelievers know to be false.

Like many atheists (and theistic evolutionists), you have misinterpreted Augustine’s warning. For starters, it can’t possibly apply to what the Catholic Church has declared to be perfectly acceptable to the faithful - ie, a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

It may be fine as a Catholic to believe in literal interpretations of Genesis, though i have my doubts, as sola scriptura, so I understand it, is problematic. The fact is that evolution is accepted by just about every biologist out there as the explanation for the diversity of life, and if you believe in special creation, you’re invoking a Biblical interpretation that flies in the face of what even unbelievers know to be true.

And really, the Church has never actually interpreted the entirety of Genesis as literally true. The cosmography of Genesis is clearly lifted from Sumerian beliefs on the shape of the Earth and firmament, and yet I doubt there was an educated Jew or early Christian who believed the Earth was dish-shaped and flat.

 

[Glark]

one of the greatest of all evolutionary biologist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, an Orthodox Christian

Dobzhansky came up with, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” … which I think is pure Darwinist fantasy. The truth is, evolution needs biology, but biology doesn’t need evolution - at all.

By evolution, I mean the theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms over billions of years. Take this useless theory away from biology and biology wouldn’t suffer in the slightest degree. This theory’s only “use” is to make atheists feel “intellectually fulfilled”.

 

[Rau]

It may be fine as a Catholic to believe in literal interpretations of Genesis,

It is perfectly fine, though quite unusual, given the Church does not teach that Genesis is literal history. Why need any (Christian) person - whether they favour a literal reading of Genesis or not - much care whether they are right or wrong on this point, given the details have no bearing at all on the salvation of souls?

 

[Glark]

Well you know kids never want to listen to their parents, they are just too old fashioned.

But these kids - Adam and Eve - were the first monkey-men injected with God Juice (or whatever it was), so shouldn’t they have known better?

 

[Rau]

Adam and Eve - were the first monkey-men injected with God Juice

Monkey men or stardust or mud - doesn’t matter really.

 

[Glark]

Right, God used the earth to create everything in the material world that’s why the DNA is so related.

And why come up with different systems of biochemistry for different forms of life when one system works perfectly well (it did before the Fall, at least) for all?

 

[Glark]

The fact is that evolution is accepted by just about every biologist out there as the explanation for the diversity of life, and if you believe in special creation, you’re invoking a Biblical interpretation that flies in the face of what even unbelievers know to be true.

So what?

What am I missing out on if I don’t accept that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms over billions of years? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
What is applied science missing out on if it doesn’t accept the same theory? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

Btw, since when is it “know to be true” that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms over billions of years? Are you claiming this theory is a fact?

 

[Glark]

It is perfectly fine, though quite unusual, given the Church does not teach that the Scripture is literal history.

You claim it is “quite unusual” for a Catholic to accept a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story. I take it you know what percentage of Catholics accept a literal interpretation verses those who don’t. In which case, please supply them, as I would love to know.

 

[Glark]

Well said. It puts things into their proper perspective.

I thank you. Too many evolutionists are misappropriated Augustine’s words.

 

[Rau]

You claim it is “quite unusual” for a Catholic to accept a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story. I take it you know what percentage of Catholics accept a literal interpretation verses those who don’t. In which case, please supply them, as I would love to know.

From my Catholic School cohort…I can’t think of any who believed life on earth kicked off 5778 years ago. We had Catholic Religious teaching science too. So there’s a small but overwhelming survey. We could do a bigger survey on CAF I suppose. The 5778 years question would be a good one to put since it is clear and definitive.

 

[Glark]

The literal interpretation of Genesis is shown to be incorrect by science. Genesis has the earth (day 1) before the sun (day 4). That is shown to be wrong by astronomy. The literal interpretation of Genesis has birds (day 5) before land animals (day 6). That is shown to be wrong by both geology and palaeontology.

The God I believe in isn’t confined by the laws of science - ie, the puny, limited perceptions of human beings,.

Show me a fossil bird contemporary with, or earlier than, Tiktaalik. Either that or be ‘embarrassed’.

I’m not qualified to comment on the fossil record, as I don’t have a Ph.d. in paleontology and I haven’t spent a life-time personally inspecting real fossils and the entire fossil record. Have you? Or are you like 99.9999% of Darwinists, who rely on a handful of atheist fossil-experts to tell them what’s there?

 

[IWantGod]

And you are not? But then again, who am i to doubt your words for you are the king of scripture.

 

[Glark]

From my Catholic School cohort…I can’t think of any who believed life on earth kicked off 5778 years ago. We had Catholic Religious teaching science too. So there’s a small but overwhelming survey. We could do a bigger survey on CAF I suppose. The 5778 years question would be a good one to put since it is clear and definitive

I didn’t ask for the figures on Catholics who believe that life on earth started 5778 years ago. I asked for the figures on Catholics who accept a literal interpretation of Genesis. And I’m not interested in your highschool anecdotes; I want something professional and scientific. You made the claim, so now I expect you to back it up.