Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[niceatheist]

All interpretations of the Bible start with the Literal followed by other categories.

Which just about renders it all meaningless, considering there are numerous interpretations of Genesis, even allegedly literal ones, which come up with different answers. I was raised in a pretty peculiar Christian sect that believed the Universe and the Earth were ancient, but humans were six thousand years old, and insisted that this was derived from a literal interpretation of Genesis. Since then I’ve met out out and Young Earth Creationists, who believe everything is six thousand years old, or some that believe it’s 10,000 years old.

The problem here is trying to make what we actually know about the universe jive with what is clearly not a scientific treatise.

 

[niceatheist]

After receiving your replies, I researched stuff.

No where in the first chapter of Genesis, or the next three verses of chapter two, does the phrase “The Power of God” appear.

As for ‘nothing comes from nothing’, I agree. Scientists believe that lightning in the earth’s early atmosphere cause a chemical reaction that kick started evolution at one celled life forms.

Let me have my beliefs and I will let you have yours.

Your knowledge of abiogenesis is about fifty years out of date. You can believe what you want, but if you’re going to make sweeping declarations about what scientists claim, ought you not actually learn what scientists actually say? It’s almost as if you want to believe what you want to believe regardless of any consideration, in other words it’s willful, intentional self-imposed ignorance. And that’s fine, but then expect that those who do have some understanding who you openly declare your beliefs to will question you.

 

[rossum]

All interpretations of the Bible start with the Literal followed by other categories.

Here is a Bible verse:

“For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands” – Isaiah 55:12.

Start with the literal interpretation: trees have hands and can clap them sometimes. I assume that you reject the literal interpretation in this case? Why do you reject it? What valid reason do you have to reject the starting literal interpretation? I presume your reason is that the literal interpretation contradicts the actual reality that we observe around us: trees observably do not have hands and do not clap them.

Is that reason a valid reason to reject the literal interpretation? If God made the world, and God is not a deceiver, then yes. God’s world is not deceptive and is as valid as God’s word. The two have equal value. Observation of God’s work in the world tells us that this verse of Isaiah is not to be interpreted literally.

Similarly, observation of God’s work in the world tells us that the first two chapters are not to be interpreted literally. AIUI, the Catholic Church allows non-literal interpretations of Genesis that do not conflict with God’s work.

You would do better to find an interpretation of Genesis that does not conflict with the observation of God’s work in the universe. Or do you think that hills can sing?

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

How did something come from nothing ?

Ask a cosmologist, not a biologist. Biologists start with the sun and earth already in place.

rossum
Yeah, like they know

 

[Emperor_Markus]

Everything was created from nothing, as the Church has infallibly taught.

The Earth, immobile and fixed in the centre of the universe, and the planets move around it.

 

[rossum]

Yeah, like they know

You mean the way theologians know where God came from? You start with God; cosmologists start with he multiverse or whatever. Both sides have an unexplained starting point.

rossum

 

[niceatheist]

Techno2000:

Yeah, like they know

You mean the way theologians know where God came from? You start with God; cosmologists start with he multiverse or whatever. Both sides have an unexplained starting point.

rossum

That’s not quite true. Some cosmologists aren’t even sure the concept of a “starting point” even makes sense.

 

[Techno2000]

You mean the way theologians know where God came from?

God doesn’t come from anywhere, because he’s life itself.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

With some luck the mods will ban discussions on evolution again. For your sake.

Whatever do you mean?

I try not to post on anything where I have limited knowledge. Except where the discussion is likely to lead me to a greater understanding of the matter at hand. You would do well to follow that principle. Because all you are doing, all you have been doing, is exhibiting your ignorance of the subject matter.

Now that in itself is not a problem. I am ignorant of many things. It’s one of the reasons I post on the philosophy section of the forum. I get to learn about attitudes that others have about matters I consider important and it prompts me to search for information.

The problem is that you exhibit all the signs of not wanting to understand any viewpoint other than your own. Your viewpoint has been developed, amply exhibited in this thread, from a limited understanding of the subject.

As I said, ignorance in itself is generally not a problem. But you have to know that you don’t know before you can begin to rectify the situation. You appear unable or unwilling to take that step.

 

[Techno2000]

The problem is that you exhibit all the signs of not wanting to understand any viewpoint other than your own.

Do you want to understand God ?

 

[Glark]

Look up the scientific definition of “macroevolution”. One species splitting into two similar species is exactly the definition of macroevolution.

Darwinists can play their word games and call Green Warblers speciating into more Green Warblers whatever they like. Does it mean it is evidence that bugs can evolve into humans? Of course not.

 

[Glark]

This is the comment of someone who has somewhere between zero and very little respect for the authority of Scripture. Are you an atheist?

 

[Glark]

Heard this where exactly? Can you provide a citation?

Please forgive my ignorance (I’m only a creation literalist, after all) about supplying links, but I refer you to an article at evolutionnews.org, “Do all lLife Forms Fall into a Nested Hierarchy?”.

And please think about this: Where it says in Genesis 1 that God created creatures “according to their kinds”, it could very well be referring to nested hierarchies.

 

[Glark]

This just goes to show there really isn’t a literal interpretation of Genesis at all.

Tell that to the Catholic Church.

 

[Rau]

This is the comment of someone who has somewhere between zero and very little respect for the authority of Scripture. Are you an atheist?

Do you put the same question to the Popes - to the Church - which teaches that Genesis need not be read literally?

 

[Glark]

Scientists believe that lightning in the earth’s early atmosphere cause a chemical reaction that kick started evolution at one celled life forms.

What a pity there is no scientific evidence that suggests that is even remotely possible. It defies the laws of mathmatical probability, for starters. (Please don’t refer me to the Urey-Miller experiments. They proved nothing as far as abiogenesis is concerned.) Anyone who thinks the functional complexity of even the simplest living organism can arise by chance is a unscientific dreamer.

 

[Rau]

What a pity there is no scientific evidence that suggests that is even remotely possible.

What is scientific evidence to you? You have a blanket rejection on ANYTHING that suggests any type of life existed on earth before 5778 years ago. Not because you find the evidence flawed, but because it is at odds with a personal belief you have - one your Church does not require you to hold.

 

[Glark]

I don’t know. I don’t even know if there ever was “nothing”. It could be the concept of “nothing” is meaningless and has nothing to do with reality at all.

The idea that complex systems and biological machines (life) can arise from chaos certainly has nothing to do with reality at all.

“Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.” - Romans 1:19-20.

 

[Glark]

No where in the first chapter of Genesis, or the next three verses of chapter two, does the phrase “The Power of God” appear.

“For the invisible things of him (God), FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his ETERNAL POWER, also, and DIVINITY: so that they are inexcusable.” - Romans 1:20.

 

[Glark]

All interpretations of the Bible start with the Literal followed by other categories.

“1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23).”

• from scripturecatholic.com