All the fields of science you mention here offer something useful to man - the theory that humans evolved from mud-skippers offers no use at all; it’s as irrelevant as a fairy tale.
You asked me this question a few days ago. I think I suggested nested hierarchies, but you never responded.
That would be as pointless as studying the theory of the Tooth Fairy.
I could start another thread more specific to Darwin’s theory if I can get 5 or more likes I will do it.
My reactions to this debate.
Didn’t we accept that evolution is compatible with Catholicsm already?
What was the state if the earth prior to the start of the first of the 6 days as you understand it?
Yes. It’s a false dichotomy that some people paint to say that you can only believe in either an atheistic Evolution or a theistic young earth creationism. That you have to choose either science or religion. Even before Darwin people knew the earth was quite old. Religious scientists in the 1700s and 1800s figured out there were fossils in the ground. There was an danish bishop who discovered that these triangular things in the ground that looked like shark’s teeth were actually shark’s teeth but have become fossilized over time. They discovered that the sediment gets layered over time and that these processes have been going on for eons. So, even before Darwin it was widely accepted that the earth was quite old. Charles Darwin was actually a theist and accepted that one could be a theist and believe in Evolution. And, actually the debate about the validity of Evolution was in the 1800s. It was in 1870 where Evolution was finally accepted by the scientific community as a whole. After that there was no debate in the scientific community. There is clearly a lot of evidence for Evolution even back in 1870, to sway the entire scientific community, never mind now. Now in 2017 and we are still debating this issue? Talk about beating a dead horse. Here is an interesting video I found of a person who is both a Christian theologian and an evolutionary biologist give a lecture about this very topic. He describes how it is reasonable to both accept Evolution and be a Christian in a Ted talk entitled Going beyond the Evolution vs Creationism debate.
Let me know when creation scientists can get God to miraculously produce life in a test tube - life that can also reproduce. Anything short of that is just paper creationism and empty talk.
You will have to supply the reference from Dobzhansky to substantiate that claim.
And I don’t think that a “day” in Genesis 1 is meant to be taken literally either.
We do. What goes on inside our cells is basically the same as what goes on inside a plant’s cells, so we share a lot of mechanisms which evolved from that single-celled common ancestor. Do some research on mitochondria for an obvious example.
Happily, the Catholic Church has no objection to the bulk of Darwin’s theory.
All of it with the exception of the parts which talk about the soul. The Catholic Church has no objection to evolution and common descent explaining the origin of the material human body. The divine origin of the human soul, and an initial pair of ensouled humans are the minimum that the Church seems to require. It is not difficult to slot that into the rest of the theory, as Ken Miller and many other Catholics have done.