Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Rau]

The truth behind it, that we are spiritual and material beings, one humanity descendant from two original parents features nowhere in the Theory

So what? The theory builds on evidence and proposes no more or less than the evidence can suggest. The theory can address no more than is knowable by science.

 

[Aloysium]

What is knowable is couched in assumptions, materialistic assumptions, that are supported because the bulk of scientists are coerced into accepting a limited version of reality. They are already indoctrinated by the time they get to post-graduate studies, because the more one repeats the professor’s words, the better the marks. If you do so with meaning, excellent. So people, as always, are afraid to go beyond what they are told for fear of being labelled pseudo-scientists. So the essentially assumptions become fact and there will be no movement beyond that because what is considered evidence has been restricted and what is deemed knowable by science, self-limited.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

What would be the bulk?

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.

The exceptions include the part about random mutations and natural selection as the primary means for the creation of life. These two basically explain how celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia and the like remain in the gene pool and perhaps how they may have originated. These are diseases, not attributes like mathematics, or visual arts, or music, or the fields of economics, political science, philosophy, the stuff that defines human potential.

Using the term “evolution” to describe what are aspects of evolution with which the church has no issue, does not help clarify the matter. The word is used in so many different ways. What I mean by evolution is the strict biochemical meaning that is at the basis of modern thought in the various natural sciences including medicine. Probably most people think evolution in the sense of a progression upwards in complexity that is seen everywhere about us, but for which there exists no scientific explanation. Well, some secular pseudoscientific have been offered but they tend to be superficial and far worse than any proposed by the Intelligent Design people.

There is nothing inherent in the material universe that itself will result in a human being, nor an animal before that, a plant before that, going all the way back to the beginning when the laws of the universe, including time and space, were brought into existence. A common descent is spoken of in Genesis, which sees all life is made from the earth, each a separate creation moulded as it would appear today as the result of what existed in the past.

God created all life on earth, one with its environment, which we do a poor job replicating in our zoos and aquariums. It all changes - life adapts to the environment, which is transformed by its presence. Simple life forms, plants, animals, and human beings have changed since God initially brought them forth from the dust. This is what the church, as I understand it, would agree to.

 

[rossum]

The exceptions include the part about random mutations and natural selection as the primary means for the creation of life.

Neither of those processes were involved in abiogenesis – the origin of life. Both only get going after the initial origin of life. Abiogenesis is much more about chemistry.

Science says nothing about the involvement of gods in the origin of material life. Did Vishnu quietly nudge a few amino acid molecules together? Science cannot tell you. Did Zeus send a lightning bolt at just the right moment? Science cannot tell you.

These two basically explain how celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia and the like remain in the gene pool and perhaps how they may have originated.

If God created everything, then God created mutation and natural selection. If God is omniscient they He was fully aware of the impact of mutation and natural selection on both animals and humans.

A common descent is spoken of in Genesis, which sees all life is made from the earth, each a separate creation moulded as it would appear today as the result of what existed in the past.

You are ignoring Genesis 1:20 which has fish and birds arising from the waters, not from the earth. That gives at least two separate origins for animal life, not one. The post-Adam animals in Genesis 2:19 appear to be yet a third origin, formed after the pre-Adam animals from Genesis 1:24.

Simple life forms, plants, animals, and human beings have changed since God initially brought them forth from the dust. This is what the church, as I understand it, would agree to.

Erm… Didn’t you just say above “each a separate creation moulded as it would appear today” (emphasis added). I am not following you here. Have organisms changed since they first appeared or not?

rossum

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

estion for science, any science. You’re not going to find God showing up in biology, climatology, hydrology, cosmology, geology, physics, chemistry, epidemiology or any of the other hundreds of areas of research. The fundamental problem appears to be that some people just cannot fathom that they are wrong in their Biblical interpretation.

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.

Why is the mud-skipper-to-man theory so important to you? Is it going to stop you getting old? Will it add years to your life? Does it make your dollar go further? Will it increase your chances of dating a super-model?

I’m sorry. Why does the utility of a theory matter? But as a matter of fact, understanding human evolution is critical to medicine.

And once again, we have you just using phrases like “mud skipper”. I don’t know whether you’re proud of your apparent ignorance, but ignorance is nothing to be proud of.

 

[niceatheist]

I’m Catholic and I don’t buy into the Darwin thing. Does that mean I have a “lack of knowledge”, that I am not smart, that I am just one of those “Deplorables” that Hillary talks about? I get a little tired of intellectually smug arguments that go something like–“if you were smarter you wold agree with me”. I believe in God and the Catholic Church and if that means to some that I am intellectually deficient–well, so be it.

What would be your impression of someone who said “I believe the sun and planets orbit the Earth?”

 

[niceatheist]

Evolution claims humans and plants share a common ancestor. That’s so funny!
People actually believe this stuff. That’s so funny!

An argument from incredulity is a fallacious argument. Do you have an actual critique, because from where I’m sitting, it looks like you know nothing about biology or evolution.

But let me restate my question I asked to (and apologies if missed the answer earlier). What possible observation would you predict that would be incompatible with “God did it?” I know how evolution could falsified, or at least common descent, so tell me how I could falsify YOUR claim.

 

[RoseofMary1]

Just saying nah-nah does not “debunk” the facts. Anyone who has actually looked at the evidence, like pottery, ancient buildings, even fossilized dinosaur next to human tracks, are not fooled by those who simply pooh-pooh it all.

 

[HarryStotle]

Don’t declines in populations decrease diversity and increase inbreeding? Do endangered species magically adapt and rebound without help or significant changes in their favor? Let’s say 90% of a certain pigeon are annihilated how will the remaining 10% evolve with such small diversity. Magic perhaps? The flying speghetti monster I assume. There’s no coming back from extinction unless you’re assuming God intervenes.

The proliferation of “super” bugs resilient to antibiotics and disinfectants argues against your assumption. The resilient strains are even less than 10%, so the capacity of genomes to “rebound without help or significant changes” may be a feature of evolution and not a “bug” or a fault, so to speak.

The resiliency of the genome structure may, however, point towards design rather than accidental accretion. Yes, I realize this is controversial.

 

[HarryStotle]

Evolution claims humans and plants share a common ancestor. That’s so funny!
People actually believe this stuff. That’s so funny!

Well, it would be, except that the fact that all life on earth is based upon genetic information seems to deflate the humor. The common genetic structure is not so easy to dismiss or to scoff at.

 

[Glark]

Oh look, an out of context quote.

Saying it’s out of context is one thing; proving it is another.

 

[Glark]

Boy you’re just pulling the quote mines of the Creationist sites. Asked and answered below:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html1

The link you provide more or less supports the quotes I used: Horse evolution was long marketed as one of the best examples of Darwinian evolution, and cherished accordingly … but not anymore.

When you hear Darwinists saying things like “horse evolution didn’t proceed in a straight line” and “horse evolution was not smooth and gradual … and occasionally reversed direction” and when the magic of Punctuated Equilibrium is resorted to, you know they are really clutching at straws. Understandably, the cult of Darwinism is having trouble letting go of this former poster-child.

 

[Glark]

When you say we evolved from a “grub”, it indicates you have little or no knowledge of vertebrate evolution. “Grub” isn’t even a meaningful taxonomical description, since it could probably refer to any number of species from many different branches of Animalia.

Yes, well I wasn’t trying to be Darwinian-correct. Writing “grub” is easier than writing “unicellular organism”, for example. Plus, I don’t much care what little critter humans supposedly evolved from - anymore than I care what colour the Tooth Fairy’s hair is.

 

[Glark]

Well, it would be, except that the fact that all life on earth is based upon genetic information seems to deflate the humor. The common genetic structure is not so easy to dismiss or to scoff at.

The common genetic information is explained by a Creator who sensibly decided to use the same genetic “building blocks” to build very different organisms.

 

[rossum]

Yes, well I wasn’t trying to be Darwinian-correct. Writing “grub” is easier than writing “unicellular organism”, for example.

You need to learn more. A grub is not unicellular, it is a metazoan, with many cells. You will not convince any of us if you show continuing lack of relevant knowledge like this.

Better to learn more about the subject before posting further.

rossum

 

[Glark]

You need to learn more. A grub is not unicellular, it is a metazoan, with many cells.

Ya don’t say! Thanks for lettting me know.

 

[Glark]

What was the state if the earth prior to the start of the first of the 6 days as you understand it?

The earth was covered in water and lifeless. Like Noah’s Flood minus the ark and few odds and ends like the Sun and moon. Not exactly the same, in other words, but the similarities are interesting.

 

[Glark]

Some people seem to think that Evolution is an atheist’s fantasy when actually it was many who were religious and scientists that discovered it. It was also a priest who discovered the Big Bang.

That settles it then - everyone knows priests are impeccable and infallible, esp when it comes to science.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m Catholic and I don’t buy into the Darwin thing. Does that mean I have a “lack of knowledge”, that I am not smart, that I am just one of those “Deplorables” that Hillary talks about? I get a little tired of intellectually smug arguments that go something like–“if you were smarter you wold agree with me”. I believe in God and the Catholic Church and if that means to some that I am intellectually deficient–well, so be it.

A lack of knowledge, or ignorance of certain facts, does not indicates that someone is not smart. I’d bet that Einstein was pretty ignorant when it came to cricket for example.

But what we have in this thread are examples of people arguing from ignorance. Almost all their posts exhibit it. There wouldn’t be a problem having a discussion about evolution with someone who understood it but gave good reasons for her own point of view. But that is precisely what we are not getting. It would be like me telling Rossum that I don’t buy into the ‘Buddhism thing’ without me knowing anything about it.

You can take some bizarre pride in your ignorance if it keeps you warm on a cold night but please don’t conflate anyone’s basic knowledge of science with them claiming to be an intellectual. Or their belief in God. Or being a Catholic.

 

[Glark]

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.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you try and compare science to religion previously? Science requires empirical evidence; faith doesn’t (that’s why it’s called “faith”). You’re flogging a dead horse here.

Abiogenesis scientists have produced lipid bilayers, purines, pyrimidines, amino acids and ribozymes in test tubes. Creation scientists have done none of these things. You are trying to fit your God into a gap in scientific knowledge.

Big deal. Dead molecules are a universe away from life - that also reproduces. Dream on.