Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[rossum]

So, four billion years ago, when life first got started, evolution said…“LET THERE BE REBIRTH” and this is how rebirth came to be?

You need to have a look at Buddhist/Hindu cosmology. Life started a long time before the Big Bang. At the time of the Big Bang all life was non-material. As I have said before, the Dharmic religions have a very different background to the Abrahamic religions.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So these are two completely separate tracks (material and spiritual) that just happen to coincide when you are “reborn/rehatched/re-whatever at your next destination?” No purpose or intent on the part of a designer or creator, just mere ‘it happens to be that way’ because… …karma happens for no real or apparent reason?

If you want to point to a “designer” of the world that you are living in here and now, look in a mirror. You designed your world yourself by your actions in your previous lives. The purpose and intent are all your own.

None of which has anything to do with the theory of evolution and the Catholic Church.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

At the time of the Big Bang all life was non-material.

You mean spirits ?

 

[rossum]

You mean spirits ?

Spirits, gods, asuras hell-beings, kinnaras etc. Only two of the five/six standard places for rebirth are material: human and animal. The other three or four are all immaterial. Some traditions count asuras the same as gods, others do not.

Again, this is not relevant to the relation between the Catholic Church and evolution.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Spirits, gods, asuras hell-beings, kinnaras etc. Only two of the five/six standard places for rebirth are material: human and animal. The other three or four are all immaterial. Some traditions count asuras the same as gods, others do not.

But, all this is a product of evolution…?

 

[HarryStotle]

If you want to point to a “designer” of the world that you are living in here and now, look in a mirror. You designed your world yourself by your actions in your previous lives. The purpose and intent are all your own.

None of which has anything to do with the theory of evolution and the Catholic Church.

rossum

Yes, but who or what designed the fundamental principle that “You designed your world yourself by your actions in your previous lives. The purpose and intent are all your own.” Who or what designed the principle of a “self” and left the “purpose and intent” in the hands of each self? Surely it wasn’t evolution as a strictly materialistic and random process?

And if some entity established and set into motion the spiritual karmic principle, was it also responsible for the material evolutionary one? If yes, then a designer is involved. If no, then how do the two coincide?

It appears that Buddhism has the same issue regarding Darwinian evolution that the Catholic Church does. That is the “anything” it has to do with the topic.

 

[Techno2000]

Life started a long time before the Big Bang.

I thought you told me life started four billion years ago after the Late Heavy Bombardment .

 

[rossum]

But, all this is a product of evolution…?

I do not know. Evolution requires a set of imperfect replicators under resource constraint. I do not know if kinnaras are imperfect replicators. Nor do I know if they are under resource constraint.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Yes, but who or what designed the fundamental principle that “You designed your world yourself by your actions in your previous lives. The purpose and intent are all your own.” Who or what designed the principle of a “self” and left the “purpose and intent” in the hands of each self?

The same designer as designed your Christian God. Happy? Given anything, one can always ask who/what designed that thing. At some point the questions become useless.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I thought you told me life started four billion years ago after the Late Heavy Bombardment .

According to Christianity, life had no beginning: “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” (emphasis added) Psalm 41:2.

Given that you asked the question, I assumed you were asking about the origin of material life on Earth, not of non-material life.

rossum

 

[HarryStotle]

The same designer as designed your Christian God. Happy? Given anything, one can always ask who/what designed that thing. At some point the questions become useless.

rossum

No, actually, the question doesn’t become useless. The question has to lead to self-explanatory reality – I.e., one which explains itself sufficiently. In classic theism, that reality is Ipsum Esse Subsistens or being whose essence is to exist or the subsistent act of Being itself. The question is what is the nature of existence itself that makes existence a necessary aspect of essence. What is the “what it is” that would make it indistinguishable from “that it is?”

So what is the nature of existence itself that can imply and explain all existing things? Hint: it cannot be nothing.

What can exist of necessity (by its very essence) that can also explain all else that exists? That is where the question retains significance.

To avoid that question in order to concoct whatever it is convenient to believe would be the preferred option for those who declare the question “useless,” but a mere declaration on the matter is not sufficient to make it so.

 

[rossum]

No, actually, the question doesn’t become useless. The question has to lead to self-explanatory reality – I.e., one which explains itself sufficiently.

Why? You are assuming that there was beginning to reality. If reality is eternal, then there is nowhere for any cause/designer to be placed. Reality always pre-exists any proposed cause.

Buddhist reality is eternal and uncaused:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on.”

– Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

If you can posit an eternal uncaused God, then I can posit an eternal uncaused reality.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Although this is the year 5778 according to the Jewish calendar, my understanding is that it has little relevance to the Jewish faith, which in contrast is very much interested when holy days occur during the cycle of each year. The date was determined by a Rabbi Yose ben Halafta who made the calculation in the 2nd century, that creation had occurred 4000 years before. I don’t see this anywhere close to being revealed truth; it’s my opinion that it was his opinion only.

I don’t see Genesis contradicting the facts of science. These facts, however, do not include evolutionary theory as it stands.

Some translations assert that we were moulded from the slime of the earth. At some point God created atoms, and organized them into organic molecules, to bring them together in the creation of life, in its most primitive, unicellular form. He created animals and ultimately us. We did not evolve from slime; it did not transform itself into persons. The slime, the dust, the earth was used to form our bodily nature.

As to the six days, Genesis is speaking about the rotation of the heavens, the celestial sphere and not the earth spinning on its axis. I don’t know what God considers one day; one cycle of creation might be how long it takes the earth to spin full circle, but it could be any length of time He creates, as one dimension of the universe He brings into existence. It must also be remembered that the division of the day into numerical figures, seconds and hours, although invented 5500 years ago, is something new to most people’s lives, popularized since the coming of train schedules and clocks. And, now we know that even the time that clocks keep varies between them depending on their relative velocities.

This leads us to consider how the focus on quantitites, strips events of their inherent meaning. The abhorrence that materialism evokes, has to do with the contemplation of existence without beauty, without goodness, without purpose. The quantifiable is actually merely one small, usually the most insignificant, part of any being. Modern Physics and Mathematics are elements of our spiritual nature, trees in the garden of our relationship with the world, bearing much fruit. We relate to matter through a faculty of the spirit, by means of our own physical nature. There does not exist one large physical experiential universe, but rather persons, one in themselves and one with the world, which constitutes our experiences of the moment. Each physical process and each living being exists as itself, and is something to which we may relate, to perceive, to understand, to feel about and to act upon. Unfortunately, much if not most of science today ignores that formal reality, filtering the experience through a mathematical grid, seeing only shadows of what is.

So, what we’ve got is a hierarchy of being, each layer existing in its own right and constituted by that which exists below, while potentially participating in what is above. At the bottom lie the subatomic, and at the top, we ourselves, who, in Christ meet God in the Beatific Vision, encompassing everything, everywhere and in every time, the infinite Divine Fount from which all springs forth.

 

[edwest211]

To answer the question: Yes, it does in key areas.

1. For the Biology textbook version to be accepted by all, it means materialism is the final answer. A purely materialistic explanation is contrary to the faith. This is not a fault of science as practiced but it means crucial information about who we are as human beings is missing.
2. We have two bodies: one physical and one spiritual. God can destroy both. The soul is integrated into every human body and is created by God.
3. Attempting to say God used a very lengthy series of events that appear to be 100% equal to the claims made in the Biology textbook, I refer to Pope Benedict: "In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."

1. Jesus showed us what God can literally do. God created everything from nothing, and He can raise the dead, give sight to the blind and cleanse (heal) lepers, all without scientific instruments.

We must remain ever vigilant to understand that our end of life is followed by an afterlife. We will be judged by God. Those who claim otherwise can do so but we cannot.

Ed

 

[Rau]

The date [5778 years ago] was determined by a Rabbi Yose ben Halafta who made the calculation in the 2nd century, that creation had occurred 4000 years before. I don’t see this anywhere close to being revealed truth; it’s my opinion that it was his opinion only.

Please refer to Glark who has confirmed the Scriptural significance of 5778 years.

 

[Techno2000]

According to Christianity, life had no beginning: “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” (emphasis added) Psalm 41:2.

This means God has left the memory of himself in man.

Given that you asked the question, I assumed you were asking about the origin of material life on Earth, not of non-material life.

How is non-material life related to evolution, and is this where the laws of rebirth come from ?

 

[rossum]

How is non-material life related to evolution

It isn’t. See what I said above about imperfect replicators and resource constraints.

and is this where the laws of rebirth come from ?

Karma is part of the overall universe, hence it has no origin, being eternal. Think of it as being an integral part, much as gravity is an integral part of the material universe.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

It isn’t. See what I said above about imperfect replicators and resource constraints.

You didn’t say much.

Karma is part of the overall universe, hence it has no origin, being eternal. Think of it as being an integral part, much as gravity is an integral part of the material universe.

So the Big Bang created Karma and rebirth ?

 

[Glark]

Over 15 bill years? Rather like what we’ve concluded from scientific observation and the laws of physics?

Some stars are billions of light-years away. So the stars would need to have been created a rather long tome before the grand opening (the six days and Adam), otherwise humans would not see them.

 

[Glark]

THE DNA genome has been found to have a difference in structure in man. Not present in animals. New, discovery w breaking down genes.

If so, all those atheist scientists out there would deny it, because as we know, they can’t handle the truth.

Science leaning to INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

You could have fooled me. The scientific establishment I know would rather commit mass suicide than concede even one inch to Intelligence Design.

Apple is symbol of disobedience when eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

This “apple” thing needs to be cleared up: It’s my understanding that “apple” was the word for “fruit” in Old English, so this is how the apple came to be mistakenly associated with Adam and Eve.

Apple could be symbol of sex.

Really? How would Adam and Eve “multiply and fill the earth” if sex was forbidden?