Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you get something, from nothing ?
But that’s not even a question, is it, Tech? It’s an accusation where you have swapped the exclamation mark for a question mark (it’s not even relevant to the matter at hand in any case, but I’m not expecting you to understand that).

Again, you are not the slightest bit interested in any other explanations other than the ones you have already decided upon, which are based on a complete lack of understanding. You are nowhere near being well read enough about the subject being discussed to offer any rebuttal of any scientific explanations given whatsoever. All you have to offer is the forum equivalent of ‘Yeah, right…’ and ‘As if…’. Honestly, it’s schoolyard standard.

When the subject of evolution was again allowed to be discussed in the old forum, after a flurry of nonsensical posts in the first few weeks, it settled down, in the main, to a reasonable discussion about the pros and conns of various viewpoints. Both scientific and theological. It was interesting. Sometimes thought provoking. Just what a forum discussion is meant to be.

But this? It’s like when you’re watching a B movie on late night TV that is so bad you just have to keep watching.
 
40.png
Techno2000:
How do you get something, from nothing ?
But that’s not even a question, is it, Tech? It’s an accusation where you have swapped the exclamation mark for a question mark (it’s not even relevant to the matter at hand in any case, but I’m not expecting you to understand that).

Again, you are not the slightest bit interested in any other explanations other than the ones you have already decided upon, which are based on a complete lack of understanding. You are nowhere near being well read enough about the subject being discussed to offer any rebuttal of any scientific explanations given whatsoever. All you have to offer is the forum equivalent of ‘Yeah, right…’ and ‘As if…’. Honestly, it’s schoolyard standard.

When the subject of evolution was again allowed to be discussed in the old forum, after a flurry of nonsensical posts in the first few weeks, it settled down, in the main, to a reasonable discussion about the pros and conns of various viewpoints. Both scientific and theological. It was interesting. Sometimes thought provoking. Just what a forum discussion is meant to be.

But this? It’s like when you’re watching a B movie on late night TV that is so bad you just have to keep watching.
Well, rossum has different approach with me…he’s more understanding.
 
40.png
niceatheist:
I’m sorry, I’m going to take the findings of generations of researchers over the words of random posters on the Internet.
In that case, you won’t have any trouble citing one evolutionary scientist who says the theory that all life on earth has evolved from unicelllar organisms has been tested and confirmed.
It’s been confirmed. All extant life fits in a hiearchy pointing to a common ancestor.
 
It’s been confirmed. All extant life fits in a hiearchy pointing to a common ancestor.
Sure it has … Not. If there is no God, it must have happened that way, right?

What did a platypus evolve from?

Quote one evolutionary biologist who says is a fact that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms.
 
Last edited:
40.png
niceatheist:
It’s been confirmed. All extant life fits in a hiearchy pointing to a common ancestor.
Sure it has … Not. If there is no God, it must have happened that way, right?
How does Common Descent in any way say anything about God’s existence or involvement?
What did a platypus evolve from?
Early mammals like all other mammals. You understand that the theories on mammal evolution state that mammals evolved from reptile or reptile-like animals (hence the platypus’s egg laying).
 
Last edited:
Why would God directly compare six literal days of human work to the six days of creation (Exodus 20:11) if he didn’t want us to believe that the length of the six days of creation were literally 24 hours each?
Why God himself would need to put himself “to work” for six days to persuade us that we should do the same is another question.
 
Ipso facto, all snowflakes are designed. I would have thought that rather than God designing individual snowflakes, He would have set up some sort of system so that they formed…what’s the word I’m looking for…? Ah yes. Naturally.
The formation of a human from 2 gametes is an even more complex feat. Aside from creating a soul (and that’s a statement I don’t pretend to fully understand) where do we place God’s participation in that process? Who knows. But we go about studying the process (as man’s curiosity drives us to do) and more and more of it is understood. And what we can understand can come to be harnessed, be it for good or evil.
 
How do you get something, from nothing ?
Certainly evolution has nothing to say about that - it does not attempt or pretend to address that. AFAIK, there is no theory or speculation gaining broad support that explains what gave rise to the Big Bang (if that is taken as our earliest understanding of the origin of the universe having any significant level of support).
 
I know it’s…Abiogenesis, I will try to do better next time.
That’s not about getting something from nothing either - which I took to be a reference to the creation of time, space, matter…from”nothing.

Presumably you’re asking how we go from inanimate to animate (life). I’ve got no idea.
 
And how does this relate to the theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms?
It shows that a new species can easily (just three mutations) evolve from an earlier species. It may take more than three, but it shows the potential for new species to arise.

Given that new species can arise from mutations, Then there is no observed barrier for three, four, five etc. new species to evolve from earlier species.

The fossil record shows that earlier lifeforms were generally simpler, and that no multicellular life was present before about 550 million years ago. All fossils before that time, back to the start of life were unicellular. We can see that they were evolving during that time – photosynthesis evolved during that time, about 2,400 million years ago.

Given that all the earliest life was unicellular, that it was evolving and that new species evolve from older species then the conclusion that the very first life was unicellular.

rossum
 
So, that must mean that the laws of Karma and rebirth come from nothing.
So, that must mean that your God must also come from nothing, because He is also eternal, like the Buddhist universe.

You posit an eternal uncreated God. I posit an eternal uncreated universe. Both of us have an eternal uncreated entity. Be careful that properties you attribute to my entity are also applicable to your equivalent entity.

rossum
 
Here is something I don’t understand: If an atheist were walking along the beach and came across his name written in the sand, he would not conclude that is was the result of a fluke of nature. He would instead conclude that it was the result of intelligent design (to wit: a human being). But when it comes an infinitely more complex feat that writing a name in the sand - namely putting together even the simplest living organism - an atheist will claim is wasn’t the result of intelligent design, but the result of a fluke of nature!

What can account for this strange reversal of logic? To make things even more bizarre, the atheist will also claim that his back-to-front reasoning is “scientific”.
An atheist has independent evidence of the existence of human beings. An atheist does not have independent evidence of the existence of Vishnu, YHWH, Amaterasu or the various other entities to which intelligent design may be attributed.

The study of the chemistry of abiogenesis is making progress, so there is the part of an explanation there, with the prospect of more to come. Evolution is already known to be able to add complexity to living organisms.

One side has a proposed cause with no evidence for its existence: Vishnu or equivalent. The other side has a partly known cause in chemistry, with a well known mechanism for further progress: evolution. Your atheist’s position is perfectly reasonable.

rossum
 
How do you get something, from nothing ?
Easily:
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
Cosmology is a very strange subject. It is often a mistake to assume that what works on the small earth-size scale will also work on the cosmological scale.

rossum
 
It’s been confirmed. All extant life fits in a hiearchy pointing to a common ancestor.
All that exists fits in a hierarchy pointing to one Creator, who brings and brought it into being one step at a time.

There need not have been a common living ancestor. There was likely a time here when there were only unicellular creatures. They may have started with one type of creature, but most likely, many. Each would result in a different lineage, some to plants, some to molluscs and such, others to bugs, and yet others to animals. It may be among a variety of possibilities, but not necessarily, that there existed one life-form that is the common ancestor to all life.

Since all physical beings have been formed from the earth, we might say that it is the common ancestor of all nature. Some would see it is the sun. At some point however, neither the earth nor the sun existed. If we go back to the beginning, we are likely to conclude that in the beginning there was light, from which all else came into being one step at a time. While space remains filled with light travelling in every direction, there was a time when it was all just light, as an amorphous plasma, before the creation of photons. I would consider that light to be a common ancestor of all creation. I would further understand it as the material aspect of the is-ness that is at the foundation of everything brought into being as other, by the Source of all this wonder, now and always.

Let’s step back and consider that accompanying the growing anatomical complexity that occured in time, is an experiential dimension involving at least perception. The simplest would be found in the tactile encounters of unicellular creatures within their environment as they react to what sustains them and what poses a danger. At the other end of the spectrum we have this monitor and these words. Some believe these differences appeared in an instant, but most think that it took a very long time to create. Some postulate that random mutations resulted serendipitously in all this diversity that we see today; most don’t.

This universe is made up of different stuff with specific attributes that did not exist in the beginning. These attributes can be known through our capacity to relate to different forms of being. We exist as they exist, each with our particular given nature. Ours is a human nature, as atoms have an atomic nature. They do what they do and we do what we do, both as one whole being, made up of constitutent parts which have temporarily surrendered their individual being to become part of an encompassing unity. Again, the foundation of all forms of being is light itself. And, light is the material aspect of what is itself, love. In other words, all creation exists within the universe of God’s infinite compassion. Each individual component of the entire cosmos emerges from the eternal Fount of limitless creativity and goodness. There is one common Divine ancestor - one Father, one Son, who became one of us that we might become one with Him, and one Spirit uniting us within ourselves, with one another and with Him - God.
 
Last edited:
You posit an eternal uncreated God. I posit an eternal uncreated universe. Both of us have an eternal uncreated entity. Be careful that properties you attribute to my entity are also applicable to your equivalent entity.
What influence did your entity have on evolution?
 
40.png
niceatheist:
It’s been confirmed. All extant life fits in a hiearchy pointing to a common ancestor.
All that exists fits in a hierarchy pointing to one Creator, who brings and brought it into being one step at a time.

There need not have been a common living ancestor. There was likely a time here when there were only unicellular creatures. They may have started with one type of creature, but most likely, many. Each would result in a different lineage, some to plants, some to molluscs and such, others to bugs, and yet others to animals. It may be among a variety of possibilities, but not necessarily, that there existed one life-form that is the common ancestor to all life.
That all life falls into a tree that leads back to a common ancestor is a critical prediction of Common Descent. That it has been confirmed by molecular analysis and by the geological column should give you pause before you simply dismiss it.

Now no one these days believes that the Last Universal Common Ancestor was actually a single organism. Since prokaryotes are awfully good and exchanging genes even across species, and it is assumed even simpler cells would have had an easy time integrating chunks of other genomes (not to mention all the primordial viruses hanging around at the time), it’s now posited that LUCA would have been a population of early cells, a bush rather than a root.

At any rate, the whole point I bring this up is because this notion of LUCA, of a an earliest common ancestor (or population of ancestors) is a critical prediction, and the way that prediction is made is that all extant species we can observe nowadays will fall within a hierarchy, the tree of life, that leads back to LUCA. And sure enough, the geological column and the molecular data, two separate lines of evidence, both confirm this prediction.

Now of course, the appearance of a hierarchy could be false. Maybe God made it look that way for His own inscrutable reasons. Maybe he did build a template and just knock of species based on it, again making it appear that everything we see today sat in a tree of life. But then again, God could literally do anything. He could have a hundred different apparent lineages all of which appear to have different LUCAs, or any combination thereof. And that’s the point, you can actually hypothetically find evidence to falsify Common Descent. Just find a population of organisms hanging out in a dark cave that use different nucleotides, or even some more bizarre genetic system. But I can think of no test that could ever be applied to falsify the notion that God did it and made it look like a tree of life.

And that’s the problem with invoking God to explain these sorts of problems. Invoking God explains all possible observations; it explains everything, and thus explains nothing. The claim, even if true, lacks all epistemological utility.
 
There need not have been a common living ancestor.
Correct, but if there was more than one origin then those other trees have almost certainly died out. It is just possible that a little of their DNA (or RNA) may live on in modern organisms, just as some humans today have a few percent Neanderthal DNA.
There was likely a time here when there were only unicellular creatures. They may have started with one type of creature, but most likely, many. Each would result in a different lineage, some to plants, some to molluscs and such, others to bugs, and yet others to animals.
You are pitching things at far too high a level. Your plants, molluscs, bugs and animals are all Eukaryotes. You need to look much earlier in time when the Eubacteria, Archaea and Eukaryotes, the three Domains, were separating or perhaps even before that.

rossum
 
And that’s the problem with invoking God to explain these sorts of problems. Invoking God explains all possible observations; it explains everything, and thus explains nothing. The claim, even if true, lacks all epistemological utility.
The problem that my post would be addressing runs far deeper than science can fathom.
And, there seems to be no explanation for it, since words will always prove inadequate.
But there is an answer, actually quite clear, found in state of being we may all hope to reach.

Quoting Thomas Merton:
. . . But it cannot be explained. There is no way of telling people that they are all walking around shining like the sun. Then it was as if I suddenly saw the secret beauty of their hearts, the depths of their hearts where neither sin nor desire nor self-knowledge can reach, the core of their reality, the person that each one is in God’s eyes. If only they could all see themselves as they really are. If only we could see each other that way all the time. . .
Therein we find some utility for invoking God.
 
Last edited:
40.png
niceatheist:
And that’s the problem with invoking God to explain these sorts of problems. Invoking God explains all possible observations; it explains everything, and thus explains nothing. The claim, even if true, lacks all epistemological utility.
The problem that my post would be addressing runs far deeper than science can fathom.
And, there seems to be no explanation for it, since words will always prove inadequate.
But there is an answer, actually quite clear, found in state of being we may all hope to reach.

Quoting Thomas Merton:
. . . But it cannot be explained. There is no way of telling people that they are all walking around shining like the sun. Then it was as if I suddenly saw the secret beauty of their hearts, the depths of their hearts where neither sin nor desire nor self-knowledge can reach, the core of their reality, the person that each one is in God’s eyes. If only they could all see themselves as they really are. If only we could see each other that way all the time. . .
Therein we find some utility for invoking God.
Except I don’t buy your claim, which seems fundamentally circular to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top