Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is the formula: time x a lot of random events = living organisms that can do a wide range of things. The more time the better.
Atheists complain that creationists pull out the “God did it” card to explain how life came into existence, but these athesits have their own version of it - “Billions of years did it”. Apparently it’s “scientific”, but really it’s just belief in magic and superstition.
 
Last edited:
In fact i don’t want scientists to talk about God at all, i want them to do science.
If only they’d stick to science and not contaminate it with vacuous speculations and baseless assumptions. Evolutionary biology is heavily dependant on the latter, unfortunately, which is why it isn’t true science.
 
Last edited:
So you are saying that the development of mammalian features in a reptile does not lend support to the idea of macro evolution?
Reptiles didn’t develop “mammilian features” - it’s a myth. Similarities between creatures doesn’t prove evolution. Evo-scientists say, for example, that some kind of reptilian ancestor of mammals evolved the ability to produce milk - as if it is as easy as falling off a log. They cannot verify that this happened, but they assume it did. This is science; it’s just story-telling.
 
Last edited:
How long did the Venus Flytrap have to sit around waiting for its trap evolve and work ?
It didn’t. It started as a type of Sundew, and had a sticky trap, like all Sundews. The loss of stickiness was kept in step with the increasing speed of the trap by natural selection. Only when the trap closed fast enough to trap the insect was all the stickiness lost. Before then, there had to be enough sticky stuff to hold the insect in place while the trap closed.

This is one of the ways a complex system can evolve: build it with extra parts initially, and then lose the extra parts when everything else is complete.

rossum
 
None of which prove anything.
You need to learn more about science. Proof is for mathematics, not science. No scientific theory is ever proved because it can always be replaced by a better theory, as Newton was replaced by Einstein. You need to learn more about how science works I’m afraid.

Those Therapsid fossils are evidence for the evolution of the mammalian ear and jaw. Science works with evidence. If you want proof then study mathematics instead.

A parable:
When truth was born, it was visited by a magical fairy and blessed with three qualities: the ability to be absolute, the ability to be objective, and the ability to refer to the external world. The condition for this blessing was that truth could only exhibit a maximum of two of those qualities simultaneously. Therefore it could be absolute and objective, but not refer to the external world (mathematical truth). It could be objective and refer to the external world, but not absolute (scientific truth). Finally, it could be absolute and refer to the external world, but not objective (aesthetic truth).
rossum
 
There is no sphere. There is no explosion into anything. There is no centre. There is no edge. You, personally, are at the centre of the universe. The observable universe that is. If you travelled to where you perceive the limit of the universe to be, you would still be at the centre of the universe. The observable universe that is.

The ‘point’ which expanded at the Big Bang was only the point at the centre of what you would consider being the observable universe if you were there. There was no single point. No point from which everything expanded.
 
It didn’t. It started as a type of Sundew, and had a sticky trap, like all Sundews.
How long did the Sundew have to sit around waiting for its trap to evolve, and start working ?
 
Last edited:
How long did the Sundew have to sit around waiting for its trap to evolve, and start working ?
Erm… There about 200 species of Sundew that are catching flies with their sticky leaves. They aren’t “waiting” for anything, any more than you are “waiting” for your children to evolve the NOS3 mutation to enable them to live at higher altitudes.

rossum
 
If the Venus Flytrap evolved from the Sundew, then the Sundew must have evolved from something… what was it ?
 
Last edited:
40.png
anthony022071:
Anyone who knows that God creates through Logos and that he creates things with order will not think that he creates through a random, unguided process or in a manner that looks like it.
And yet evolutionary change does indeed look random and unguided, save for the effect of natural selection. That does not mean it is random.
It does not look random and unguided at all. Its being stated over and over and over, does not make it so. Randomness occurs on an existing order. Given a myriad of known and unknown variables acting on a toss of a die, the result is random. A materialistic view has the laws of physics, as they are currently understood, as the underlying order. Random placement of atoms, they themselves having somehow having randomly appeared, is believed to have resulted in the emergence of life. Random genetic mutation is also believed to be the driver for change in a species over time. Randomness is an assumption made by those who believe that there exists no creative and organizing principle (aka God) that brought this all into being and shaped it in accordance with its will. Had science accepted such primitive explanations and not searched for underlying causes, we’d still be thinking planets are merely wanderers in the dome above us.

Glark above mentioned Mt Rushmore. We are being asked to believe something akin to its having been formed through the action of wind and water. While mountains take a long time to form, one earthquake at a time through basic rudimantary material process, faces on a mountain will not appear however long we give it. What is totally missing in evolutionary theory is that living things are alive. We are alive and think, feel, perceive and act. Our capacities that include what we are doing right here are actualized in time and space, in this world through our bodies, which including our brains. They are required in order that we may exercise our essential relational nature on earth. These bodies are needed to carry out the purpose of creation, to journey to its Maker. What was needed was a new creation to achieve this, atoms cannot and other living creatures cannot; we were shaped and formed of the earth, made in God’s image and ultimately the Word had to ecome one of us, that God’s purpose had to be achieved, that through us the universe may know its Father, the it realize and participate in the eternal Ground that is infinite Love.

To be continued.
 
Last edited:
As physics currently describes life, we should not be talking about species. The idea would be an abstraction, a way to classify individual animals having similar anatomic, physiological, and behavioural features, who produce offspring when they mate. That said, we can go further to claim that there is no individual living being, which means that we ourselves do not exist. If everything were nothing but a collection of molecules exhibiting only those properties associated with that level of matter, animals and species would be figments of our imagination, images and ideas imposed on something very different. But, what then is imagination and thought, and who is imagining and thinking? What usually happens when the hypothesis is found to counter the evidence, is that we throw it out. In the case of Evolutionary Theory however, we throw out the evidence.

Intellectual alienation from reality aside, we can connect with other living creatures, seeing them for what they are, each in itself and also as an expression of something greater. One may wish to contemplate the interaction while petting the next cat you meet. That cat exists as an individual being in itself, defined by its catness which incorporates the particular form that visually identifies it as such and enables it to do cat things in space and time. Within that relationship one will realize that species are no more solely in our minds than is the cat itself.

Material forms of being exist as themselves, atoms comprised of more basic forms, first created from what was an amorphous universe of pure light before photons, itself having been brought previously into existence. Within space and time, they follow their nature, God permitting, exhibiting the constants that govern their relationships and include the laws of physics, such as that of thermodynamics. As they exist, individual single cell organisms exist, as themselves and exhibiting the qualities that make them what they are. These include their molecular make-up, which is incorporated into the wholeness, the being that is each one. We who are made of organ systems, comprised of cells engaged in countless varied physiological pricesses, are likewise one in ourselves, and by virtue of our human nature, one with everything we connect with by means of our relational nature (aka, ultimately our capacity to love).

There is no apparent randomness in any of this, only to those adhering to the shared illusion propagated through the narrow and distorted vision of creation that the social phenomenon of modern science provides.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. Microevolution does not contradict our faith, considering it is the basic idea of natural selection, that organisms can grow and change as time goes on (certain animals can become accustomed to extreme climates). Macroevolution is where the problem lies; that an organism of one species can give rise to a completely different organism (i.e. a whale could come on land and eventually turn into a cow). This contradicts Catholicism and reason and that’s where Darwin got it wrong.
 
There is no apparent randomness in any of this, only to those adhering to the shared illusion propagated through the narrow and distorted vision of creation that the social phenomenon of modern science provides.
Right , How can random chemicals produce something that can …think,reason and imagine ?
 
@Techno2000
@Aloysium
@edwest211
@Glark

Questions:

If you have college age relatives who want to major in a life science field would you suggest a Catholic university that teaches courses in evolution or a conservative Christian college that does not teach courses in evolution?

Do you know of any Catholic colleges that do not teach courses in evolution? The only colleges I can think of where evolution is not studied are colleges and universities, like Liberty, that are operated by very conservative Christian denominations. (As far as I have ever heard, colleges operated by the Catholic church or by mainline Protestant denominations have no issues with teaching evolution.) Even then, some conservative church-affiliated colleges teach evolution
 
Which colleges and universities do and do not teach evolution does not answer the question that started this thread. God used to be part of public schools but that was taken away, and evolution as taught excludes God. I understand that science cannot study the supernatural, but to really understand who human beings are we need to know who created us.
 
If the Venus Flytrap evolved from the Sundew, then the Sundew must have evolved from something… what was it ?
Look at the Tree of Life. Sundews and Flytraps are both members of the Droseraceae. Look at the other members of the Droseraceae, and the next larger group, Caryophyllales, for an idea of what the Sundew’s ancestor looked like.

That is what common descent means. We share recent ancestors with our close relations; more distant ancestors with less close relations and very distant ancestors with our very distant relations.

If you go back far enough then there was some single-celled Eukaryote which we share as a common ancestor with Sundews. Both ourselves and Sundews are Eukaryotes.

rossum
 
40.png
fisherman_carl:
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.
And some laymen think they are, too… 😉
 
Looking at it from a Catholic perspective, I would also like to mention design. I can take a 3-D program and design a basic creature framework: head, upper and lower torso, and four limbs. Using that template and using human and animal skeleton models, I could change hooves to hands and feet, change size relative to a human, remodel the skull and so on. From an environment standpoint, it would have to function in earth gravity, breathe our air and eat available vegetation and/or meat and fish. All of these details need to be perfectly integrated, with a few modifications. Dogs have a better sense of smell than humans, a few birds have better long-range vision. On top of that, they have to integrate with their environment. So, just building a creature that is functional does not mean it can eat what vegetation or animals are available or breathe our air or visually perceive its environment correctly. So going from a single cell organism to an unnecessary and hard to believe, self-upgrading ability, makes the theory suspect. As any good science journal will tell you, there are shared genes between different creatures, but if I was designing creatures to survive on earth, sure certain genes would be needed in all creatures created in order for them to survive in the same environmental conditions.
 
I don’t live in the USA. Actually, my niece tried to get into medical school, quite a few years ago now. She has an MSc in some subspecialty of Biology; she knew where to apply.

I’m not sure you really want to know that, or how familiar we are with the educational system in your country.

I gather you are trying to communicate something.

The way it is presented can be felt to be bullying, a way of saying that all those learned people agree with you. All sorts of professors spent in total countless hours in lecture halls, reading journals, doing research, and some random internet peon, like me here, thinks he’s smarter than all of them. How utterly ridiculous! That may be why you didn’t bother to respond to my post; it wasn’t worth the read. You are also appearing to imply that we, let’s focus on me since you mention my username, that I don’t know what the church teaches.

You may wish to check the Catechism. After all, you should care whether you are approaching the truth or merely chasing shadows, going nowhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top