Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Techno2000]

The older one gets, the more one sees what random mutations bring - a decrease in one’s social circle, if one is able to temporarily avoid those profound health issues, oneself. In addition to cancer, we all get old, things wear out. A baby starts out so fresh and new. What possible random mutation of genetic material would have caused this most amazing trait, exhibited by all life from its beginnings in time?

Right, and evolution knew how to set every living thing its own lifespan .

 

[Techno2000]

How in the world is a animal that’s half one thing and… half another, going to survive ? And because evolution takes so long they must be stuck in that position for eons.

 

[Rau]

In the beginning there was nothing. Then Mr.Mutant Cell sprung up out of nothing and feasted on chemicals.Soon Mr.Mutant Cell grew tired of chemicals and then feasted on sunlight (photosynthesis). Soon Mr.Mutant Cell grew tired of sunlight and feasted on …what ?

It seems you overlooked my question put to you and you preferred to attempt ridicule. I demonstrated your assertion requiring all animals in todays food chain to be created together was false.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

In the beginning there was nothing. Then Mr.Mutant Cell sprung up out of nothing and feasted on chemicals.Soon Mr.Mutant Cell grew tired of chemicals and then feasted on sunlight (photosynthesis). Soon Mr.Mutant Cell grew tired of sunlight and feasted on …what ?

It seems you overlooked my question put to you and you preferred to attempt ridicule. I demonstrated your assertion requiring all animals in todays food chain to be created together was false.

The Food Chain works…if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

 

[Glark]

Biologists use it to, among other things, predict the time that vaccines will stop being effective, prescribe antibiotic regimens to prevent the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections like MRSA (and predict and explain their existence in the first place), and explain anatomical and physiological quirks that would make no sense otherwise (like allergies, appendicitis, etc).

You will find that, on close examination, there is not a solitary example of applied biology that is dependent on the theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms. The cult of Darwinism wants people to believe otherwise, of course, which is all part of the deception. From this deception comes nonsense like “the theory of evolution is the unifying concept of biology” and Dobzhansky’s (in)famous claim that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

The truth is, biology doesn’t need stories about whales evolving from a deer or humans evolving from a monkey-man or chickens being dinosaurs-in-disguise. What is useful to biology is the facts of here and now, not bizarre tales and curiosities of ancient history.

And be aware that under the wide umbrella of “evolution” are found both facts and non-facts. For example, antibiotic resistance is “evolution” and is a fact. On the other hand, while the theory that humans descended from a monkey-man is also called “evolution”, it is certainly not a fact.
So if you google “medical applications of evolutionary principles”, you will find many medical applications for certain factsthat are found under the umbrella of “evolution”, but you won’t find any medical applications for the non-facts that are found under the umbrella of “evolution”.
The moral of the story is, don’t be misled into thinking that, since it is a fact there are uses for “evolution” in applied science, it must also be a fact that all life on earth evolved from unicellular life forms.

 

[Glark]

And again, if it isn’t true, then why do the majority of biologists insist on using it to explain everything?

Don’t be fooled by Darwinist biologists and their “explanations”. An explanation - regardless of the theory behind it - is worthless and pointless if it has no practical application. Evolutionary biology offers an never-ending stream of impressive-sounding explanations … which give the impression that they prove the theory and that explanations per se are precious and useful. But this is not the case at all; rather, these explanations amount to nothing more than hyped-up story-telling, the scientific value of which is zero.

“That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs – ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements.”
Professor Bounoure, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79.

there isn’t anything inherent to Darwinian evolution that contradicts anything theologically true.

I believe this is incorrect, because I believe billions of years of evolution cannot be reasonably reconciled with what is written in the Bible - despite what our corrupted Church says.

 

[Glark]

The Gall mite is the same age as the materials in the amber?

 

[Glark]

If evolution was true, you would think that out of all the thousands of different kinds of animals we have on earth now, at least ONE could be seen transforming

If evolution is how God “created”, then evolution has stopped, since God rested from his creative work on the seventh day.

 

[Glark]

The point I’m trying to make is, even if it was to develop a more complex digestive systems there is only chemicals and sunlight out there for it to use… that’s it. Where is the new food source coming from, for a new creature ?

If I were a theistic evolutionist I could reply to tricky (nuisance infidel) questions like this with “I don’t know, but with God in charge of evolution, all things are possible.” An atheistic evolutionist, on the other hand, can’t pull out the “God-did-it” card, but has to concoct some kind of “scientific” explanation.

 

[Glark]

kolbecentre.org is a Catholic site devoted to a traditional view of creation and opposing the theory of evolution. I recommend it.

 

[Glark]

According to Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, this declaration was made at he Council of Colonge, 1860 - “Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that … those who … assert … man … emerged from spontaneous continuous change from imperfect nature to more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.” (Five Answers for Stacy Trasancos about Evolution, kolbecentre.org)

Whoa! What? If this declaration is authentic, it says anyone who claims man emerged by a process of evolution is “clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and the Faith”. In which case, wouldn’t that qualify them as heretics? Theistic evolutionists are heretics?

 

[Aloysium]

• The question of the origin of man’s body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church’s right to define matters touching on Revelation.
• Catholics must believe, however, that humans have souls created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.
• All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in “polygenism”, the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans

If one’s beliefs concerning our origins are in accord with these teachings, one is no heretic.

I’m not sure what defines a theistic evolutionists, but to believe that God’s days, which include no nights and no sleep, are identical to our days is presumptuous. Equally so is to set limits on how He could have formed our bodies. We are clearly not renovated apes, but a new creation. God’s thoughts and ways are not ours. I do believe Eve came from Adam as he slept. I gave my own explanation for this either on this thread or the many that preceded it. I don’t have much allegiance to it because it is merely what sense I now make of shadows cast by the truth.

 

[Aloysium]

Took a quick look at the Kolbe site, in particular the article on theistic evolution. It’s a big stretch to say such views are Albigensian.

There are different ways to make sense of the remnants we find of living beings that preceded us.

An ape could not have been infused with a human spirit since it would have a life of its own. The soul of an ape with its solely temporal and instinctive nature could not have been upgraded.

That said, a human embryo as a new creation could have been split in two and grown in the uterus of an animal. It is no less dignified or reasonable than waking up fully formed on the ground, and literally from a grown man’s rib, forming a woman.

There’s all sorts of ways to fit together the pieces of the puzzle. Some sounding far-fetched, I suppose, but not as weird as what evolutionary theory expects us to believe.

 

[edwest211]

The first single celled organism, let’s assume, needed a way to convert light or chemicals into food/energy. So, chemicals contained in a lipid bubble means it can’t do anything. It has no conversion machinery. It has no reproduction machinery. To put it another way, it has no functionality.

 

[rossum]

The first single celled organism, let’s assume, needed a way to convert light or chemicals into food/energy. So, chemicals contained in a lipid bubble means it can’t do anything. It has no conversion machinery. It has no reproduction machinery. To put it another way, it has no functionality.

Ribozymes.

rossum

 

[Goya]

I’ll state my take on the matter very succinctly to simply state that anyone who denies intelligence in the creation of our world, while championing evolution, champions the ultimate self-contradiction in pretending the latter could even exist at all, let alone perpetuate itself infinitely, absent the former.

To believe thusly, is to believe in the omnipotent benevolence of pure happenstance–of the plausibility and probability of convenient accidents, accidentally happening, trillions and trillions to the trillionth power, over and over again, accidentally becoming ever more elaborate, more efficient, and more complex…accidentally.

But nevermind my humble take…I’ll simply recommend two fantastic (and easy reading) books on the matter:

1. “Chance or Purpose?” by Cardinal Christoph Schnborn;

“The correct path to follow,” says the Cardinal, “is not choosing between the ‘Darwinian
story’ and ‘creationism’, as people like to suggest, but a coexistence of ‘Darwin’s ladder’ with
‘Jacob’s ladder.’” He says that we do not know “how the Creator made his works, how he
sustained them and guided their development … But we can be assured that the Creator, through
his Love and Spirit, is present in all created things – and gives them meaning and purpose.”

“Reason and love are the material from which the world was made, of which it consists, and
_ with which it is being perfected,” he says. “ … For what kind of evolution would it be if_
_ resurrection and eternal life were not its ultimate goal?_”

https://www.amazon.com/Chance-Purpose-Creation-Evolution-Rational/dp/1586172123

1. “The Everlasting Man” by G.K. Chesterton;

> Everlasting Man had a decisive role in one of the most important conversions of the this century. C.S. Lewis described reading it in 1925 when he was still an atheist: “Then I read Chesterton’s Everlasting Man and for the first time saw the whole Christian outline of history set out in a form that seemed to me to make sense . . . I already thought Chesterton the most sensible man alive;apart from his Christianity; Now, I veritably believe, I thought that Christianity itself was very sensible;apart from its Christianity.”

https://www.amazon.com/Everlasting-...g+man+g.k.+chesterton&dpID=51XQLFD6hXL&preST=SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40&dpSrc=srch

 

[Goya]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The pieces just accidentally fell right into place.

Pretty darn convenient, once it further accidentally fell into place, trillions upon trillions to the trillionth power…, enough for us to be able to appreciate what was going on.

Talk about dumb luck!

Think I’ll go play me some lottery!

 

[edwest211]

Ribozymes? I honestly don’t think so.

“Ribozymes are RNA molecules that are capable of catalyzing specific biochemical reactions, similar to the action of protein enzymes.”

 

[Aloysium]

And, we are still just talking about about molecules, and the incredible complexity that we witness all around us, when the OP is about life, as real in the specific existence of each creature, as are individual atoms in themselves.

 

[Aloysium]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Have I misunderstood? Or, do some people actually think that we can appreciate this, what to them would be a randomly appearing aspect of our universe, being random happenings ourselves, whose forebears managed to live long enough to procreate?