Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
Are our observations of evolutionary change able to distinguish it from what it appears to be - random changes subject to the ordering process of natural selection?
Click to expand...
Life and all its diversity does not appear random and ordered merely in accordance with natural selection. This is an interpretation. One that purposely excludes God because we want to understand how things work in themselves. The situation however, is one that requires an agency outside the processes involved in basic matter - the four fundamental interactions. That gap in causality, evolutionary theory has left empty with the assumption of randomness. Things are said to happen as they do because of a multitude of unspecified and presumed physical forces. This is how cancers and genetic abnormalities do happen. However the theory goes beyond this. A tiger is different from a fern because of these influences, we are asked to believe. It does not appear to be that way at all.
 
Last edited:
I expect people to say, “I don’t know; I can’t know.”
They should not be saying that The Theory of Evolution is fact.
They should not be using it as the standard for any new theory about nature.

People who do biology should have an appreciation of life.

I’m not saying these are all bad people, but experimenting on animals in a lab changes a person. It changes how they relate to those animals and to other creatures including ourselves. After a while, one has a vested emotional interest in blinding oneself to the reality of life, replacing it with visions of molecules.
 
How complex is your guiding intelligence? You attempt to explain the origin of complex arrangements of inanimate matter by assuming the existence of an even more complex intelligence. That does not fly for me. In order to explain the existence of complexity you assume the existence of … complexity. That is not an explanation, it is assuming your conclusion. I can explain the origin of anything by assuming that it already exists.
Click to expand...
That’s the point. The complexity and order precede the elemental nature of all substances we know–thereby declaring intelligence ab initio.

So intelligence necessarily precedes creation.

I make zero assumptions about the origin of intelligence, as a matter of science–I must go to my Faith, for the origin of intelligence.

You on the other hand, look at the product of undeniable intelligence…and pretend that you can reverse engineer your way to the origin of intelligence.

That’s presumptuous to say the least…perhaps more like preposterous.
 
The presence of God acting in a manner we cannot necessarily understand or observe is not really the issue.
Click to expand...
Ok, we can table God for the moment…
Are our observations of evolutionary change able to distinguish it from what it appears to be - random changes subject to the ordering process of natural selection?
Click to expand...
“Random changes” as the ipso facto explanation of evolution, and “…the ordering process of N/S” appears would be patently contradictory.

Certainly random changes occur.

But if ‘random changes’ were the impetus of evolution and the guiding force, it would suggest unfathomable luck upon luck…that the randomness inevitably resulted in convenient order, over and over again, even accidentally, randomly, becoming more sophisticated and complex.

Enter God…
 
The presence of God acting in a manner we cannot necessarily understand or observe is not really the issue.
Click to expand...
Ok, we can table God for the moment…
Are our observations of evolutionary change able to distinguish it from what it appears to be - random changes subject to the ordering process of natural selection?
Click to expand...
“Random changes” as the ipso facto explanation of evolution, and “…the ordering process of N/S” appear to be patently contradictory.

Certainly random changes occur.

But if ‘random changes’ were the impetus of evolution and the guiding force, it would suggest unfathomable luck upon luck…that the randomness inevitably resulted in convenient order, over and over again, even accidentally, randomly, becoming ever more sophisticated and complex, with every convenient accident, and random change…

Enter God… (or at least…intelligence).
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
That fits observation as well as any other.
Click to expand...
As well as, or better than any other. Science always picks the best explanation, where “best” includes a judicious application of Occam’s razor.

rossum
 
Aloysium said:
They should not be saying that The Theory of Evolution is fact.
Click to expand...
Correct. The theory of evolution is not a fact, any more than the theory of gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact – it happens. Gravity is a fact – it happens. The theories are not facts, they are explanations of the facts. Newton’s explanation (theory) of gravity was replaced by Einstein’s explanation (theory).

Facts exist. Theories are explanation of the facts. The explanations can change, being replaced by better explanations. That is how science works.

rossum
 
No, it doesn’t happen. Some people are under the illusion that it happens. What many people are saying about evolution is not fact, but an opinion that they are pushing as fact. You believe it, so you think its real, some ultimate truth, I suppose
 
Last edited:
I am seeing more and more speculation about evolution in science. It’s all speculation. None of it is reproducible in the lab. To get real, reproducible science done, biologists have to use what is alive today. They have nothing else, including evolution, as a guide.

So, what are Catholics to think? Only God, and only God brought life into existence. Any theory that excludes that, yes, I know - it’s science - is not compatible with the faith. Period.

So, why are animals used for drug testing? Why not use a guide book produced by “evolutionary science/biology”? Because no such guide book exists. So, if the animal dies, that drug does not go on to human trials. Even if the animal lives, if the side effects are almost as lethal as the disease, that drug is scrapped as well. If the animal shows few side effects, it goes on to human testing. Now there are drugs available right now that have a long list of very bad to lethal side effects. Would I “ask my doctor if Clever Name is right for me”? NO. And the last time I was at my doctor’s office, I saw a wall screen advertising some drugs and their side effects. I noticed something new: “These are not all of the possible effects.” Thanks, buddy. I’m definitely not taking your drug. Keep me in the dark? That’s NOT encouraging.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Rau:
That fits observation as well as any other.
Click to expand...
As well as, or better than any other. Science always picks the best explanation, where “best” includes a judicious application of Occam’s razor.

rossum
Click to expand...
Maybe Darwin observed a tadpole changing into a frog and thought everything worked that way.
 
Frog from tadpole does not occur as a result of a random mutation. That developmental feature is associated with their DNA. I can’t think how a mutation in the genetic code could have spontaneously occurred. Frogs have been around, according to the literature since raptors roamed the earth. Given their sensitivity to environmental change, it really is a wonder that they remained where so many other forms of life perished.
 
Last edited:
Goya said:
that the randomness inevitably resulted in convenient order, over and over again, even accidentally, randomly, becoming more sophisticated and complex.
Click to expand...
The “convenient order” is (in principle) precisely the outcome expected of natural selection. It is not an attempt to eliminate God as many fear.
 
Seriously? Survival to procreation as the ordering factor? Please explain why sex grants a species greater survivability. How about the plumage of many male birds, the capacity of cave men to do mathematics, which was not actualized until very recently.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top