Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So you are suggesting that the British are killing shorter beaked birds. What’s happening to the honker-challenged? And how unfortunate that the “mutation” would have had to do with longer beaks rather than smarter brains. Maybe it’s about dormant genetic material waking up or pre-existing birds with that particular genetic trait flourishing. I asked my cat for her opinion, given she is a long-time observer of avian behaviour. She yawned, rubbed her head on my arm and began to purr.

But, can you understand the frustration of those who consider evolutionary theory to be a hoax? Even though the evidence should point to something else going on that is not random, we have in the article an appeal to evolution. Disgraceful, actually.
 
Last edited:
This glitchy site, at least for me when I try as I usually do, to correct my too quickly written response, is an example of random errors in the code. They rarely (aka never) make things better.
 
This glitchy site, at least for me when I try as I usually do, to correct my too quickly written response, is an example of random errors in the code. They rarely (aka never) make things better.

See what I mean?
 
This glitchy site, at least for me when I try as I usually do to correct a too hastily written response, is an example of random errors in the code. They rarely (aka never) make things better.

See what I mean?
 
It doesn’t. The word speculate is used. The beak growth is far too fast to be attributed to “evolution” but to a built-in mechanism in birds given certain conditions. Also, existing birds could already have beaks of different lengths, meaning those with shorter beaks cannot take advantage of these feeders.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
This glitchy site, at least for me when I try as I usually do to correct a too hastily written response, is an example of random errors in the code. They rarely (aka never) make things better.

See what I mean?
Click to expand...
Error 502 is only affecting this thread for some reason .
 
Joe1 said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Error 502 is only affecting this thread for some reason
Click to expand...
It’s been affecting many of my posts on other threads. It’s weird
Click to expand...
Ok, were they threads with a lot of posts ?
 
Royalty aside, few people decide on the person to marry on the basis of their genetic make-up. Maybe now with the human genome project, we may now behave as evolution would will it. People or peacocks, life chooses what it loves.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
And yet evolutionary change does indeed look random and unguided, save for the effect of natural selection. That does not mean it is random.
Click to expand...
The debate is whether or not the theory of evolution is true, so why say evolutionary change looks random and unguided? The theory is not natural reality. We should take natural reality as our point of reference, not unprovable theories.
Rau said:
Evidence rather strongly suggests that historical details such as the time-point of creation (5778 years ago??) and the taking of 6 “earth days” are not factual, and they are not among those things the Church teaches that are to be accepted as historical fact.
Click to expand...
Physical evidence doesn’t suggest that, the scientific view, which is naturalistic, suggests it.

The Church Fathers understood the six days of creation as real days and the biblical age of the world as the real age of the world. The Church does not have to teach that these things have to be accepted as historical fact for them to be accepted as fact. Catholics have always been believed them to be facts, and the clergy and theologians taught them as facts. And the biblical age of the world is part of the liturgy. Scripture is inerrant in all its statements, and there is no indication in scripture that these things are not historical facts.
Rau said:
That is your imagination speaking. Or an attempt to pigeon hole God.
Click to expand...
No. If you deny that the creation accounts are historical then you don’t believe what they say happened. You don’t believe that God’s acts of creation happened. You can’t logically separate Church doctrine on creation from the creation accounts in scripture. If the creative events didn’t happen historically, they didn’t happen at all.
 
anthony022071 said:
The debate is whether or not the theory of evolution is true, so why say evolutionary change looks random and unguided?
Click to expand...
The net changes do not appear random - because they are the subject to the filtering process of natural selection. The (name removed by moderator)ut to the filtering process looks random. Is evolution true? It is the best theory I’ve heard to explain observations.
anthony022071 said:
The Church Fathers understood the six days of creation as real days and the biblical age of the world as the real age of the world.
Click to expand...
Did they also understand a talking serpent? I don’t know. Do you believe the Church interprets Scripture? Does the Church intepret Genesis as literal history? It is ambivalent on the point, certainly not claiming that it is indeed such. And what people believed prior to human observation and enquiry discovering otherwise (Galileo comes to mind, Relativity comes to mind, Quantum theory comes to mind, …) is hardly persuasive of anything. But as I have said countless times on this thread, these details have no bearing on your salvation. If you are comfortable with the notion of a major creation event (including all life on earth) 5778 years ago, of course you are free to believe it.
anthony022071 said:
You can’t logically separate Church doctrine on creation from the creation accounts in scripture.
Click to expand...
If you mean those creation accounts to be understood literally, that is demonstrably false. The dogmas of the Church do not specify the timing or manner of creation. Some posters here don’t rely on the Church as you do - they in fact criticize the Church for a “corruption” in failing to require a literal interpretation of Genesis.
 
Last edited:
So a random mutation decided to evolve a pouch for the Kangaroo baby. Random mutations can do just about anything. But what did the baby do before the pouch evolved ?
 
I saw a quite remarkable video regarding the birth of kangaroo babies and how they got to the pouch, where they can suckle. Amazing and obviously designed.
 
edwest211 said:
I saw a quite remarkable video regarding the birth of kangaroo babies and how they got to the pouch, where they can suckle. Amazing and obviously designed.
Click to expand...
The pouch would have to gradually evolve ,so what did the babies do in the meantime ?
 
Re the statement made by the Cologne Council:

The use of the term, “spontaneous continuous change” certainly rules out the acceptance of any form of Godless human evolution by the the Cologne Council, but I suggest that the very first sentence alone - “Our first parents were formed immediately by God” - rules out the acceptance of any form of human evolution. For starters, the words “formed immediately” aren’t exactly evolution-friendly, are they? Further, the Council declares that both Adam and Eve were “formed immediately”. Eve was “formed immediately” from Adam’s rib - she didn’t evolve slowly from Adam’s rib, so clearly, “formed immediately” cannot possibly mean “evolved slowly”. So since the Council declares that Adam was also “formed immediately”, he couldn’t have “evolved slowly” either. In other words, the Council declares that neither Adam and Eve evolved.

And the declaration doesn’t say, “The souls of our first parents were formed immediately by God.” “Our first parents” obviously means Adam and Eve in their entirety.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
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.

You have not provided a satisfactory explanation here. How did the complexity implicit in your guiding intelligence originate?
Click to expand...
So if I were to argue that a log cabin was built by a human being - as opposed to chance - I would first have to provide an explanation of where human intelligence comes from? I don’t think so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top