Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Glark]

The Church reconciles the two by declaring that there is no requirement to read the passages describing creation literally. Far more than the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with a literal reading of Genesis.

I can’t see how evolution can be reconciled with Genesis 2:7, 3:17 which imply Adam was formed from inanimate matter, not from a pre-existing living being.

 

[Glark]

Not directly, but it can say something about supernatural claims that impact on the material world. Science can test, “If a Princess kisses a frog then the frog will turn into a prince”. Set up a lab with frogs and other Amphibia, some princesses and other females who are not of royal descent and see what happens.

As far as I know, science has hitherto not conducted such an experiment and so has not disproven the supernatural claim that if a princess kisses a frog, it will turn into a prince.

Besides that, does the supernatural claim state that the frog-prince conversion will happen every time or just sometimes, say only once every 4 billion attempts? If something like the latter, the claim may actually be impossible to disprove. Or what if the princess and the frog must meet certain very narrow requirements? What if it’s possible only when the stars are suitably aligned or only at only a certain moment on a certain day of the year?

Then one must consider the scientifically established truth that humans evolved from frogs in the first place. An evolutionist shouldn’t have any problem accepting that a frog can turn into a human.

For example, Mark 16:18 about poisonous snakes has been shown to be false. Some people in snake-handling churches have been bitten and died: Kentucky Snake Handler Bit During Church Service Refuses Medical Treatment and Dies.

Here’s another way of looking at it: Those “Christians” who died after being bitten by the snake weren’t real Christians, but imposters. It’s only real Christians who are immune.

So line up 10,000 “Christians” and apply the ISBT (Infallible Snake Bite Test) to them. This will reveal who is the real McCoy and who is the fake. It will also demonstrate the truth of Jesus’ words, “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

I think it was St. Paul who was bitten by a viper while collecting firewood. When the locals saw that the bite didn’t affect him, they began to worship him as a god.

 

[Rau]

I can’t see how evolution can be reconciled with Genesis 2:7, 3:17 which imply Adam was formed from inanimate matter, not from a pre-existing living being.

I have no idea how (other than “God’s creative work”) Adam came to be. There is no evidence I need to reject to hold that view. Your age of life thesis, on the other hand, requires you to reject a great deal.

 

[Glark]

The Pope does not doubt God’s capacity as creator of all. He doubts claims of God’s action in contradiction to overwhelming rational scientific findings. If all was created 5778 years ago (as you believe) it should not be the case that rational, objective enquiry is not drawn to that conclusion.

What does the Pope mean when he says God doesn’t have “an all-powerful magic wand”?

The Pope also seems to be saying that a literal interpretation of Genesus 1 is wrong, when he says “But that was not so.” Not only that, with these words he is declaring that he knows for a fact that creation happened the way he thinks it did. I don’t believe he is entitled to make such a declaration. Although, why shouldn’t he - paragraph 283 of the CCC declares evolution to be an infallible fact.

 

[Glark]

That’s pretty much the question we ask ourselves. All these electronic devices around today have appeared within a here-disputed amount of time. The one thing about which we seem to be in agreement is that this is not the result of random processes, which randomly appeared at some point in time, or have for no reason existed forever.

The claim that very complex machines which perform very complex functions (as is the case with living organisms) arose by chance, is irrational. Since it is irratiional, it is therefore unscientific. Science, at the very least, must be rational.

 

[Rau]

What does the Pope mean when he says God doesn’t have “an all-powerful magic wand”?

Re-read my previous answer to that question.

 

[Glark]

Where can I find evidence that Adam wrote anything, or that he made jewelry? The Bible tells us that the Book of Genesis was written by Moses, not by Adam.

After Adam, it didn’t take long for writing to develop. If pre-Adam humans had been is existence for hundreds of thousands of years they surely would have invented writing a long, long time ago.

 

[rossum]

The colophon phrases are fact.

The interpretation of those phrases are not. The text of the Bible is fact. The hundreds of different interpretations of the text is not. Same here: the same text can have different interpretations.

rossum

 

[Glark]

Then, the first two humans, meaning the first two animals who ironically stopped being animals into rational beings were Adam and Eve.

It’s my understanding that this is not what the Church teaches - which is that Eve was created instaneously from Adam’s rib. This then begs the question: Why did God use billions of years of evolution to produce Adam, but then create Eve in an instant?

 

[anthony022071]

I agree. The theologians and leaders of the Church are under the influence of the scientific, naturalistic, evolutionary paradigm like most other people in western civilization who have been through college.

 

[rossum]

Science can conclude that intelligent design was responsible for the four faces on Mt. Rushmore, or for the existence of a computer, but can’t conclude that intelligent design was responsible for the complex structures and functions of living creatures. Therein lies a contradiction, me thinks.

Design needs a designer; you cannot have design in the absence of designer(s). We have independent evidence of the existence of the designers of the faces on Mount Rushmore and of computers.

Please supply independent evidence of the existence of Vishnu, or whatever entities you assert designed life.

Here is a picture of Mount Rushmore taken from a distance. We can easily distinguish the designed parts. Why can we do that? Because the designed parts are different from the other parts. That means that the other parts are not designed. If the entire mountain were designed, then any design detection device would register the entire mountain, not just the small part near the top.

By asserting that the faces are designed, you are implicitly asserting that the rest of the mountain is not designed.

I leave it to you to resolve the conundrum.

rossum

 

[Glark]

you now characterize the relevant enquiries as scientism, not science

There is an excellent example of Scientism displayed in paragraph 283 of the CCC: the “discoveries” that scientists have made regarding the orgins of man and the universe - which are, in fact, mostly untestable theories about what happened billiions of years ago - are compared to the infallible knowledge (“unerring knowledge of what exists”) taught by God to Solomon.

Why is that?

In order to understand the answer to this question, one must believe in Satan and demons, and also Biblical prophecy. For these reasons, many Catholics won’t understand.

 

[rossum]

As far as I know, science has hitherto not conducted such an experiment

It has performed a study into the effects of prayer on hospital patients: Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients.

CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

Here’s another way of looking at it: Those “Christians” who died after being bitten by the snake weren’t real Christians, but imposters. It’s only real Christians who are immune.

It is wonderful, isn’t it. Christianity is one of the largest religions in the world, but the vast majority of Christians are not Tru-Christians™ whenever required for the sake of argument, and Tru-Christianity™ is one of the smallest religions in the world. Your transparently specious argument is transparently specious.

rossum

 

[Glark]

I agree.

Yea!

The theologians and leaders of the Church are under the influence of the scientific, naturalistic, evolutionary paradigm like most other people in western civilization who have been through college.

I find it really disturbing that this atrocious nonsense has been enshrined in the CCC.

And to compare the very dubious scientifiic theories (“discoveries”) in question to the infallible, “unerring knowledge” taught to Solomon by God is simply outrageous. Such a claim takes this beyond mere brainwashing and into the realm of spiritual corruption, imo.

“From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the Temple of God.” - Pope Paul VI,

 

[Rau]

Why did God use billions of years of evolution to produce Adam, but then create Eve in an instant?

Maybe he did, maybe he did not. There is no scientific evidence on that point. But as to the points in time when life existed on earth, a plethora of evidence suggests it existed long before the time frame you’ve claimed.

 

[Glark]

Your age of life thesis, on the other hand, requires you to reject a great deal.

I beg to differ. What you euphemistically call “a great deal” is, in effect, nothing more than a useless story. Remove that useless story from the minds of men and applied science wouldn’t even notice its absence.

 

[Rau]

In order to understand the answer to this question, one must believe in Satan and demons, and also Biblical prophecy. For these reasons, many Catholics won’t understand.

I don’t think that will do. The question posed was: “And yet no one can step forward and demonstrate the simple proposition that all life on earth was created just 5778 years ago, or at least the converse, that it was not present far, far earlier. Why is that?”

 

[Glark]

And yet no one can step forward and demonstrate the simple proposition that all life on earth was created just 5778 years ago

Rau, did you know that since I mentioned the Jewish date of 5887 years, you have mentioned it about 1,396,241 times? You seemed to have become obsessed with it. I apologise for introducing this virus into your brain. If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know.

P.S. Please don’t sue me.

 

[Glark]

Yes, I seem to have got my wires crossed in this instance.

But there are creation scientists who claim there is evidence that life on earth is “young”.

 

[Rau]

Rau, did you know that since I mentioned the Jewish date of 5887 years, you have mentioned it about 1,396,241 times?

I am waiting for you to recant your acceptance of that claim. That life existed millions of years prior to this time window is something we can (and have) determined to reasonable certainty, whereas the manner of creation of one man and one woman is likely to be beyond human discovery.