EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpartyka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ricmat said:
I will add that those most enamored with evolution on these threads seem to be the most prideful. Of course, written communication is imperfect so a lot gets lost in terms of vocal intonation, body language, etc.

What is pride, and how does it relate to evolution (or science in general)?

It is a basic premise of catholicism that man is not God, man will never be God. But sometimes we try to be God - the tree of good and evil. When we try to put ourselves equal with God, - that is pride. And secondarily, when we see ourselves as better than other of God’s children, that’s pride too.

Look at the pride on this forum – the evolutionists tend to emphasize their credentials, the famous folks the ate dinner with last week, how many universities they taught at, etc. They also tend to be very condescending and rude. This of course has nothing to do with presenting the arguments, but it has everything to do with pride.

God made the univese “knowable” to some degree. Thus we can measure and analyze and come up with (sometimes) useful predictions and invent useful devices or processes based on these predictions. Nothing wrong with that.

But God did not give us the ability to understand the true depths of his creation (at least not in the same way that He understands it). When we think we have it all figured out, we step outside our understanding of “created” versus “Creator.”

Read Job chapters 38-41. What message do you take away from those verses?

God gave us some limited understanding of the universe for the purpose of increasing our awe of his power and majesty. Not for the purpose of putting ourselves equal with Him or above any of his children. And certainly not with the intent of saying that we’ve found a way to explain everything without Him.

If I’d ever had the chance to listen to a lecture by Hans Kung (very credentialed, “current”, etc.) or a lecture by Mother Teresa (uncredentialed), believe me, I’d go for Mother Teresa. The beginning of wisdom is fear of God, not a PhD.

You say that the Church accepts evolution because there is much evidence to support it. Well, 600 years ago the Church accepted that the sun went around the earth, because most of the scientists of th day told them that there was much evidence to support it. You should be cautious what you claim as unchangable truth. But most of you don’t, most likely because of pride.

Lord Kelvin vs. the bicycle mechanics. Who won in the end?
Click to expand...
Excellent post, thanks ricmat.

St. Paul warned against this kind of pride which is so commonly found among those who take satisfaction in their knoweldge:
knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up.
If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.
But if one loves God, one is known by him. (1 cor 8, 1:3)
Click to expand...
St. Paul here points directly to “knowledge” and the person who “supposes he knows something” – as being directly related to the sin of pride.

Our Lord used His harshest language against the pride of the Pharisees who were the educated class, but actually “blind guides”.

The pompous and arrogant Ph.D.'s are well-known by just about everyone. That is the world of evolutionism - where the pretense of human knowledge blinds souls to the mysteries of God’s creation.
 
reggieM said:
… and the fact that God had nothing to do with the development of nature, except perhaps, to “breathe” some life into some inanimate material as Mr. Darwin has so wisely taught us.
Click to expand...
Genesis 1:24: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

You have a problem with God “breathing” life into inanimate material?
 
Catholics have no problem with God breathing life, but Richard Dawkins does and is making an effort to get the word out to as many as possible that this is not the case. Like it or not, most people do not read peer reviewed papers/journals and get their education from common texts and popular media like television. When one expert decries the work of God and cites the evidence, or his interpretation of it, then by using his standing in the scientific community, he leads some astray.

Peace,
Ed
 
Genesis 1:24: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
Click to expand...
Interesting. I didn’t realize you were a Biblical literalist – just like your master, Charles Darwin I suppose.
StAnastasia said:
You have a problem with God “breathing” life into inanimate material?
Click to expand...
I have a problem with the atheist-Darwin inserting that idea into his science text so that he could sell his absurd notions to Christians.

When and where, precisely, did God do this “breathing”, and what inanimate material did He use? We should be able to find the reference in Darwin’s work.

Since you’re not a scientist, perhaps you can explain why you take that text literally and dismiss the rest of the book of Genesis as “myth”.

I guess, since Darwin approved of that verse, you’ll accept the literal truth of it.

Did God “breathe” on anything else in the course of the history of the universe? If so, how did that affect “evolution”?

If not, please provide proof from the scientific literature.
 
hecd2 said:
It is sad to see Catholics denigrating education. I will always be deeply grateful for my Catholic education. The Church works to educate people the world over. It is strange to see it attacked in this way.

If pride means rejecting the obtuse ideas of the ignorant, the lazy and the mendacious, then I am proud to be prideful.
Click to expand...
As I said many times, I accept 95% of evolution. The only part I reject is the “totally random mutations” part of it. And as I said many times, I am excoriated for believing only 95% instead of 100%. (While you also admit that science proves nothing, and what is currently accepted is likely to change in the future).

For you, someone accepting only 95%, or probably 99% is obtuse, ignorant, lazy, and mendacious. How sad.
 
ricmat said:
As I said many times, I accept 95% of evolution. The only part I reject is the “totally random mutations” part of it. And as I said many times, I am excoriated for believing only 95% instead of 100%. (While you also admit that science proves nothing, and what is currently accepted is likely to change in the future).

For you, someone accepting only 95%, or probably 99% is obtuse, ignorant, lazy, and mendacious. How sad.
Click to expand...
I think the part about not accepting random mutations is certainly obtuse. Mutations in DNA (nucleotide mutations) are beyond any doubt random. It’s the expression and utility and survival that are not random.
 
reggieM said:
Interesting. I didn’t realize you were a Biblical literalist – just like your master, Charles Darwin I suppose.

I have a problem with the atheist-Darwin inserting that idea into his science text so that he could sell his absurd notions to Christians.

When and where, precisely, did God do this “breathing”, and what inanimate material did He use? We should be able to find the reference in Darwin’s work.

Since you’re not a scientist, perhaps you can explain why you take that text literally and dismiss the rest of the book of Genesis as “myth”.

I guess, since Darwin approved of that verse, you’ll accept the literal truth of it.

Did God “breathe” on anything else in the course of the history of the universe? If so, how did that affect “evolution”?

If not, please provide proof from the scientific literature.
Click to expand...
Darwin did not address the origin of life.
 
reggieM said:
The pompous and arrogant Ph.D.'s are well-known by just about everyone. That is the world of evolutionism - where the pretense of human knowledge blinds souls to the mysteries of God’s creation.
Click to expand...
Amen, Reggie. The following pretty well sums it up (from the NJB).
Wis 13:1 Yes, naturally stupid are all who are unaware of God, and who, from good things seen, have not been able to discover Him-who-is, or, by studying the works, have not recognised the Artificer.
Wis 13:2 Fire, however, or wind, or the swift air, the sphere of the stars, impetuous water, heaven’s lamps, are what they have held to be the gods who govern the world.
Wis 13:3 If, charmed by their beauty, they have taken these for gods, let them know how much the Master of these excels them, since he was the very source of beauty that created them.
Wis 13:4 And if they have been impressed by their power and energy, let them deduce from these how much mightier is he that has formed them,
Wis 13:5 since through the grandeur and beauty of the creatures we may, by analogy, contemplate their Author.
Wis 13:6 Small blame, however, attaches to them, for perhaps they go astray only in their search for God and their eagerness to find him;
Wis 13:7 familiar with his works, they investigate them and fall victim to appearances, seeing so much beauty.
Wis 13:8 But even so, they have no excuse:
Wis 13:9 if they are capable of acquiring enough knowledge to be able to investigate the world, how have they been so slow to find its Master?
Click to expand...
 
ricmat said:
As I said many times, I accept 95% of evolution. The only part I reject is the “totally random mutations” part of it. And as I said many times, I am excoriated for believing only 95% instead of 100%. (
Click to expand...
Good for you. Now, where did I “excoriate” you for accepting 95% of the Theory of Evolution and where have I ever said that I think that mutations are “totally random”, whatever that might mean? (They are not random in many respects, although they are random with respect to fitness. You are of course free to present evidence that they are not random with respect to fitness).
For you, someone accepting only 95%, or probably 99% is obtuse, ignorant, lazy, and mendacious. How sad.
Click to expand...
What’s really sad is the fact that you think it’s ok to misrepresent me. Misrepresenting the opinions of others in order to score a debating point is called “bearing false witness” and it’s dealt with in the 9th commandment.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
St. Paul warned against this kind of pride which is so commonly found among those who take satisfaction in their knoweldge:
Click to expand...
Quite unlike the creationists who are puffed up with their “special knowledge” of Genesis, um?

The door swings both ways. It’s funny how those who are most guilty of it, are always the least likely to know it.
 
ricmat said:
But the subject is pride, and I’d listen to Mother Teresa rather than Stephen Hawking.
Click to expand...
And I thought Mother Teresa was connected to humility 🤷

Blessings,
granny

Human beings are the pride and joy of God.
 
Namesake said:
I think the part about not accepting random mutations is certainly obtuse. Mutations in DNA (nucleotide mutations) are beyond any doubt random. It’s the expression and utility and survival that are not random.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand what I’m saying. I have no doubt that what you see in the lab are random mutations (except of course, when you don’t want them to be random).

Before natural selection can go to work, the “random” mutations have to occur randomly.

You don’t know how the DNA changed from single cell creature to man, but your faith says that evolution did it somehow. Randomly.
 
The_Barbarian said:
Not in his theory. But he did acknowledge that God did it.
Click to expand...
Quite right.

An interesting aside is the struggle Darwin had with his wife who was a serious Christian. Darwin being the consummate gentleman deferred to his wife for quite some time before they agreed that he should publish his theory. They were both concerned about the affect it might have on religious people. Darwin never completely overcame his fear that his discovery might undermine Christian faith. That certainly was not his intention in any way. However, he and his wife understood how important his findings were to the world and so he went ahead with publication, even amid serious concerns.
 
hecd2 said:
Good for you. Now, where did I “excoriate” you for accepting 95% of the Theory of Evolution and where have I ever said that I think that mutations are “totally random”, whatever that might mean? (They are not random in many respects, although they are random with respect to fitness. You are of course free to present evidence that they are not random with respect to fitness).
Click to expand...
What I said was:
And as I said many times, I am excoriated for believing only 95% instead of 100%.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t referring to you personally, but the general body of neo-Darwinians on the forum. I have been called many bad things because I don’t accept that last few percent. The most prolific offender was “the one whose name will not be mentioned” as he is on most of our ignore lists (and who was recently suspended but reinstated apparently).

When I refer to random mutations, I am speaking only of the mutation part, not the post filtering part after natural selection occurs.
 
ricmat said:
You misunderstand what I’m saying. I have no doubt that what you see in the lab are random mutations (except of course, when you don’t want them to be random).

Before natural selection can go to work, the “random” mutations have to occur randomly.

You don’t know how the DNA changed from single cell creature to man, but your faith says that evolution did it somehow. Randomly.
Click to expand...
No faith is involved in the theory of evolution. Evolution is not a random process. It is mostly by natural selection which is the obverse of random. It does depend on random mutations which result in random instructions (nucleotide sequences) and those become genes which are selected by nature for their survival and reproductive value.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top