Evolution a Farce?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dark_Warrior
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gottle_of_Geer said:

You’ve missed my point 😦​

OK:​

    1. I don’t see a different problem here from that about religious liberty.
    1. And I know of no one who has the claim you speak of
    1. & even if it has been made, the conclusion does not follow.
      The traditional exegesis of Gen. 2-3 is quite simply fiction. Antiquity cannot accommodate the date implied for Adam, for a start. It is absurd to expect Catholics to accept space age physics for everyday purposes as valid, & to believe bronze age mythology to be history, for religious purposes. 😦 To live so schizophrenically is pernicious, especially as such Fundamentalism is not even what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
Yes or no. Your claim is Revelation is not true?
 
The_Barbarian said:
**Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me. **

He has, but not the way that you’d like:

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Cardinal Ratzinger, Report of the International Theological Commission
Click to expand...

**Why can the human race not be a mistake (under one aspect), & be willed by God (under another) ? **​

**Not everything in creation is biology, nor theology, nor supernatural, nor any one other kind of thing. **

**If something can simultaneously be good & evil (such as the Crucifixion), why can’t things be simultaneously intended (by God) & unintended (by man) ? But if that is possible, why is non-intentional activity (within the cosmos) not able to be intended (by God, Who is not in, nor a part of, the cosmos) ? **
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

Evolution has no bearing on theology or metaphysics - it does not deal with the preternatural, so evolution has all the room for it you could ask for. Because T & M are also irrelevant to it, it can give them all their room too.​

Click to expand...
The theory of evolution does have a bearing on theology,which is why theologians have problems with it. The study of origins is theological territory as well as natural science,because God creates the natural world and life. The supernatural and the natural meet at all points of origin and life and natural order.
In any case, most of those six points take for granted the historicity of Adam and Eve, and also the historical character of Genesis 1-3 - neither of those beliefs is well-founded, to put it mildly.
Click to expand...
They are founded upon God’s revelation to the Jews.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
Why can the human race not be a mistake (under one aspect), & be willed by God (under another) ?
Click to expand...
Because it would be a contradiction in terms. An accident is not something willed.
If something can simultaneously be good & evil (such as the Crucifixion),
Click to expand...
The Crucifixion was intended to be a good thing by God. He used the sinful intentions of men for his good will toward men.
why can’t things be simultaneously intended (by God) & unintended (by man) ?
Click to expand...
Who says they can’t? If God intends something to happen,he may make it happen whether man intends it or not.
But if that is possible, why is non-intentional activity (within the cosmos) not able to be intended (by God, Who is not in, nor a part of, the cosmos) ?
Click to expand...
God did will for there to be randomness,or freedom of movement,but that is not the same as the idea that randomness can create living organisms.
 
redneck22 said:
Bacteria have “evovled” alright, but only into bacteria, right or wrong?
Click to expand...
Firstly, you need to learn a bit more biology. The term “bacteria” covers a huge range of organisms. In human terms it would cover amoeba, sunflowers and ourselves, which are all eukaryotes.

Secondly you are wrong since eukaryotes include bacteria within their calls, look up “mitochondria” and “chloroplasts”. Bacteria are inextricably involved in the evolution of non-bacteria.

rossum
 
The theory of evolution does have a bearing on theology,which is why theologians have problems with it.
Click to expand...
Too bad for them. God has no problem with it, nor does the Catholic Church.
 
buffalo said:
Uh No! Evolution was first presented in around 200 BC or so. THe Church has defended itself since the beginning.
Click to expand...
What you mean by evolution and what I mean by evolution are obviously different things. I mean the biological theory of evolution, based on and extending from Darwin’s work published in 1859. What do you mean by “evolution”?

rossum
 
rossum said:
What you mean by evolution and what I mean by evolution are obviously different things. I mean the biological theory of evolution, based on and extending from Darwin’s work published in 1859. What do you mean by “evolution”?

rossum
Click to expand...
The ancient Greeks believed beings progressed from the simplest to the more complex.

Aristotle argued against evolution.
 
Aristotle argued against evolution.
Click to expand...
Aristotle also argued that women have fewer teeth than men, and that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. The man had an unfortunate disregard for evidence. Such people naturally object to evolution.
 
Uh No! Evolution was first presented in around 200 BC or so.
Click to expand...
As a part of Christian theology, but not as a scientific theory.

St. Augustine wrote about it. But his ideas, although foreshadowing biology were not scientific theories. They were the recognition that God created nature in an intial ex nihilo event from which other things appear as time went on.
 
The_Barbarian said:
Aristotle also argued that women have fewer teeth than men, and that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. The man had an unfortunate disregard for evidence. Such people naturally object to evolution.
Click to expand...
Are you putting the church in the same category?

And you have continually refused to answer my question.

Yes or no - Did the Church have a problem with it in the past?
 
The_Barbarian said:
As a part of Christian theology, but not as a scientific theory.

St. Augustine wrote about it. But his ideas, although foreshadowing biology were not scientific theories. They were the recognition that God created nature in an intial ex nihilo event from which other things appear as time went on.
Click to expand...
So you acknowledge my postings as true. Good. Now we can move on.

So your claim is now that the idea of evolution from a biological standpoint is different and the Church should reverse its longstanding objections?
 
Barbarian regarding those who object to the Church on evolution:
Too bad for them. God has no problem with it, nor does the Catholic Church.
Yes or no - Did the Church have a problem with it in the past?
Click to expand...
The Church had a problem with the Earth obiting the Sun in the past. But neither geocentrism nor creationism were ever the dogma of the Church.

Were Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI rebelling against the teaching of the Church? No, they were not.
 
The_Barbarian said:
Barbarian regarding those who object to the Church on evolution:
Too bad for them. God has no problem with it, nor does the Catholic Church.

The Church had a problem with the Earth obiting the Sun in the past. But neither geocentrism nor creationism were ever the dogma of the Church.

Were Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI rebelling against the teaching of the Church? No, they were not.
Click to expand...
 
The_Barbarian said:
Barbarian regarding those who object to the Church on evolution:
Too bad for them. God has no problem with it, nor does the Catholic Church.

The Church had a problem with the Earth obiting the Sun in the past. But neither geocentrism nor creationism were ever the dogma of the Church.

Were Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI rebelling against the teaching of the Church? No, they were not.
Click to expand...
The question was asked in a yes or no format.
 
Through Pope Benedict, the clear and appropriate criticism of evolutionary theory is made. The science is incorrect and incomplete. As he stated, the theory cannot be scientifically proven. Therefore, in order to reemphasize the necessary role of God and to correct the randomness error, which was promulgated by Father Coyne, he wrote this:

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

“But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error.” He recognizes the role of science but adds crucial information that must be known by all human beings.

God bless,
Ed
 
theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin

Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain

DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.

“I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits,” said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed “Scopes Monkey Trial” and is widely considered one of Darwinism’s holiest sites. “Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested.”

Added Freiberg, “Behold the power and glory of the scientific method!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top