Evolution-Creation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CreosMary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Although my children attend Catholic School, much to my surprise, both are/were already developing views leaning towards evolution. These books can be found at the Conservative Book Club.
Click to expand...
While I applaud your active parenting, and I honestly wish more parents would do so much, I’m confused as to why you were so suprised. Evolution is permitted to be explored and taught by the Church, so long as it’s not done with an atheistic spin.
 
I believe in a literal translation of the Genesis creation story but I must be open on the time reference because we judge a day with the Sun but the Sun was not created until day 4. So the evening and morning could not be 1-24 hour period, because what was the point of reference. There was no Sun until day 4? God is so wonderful!

If anyone wants some good evidence contradicting “accepted” or Pop evolution theory please read FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY. I don’t recall the authors but they were from the International Society of Krishna Consciousness. Not a Roman Catholic organization but from this Roman Catholic to them, Hari Krishna.
 
40.png
CreosMary:
……… that the literal view of creation must stand until science can prove otherwise, and I dont believe it has.
Click to expand...
What part of the proof do you have a particular problem with?
40.png
CreosMary:
It is a pity that some (N) take this debate so personally as to refer to those that do not agree with him to be “narrow-minded”
Click to expand...
Well…….given that the current understanding is independently supported by various fields of study and a vast collection of data and that many of the opponents (in my experience at least) usually have no specific comment other than “I don’t believe it”; one could be lead to the conclusion that certain people were being…….obtuse

Shrug

Nothing personal. This is just something that I feel passionately about. God gave us our brains to better understand his Creation.
 
I don’t believe in evolution for a number of reasons, but chief among them is the lack of a missing links.

When it comes to Scripture, I believe that such passages as Gen 1 & 2 were meant to be a story written about real events.
 
40.png
anawim:
I don’t believe in evolution for a number of reasons, but chief among them is the lack of a missing links.
Click to expand...
If how do you find a missing link? Once you find them, they aren’t missing any more.

Peace

Tim
 
I don’t believe in evolution for a number of reasons, but chief among them is the lack of a missing links.
Click to expand...
Since we do have very clear evidence of transitional species, such as fossils of whale-like creatures compatible with both land and water (and whales today actually have fingers on the skeletons of their flippers, an indication that they did indeed come from an animal that walked on land), I’m curious as to what constitutes a “missing link” for you.

Heck, it could be argued that whales themselves are actually a “missing link” in the making, since they seem to be on the road towards fusing those “finger bones” into solid forms.
 
hi:)

Sorry if I’m restating a point that’s already been exhausted, but isn’t it a possibility that God used Developmental Creation (evolution) with man’s body, but that his soul came with Special Creation at an exact moment in time? That’s the only way I’ve ever been able to understand it. The catechism points out something that’s always helped me:

“Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159)

The way I have always seen it is that there is truly factual evidence supporting some form of evolution, whether you want to use the fossil record, vestigal organs, homologous structures, early development, or biochemicals. Because these came from our earth and therefore from God, they must somehow correspond with the bible as well…meaning that God MAY have used evolution for much of creation, but maintaining that the soul was something he gave at a specific moment in time.

In the end, the only reason why I am saying this is because it’s the only thing that’s ever made sense to me…and ultimately, it won’t matter…as long as God is the hand behind creation, whether it be Special or Developmental, I’m fine with it. God is the beginning, that’s all that matters.
 
40.png
Ghosty:
Since we do have very clear evidence of transitional species, such as fossils of whale-like creatures compatible with both land and water (and whales today actually have fingers on the skeletons of their flippers, an indication that they did indeed come from an animal that walked on land), I’m curious as to what constitutes a “missing link” for you.

Heck, it could be argued that whales themselves are actually a “missing link” in the making, since they seem to be on the road towards fusing those “finger bones” into solid forms.
Click to expand...
And what about seals? Seems like they are really on the way to perhaps becoming more whale-like (especially if we humans drive the real whales to extinction!).
 
And what about seals? Seems like they are really on the way to perhaps becoming more whale-like (especially if we humans drive the real whales to extinction!).
Click to expand...
It is indeed a possibility. The transitionals for whales that we find certainly have a seal-like quality to them.
Sorry if I’m restating a point that’s already been exhausted, but isn’t it a possibility that God used Developmental Creation (evolution) with man’s body, but that his soul came with Special Creation at an exact moment in time?
Click to expand...
That is a completely orthodox opinion to hold at this time, and one I share. Barring the Church actually condemning developmental creation of the human body, I don’t think I’ll ever abandon this stance. It simply makes a HECK of a lot of sense, both theologically and scientifically.
 
Members on this forum might find a website from the organization Reasons to Believe very interesting. www.reasons.org

This is an protestant organization of scientists who believe that science supports the bible. As scientists they use scientific methods and techniques namely testable models to back their claims.

It is interesting to read the articles posted on their website and listen to discussions among their members. They discuss with young earth scientists, old earth proponents and atheists.

Since the offical position of the Church is that many plausible theories exist to explain the creation of the universe and life the faithful are only required to hold the belief that however it occured it was by the design and will of God and it was created from nothing.
 
40.png
Ghosty:
Since we do have very clear evidence of transitional species, such as fossils of whale-like creatures compatible with both land and water (and whales today actually have fingers on the skeletons of their flippers, an indication that they did indeed come from an animal that walked on land), I’m curious as to what constitutes a “missing link” for you.

Heck, it could be argued that whales themselves are actually a “missing link” in the making, since they seem to be on the road towards fusing those “finger bones” into solid forms.
Click to expand...
A missing link would be a detailed progression from one phyla to another. A whale like creature that could live on land is still a whale in my book. That’s adaptation, or what is now-a-days called microevolution.

Microevolution is possible; Macro is not. There’s a limit to the DNA code.
 
40.png
anawim:
A missing link would be a detailed progression from one phyla to another. A whale like creature that could live on land is still a whale in my book. That’s adaptation, or what is now-a-days called microevolution.
Click to expand...
So I guess the pelycosauria to mammal transition is sufficient for you.

Peace

Tim
 
Evolution is essentially sun/nature worship in new wrappings IMO (because the sun would be responsible for life on Earth if macro-evolution happened). It is the exact opposite of what is taught in the Book of Genesis. The Book of Genesis states that God created man perfectly in His divine image. Evolution states that people “graduated” from being apes so if you believe in evolution I’d rethink my position on being a Christian too if I were you.
 
Semper Fi: You are putting way too much baggage on the word evolution, plain and simple. We devout, Catholic believers in evolution never deny that God made man specially in His own image. We don’t worship the Sun, we believe God causes all life on Earth, and uses the Sun to sustain us (do you believe that the Sun DOESN’T provide energy to the plants that sustain mammalian life?) We differ on the hows, not the whats or the whys. The Church has said that we CAN differ on the hows, so I would turn around your comment and say you should rethink your calling yourself a Christian.
 
So I guess the pelycosauria to mammal transition is sufficient for you.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It doesn’t get more detailed and obvious than that transition, IMO. We can see, step by step, year by year, how certain reptile genetic lines became mammals. In fact, we can even see where those transitions forked, and became placentals, marsupials, and monotremes. If you REALLY want to see the evidence that mammals came from reptiles, look at monotremes!
 
Semper Fi:
Evolution is essentially sun/nature worship in new wrappings IMO (because the sun would be responsible for life on Earth if macro-evolution happened). It is the exact opposite of what is taught in the Book of Genesis. The Book of Genesis states that God created man perfectly in His divine image. Evolution states that people “graduated” from being apes so if you believe in evolution I’d rethink my position on being a Christian too if I were you.
Click to expand...
Great point, goes well with the new paganism of secular culture, materialism, worship of the body etc. It is sad that people cannot accept That God has the power to create instantly if he wishes. To me this in NO way contradicts or compromises science and reason. I love to see how this wonderful Creation works through biology and other sciences and they all give Praise to God the Creator.
On ya’ Bro
HAPPY EASTER
 
obvosly the bible is just a collaction of storys. god transends the storys we have made up about him. science prooves that we evolved from nature not god. its hard to believe that people in the 20th century can question science.
 
If you don’t agree with the first book of the Bible (the foundation), how can you believe in the rest?
 
I DO agree with the first book of the Bible. I agree with the Catholic Church that it uses symbolic language to describe a very real event.
 
What God did, what He does, is so far beyond human comprehension…how could we EVER truly understand the details of what He did? What we can do, however, is, through Genesis, understand the MAGNITUDE of what He did…in terms simple enough that we can have some grasp on what He accomplished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top