Evolution - it's about religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

edwest2

Guest
After spending some time reviewing atheist, Darwinist, freethinker, secular humanist and bright forums, the conclusion is clear. The promotion of atheistic evolution is job one.

It goes like this:

Evolution science is unassailable.
Any attacks upon it are attacks against all of science, against reason and against rationality.
But contrary to statements posted here that the public school version of evolution is neutral toward religion or does not exclude God - that is false.
The purpose of all of these groups is to make sure that unreason, irrationality and the unthinking - namely all religions, especially Christianity- do not add God to the Theory of Evolution.

God is not acceptable. But that’s not the end of it.

Clearly, once the people, including the religious, accept evolution, they will then be courted for their votes. Votes for what? Gay marriage, among other things.

If this cannot be successfully accomplished, then disaster, worldwide disaster, will be the result. This disaster will be for those who oppose Church teaching. The Vatican is named as one of the problems.

So my fellow Catholics. No matter how often you read that the textbook theory is neutral or cannot exclude God, you should know that there are people who want you to believe it does. These same people want science and scientists to replace religion in the lives of the people. To eliminate what they call unreason, irrationality and unthinking among religious people. Why? So they can realize their goal of turning sin into law.

Books with titles like “The God Delusion” or God is Not Great" are not just personal opinions but part of the New Atheism. A militant, international group of people operating under different names but with the same goal.

As the Church document “Human Persons Created in the Image of God” makes clear, evolution without divine providence cannot exist. Conversely, to determine that evolution occurs purely by chance and necessity is going beyond what can be demonstrated by science. As Pope Benedict stated in his recent book, the “rationality” behind Creation is God.

God bless,
Ed
 
I don’t see the problem with evolution. God created the world and creatively allowed it to unfold throughout the ages, in intimate relation to His creative power. Some people call the physical universe creation the ‘big bang theory’. There is no conflict with God’s act of creation. When humans reached a certain level He chose to put His spirit in them. All things share in His life in some form, but He gave human souls to share in His life on a spiritual plane. It wasn’t a science project, and 'days ’ weren’t literally ‘days’, but periods. One just needs to gaze into the Grand Canyon to experience the wonder of God’s creative patience and glory!

Bless you, Trishie
 
Ed and I dissagree on creation vs. evolution. But I agree with him 100% that atheism’s hold on our children’s minds is a big problem. When “Freedom FROM religion” takes precedence over “freedom OF religion,” we should be screaming!
 
I shouldn’t take the bait, but,
edwest2 said:
After spending some time reviewing atheist, Darwinist, freethinker, secular humanist and bright forums, the conclusion is clear. The promotion of atheistic evolution is job one.

It goes like this:

Evolution science is unassailable.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s a demonstrably untrue statement. They claim that evolution is perfectly assailable, provided that it’s assailed scientifically.
Any attacks upon it are attacks against all of science, against reason and against rationality.
Click to expand...
Well, most who attack evolution seldom confine their attacks to just biology, they often attack areas of physics, chemistry, and geology. They sometimes attack the very methods of science.
But contrary to statements posted here that the public school version of evolution is neutral toward religion or does not exclude God - that is false.
Click to expand...
Once again, this statement is demonstrably untrue. Please, show me one commonly used public school textbook that is not simply neutral or quiet about God.
So my fellow Catholics. No matter how often you read that the textbook theory is neutral or cannot exclude God, you should know that there are people who want you to believe it does.
Click to expand...
Including people like yourself.
These same people want science and scientists to replace religion in the lives of the people. To eliminate what they call unreason, irrationality and unthinking among religious people.
Click to expand...
That there exist people with these goals does not mean that evolution and Catholicism are incompatible, or that the promotion of the science of evolution is an Atheistic endevour.
Books with titles like “The God Delusion” or God is Not Great" are not just personal opinions but part of the New Atheism. A militant, international group of people operating under different names but with the same goal.
Click to expand...
While this statement is 100% correct, it has no relevance to the validity of the science of evolution or your claim that evolution is some big atheist conspiracy.

Evolution is a science. One that has the unfortunate position of conflicting with a strict literal interpretation of Genesis, making it a battlefield between groups that care little about what it does and does not say.
 
R_McGeddon said:
This means that Adam and Eve is just a myth, as I always suspected.
Click to expand...
That is not a Church teaching and refutes the doctrine of Original Sin.

Humani Generis

His Holiness Pope Pius XII
Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine
August 12, 1950
  1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[18]
  2. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, 12 August 1950, the twelfth year of Our Pontificate.
    PIUS PP. XII
teachccd 🙂
 
R_McGeddon said:
I mean myth as in unreal.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Catholic thinking has no problem with the possibility of evolution theory being the means by which God created and continues to create. Given that, the story of Eden in Genesis probably did not occur exactly as stated. What the Church does hold in relation to evolution theory is that at some point God stepped in directly and infused Homo Sapiens with His image and likeness; reason and will. (To which I would probably add the emotion of love. I have trouble with the evolution of emotion but that’s a different kettle of fish.) The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis may be allegorical, a 13th century BC attempt by it writer to explain the origin of man in the face of various pagan versions at the time (Epic of Gilgamesh for example). It was written in the context of 13th century B.C. understanding of science, logic, physical perception of the universe, and the nature of man, and must be viewed in that context. And that context is pretty elementary, I’d say. But its main points are considered inspired and the Church teaches are to be held as truth. God created the cosmos including man. God infused man with reason and free will and man, through his own choice, repudiated God. By that action a rift was created between the Creator and his creation and as such, to reconcile same, an intermediary, a Savior was needed to repair that rift. That Savior, for Christians is Jesus of Nazareth. And Adam and Eve are the representative (if not real - as in actual) of that first man into whom God poured his image and likeness; into whom God infused with an immortal soul.

Evolution as outlined by science is a theory. There are too many gaps to accept everything as fact. ( a contention that makes atheists go apoplectic by the way). Personally, I think it is a very good theory and I expect one day it will be 99% verifiable as fact. I doubt I’ll be around to see that day, but regardless, Theists will merely accept that fact as the way God has chosen to create this existence we know and experience.

The story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden may be an allegory, and hey, it may be actually true, just with the timing and the dates a little screwed up. I don’t know, I’m open to any possibility as to the historical accuracy of Adam and Eve. And so must Catholics.
 
joeybaggz said:
The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis may be allegorical, a 13th century BC attempt by it writer to explain the origin of man in the face of various pagan versions at the time (Epic of Gilgamesh for example). It was written in the context of 13th century B.C. understanding of science, logic, physical perception of the universe, and the nature of man, and must be viewed in that context.
Click to expand...
In looking at the pagan beliefs, their objects of worship, and the hierarchy of their clerics, I have to wonder about the symbolism behind the Adam and Eve story.

Specifically this: Paganism was, and still is, very self-centered. Ancient pagans revered serpents as sources of wisdom. Look at the crown on the Egyptian Pharoah, for example. Ancient pagans believed that certain foods had spiritual power which gave wisdom and enlightenment. Ancient pagans had powerful priestesses as spiritual leaders who taught and reinforced the whole system, using sexual relations to seal the deal.

Wand to directly confront this belief system? Construct a story (Adam and Eve) showing that a serpent-guided female seeking personal enlightenment by eating certain foods was WRONG, and that males who followed that guidance were also wrong. In a patriarchial society, counter that with a right-belief in a male-led system focused on directly hearing and following the word of God.
The story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden may be an allegory, and hey, it may be actually true, just with the timing and the dates a little screwed up. I don’t know, I’m open to any possibility as to the historical accuracy of Adam and Eve. But I do hold the tenets of Genesis to be true. And so must Catholics.
Click to expand...
Amen 👍
 
joeybaggz said:
The story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden may be an allegory, and hey, it may be actually true, just with the timing and the dates a little screwed up. I don’t know, I’m open to any possibility as to the historical accuracy of Adam and Eve. And so must Catholics.
Click to expand...
What do we tell this guy? I mean he was only a Pope…

Humani Generis

His Holiness Pope Pius XII
Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine
August 12, 1950
  1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin,** which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam** and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[18]
  2. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, 12 August 1950, the twelfth year of Our Pontificate.
    PIUS PP. XII
**Don’t Popes teach what the Church teaches?? **😉 :rolleyes:
 
tonyl said:
Evolution is a science. One that has the unfortunate position of conflicting with a strict literal interpretation of Genesis, making it a battlefield between groups that care little about what it does and does not say.
Click to expand...
Yes, and one that, also unfortunately, leads many people into believing that it disproves the “need” for God in explaining life and the existence of human beings.

It is as if somebody found, lying alongside the proverbial watch, a set of watchmaking tools and diagrams, and decided that those tools and diagrams proved that there was no watchmaker. :rolleyes:
 
teachccd said:
What do we tell this guy? I mean he was only a Pope…

Yes he WAS the Pope, 57 years ago. A lot of knowledge, discovery, and understanding has occurred since then. And possibly revelation also.

Pius XII taught in the context of the understanding of the 1950’s. The context has changed in the past six decades and our understanding of history, archaeology, science, physics, language, biblical exegesis, have developed and been refined. Much has been learned. That doesn’t say what he taught then is absolutely true today. If that were the case for Catholics, I think there was a Pope or two who condoned slavery. I think one has to be careful to reach back for teachings of the past in supporting positions today. That could be construed as akin to Protestants who simply take a verse from Scripture, totally out of context, and apply it as a basis of proof for a position they want to hold. Context is a terribly important word.

Pius XII’s teaching is just that, teaching, it is not an ex cathedra infallible pronouncement. His teaching is respected, and the position that the first Adam, and the first Eve, in some circles called “mitochondrial Eve” did exist, and into them God infused reason and will is the heart of what we believe about the origin of man and his relationship with God. The belief that evolutionary theory may distort the story of Genesis does not necessarily contradict the essence of what he said. It does contradict those who hold that Genesis is the literal, historical truth, exactly as it happened.

Again, evolution theory is not a proven fact. Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, serpent, fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, munch, munch, munch … absolute fact, who knows? Evolution, absolute fact, who knows? But that Adam and Eve existed, in some form as the first human beings with a God given soul, reason, and free will, is what must be held as truth, regardless of the historical setting. Pius XII’s truth lives on, our understanding of it however, continues to be a source of critical examination.
Click to expand...
 
joeybaggz said:
Pius XII’s truth lives on, our understanding of it however, continues to be a source of critical examination.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Isn’t it futile to continue a thread built upon assumptions? You say Pope Pius XII may be right…or…he may be archaic. So what is the meaning of this thread? Are we swordfighting theories?? Pope Pius XII gave us an understanding of original sin. Even Jesus mentions Adam in the Gospels. Would the Son of Man refer to a myth? I guess He might have kept the centuries old parable going. We can put Him under critical examination. 🤷

I’m not saying that my head is in the sand on this issue, but we cannot discount tradition and the possibility of it’s actual representation of our first set of parents. Did God reach down and form Adam out of the earth? Maybe not or why not? God can’t do that?? …And the speculation continues…teachccd 🙂
 
joeybaggz said:
Yes he WAS the Pope, 57 years ago. A lot of knowledge, discovery, and understanding has occurred since then. And possibly revelation also.

Pius XII taught in the context of the understanding of the 1950’s. The context has changed in the past six decades and our understanding of history, archaeology, science, physics, language, biblical exegesis, have developed and been refined. Much has been learned. That doesn’t say what he taught then is absolutely true today. If that were the case for Catholics, I think there was a Pope or two who condoned slavery. I think one has to be careful to reach back for teachings of the past in supporting positions today. That could be construed as akin to Protestants who simply take a verse from Scripture, totally out of context, and apply it as a basis of proof for a position they want to hold. Context is a terribly important word.

Pius XII’s teaching is just that, teaching, it is not an ex cathedra infallible pronouncement. His teaching is respected, and the position that the first Adam, and the first Eve, in some circles called “mitochondrial Eve” did exist, and into them God infused reason and will is the heart of what we believe about the origin of man and his relationship with God. The belief that evolutionary theory may distort the story of Genesis does not necessarily contradict the essence of what he said. It does contradict those who hold that Genesis is the literal, historical truth, exactly as it happened.

Again, evolution theory is not a proven fact. Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, serpent, fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, munch, munch, munch … absolute fact, who knows? Evolution, absolute fact, who knows? But that Adam and Eve existed, in some form as the first human beings with a God given soul, reason, and free will, is what must be held as truth, regardless of the historical setting. Pius XII’s truth lives on, our understanding of it however, continues to be a source of critical examination.
Click to expand...
More “who-knows” ism. Baloney. More “but that was written so long ago and we know so much more now.” Baloney.

Pope Benedict has just written a book about this issue. “the German-born Pontiff addressed these issues now because many scientists use Darwin’s theory to argue the random nature of evolution negated any role for God.”

news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21548399-663,00.html

It’s about promoting atheism. Always has been.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
More “who-knows” ism. Baloney. More “but that was written so long ago and we know so much more now.” Baloney.

Pope Benedict has just written a book about this issue. “the German-born Pontiff addressed these issues now because many scientists use Darwin’s theory to argue the random nature of evolution negated any role for God.”

news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21548399-663,00.html

It’s about promoting atheism. Always has been.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Right on!! 👍 👍 👍
 
teachccd said:
Fair enough. Isn’t it futile to continue a thread built upon assumptions? You say Pope Pius XII may be right…or…he may be archaic. So what is the meaning of this thread? Are we swordfighting theories?? Pope Pius XII gave us an understanding of original sin. Even Jesus mentions Adam in the Gospels. Would the Son of Man refer to a myth?

I’m not saying that my head is in the sand on this issue, but we cannot discount tradition and the possibility of it’s actual representation of our first set of parents. Did God reach down and form Adam out of the earth?
Click to expand...
The questions and conundrums you offer show that your are on the right track.

To its great credit, the Catholic Church is not afraid of any search for truth because the Catholic Church is grounded in "the way, the truth, and the light. As Paul said, (and I’m not good on verbatim Scripture) “examine all things, and keep that which is good”

You ask whether Pius may be right … that he gave us an understanding of original sin … that Jesus mentioned Adam and would the Son of Man refer to a myth. YES. Pius was right and Jesus did refer to an inerrant teaching of the faith.

Pius’ understanding of original sin reflects the understanding of the true Church till his time (including I think in fairness, the non-Catholic Christian denominations), and that Jesus never referred to a myth, he referred to an inerrant teaching of THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. Later to be written in what we now call the Bible.

In this discussion, we may not be stating an obvious dilemma. The usage of the word “day” in Genesis. Atheists and agnostics attack the literal idea that God created from a void, all of existence, short of man, in a period of five days, 120 hours. I have to believe they object because science has, in their minds, (and in the minds of many of the rest of us) proven that, such things as the ice age, the bronze age, the Jurassic period are periods of time that existed. And they are logically in opposition to the idea that the earth is a mere ten thousand years old, and that Adam and Eve resided in a Garden 6000 years ago, ergo, man is only about 6000 years old. Scientific evidence such as carbon dating, analysis of the formation of structures and civilizations, archaeological finds, etc. etc. may point to the idea that the Genesis story isn’t historically accurate. But it doesn’t prove that its lessons are inerrant.

Jesus pointed to Adam and “the beginning”. He was pointing the the inerrant teaching that Adam was the first man, that God infused in Adam reason and will, that Adam was made in the image and likeness of God. God stepped into creation and made man in His image and likeness, infused man with reason, will, and an immortal soul. That is what Jesus refers to. That is what we believe. Scripture says God formed man from the dust of the earth. It doesn’t say that he did it in one minute and 34 seconds. God may have formed man from the dust of the earth over eons. But GOD FORMED MAN AND BREATHED HIS - GOD’S - LIKENESS INTO US. That is the inerrant lesson of Scripture, that is what Jesus referred to, that is what Pius set forth, and this is what the Church teaches and believes.

American history has a popular legend that George Washington, was a very honest man. And that he was firm in his conviction that the nation be founded on truth, liberty, fairness, and honesty. The legend of course is that when confronted about chopping down a cherry tree, young George is said to have referred, “I connot tell a lie”. You may prove the cherry tree incident never occured as told in the story, that it is an allegory, but that doesn’t deny that Washington was an honest man, and the nation was founded on those principles. Not a great example, but maybe…

Your last point that we can’t discount tradition and Genesis is an actual representation of our first parents is right on the money. Remember, nothing was written down from the establishment of the covenant with Abraham, circa 1800-1900 B.C. to Moses writing the Pentateuch circa 1200-1300. Everything was oral tradition, passed on orally from generation to generation. That story - Genesis - is a representation of our first parents, its lesson is inerrant, that God created man and made him in his image and likeness. That is true. The Chosen People and Christians have believed that from “the beginning” as Christ asserts. And the idea that God formed man from the dust of the earth does, in a way, give some credulence to evolutionary theory. The problem with atheists is that they take God from the equation and insert a theory of random, chaotic development of life with no Grand Design, and no Grand Designer.

Atheists do have a point. Man does experience random, chaotic growth right within himself. Unfortunately, its called … cancer.

Shalom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top