Evolution: Need book recommendation for family member

  • Thread starter Thread starter antonioferri
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia, can you synthesize in in few paragraphs any remarkable experiments which prove that MACRO-evolution is true, and where we can observe it today? Remember, successful mutations are those which improve chances for a species’ survival. Thanks, Rob :confused:
 
article from the “Original Catholic Encyclopedia”

ENTER YOUR COMMENT OR QUESTION HERE

My brother in law is a cafeteria catholic that believes in Evolution and Big Bang theory. He is an “INTELECTUAL” is there a book that can meet him at his point of view and explain the Catholics stance and bring him back “HOME TO ROME” any help you can give would be great. Thank you and God bless you all for the GREAT WORK you are all doing.

Have your brother-in-law look at these DVDs:

Unlocking The Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design
www.illustramedia.com

The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe
www.illustramedia.com

The Age of the Earth
www.drdino.com
NOTE: THERE IS ANTI-CATHOLIC MATERIAL ON THIS DVD. I IGNORED IT AND PAID ATTENTION TO THE PRESENTATION
 
I look forward to your recommendation of scientific articles tracing this connection.

StAnastasia
I had offered books at the beginning, but, just wanted to reply to the dear soul who has a friend that is not well. Not being a scientist, but having read … Darwin’s “Voyage of the Beagle” I believe that adaptation is not farfetched. Could there be mutation because of adaptation in a good way, or could it go the other way like lupus or this stone issue? I bow out of this, being without the knowledge of genetics, just aware of genetic problems that are passed along.
 
The Age of the Earth
www.drdino.com
NOTE: THERE IS ANTI-CATHOLIC MATERIAL ON THIS DVD. I IGNORED IT AND PAID ATTENTION TO THE PRESENTATION
Ya think! Don’t forget to mention that “Dr. Dino” has at best very little scientific background and is now in prison for tax evasion. Great source.

Peace

Tim
 
Ya think! Don’t forget to mention that “Dr. Dino” has at best very little scientific background and is now in prison for tax evasion. Great source. Peace
Tim
Do you mean Convicted Felon Kent Hovind? Who drew up his own doctoral diploma with coloring crayons?
 
I look forward to your recommendation of scientific articles tracing this connection.

StAnastasia
I posted about the book by Darwin “Voyage of the Beagle” - but the posting is unfound by me - it is a book which my Father had since the 1940’s. It is about changes with species, not between species. Darwin had been headed to the seminary. It is like reading the early thoughts of anyone, they are not as revolutionary as the full theory. And, perhaps that is not where he had wanted his thought to go. Obviously a Christian would not espouse atheism, i.e.

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say:
Catholics and Evolution

One of the most important questions for every educated Catholic of today is: What is to be thought of the theory of evolution? Is it to be rejected as unfounded and inimical to Christianity, or is it to be accepted as an established theory altogether compatible with the principles of a Christian conception of the universe?

We must carefully distinguish between the different meanings of the words theory of evolution in order to give a clear and correct answer to this question. We must distinguish (1) between the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis and as a philosophical speculation; (2) between the theory of evolution as based on theistic principles and as based on a materialistic and atheistic foundation; (3) between the theory of evolution and Darwinism; (4) between the theory of evolution as applied to the vegetable and animal kingdoms and as applied to man.

…

The theory of evolution vs. Darwinism
Darwinism and the theory of evolution are by no means equivalent conceptions. The theory of evolution was propounded before Charles Darwin’s time, by Lamarck (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire. Darwin, in 1859, gave it a new form by endeavouring to explain the origin of species by means of natural selection. According to this theory the breeding of new species depends on the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory of selection is Darwinism—adhering to the narrower, and accurate, sense of the word. As a theory, it is scientifically inadequate, since it does not account for the origin of attributes fitted to the purpose, which must be referred back to the interior, original causes of evolution. Haeckel, with other materialists, has enlarged this selection theory of Darwin’s into a philosophical world-idea, by attempting to account for the whole evolution of the cosmos by means of the chance survival of the fittest. This theory is Darwinism in the secondary, and wider, sense of the word. It is that atheistical form of the theory of evolution which was shown above—under (2)—to be untenable. The third signification of the term Darwinism arose from the application of the theory of selection to man, which is likewise impossible of acceptance. In the fourth place, Darwinism frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside.

Human evolution vs. plant and animal evolution
To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man’s body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine (see AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, SAINT, under V. Augustinism in History). The actual proofs of the descent of man’s body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God.

Sources
For a thorough exposition, WASMANN, Modern Biology and the Theory of Evolution (Freiburg im Br., 1904). Of the older literature, MIVART, On the Genesis of Species (London and New York, 1871).

About this page
APA citation. Wasmann, E. (1909). Catholics and Evolution. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 28, 2009 from New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

MLA citation. Wasmann, Erich. “Catholics and Evolution.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 28 Apr. 2009 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by WGKofron. With thanks to St. Mary’s Church, Akron, Ohio.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
 
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say:
Catholics and Evolution
One of the most important questions for every educated Catholic of today is: What is to be thought of the theory of evolution? Is it to be rejected as unfounded and inimical to Christianity, or is it to be accepted as an established theory altogether compatible with the principles of a Christian conception of the universe? Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
QUOTE]
 
See Our Sunday Visitor from April 19, 2009.

“Any view of evolution that assumes on principle that biological nature is entirely governed by chance and blind laws must be in error.” The author is Benjamin Wiker.

Peace,
Ed
 
This is not useful – it is almost a century old. Do you have any contemporary works on your topic?
“Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo”

amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-Conference-Benedict-Gandolfo/dp/1586172344#reader

Back Flap: “Chance or Purpose” “God is no Delusion” “Science and Evidence for Design” “The Evidential Power of Beauty” “The Order of Things” all titles from Ignatius Press:

ignatius.com/search.aspx?SID=1&

1909 or 2009: don’t all intelligent Catholics think the same about evolution? A poster, earlier, said it rather well.
 
If evolution is so widely accepted and understood, why do the naturalists keep trumping up so-called “missing links” such as “Ida”? If Ida is really “Grandma”, is it possible that the expression “chasing tail” goes WA…AY back? I’ve been laughing hysterically about this story since it was announced. This SHOULD be embarassing, even to an evolutionist! 😃 Rob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top