Evolution of Man Disproved?

[Marie1234]

I came across this link and I don’t really know what to think of it. It makes a lot of valid points, aside from the mathematics of human population growth (in my opinion anyway). The hypotheses on religion and language and such, makes a lot of sense and I believed this anyway, as a Catholic. I am just wondering what anyone else’s take on this is. Do you think it’s valid? Is it possible to disprove the evolution of man theory? Does this mean humans didn’t evolve from apes?

What do you think?

ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

It’s important to remember evolution is just a theory. It has many holes and it isn’t a fact, even though the majority of scientists would like you to think this. It is of course possible and it is even compatible with the faith if proven that it is true, but I am choosing to study up on the evidence for and against it before I make my decision. At the moment I think the part of evolution about natural selection is of course right - it is simple logic, really. The species that is most fit and most prone to adapt when necessary will of course live out, whereas inflexible species will not. However, the idea that man came from apes is not a scientific fact as of yet and proponents of it are still trying to fill in the many holes of the theory.

 

[brianwalden]

The paper is called “The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved” and although I only skimmed it - it didn’t appear to perform any experiments. Therefore I wouldn’t say that it scientifically proves or disproves anything.

As a Catholic you’re free to believe that God used some sort of evolution to create Man or that evolution doesn’t occur. What you’re not free to believe in is a purposeless, atheistic evolution. Realistically, unless you’re a biologist or anthropologist or some other scientist where the origins of human life affect you on a daily basis - the question of evolution probably doesn’t have any affect on your life. Hold on loosely to the theory you believe with the possibility that you may be swayed by new evidence and know with certainty that God created Man with a purpose and you’ll figure out the mechanism He used if, by His grace, you get to heaven.

 

[Marie1234]

It’s important to remember evolution is just a theory. It has many holes and it isn’t a fact, even though the majority of scientists would like you to think this. It is of course possible and it is even compatible with the faith if proven that it is true, but I am choosing to study up on the evidence for and against it before I make my decision. At the moment I think the part of evolution about natural selection is of course right - it is simple logic, really. The species that is most fit and most prone to adapt when necessary will of course live out, whereas inflexible species will not. However, the idea that man came from apes is not a scientific fact as of yet and proponents of it are still trying to fill in the many holes of the theory.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut But I still don’t understand, if humans didn’t come from apes, where did we come from? I know it’s possible God could have just created us out of the blue and then let us roam the earth, but why would He do that if He made other animals evolve?

Also, I think that “survival of the fittest”, Darwinist stuff has been widely disputed. It’s so hard to know what to think regarding science! It’s kinda fun though; I love facing the unknown .

 

[Marie1234]

The paper is called “The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved” and although I only skimmed it - it didn’t appear to perform any experiments. Therefore I wouldn’t say that it scientifically proves or disproves anything.

As a Catholic you’re free to believe that God used some sort of evolution to create Man or that evolution doesn’t occur. What you’re not free to believe in is a purposeless, atheistic evolution. Realistically, unless you’re a biologist or anthropologist or some other scientist where the origins of human life affect you on a daily basis - the question of evolution probably doesn’t have any affect on your life. Hold on loosely to the theory you believe with the possibility that you may be swayed by new evidence and know with certainty that God created Man with a purpose and you’ll figure out the mechanism He used if, by His grace, you get to heaven.

Thanks Brian I study Biology in college so I just wanted to make sure I understand what my faith says on the matter before I form any conclusions myself. I believe in Catholicism far more than I believe in science, however, I’ve come to realize that science can actually explain my religion. I love it and even though I hear the atheistic point of view, it really doesn’t impact me because I think the religious side makes infinitely more sense.

 

[october_baby]

Please tell me more!! When I was a protestant I was a bible literalist, and then my RICA priest told me that evolution was real. So now I’m confused. :whackadoo:

 

[Marie1234]

Please tell me more!! When I was a protestant I was a bible literalist, and then my RICA priest told me that evolution was real. So now I’m confused. :whackadoo:

You can read the link I posted @ the top. I’m not a Bible literalist, myself, and I don’t think the article is trying to disprove evolution all together, just the idea that humans evolved from apes at different locations on the globe and have created their own religions, languages, ect. which obviously goes against Christianity which states that humanity evolved from 2 people, had divine revelation from God, and was given one religion. It’s pretty interesting.

 

[mgteich]

I think that it is misleading to say that Catholics are free to believe in evolution or not. There has been much written. One certainly will not lose their faith if they refuse to believe in science. However, the laws of the natural world are real ones. There is no conflict between the Church and science, particularly on the science of evolution as the knowledge of this science develops and changes from time to time.

I would suggest the writings of the Holy Father (references included in the article below).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

 

[mab23]

i truly enjoyed that read!

 

[brianwalden]

Marie you may find this article interesting. It’s one man’s (a Catholic science fiction writer, I believe) thoughts on evolution and creation…

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

 

[brianwalden]

I think that it is misleading to say that Catholics are free to believe in evolution or not. There has been much written. One certainly will not lose their faith if they refuse to believe in science. However, the laws of the natural world are real ones. There is no conflict between the Church and science, particularly on the science of evolution as the knowledge of this science develops and changes from time to time.

I would suggest the writings of the Holy Father (references included in the article below).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

I think you’re responding to me. Please let me clarify what I was saying. The scientific consensus of our day reflects our current understanding the natural world (consensus is also not a scientific proof). It is not necessarily the be all end all of the truth - a simple comparison of the state of a given science 50 or 100 years ago to today will demonstrate this. Therefore, when it comes to something like the question of whether or not man evolved from animals where there is not a clear cut repeatable experiment that definitely proves one side or the other, we must decide for ourselves based on the evidence available to us whether we agree with the scientific consensus or not. Again, for most of us the question of the evolution of man doesn’t affect how we live our lives. As you said, no one is going to be condemned by God for getting the science wrong.

Where there is a danger is if we start using our personal interpretation of the faith to manipulate science or our personal interpretation of science to manipulate the faith. I completely agree with you and the Church that there is no conflict between faith and science. So when we set one against the other we are at danger of sacrificing the truth. We shouldn’t use Genesis as an argument against good science and we shouldn’t use science as an argument against the truth of revelation.

P.S. I personally think that our bodies evolved over time and at some point in history God gave the first man and woman a rational soul. But I’m a programmer, not a scientist, so my belief is formed on a very limited set of data. I’m more than willing to change my belief as I come across new information.

 

[mgteich]

I agree with all that you have posted.

I would say that mankind started when God breathed spiritual life into an ancient primate.

I think you’re responding to me. Please let me clarify what I was saying. The scientific consensus of our day reflects our current understanding the natural world (consensus is also not a scientific proof). It is not necessarily the be all end all of the truth - a simple comparison of the state of a given science 50 or 100 years ago to today will demonstrate this. Therefore, when it comes to something like the question of whether or not man evolved from animals where there is not a clear cut repeatable experiment that definitely proves one side or the other, we must decide for ourselves based on the evidence available to us whether we agree with the scientific consensus or not. Again, for most of us the question of the evolution of man doesn’t affect how we live our lives. As you said, no one is going to be condemned by God for getting the science wrong.

Where there is a danger is if we start using our personal interpretation of the faith to manipulate science or our personal interpretation of science to manipulate the faith. I completely agree with you and the Church that there is no conflict between faith and science. So when we set one against the other we are at danger of sacrificing the truth. We shouldn’t use Genesis as an argument against good science and we shouldn’t use science as an argument against the truth of revelation.

P.S. I personally think that our bodies evolved over time and at some point in history God gave the first man and woman a rational soul. But I’m a programmer, not a scientist, so my belief is formed on a very limited set of data. I’m more than willing to change my belief as I come across new information.

 

[Lochias]

I think you’re responding to me. Please let me clarify what I was saying. The scientific consensus of our day reflects our current understanding the natural world (consensus is also not a scientific proof). It is not necessarily the be all end all of the truth - a simple comparison of the state of a given science 50 or 100 years ago to today will demonstrate this. Therefore, when it comes to something like the question of whether or not man evolved from animals where there is not a clear cut repeatable experiment that definitely proves one side or the other, we must decide for ourselves based on the evidence available to us whether we agree with the scientific consensus or not. Again, for most of us the question of the evolution of man doesn’t affect how we live our lives. As you said, no one is going to be condemned by God for getting the science wrong.

Where there is a danger is if we start using our personal interpretation of the faith to manipulate science or our personal interpretation of science to manipulate the faith. I completely agree with you and the Church that there is no conflict between faith and science. So when we set one against the other we are at danger of sacrificing the truth. We shouldn’t use Genesis as an argument against good science and we shouldn’t use science as an argument against the truth of revelation.

P.S. I personally think that our bodies evolved over time and at some point in history God gave the first man and woman a rational soul. But I’m a programmer, not a scientist, so my belief is formed on a very limited set of data. I’m more than willing to change my belief as I come across new information.

Very, very well put. I am going to borrow this, if I may, to show to a co-worker whom I’ve discussed this at length with, 'cause your post sums up very well the point I was trying to make last time.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I came across this link and I don’t really know what to think of it. It makes a lot of valid points, aside from the mathematics of human population growth (in my opinion anyway). The hypotheses on religion and language and such, makes a lot of sense and I believed this anyway, as a Catholic. I am just wondering what anyone else’s take on this is. Do you think it’s valid? Is it possible to disprove the evolution of man theory? Does this mean humans didn’t evolve from apes?

What do you think?

ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

The first linked article was written in 1925 and the second in 1899. We’ve learned lots since then.

It is entirely possible to disprove the ToE. Find just one rabbit skeleton in a Jurassic layer.

Humans did not evolve from apes. Apes are our evolutionary cousins. We’re both primates.

 

[Ion]

The first linked article was written in 1925 and the second in 1899. We’ve learned lots since then.

It is entirely possible to disprove the ToE. Find just one rabbit skeleton in a Jurassic layer.

Humans did not evolve from apes. Apes are our evolutionary cousins. We’re both primates.

“Everybody knows” that the layer where there is a rabbit skeleton can’t be Jurassic

 

[onceablasphemer]

Thanks Brian I study Biology in college so I just wanted to make sure I understand what my faith says on the matter before I form any conclusions myself. I believe in Catholicism far more than I believe in science, however, I’ve come to realize that science can actually explain my religion. I love it and even though I hear the atheistic point of view, it really doesn’t impact me because I think the religious side makes infinitely more sense.

Don’t forget that some of the most revered names in science have a Fr. in front of them! Catholics have a long history of advancing science and higher education in general (we founded the college system!), despite what the secular university system wants us to believe. Science is the study of God’s creation.

 

[Gigmaster]

First off, Humans did not “evolve from apes”. Apes, monkeys and humans all developed independently from a common ancestor.

And to suggest that humans evolved from apes is horribly insulting, and disgusting. We owe the apes a huge apology for such an insult. I don’t even consider humans ‘evolved’ at all.

Apes do not kill each other over ownership of a single banana tree, especially when there are hundreds more just like it. Humans go to war over a worthless piece of desert that won’t even grow a decent tomato.

If you give a glass of whiskey to an ape, they will smell it, and throw it away. If you give that same glass to a human, most would drink it. You tell me…Who is more intelligent???

An ape does not hoard all the available bananas and lock them up, refusing to allow other apes to eat. An ape takes what they need and leaves the rest for others. How long would Wall Street exist under those conditions???

Apes live within their environment. They don’t destroy it. Humans…well…

As I said, my apologies to the apes.

 

[Mystophilus]

As I said, my apologies to the apes.

That was all worth a chuckle, but Jane Goodall’s studies of tribal chimpanzee behaviour showed them doing lots of the sorts of deliberately-wicked things which are most commonly associated with humans.

 

[Gigmaster]

They probably learned them from us…

That was all worth a chuckle, but Jane Goodall’s studies of tribal chimpanzee behaviour showed them doing lots of the sorts of deliberately-wicked things which are most commonly associated with humans.

 

[Mystophilus]

I came across this link and I don’t really know what to think of it. It makes a lot of valid points, aside from the mathematics of human population growth (in my opinion anyway). The hypotheses on religion and language and such, makes a lot of sense and I believed this anyway, as a Catholic. I am just wondering what anyone else’s take on this is. Do you think it’s valid? Is it possible to disprove the evolution of man theory? Does this mean humans didn’t evolve from apes?

What do you think?

Well, you know how Richard Dawkins should really stick to ethology, and stay out of history and philosophy? The good reverend here ought to have stayed out of biology, mathematics, linguistics…

Quaintly enough, there is a paper on this particular claim, entitled ‘How anti-evolutionists abuse mathematics’. The religion and language parts are no better.

For example, in the “language” part, he trots out the tired, silly old claim that all languages come from a single source, something now very thoroughly disproved (look up “language families”, and “isolated languages”), but not nearly as amusing as where he talks about all languages having supposedly come from short words and so he says, “The Hebrew has only about 500 root words of 3 letters ; the stagnant Chinese, 450; the Sanskrit, about the same. All the Semitic languages have tri-literal [3-letter] roots.” Um, yeah, only Chinese has no words of three letters, because Chinese doesn’t have letters, and never has had them.

In the religion part, he says, “According to evolution, all religions were evolved or invented by humanoids. In that case, we would expect them to be widely divergent”. Actually, no, we wouldn’t, because the “humanoids”, or, rather, early humans, were all the same kind of creature, and all thought in the same kinds of ways. It goes on from there, but all in the same direction.

As someone studying biology, you should carefully question what you are being taught, but that questioning is going to lead you to the fact that evolution is our best available explanation of the data. As a Catholic, you can also rejoice in the fact that your Church has had the wisdom to say this: “The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”” (Catechism, 283)