Evolution

[buffalo]

I’ll concede that a Christian perspective offers much firmer ground for the scientist to stand on, but I still think science is a tool for understanding the physical world. Things that are unseen and unknowable outside of faith cannot be the subject of scientific inquiry. This would seem, to me at least, by design. If the end goal is a trusting relationship with God, there has to be room for that “leap of faith” all believers are willing to take. As the Nicene Creed so eloquently states “We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.”

The only way to God is through trust and faith. You may see God’s thumbprint on creation, but only because you look with faithful eyes. Faith is a gift.

Science is a great tool. It must also know when it oversteps its bounds and its conclusions wander into philosophy.

 

[MamaZona]

Science is a great tool. It must also know when it oversteps its bounds and its conclusions wander into philosophy.

Amen to that, you’ll find no disagreement from this Mama.

I love science. I read constantly and sometimes enjoy the science-related programming on TV. It is disappointing, though, to see the arrogance some scientists exhibit–especially in the realm of bioethics, neuroscience, and weapons technology.

The neuroscientists who want to explain faith away as some kind of biologically based mental hat trick have stepped way beyond the bounds. Also, the bioengineers who think they have the right to tinker, unrestrained, with living things have stepped beyond those bounds. Anywhere they insult the dignity of God’s creation, they have gone too far.

It is important the faithful are there in the field to keep anarchy at bay, but I doubt science will ever be brought back into the fold completely. That is not to say, however, that this fact is in any way a good thing.

 

[kage_ar]

It is most certainly not a requirement for biologists to accept evolution, at most all they will have to do is understand the theory of evolution. .

I’d suggested it once, will again suggest you watch “Expelled” and then follow up on some of the scientists that were documented there.

See how they WERE required to accept Darwinism.

 

[MamaZona]

I’d suggested it once, will again suggest you watch “Expelled” and then follow up on some of the scientists that were documented there.

See how they WERE required to accept Darwinism.

Yes, and I can tell you from my experiences in college, you’re probably going to face the same thing.

I hope my words didn’t sound harsh, I’m just trying to let you know that you CAN accept evolution in a Christian way. I personally accept Theistic Evolution which is, to my understanding, the form of evolution accepted by the Church.

The people who push Darwinism as some kind of attack on Christianity or either/or scenario are pushing their philosophy but doing it in a disengenuous way. They try to make it appear as though they are arguing for “rationality” when they aren’t. They are just trying to make everyone experience the same non-belief they are experiencing. Think Sam Harris, Dawkins, et al. They are evangelistic atheists and militant agnostics–the bizzarro-world anti-cousins of the wingnut fundamentalists and religious zealots.

 

[Cliff_Jumper]

Yes, and I can tell you from my experiences in college, you’re probably going to face the same thing.

I hope my words didn’t sound harsh, I’m just trying to let you know that you CAN accept evolution in a Christian way. I personally accept Theistic Evolution which is, to my understanding, the form of evolution accepted by the Church.

The people who push Darwinism as some kind of attack on Christianity or either/or scenario are pushing their philosophy but doing it in a disengenuous way. They try to make it appear as though they are arguing for “rationality” when they aren’t. They are just trying to make everyone experience the same non-belief they are experiencing. Think Sam Harris, Dawkins, et al. They are evangelistic atheists and militant agnostics–the bizzarro-world anti-cousins of the wingnut fundamentalists and religious zealots.

I cannot agree more. Thank you. I had the exact same experiences in college as well.

 

[dixieagle]

Evolution is a theory (and I understand that many theories are obviously correct) which has evidence supporting it, but also alot of strong evidence and “high-key” biologists with arguments against it. I feel that the reason creation is being pushed away by society is the fact that it is much harder for a person to believe that we were created by an external source which we cannot see, feel or touch. By looking at physical ‘evidence’ it becomes much easier for a person to believe in it. Because we cannot physically show God to a person and say “this is the Lord and he created everything perfect” the people are unlikely to believe us, as it becomes easier to opt out for the more likely cause. I have faith, I believe that miracles can occur; I believe that a miracle occurred and the Lord created the Earth, man, the animals and everything that surrounds us. He created this for us, his people which he loves. I don’t believe that he intended us to evolve from a molecule to a pile of sludge to a newt to a lizard and eventually to a monkey then man. I don’t see why it is so hard to follow your faith in the Lord and believe that he created us exactly how he wanted, we didn’t need to change. I personally believe that the bible is the unchanged word of the Lord.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Genesis 1:27

The reason I want to study environmental biology is because I love the natural world, I love being in nature, and I could think of nothing better than being educated to help conserve nature in all its beauty.

I don’t think the theory is based on a ‘pack of lies’, it is based on reliable observations. But for every observation there can be more than one explanation.

Hi,

If you study pronouncements by recent Popes, you will, indeed, see that there is no conflict for Catholics in accepting the theory of evolution (I don’t use the term “believe”, as I reserve that for faith issues.) Also - it seems that you have a fairly fundamentalist view of the Bible (“unchanged word of the Lord”) that is not required of Catholics. The Bible is not necessarily, and does not have to be, historically accurate; it is religious teaching, the word of God in human language.

I happen to have a brilliant young son-in-law who will receive his doctorate in Ecological, Environmental and Evolutionary biology in a couple months. He is also an outstanding Catholic who often talks to young people about the relationship between science and faith. He refers to evolution as “God’s modus operandi” (method of procedure, way of operating.) It is just not necessary for Catholic to tie themselves in knots over this! We will never fully understand God’s methods in this life; as long as we accept that all creation is His, we don’t have to go nuts trying to wrap our tiny brains around the mystery of it all.

Also - be sure you understand what the word “theory” means in scientific terms. “A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole.” (wilstar.com/theories.htm)

God bless!

 

[buffalo]

Hi,

If you study pronouncements by recent Popes, you will, indeed, see that there is no conflict for Catholics in accepting the theory of evolution (I don’t use the term “believe”, as I reserve that for faith issues.) Also - it seems that you have a fairly fundamentalist view of the Bible (“unchanged word of the Lord”) that is not required of Catholics. The Bible is not necessarily, and does not have to be, historically accurate; it is religious teaching, the word of God in human language.

I happen to have a brilliant young son-in-law who will receive his doctorate in Ecological, Environmental and Evolutionary biology in a couple months. He is also an outstanding Catholic who often talks to young people about the relationship between science and faith. He refers to evolution as “God’s modus operandi” (method of procedure, way of operating.) It is just not necessary for Catholic to tie themselves in knots over this! We will never fully understand God’s methods in this life; as long as we accept that all creation is His, we don’t have to go nuts trying to wrap our tiny brains around the mystery of it all.

Also - be sure you understand what the word “theory” means in scientific terms. “A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole.” (wilstar.com/theories.htm)

God bless!

How does he explain Eve coming from Adam and bodily immortality?

 

[TravisandJill]

So…I am trying to figure this out.

The Catholic Church still teaches that we came from 2 people right?

 

[MamaZona]

How does he explain Eve coming from Adam and bodily immortality?

I think accepting evolution means tacitly accepting that Genesis is intentionally allegorical and not to be taken as a scientific textbook.

Saying Genesis is an allegory, however, does not diminish the truth of it. It makes sense, frankly, because I doubt the ancients would have been able to comprehend evolutionary biology, certain aspects of modern cosmology, advanced physics, etc. Genesis is the truth of man’s fall in terms which could be understood by the intended audience. There’s nothing wrong with that. After all, look how much trouble modern people have understanding evolution (as a group).

 

[buffalo]

I think accepting evolution means tacitly accepting that Genesis is intentionally allegorical and not to be taken as a scientific textbook.

Saying Genesis is an allegory, however, does not diminish the truth of it. It makes sense, frankly, because I doubt the ancients would have been able to comprehend evolutionary biology, certain aspects of modern cosmology, advanced physics, etc. Genesis is the truth of man’s fall in terms which could be understood by the intended audience. There’s nothing wrong with that. After all, look how much trouble modern people have understanding evolution (as a group).

Yes, Yes. We now have to overturn 2,000 years of constant Catholic teaching. So we got it wrong. Sure, the ancients could not understand it. Ridiculous.

Genesis could easily say - Adam and Eve came from animals. Clear and simple.No need for allegory. No future confusion. Very easy, neat and clean.

But, it doesn’t say that at all now does it?

It doesn’t diminish the truth? Let’s see, Eve came from Adam. This is a pretty specific point. If she didn’t Genesis could have said she came from another animal. It doesn’t.

Now exactly how hard could that be, even for ancients.

 

[dixieagle]

How does he explain Eve coming from Adam and bodily immortality?

He doesn’t try to explain; who among us can? He just knows that God did it

 

[dixieagle]

I think accepting evolution means tacitly accepting that Genesis is intentionally allegorical and not to be taken as a scientific textbook.

Saying Genesis is an allegory, however, does not diminish the truth of it. It makes sense, frankly, because I doubt the ancients would have been able to comprehend evolutionary biology, certain aspects of modern cosmology, advanced physics, etc. Genesis is the truth of man’s fall in terms which could be understood by the intended audience. There’s nothing wrong with that. After all, look how much trouble modern people have understanding evolution (as a group).

Excellent post!

I will never understand why people tie themselves in knots about this. Perhaps my faith is very simple.

 

[MamaZona]

Yes, Yes. We now have to overturn 2,000 years of constant Catholic teaching. So we got it wrong. Sure, the ancients could not understand it. Ridiculous.

Genesis could easily say - Adam and Eve came from animals. Clear and simple.No need for allegory. No future confusion. Very easy, neat and clean.

But, it doesn’t say that at all now does it?

It doesn’t diminish the truth? Let’s see, Eve came from Adam. This is a pretty specific point. If she didn’t Genesis could have said she came from another animal. It doesn’t.

Now exactly how hard could that be, even for ancients.

Even the name Adam tells of human origins in the beautiful poetry that is Genesis. The ancient Hebrew adamah means ground. Without getting too deeply into it, Adam is named Adam because he was formed by God from the “red ground”.

ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/001.html

We are set apart from the animals because we are “in God’s image” meaning, we have the capacity for higher consciousness and a true relationship with God that animals lack.

I guess, my question, not to be confrontational, is:

If the last two Popes don’t have a problem with it, why do you?

 

[MamaZona]

Excellent post!

I will never understand why people tie themselves in knots about this. Perhaps my faith is very simple.

Thanks, I don’t understand, either. Although, the confrontational way in which it has been used by “agnostics” and atheists doesn’t help!

I should say, too, the post was not to insult our ancestors. I guess a better way of putting it would be to say that the additional nuts-and-bolts of how the world was created in a “how-to” format wasn’t neccessary to get the point across.

We may want to know the details, but we don’t really need to know the details. I think saying we were formed from the ground covers it quite succinctly. We come from dust, we return to dust. But, the One with the blueprints can restore that dust, if He decides to.

 

[buffalo]

Excellent post!

I will never understand why people tie themselves in knots about this. Perhaps my faith is very simple.

God could have created Adam and Eve supernaturally and inserted them in the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening in the universe at the time.