Evolution

[jdl_106]

I have just finished my last year of High School, and just last week I did my final examinations. One of the subjects I studied was Biology and within the subject we were required to study the theory of evolution. In the exam there were various questions which asked us to write about evolution. Now, I personally don’t believe in evolution, although when I answered these questions I had to answer them in a way that sounded like I did believe it. Was it wrong for me to answer these questions, or to study the theory of evolution at all?
I’m also going to study an environmental biology course and university next year which will also probably include evolution as a main area of study.

Thankyou.

 

[kage_ar]

Have you watched Ben Stein’s “Expelled”? If not, get the DVD and watch it.

Next, go to www.vatican.va and type “Evolution” into the search box. You can then read the teaching of the Church on the topic. This is an example of what you will read:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081031_academy-sciences_en.html

 

[Jennifer_J]

Better yet, skip Ben Stein and watch Flock of Dodos:
flockofdodos.com/
for a more balanced approach to the topic and Definatly read what the Vatican says about evolution

 

[aggiecatholic05]

beleiving in evolution is not a sin.

answering science questions is based on the theory being discussed, not your opinion like in a philosophy class, also not a sin.

enjoy your studies, but remember biology is just chemestry, chemistry is just physics, and physics is just math…so biologists must be the smartest because they know it all.

 

[Dan86]

I think that believing in evolution is okay. Charles Darwin was a Christian.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

I think that believing in evolution is okay. Charles Darwin was a Christian.

the key is to realize that if it is true then that is obviously how God set it up and wanted it to work.

 

[jdl_106]

enjoy your studies, but remember biology is just chemestry, chemistry is just physics, and physics is just math…so biologists must be the smartest because they know it all.

Hahahaha the funny thing is that I actually did study Biology, Chemistry, Physics and maths.

Thankyou everyone for the replies!

 

[MamaZona]

I have just finished my last year of High School, and just last week I did my final examinations. One of the subjects I studied was Biology and within the subject we were required to study the theory of evolution. In the exam there were various questions which asked us to write about evolution. Now, I personally don’t believe in evolution, although when I answered these questions I had to answer them in a way that sounded like I did believe it. Was it wrong for me to answer these questions, or to study the theory of evolution at all?
I’m also going to study an environmental biology course and university next year which will also probably include evolution as a main area of study.

Thankyou.

Just out of curiosity, what is it about evolution that you feel flies in the face of your beliefs?

To my knowledge, and perhaps I’m wrong–please correct me if I am, both the current Pope and Pope John Paul II stated that evolution could coexist with faith. The problem isn’t evolution it’s “social Darwinism” that is the issue.

If you feel this strongly about one of the most robust theories in the scientific realm, then I strongly suggest you find another course of study more suited to your interests. Of course, this is just my opinion. I just can’t see how you would be happy studying something you think is founded on a pack of lies.

 

[jdl_106]

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.

 

[MamaZona]

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.

There are multiple views of the evolutionary process besides ID or creationism. Have you read The Language of God by Francis Collins? I think he makes cogent points about evolution and he views everything through the lense of a Christian (if not Catholic) mindset.

To reject evolution but study biology seems to be an untenable position. And, perhaps I am missing something, but I don’t see why it is necessary, given that both the current and previous Pope have not taken issue with evolution?

msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

Pope Benedict XVI has even gone so far as to call the “debate” between evolution and creationism “an absurdity” (see the link above).

I mean no offense, but it just appears as though you are beating your head against a very thick, brick wall for no reason. The “choice” between evolution and faith is a false dichotomy.

 

[buffalo]

Just out of curiosity, what is it about evolution that you feel flies in the face of your beliefs?

To my knowledge, and perhaps I’m wrong–please correct me if I am, both the current Pope and Pope John Paul II stated that evolution could coexist with faith. The problem isn’t evolution it’s “social Darwinism” that is the issue.

If you feel this strongly about one of the most robust theories in the scientific realm, then I strongly suggest you find another course of study more suited to your interests. Of course, this is just my opinion. I just can’t see how you would be happy studying something you think is founded on a pack of lies.

How about:

1. Eve coming from Adam
2. Preternatural gifts
3. Bodily immortality
4. infused knowledge

 

[jdl_106]

The Pope has also said (on the link you posted):
“the theory could not exclude a role by God.”

Well if you go and ask almost any evolutionist for a description of evolution they will almost certainly not include God into their description. God is not present in the scientific communities teaching of the theory of evolution.

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. Perhaps if more evidence is found which endorses the theory of evolution I may accept it as a legitamate theory. But in the meantime when there is still viable evidence supporting creation I will stick to my faith.

This is my personal opinion, but I’ve found that the teachings of the Bible and the teachings of evolution are a world apart from each other.

 

[MamaZona]

The Pope has also said (on the link you posted):
“the theory could not exclude a role by God.”

Well if you go and ask almost any evolutionist for a description of evolution they will almost certainly not include God into their description. God is not present in the scientific communities teaching of the theory of evolution.

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. Perhaps if more evidence is found which endorses the theory of evolution I may accept it as a legitamate theory. But in the meantime when there is still viable evidence supporting creation I will stick to my faith.

This is my personal opinion, but I’ve found that the teachings of the Bible and the teachings of evolution are a world apart from each other.

What is wrong with Theistic Evolution, then?

 

[buffalo]

What is wrong with Theistic Evolution, then?

Did God know what Adam would look like?

 

[MamaZona]

Did God know what Adam would look like?

I don’t see why God wouldn’t, even in Theistic Evolution. However, I’ve heard TE used in many ways. A lot depends on your view of Genesis (ie whether it is allegorical as opposed to literal).

 

[MamaZona]

The Pope has also said (on the link you posted):
“the theory could not exclude a role by God.”

Well if you go and ask almost any evolutionist for a description of evolution they will almost certainly not include God into their description. God is not present in the scientific communities teaching of the theory of evolution.

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. Perhaps if more evidence is found which endorses the theory of evolution I may accept it as a legitamate theory. But in the meantime when there is still viable evidence supporting creation I will stick to my faith.

This is my personal opinion, but I’ve found that the teachings of the Bible and the teachings of evolution are a world apart from each other.

I just wanted to add, I’m worried that the inexact nature of the English language is leaving some question in your mind regarding the definition of the word “theory”. A theory in the scientific sense is quite different from the commonly used “theory” (that is to say, there is a big difference between theory/conjecture and theory as it is used in the term “Germ Theory”).

I just want to throw that out there. I’ve always thought this point was problematic.

 

[Cliff_Jumper]

I think evolution as taught in the classroom definitely rejects any existence of God, but as I understand, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (anyone correct me if I’m wrong), the theory of evolution can explain how God created the forms of men, women, and animals, but it cannot explain how the soul was created without God.

Luke E. Hart, said it pretty well, “Insofar as evolution explains bodies, it does not contradict the doctrine of creation. Insofar as it claims to explain souls, it does. But it is unscientific and illogical to try to explain immaterial souls by material biology.
Souls leave no fossils. Insofar as evolution explains natural processes it does not contradict creation. Insofar as it defies supernatural divine design it does. But then evolution goes beyond its scientific scope and becomes a theology instead of a natural science.” (Catholic Christianity: The Luke E. Hart Series)

 

[MamaZona]

I think evolution as taught in the classroom definitely rejects any existence of God, but as I understand, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (anyone correct me if I’m wrong), the theory of evolution can explain how God created the forms of men, women, and animals, but it cannot explain how the soul was created without God.

Luke E. Hart, said it pretty well, “Insofar as evolution explains bodies, it does not contradict the doctrine of creation. Insofar as it claims to explain souls, it does. But it is unscientific and illogical to try to explain immaterial souls by material biology.
Souls leave no fossils. Insofar as evolution explains natural processes it does not contradict creation. Insofar as it defies supernatural divine design it does. But then evolution goes beyond its scientific scope and becomes a theology instead of a natural science.” (Catholic Christianity: The Luke E. Hart Series)

I agree, but here’s where I get confused, myself: Didn’t Descartes’ thoughts on the dualism of soul and body (thought and matter) get shot down by the Church?

I know you can pretty much toss out Descartes’ thoughts on the soul hiding out in the pineal gland, too.

Of course, in principle, I agree, you can’t use materialism to understand something of a spiritual nature. Thus God will never be found in a microscope or telescope, but remains just as real.

My understanding is this:

Science is a tool for understanding the physical world. It outlines the “how” insofar as our limited senses can perceive it.

Religion, in my case Christianity/Catholicism, provides the why.

It isn’t that the two disciplines contradict, so much as they ask fundamentally different questions in search of different answers.

People who use evolution as an excuse for atheism are just materialists who don’t want to be labled that way. Or at least, that’s the way it appears to me.

Just because atheists/agnostics have hijacked evolution and used it to promote their own philosophy in many areas does not make evolution itself a threat to Christianity. Not anymore than learning about the heliocentric system threatened Christianity.

We know we can understand the solar system without losing the truth of the Bible. I don’t see any reason evolution won’t follow the same course.

 

[buffalo]

I agree, but here’s where I get confused, myself: Didn’t Descartes’ thoughts on the dualism of soul and body (thought and matter) get shot down by the Church?

I know you can pretty much toss out Descartes’ thoughts on the soul hiding out in the pineal gland, too.

Of course, in principle, I agree, you can’t use materialism to understand something of a spiritual nature. Thus God will never be found in a microscope or telescope, but remains just as real.

My understanding is this:

Science is a tool for understanding the physical world. It outlines the “how” insofar as our limited senses can perceive it.

Religion, in my case Christianity/Catholicism, provides the why.

It isn’t that the two disciplines contradict, so much as they ask fundamentally different questions in search of different answers.

People who use evolution as an excuse for atheism are just materialists who don’t want to be labled that way. Or at least, that’s the way it appears to me.

Just because atheists/agnostics have hijacked evolution and used it to promote their own philosophy in many areas does not make evolution itself a threat to Christianity. Not anymore than learning about the heliocentric system threatened Christianity.

We know we can understand the solar system without losing the truth of the Bible. I don’t see any reason evolution won’t follow the same course.

Actually, separating science out from metaphysics and philosophy is an error. It limits science and the conclusions.

Science needs to be brought back into the fold, so that conclusions can be reahed by looking through a complete lens.

 

[MamaZona]

Actually, separating science out from metaphysics and philosophy is an error. It limits science and the conclusions.

Science needs to be brought back into the fold, so that conclusions can be reahed by looking through a complete lens.

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.