B
Brady01
Guest
Should catholic believers believe in evolution??? that people were monkeys to cave men and to human ?? Should we believing in this?? As most of it sounds very correct
- Status
O
Orogeny
Guest
You are allowed to. I’m Catholic and I accept evolution.
You certainly shouldn’t believe that.
It is correct, so you are allowed to accept evolution. You are also allowed to not accept evolution. The Church doesn’t require you to go either way.
Peace
Tim
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Just remember that Adam was the first Human.
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
Honestly, it’s completely up to you. Catholics can accept evolution; some do, but many don’t seem to except the monkey/man thing (I sure don’t, but not for religious reasons). Regardless, in the story of evolution, there is still room for Adam and Eve, if that’s what you’re worried about.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I have to say, it’s unsettling to think that we are in the 21st century and some people still think evolutionary theory says we evolved from monkeys.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I don’t believe that a Catholic should believe in Evolution. As a matter of fact I reject every bit of evolution and agree with God’s description of creation which was done by him and depicted in the Bible.
P
PoliSciProf
Guest
I think that the fact of evolution is pretty well established on scientific grounds. The Bible was never meant to be a science text. There is no reason why God could not have used evolution to get to human beings.
G
grannymh
Guest
Hello all,
Speaking of evolution in the 21st century, has anyone seen Ben Stein’s documentary: Expelled No Intelligence Allowed?
Had to see it twice before I started to understand it. So am looking for insights from others.
Seems to me that 21st century evolution is no longer about smart monkeys with God as the ultimate cause of all creation including the soul of humans. It is now based on “chance” which supersedes the Divine Being.
Am I right in thinking that the current popular evolution theory is being fueled by the “new atheism” of people like Richard Dawkins? Ben Stein did point out that other credible evolution theories are being “expelled” by the scientifc community.
“New atheism” is part of the title of a book by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. Their paperback is "Answering the New Atheism - Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God.
The authors excluded Mr. Dawkins’ inflammatory rhetoric and instead meet him on his level of thinking. Without the spice, it takes concentration to read the book–but it is sure worth the price.
As to Catholics and other theists believing in evolution, it all depends if the actual Creator is given credit. God created the universe, including the soul of humans. It is the soul which makes us unique and allows us to have a direct relationship with our Creator. I know others have said similar things in previous posts. But the fact that there is a Supreme Creator and we are His creation needs to be repeated often. How He created the marvelous universe is a mystery which eventually can be determined by scientists. Progress was being made in this area but it got sidetracked when God was pushed aside.
Blessings,
grannymh
Speaking of evolution in the 21st century, has anyone seen Ben Stein’s documentary: Expelled No Intelligence Allowed?
Had to see it twice before I started to understand it. So am looking for insights from others.
Seems to me that 21st century evolution is no longer about smart monkeys with God as the ultimate cause of all creation including the soul of humans. It is now based on “chance” which supersedes the Divine Being.
Am I right in thinking that the current popular evolution theory is being fueled by the “new atheism” of people like Richard Dawkins? Ben Stein did point out that other credible evolution theories are being “expelled” by the scientifc community.
“New atheism” is part of the title of a book by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. Their paperback is "Answering the New Atheism - Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God.
The authors excluded Mr. Dawkins’ inflammatory rhetoric and instead meet him on his level of thinking. Without the spice, it takes concentration to read the book–but it is sure worth the price.
As to Catholics and other theists believing in evolution, it all depends if the actual Creator is given credit. God created the universe, including the soul of humans. It is the soul which makes us unique and allows us to have a direct relationship with our Creator. I know others have said similar things in previous posts. But the fact that there is a Supreme Creator and we are His creation needs to be repeated often. How He created the marvelous universe is a mystery which eventually can be determined by scientists. Progress was being made in this area but it got sidetracked when God was pushed aside.
Blessings,
grannymh
O
Orogeny
Guest
No, I didn’t watch that movie. Ben Stein produced a propaganda piece and I didn’t need to see it. I heard him being interviewed, I visited his website and I read the threads about it on CA forums, so I am very confident I know what the movie was about.
One question - why is it do you think that he didn’t include any Catholic scientists who support evolution in his film?
There are no scientific theories of evolution that are being “expelled” by the scientific community.
Peace
Tim
G
grannymh
Guest
Thanks for your reply, Tim
May I answer your question even though I have no actual facts,
Ben appears to have a definite script in mind and he based the documentary on it. Ben wasn’t searching for answers–he already had them. This is his choice.
Before I make my guess, I must point out that I have no clue if there were Catholic scientists in the documentary. I am accepting Tim’s comment above.
I think the reason Ben didn’t include any Catholic scientists is that he didn’t want people with good sound alternative ideas which could steal the spot light from his own agenda.
My answer is based on the following.
It seems to me that Ben picked people for his documentary for two reasons.
- He picked people to support a theory that academic freedom was in danger of being lost. His passionate speech at the end and his visit to a former Nazi concentration camp was his personal contribution to this theory.
I did notice that Ben was very careful about outright accusations and for balance included at least one person who could have been validly dismissed for other reasons.
Ben also was very careful which institutions he profiled. They did not begin to represent the existing variety of academia. I submit that Catholic institutions would have been a good example of academic freedom’s success. Mmmmm.
- Ben picked people to support his own agenda. As I recall, attention was given to the Discovery Institute as if this were a politically correct thing to do. I was not too impressed.
The interview clips where scientists talked about intelligent design were better and really stood out. Catholic scientists who support evolution would have offered a valuable contribution to the dialogue. Mmmmm
Not knowing Richard Dawkins, I almost laughed out loud at his interview. He has to be kidding kept running through my mind. I have since found out that he was serious, That’s scary.
If Ben were worried about atheism and he wanted to scare us,
he should have had a strong theist/scientist who supported evolution to counter this scare. If Ben wanted to promote academic freedom, he should have interviewed dynamic people with positive experiences.Catholic scientists should have been the logical choice.
Apparently, at least to me, Ben didn’t want to risk having anything rain on his parade.
Blessings to all this Thanksgiving week.
grannymh
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
The Pope accepts the broadest evolutionary claims, and seems to think it is consistent with Catholic belief.
One of you has it wrong.
G
grannymh
Guest
Or maybe both of you have it right…The Pope accepts the broadest evolutionary claims, and seems to think it is consistent with Catholic belief.
One of you has it wrong.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Don’t think so. His view is in opposition to the teaching of the church, and diametrically opposed to the opinion of the Pope.
R
redneck22
Guest
Monkeys only reproduce monkeys, humans reproduce humans, thats what Genesis says and thats all that science have ever demonstrated.
.
B
Brady01
Guest
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
No, it does not. You just inserted that into Genesis to make it acceptable to you. That alone should be a tip-off.
Nope. Would you like to learn about the evidence for the evolution of humans our Pope alluded to? It might be a revelation. And it just might bring you back into the Church’s teachings.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
ie.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz48uo…eature=related
In fact, Pope Benedict did not say we evolved from monkeys. That would not be true. Monkeys are far too evolved in their own way to have given rise to man.
R
rossum
Guest
Genesis talks about organisms reproducing after their “kind”. Since creationists have never defined what is, and what is not, a “kind” it is difficult to be sure about what Genesis means. How do you know that there is not a “primate kind” which includes both humans and monkeys? Since Genesis does not give us exact scientific definitions it is difficult to be sure what is meant.
Science has demonstrated that there is only ever evolution within a “kind”, science has also demonstrated that there is only one “kind” in existence - the “life on earth kind”. If you accept the verdict of science in one case then you should accept the verdict of science in the other case.
rossum
R
redneck22
Guest
Genesis is a revelation to all the descendants of Adam and Eve not just creationists. I think its simple enough for a child to understand but I could see how some *homosapiens sapiens *(wise wise man) may be confounded by it.
Genesis is more than clear that man was made from the dust of the ground and the dust he will return to. All the chemicals found in humans are also found in the ground, no suprise there.
The description in Genesis of Adam is that of an intelligent man. It would be no suprise to find his descendants degenerate due to the curse on creation into long haired, grunting, violent cave dwellers but that is the opposite direction for evolution to be true, so its no help to the theory of evolution.
That’s some sort of mixing of meanings. If you are infering that all life came from one common ancestor, then that’s religion and philosophy not science. Everybody is entiltled to their own belief.
Science has demonstrated that the “life on earth kind” could have never originated “naturally” since all the laws and observations of science go against it. Its the belief that life started “naturally” that has hindered scientific progress.
R
rossum
Guest
Saints Augustine and Aquinas might be surprised to hear that.
So I presume you do not have any problems with the theory of abiogenesis which states that all life is made of chemicals found on the early earth.
You seem to misunderstand evolution. There is no direction to evolution, if our large brain ceased to be an advantage then we would evolve smaller brains. There is no law of evolution saying that things must always get more complex. Cave fish lose their eyes because eyes are useless in a dark environment.
It is also a possible interpretation of Genesis, given that “kind” is not precisely defined.
You seem to have misunderstood the science. There are many open questions around abiogenesis, but what we have so far shows that it is far from being impossible. I suspect that you are being mislead by your creationist sources.
rossum
- Status