Genesis v Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

edwest2

Guest
I meet a stranger on the street. I tell him that Jesus Christ died for his sins and how he might have eternal life with Him in heaven. The man looks at me and wants me to tell him more. Then he prays that he is a sinner and wants Christ in his life. A new creature has been born.

Jesus Christ calls Lazarus out of the tomb. He is warned that he has been in the tomb for a while and is starting to smell. Lazarus comes forth, alive.

Now enter science. Today, unlike yesterday, it is totally cut off from God. When a monk named Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritence, he was guided by a love for God. He did not fear his discovery or hide it. When the inventor of the telegraph, Samuel Morse, sent his first message, it was “What hath God wrought?”

Now, scientists like Sam Harris decry “the alien hiss” of religion being talked about among scientists. He compares them to pod people who look like scientists, and act like scientists but can you believe it? Some of them actually listen to what the Pope has to say? They can’t be ‘real’ scientists.

And now science, completely isolated from everything, brings forth an interpretation of some evidence and proclaims, Well, if this is true, and we could be wrong, than that part in the Bible where the earth gets created in 6 twenty four hour days must be wrong. And it becomes dogma among the people, some of whom wildly embrace the idea and strive to get Christians to believe it. “It didn’t happen in 6 twenty four hour days. Believe it. Believe it or we’ll reject your invisible God and the miracles of the Bible because we’ve decided the Theory of Evolution is a fact. And if you don’t believe in it, you are ignorant, willfully ignorant, misguided, a cretard, an IDiot, a fundamentalist, anti-science, don’t understand it/lack knowledge, etc.”

For some, evolution is non-negotiable. Believe it or we won’t believe in your God. But it’s not just the basic Theory of Evolution that you would be accepting, it would be all the explicit statements:

Due to a long time period and genetic mutations, you came to be human.

You are an animal.

Your primary function is to reproduce and pass along your genes.

You are a bag of chemicals with no actual identity. Just a carrier of genetic material.

This all happened naturally, i.e. with no supernatural interference. But if it will make you feel better, you can tack God onto it, even though such a being is unprovable.

And that’s the next step. Once you’ve made the “rational” decision to accept evolution, you’ll be asked to make one more “rational” decision. “That God you believe in? How do you know He exists? There’s no evidence for Him. So, c’mon. You’re a rational person. You see how rational the evidence for evolution is, so why don’t you forget all this nonsense about some God?”

And then you will be led down the garden path to some human created philosophy that will be designed to exploit you, your time and talents.

Wake up my brothers and sisters in Christ. What miracles that God performed in the Bible do we not believe? Who is insisting that we accept their interpretation of Genesis? Why is it so important to them? Can you spread the Gospel of an “invisible” God with evolution? No. The Bible states that the invisible things of creation are plainly seen and known by all things that were created. If some say we are deluding ourselves because of the interpretation of some ‘evidence’ then what do they think about our belief in an ‘invisible’ God? Will they hold that up as a “rational” decision? The answer is no.

My brothers and sisters. In their great conceit, men are proclaiming having reached some pinnacle of knowledge. That their wisdom overshadows divinely revealed truth. I say no.

You and I were made by God. And with God all things are possible. I believe God formed the earth, not over a long period, but in a short time, ready to live on. He formed Adam and then Eve. He interacted with His people and then sent His son to die for us. Why did He send his Son? Ask yourself.

All scripture is inspired by God who was there. The Alpha and the Omega.

And to any non-believers reading this: nothing I’ve written prevented any scientists from going to work today or stopped any research.

God bless,
Ed
 
You have strong passions for your subject

But you do a disservice to the devout believer who also happens to know about science.
 
From Pope John Paul II:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.”
 
Neither Catholic theology, nor scripture, rules out evolution. Period. And neither does an “old earth”, or the existance of australopithecine fossils, rule out God.

Having said that, when scientists speak on political or religious matters, they are doing so as laymen - and their opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s, IMO.

I feel the same way about a bishop speaking on the immigration laws.
 
“provided we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.” That would be God.

Scientists speak as laymen about God? And what other than science informs the unbeliever that God does not exist?

God bless,
Ed
 
The evolution argument falls into two areas - evolution and the formation of man.

I have made this point many many times in these threads.

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

We have to reconcile the formation of man in two areas.

Eve coming from Adam and perternatural gifts such as bodily immortality. (These rule out evolution for man.)
 
Well, to be honest, I believe in an Old Earth, evolution for all other biological beings, but not humans. I’ve alway seen humans as something special, created special by God. I believe that humans were created by God outside the evolutionary process.
 
And the disservice is?

God bless,
Ed
You imply that we have somehow been sold a bill of goods and/or have betrayed our faith. (5th and 14th paragraph)

That science is the road to atheism (12th paragraph

That scientists can’t/don’t believe in scripture (next to last paragraph)

You put words in the mouths of others. (4th paragraph)

As I said before just because you don’t like the way some people use science that doesn’t make the science wrong

Apparently this is something that you feel very strongly about. And if you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis you are free to do so. Please note that Catholics are not required to do so as long as we adhere to doctrine.

As the Pope has noted this isn’t the death knell for the Church. It is just science, which, like every other human endeavor, can be used for good or ill.

Are there people who say that science proves there is no God? Sure.
They are entitled to their opinions however wrong they may be. 😉

It is my opinion (however wrong it may be) that a fervent denunciation of evolution because of that plays into their hands. “Oh boy! There go those wacky Christians again!”

:twocents:
 
Well, to be honest, I believe in an Old Earth, evolution for all other biological beings, but not humans. I’ve alway seen humans as something special, created special by God. I believe that humans were created by God outside the evolutionary process.
Just out of intrest, can you justify this or do you believe it because it ‘feels nice’?
 
Scientists speak as laymen about God?
Sure they do. As laymen and perhaps as theologians, but not as scientists.
And what other than science informs the unbeliever that God does not exist?
Science does no such thing. It is concerned with the natural world, not the supernatural – and to claim science has a position on the existence of any deity is to betray your own ignorance of the proper domain of science itself.
 
Just out of intrest, can you justify this or do you believe it because it ‘feels nice’?
There is a section in Humanis Generis where Pius XII says something about the first humans. I cannot seem to find it, but it goes along the lines of Adam and Eve were the first human persons. And I see it like this, if there were just two human beings in the beginning, instead of an entire generation, then they must be special.
 
There’s the magic word “ignorance” again. Go here:

darwincentral.org

Read up on the people who know that science has nothing to say about God. 🙂

God bless,
Ed
 
There’s the magic word “ignorance” again. Go here:

darwincentral.org

Read up on the people who know that science has nothing to say about God. 🙂
I skimmed a few articles. No mention of God except in the context that creationists are a little nuts and very, very anthropocentric. The latter is certainly true, the former… well, yeah. Young-Earth creationism defies all hard evidence presented to date. It’s a little nuts – at the very least.

You may think science threatens your beliefs, but it’s not trying to. That’s not its purpose. Science exists to explain the world around us, and your beliefs should hopefully have the good sense to accommodate the best explanations for why apples fall or why leaves are green that we humans can come up with.

Windmills do not work that way! Good night! 😃
 
Uh, you’re kidding, right? A few articles? I could provide a long list of links to sites that not only proclaim evolution but hate for Christians in general due to a belief in evolution.

I get gravity and why leaves are green. I can prove that for myself…

God bless,
Ed
 
Uh, you’re kidding, right? A few articles? I could provide a long list of links to sites that not only proclaim evolution but hate for Christians in general due to a belief in evolution.
A few articles from that site, I should have said.

Sure, plenty of evolutionists dislike Christians, or more specifically creationists. It goes the other way too: how often do we hear of creationists deriding Darwin’s theories, blaming all society’s ills on the theory of evolution, or dismissing those who accept the theory as the best explanation we have as mindless God-deniers?

Proponents of evolutionary theory don’t hate Christians because of evolutionary theory. They dislike creationists (and punctuated-equilibrium-ists and intelligent-design-ists) because, frankly, such people tend to be loudly and aggressively bonkers. Creationism denies all reviewed and tested evidence.

Creationists have a basic distrust of science. Nobody on the other side can quite figure out why they think science has it in for God, or is out to get them personally, or intent on proving that we are all machines, our actions foreordained, so on and so on. That isn’t what science is for, none of it! Science exists to explain the world around us to the best of human ability! What’s wrong with that?
 
There’s the magic word “ignorance” again. Go here:

darwincentral.org

Read up on the people who know that science has nothing to say about God. 🙂

God bless,
Ed
OK. Since this is an apologetics site the question is what are you going to do about people who speak/act like that?

My opinion is that taking the position that Christianity precludes the possibility of evolution plays into their hands.

If you try to refute observations and evidence for evolution then you’re fighting an uphill battle. What you do is look for errors in their assertions about what the church teaches. Then you are fighting on your own ground

The Church’s view that faith and reason are complementary seems the best way to go for me.
 
Don’t get so upset. This has been going on for at least two centuries and the Church and God are still here. When scientist speak of nature not requiring God just realize they are full of themselves and a lot of bull excrement. There are not a few who see religion as a limit on their freedom and thbeir complaint has nothing to do with science.

As for an old earth they have just found a human footprint in Egypt that they have dated to 2 million years ago. The earth itself is thought to have formed 4.5 million years ago. I think the evidence for an old earth is very strong, but it does not in any way deny God’s hand in creation. It does point out in the thinking person’s mind that some of the factual information one would attempt to glean from Genesis is indeed mythical. That in no way denies that the myth carries truth. God did and does create we just don’t know all the factual details. As far as Adam and Eve being the first true humans, I cannot see why that cannot be true. Homo Sap. is what we think were the first humans, but there were a lot of forerunners so I think it is a mistake to believe that Adam and Eve were necessarily Homo Sap. We just don’t know and given the breaks in fossil records I don’t think we ever will.

As far as conflict between Scripture and Science, I found the following quite useful.

In his book Thomas E. Woods Jr.( How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization) has a quotation from Edward Grants book “Science and Technology in the Middle Ages” which is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. It says as follows:

(quote)“First, the truth of Scripture must be held inviolable. Secondly when there are different ways of explaining a Scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that, if convincing arguements show it to be false, anyone dare to insist that it still is the definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture and the way to faith will be closed to them.”

In this day when there is sufficent archeological and/or scientific evidence that contradicts certain historical or scientific parts of the Scriptures it seems obvious that biblical history and science in the Old Testament needs be taken as carrying only theological truth. So what is to be made of narratives like the Creation, the Exodus, Noah’s Ark, David and Solomons Kingdom and such like?
newadvent.org/summa/106801.htm
On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 1:6): “God said: let there be a firmament,” and further on (verse 8); “And the evening and morning were the second day.”

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.(close quote)

I think that certainty for falsehood is growing. If one becomes too insistent on the absolute scientific and historical facts presented in Scripture, one does our Faith a disservice. Stick to the theological/spiritual meaning.
 
A few articles from that site, I should have said.

Sure, plenty of evolutionists dislike Christians, or more specifically creationists. It goes the other way too: how often do we hear of creationists deriding Darwin’s theories, blaming all society’s ills on the theory of evolution, or dismissing those who accept the theory as the best explanation we have as mindless God-deniers?

Proponents of evolutionary theory don’t hate Christians because of evolutionary theory. They dislike creationists (and punctuated-equilibrium-ists and intelligent-design-ists) because, frankly, such people tend to be loudly and aggressively bonkers. Creationism denies all reviewed and tested evidence.

Creationists have a basic distrust of science. Nobody on the other side can quite figure out why they think science has it in for God, or is out to get them personally, or intent on proving that we are all machines, our actions foreordained, so on and so on. That isn’t what science is for, none of it! Science exists to explain the world around us to the best of human ability! What’s wrong with that?
“Nobody on the other side can figure out why…”?

What are you talking about? Genetic predispositions for different behaviors are claimed to have been found. Man has been described as a biological device, or an animal, whose primary function is to survive and pass on his genes.

What do you mean “distrust of science”? There is plenty of science I trust and have no problem with. Evolution is a belief system. And it is the justification for the lives and behaviors for a lot of people.

God bless,
Ed
 
ed << darwincentral.org Read up on the people who know that science has nothing to say about God. >>

Yeah, you mean like Darwin himself:

There are at least seven references to a divine “Creator” in Darwin’s classic, including this final sentence of the final chapter, and maintained from the second to the sixth and final edition of 1872:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter 14, last sentence)

see also Charles Darwin and Intelligent Design by evolutionary creationist, Denis Lamoureux

Everyone pick up these books, and there would be fewer and fewer threads on creation-evolution in here:

Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller
Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk
The Language of God by Francis Collins

Forget the atheist scientists, and pick up those books by Christians.

CATECHISM:

159.
Faith and science: “…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” [Vatican II GS 36:1]

283. 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…

284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin…

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top