Genesis v Evolution

[edwest2]

Unless science occurs on a different planet than ours and unless it just simply sits in a room somewhere with germ theory and gravity theory and all the other theories, I’m going to be concerned about how it impacts all Catholic thinking.

You seem to take my comments personally but they are meant for everyone. You don’t agree? Fine. So, once again, you don’t like what I’m writing about, that’s OK. But I will not ignore the increasing noise level, both in public and on the internet, being created by militant atheists.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Answer me this: does the Catholic Church teach as doctrine that Eve was specially created FROM Adam?

How about a simple yes or no to that question?

It differs from monogenism versus polygenism where people can tilt at wind mill semantics all day.

Jesus rose from the dead… that is miraculously true!

What I’m asking is: does the Catholic church teach that Eve was created Miraculously From Adam?

If the Catholic Church does indeed teach that then we do have at least one instance of creation Not from evolutionary means!

Did it happen that way or not? What is Catholic teaching on that question?

That question isn’t about evolution or polygenism or monogenism. Peope can believe different ways on those things and argue about those things until the cows come home.

The real question is: Was Eve Miraculously created From Adam? Is that event as historical and true as Jesus being raised from the dead?

The bible seems to be saying that that event really happened. Either the bible is telling the truth and it really did in Fact historically and actually happen or the bible isn’t telling the truth which can’t be true–the bible does not lie.

The only other possibility is that the Genesis account is only allegorically true.

But even if it is only allegorically true we already know that the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve Are the parents of us all.

In other words even if the Catholic Church doesn’t definitively say whether Genesis is historically true or only allegorically true–the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve being the parents of us all is at least Factually true and the Catholic Church can teach about the scriptures that way because it has the authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So the Real question is this: has the Holy Spirit ever guided the Catholic Church to teach as doctrine that Eve was factually created From Adam–whether or not Genesis is allegorical or historical?

If it has then Catholic evolutionist supporters if they are intellectually honest will have to at least concede that even If evolution for the most part is true

and even if Genesis for the most part can only be taken allegorically

that at least in the singular instance of the creation of Eve that God did in Fact in that one instance create Specially, Miraculously, and Not Evolutionary!

And so people won’t take me the wrong way–I believe that Adam and Eve were both specially created–that Eve was Specailly created From Adam and that all other aspects of evolution for the most part are true!

And I can be intellectually honest and believe that way because I believe in both God creating by Ordinary and Miraculous means because The Word Jesus was born of Mary by both Miraculous And Ordinary means!

I welcome either side–creationism only or evolution only to tell me why I am wrong in belieivng both!

 

[drpmjhess]

Unless science occurs on a different planet than ours and unless it just simply sits in a room somewhere with germ theory and gravity theory and all the other theories, I’m going to be concerned about how it impacts all Catholic thinking.

You seem to take my comments personally but they are meant for everyone. You don’t agree? Fine. So, once again, you don’t like what I’m writing about, that’s OK. But I will not ignore the increasing noise level, both in public and on the internet, being created by militant atheists.

God bless,
Ed

Ed,

(1) What are you saying in your first paragraph? I share your concern about how science in its every dimension impacts Catholic thinking. So what’s your particular beef?

(2) I do not ignore the increasing noise level of militant atheists any more than you do. But I believe this is in part due to the fact that many simple atheists mistakenly believe – on the evidence provided by people such as yourself – that Christians wilfullly leave their brains on the doormat as they enter church. Perhaps if you and your ilk would approach science with an open mind and heart, and respect its integrity, scientists who are as simplistic in their black-and-white thinking as you are would not be compelled to posit the fallacious disjunction “Either atheism and science” or “theism and anti-science.”

Petrus

 

[Montalban]

I’m sorry that you feel I’ve been insulting. It was meant as a diagnosis, not an insult.

You diagnosed wrong.

If someone cannot have a discussion about science without letting it stray dangerously close to becoming an argument over who’s the better Christian, I think it’s because something or someone has damaged their ability to approach the subject rationally.

No one’s made this argument.

It’s not their fault, so it’s not an insult.

Are you addressing my posts, or is this more imaginings?

I’m confident that a review of my other posts, in this thread and others, will demonstrate that I only get insulting when someone is caught in a blatant lie. That being said, I am also not one to sugar-coat unsavory truths. Doing so strips the truth of its meaning. I realize that it’s inevitable that someone will eventually take offense at that, but please realize that that’s not my intention.

Except you assumed that I am deceiving people about what I believe in evolution, then you presumed to tell everyone here that this is so.

It would therefore help if you deal with what I’ve said.

 

[Montalban]

Go ahead, answer the question. How does a gene know which way to go? How to evolve?

God bless,
Ed

There are folds in the chains of DNA that allow the chemicals to properly line-up with each other. However these folds are not as a result of that DNA - begging the question of how can Darwinism explain this?

Michael Denton raised this problem when he gives examples of the folds in RNA which happen consistently, and independently of genetic coding… but these rules governing the folds… “These laws of protein form are strictly equivalent to the rules that govern the way atoms are combined into molecules or subatomic particles are combined into atoms to generate the periodic table of elements…
The folds present stunning evidence, perhaps the first clear evidence discovered in biology, that highly complex organic forms can be generated by natural law. With the folds, the impossible has become possible - the basic building blocks of nature are specified in abstract laws of form and are not simply a mechanical program in the genes. They are lawful, emergent, self-organising forms and not contingent ‘cleverly contrived machines’. Here is a set of forms that arise directly out of the basic properties of matter, confirming the inference I had previously drawn from reading Henderson, that life might be encoded in the basic properties of matter.”
Michael John Denton ”An Anti-Darwin Intellectual Journey”, in Dembski, W. A. (ed) “Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who Find Darwinism Unconvincing”, pp173-74

 

[Orogeny]

Unless science occurs on a different planet than ours and unless it just simply sits in a room somewhere with germ theory and gravity theory and all the other theories, I’m going to be concerned about how it impacts all Catholic thinking.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here, but you still haven’t answered my questions - where is God in germ or atomic theory? Does this make them athiestic theories that you will therefore reject on that basis?

Peace

Tim

 

[Montalban]

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here, but you still haven’t answered my questions - where is God in germ or atomic theory? Does this make them athiestic theories that you will therefore reject on that basis?

Peace

Tim

There’s a problem here.

Genesis doesn’t say for instance “A ball will fall to the ground”. The theory of gravity is not in ‘competition’ with claims from the Bible.

Same with a lot of science.

Darwinian evolution however is in direct conflict.

 

[Orogeny]

There’s a problem here.

Genesis doesn’t say for instance “A ball will fall to the ground”. The theory of gravity is not in ‘competition’ with claims from the Bible.

Same with a lot of science.

Darwinian evolution however is in direct conflict.

One of Ed’s arguments against evolution is that the theory doesn’t include any mention of God and he rejects it for that reason along with the use by athiests argument. He claims to study chemistry. How can he be consistent if he accepts atomic theory which, if you know anything about scientific theories, doesn’t include any mention of God? Same with germ theory and gravitational theory. Does Ed reject the idea that microbes cause disease because germ theory doesn’t include God as a cause?

If you define Darwinian evolution as a theory that explicitly excludes God, then I would agree with you, but I would also say that any theory that relies on God as an answer OR specifically excludes God is not a scientific theory but a statement of faith. If you mean descent with modification or, more specifically, natural selection, I would disagree with you that Darwinian evolution is in conflict with the Bible. It may not agree with a literal reading of Genesis, but that isn’t part of my Church’s teaching.

Peace

Tim

 

[michael_legna]

There’s a problem here.

Genesis doesn’t say for instance “A ball will fall to the ground”. The theory of gravity is not in ‘competition’ with claims from the Bible.

Same with a lot of science.

Darwinian evolution however is in direct conflict.

No, because Darwinian evolution has a different goal than the Genesis account. Science is interested in theories which provide predictive power when extended beyond the observations they were derived from. It is not seeking (and indeed has been proven philosophically to be unable to seek) truth in an absolute sense. That is for other paradigms such as philosophy (which has its own problems) and theology. The Genesis account offers us truths about the creation events, but offers us no predictive power - which is why it should never be taught in a school science class. It simply is not science. So they are not in direct conflict once they are both understood for what they really are.

 

[cyberjacques]

Except you assumed that I am deceiving people about what I believe in evolution, then you presumed to tell everyone here that this is so.

Okay, I think there has been a huge misunderstanding. I wasn’t aware that I assumed anything of the sort. Please point out to me where you think I did, and I will attempt to clarify.

 

[John_Romanoski]

I am grateful for all the opinions that members of CAF express on
Genesis v Evolution. I have spent ten years of my life majoring in physics, math, philosophy and theology and I am always grateful for learned Catholics giving the right anwers in regard to science
and theology. My former pastor said I am a genius. I taught him science and math in the seminary. I do not consider myself a genius though but gifted by God. John Romanoski

 

[buffalo]

Answer me this: does the Catholic Church teach as doctrine that Eve was specially created FROM Adam?

How about a simple yes or no to that question?

I

Yes

 

[edwest2]

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here, but you still haven’t answered my questions - where is God in germ or atomic theory? Does this make them athiestic theories that you will therefore reject on that basis?

Peace

Tim

Thanks to many unbelievers who have lectured me on evolutionary theory, I think I could now pass a college course in it (no sarcasm here, honestly). Based on all of the evidence presented to me (especially the fruit flies), evolution is not an observable process. The effects of gravity are observable, having worked in health care, I know about germs firsthand and the directly observable cause and effect, and the same with most other scientific theories. Evolutionary theory is not a neutral, stand alone, here are the facts, make up your own mind concept. If it were, we could have a nice conversation about it and get on with our lives. However, this is not likely. You and others are committed, 24/7, to tracking down statements against evolutionary theory and attempting to squash them. Why?

A truck driver, mailman, office clerk, myself in health care, fast food cook, nobody, and I mean nobody, needs to know about evolutionary theory to get on with their lives. Most kids pick it up in high school and then promptly devote their lives to work, family and relationships, little else. Yet you, and others here, have made it not only a centerpiece of this forum (and the same by others on many, many forums on the internet), but a matter of life and death issue when, in fact, it’s not. May I remind you that scientists have found bacteria in dirt that are resistant to normal and synthetic antibiotics?

My objections are clear. Adam and Eve are literal. Christ came to die for all because of their sin. And Jesus could raise the dead instantly, no crash cart required. I hope I’ve been clear.

My reading of atheist, secular humanist, bright, free thinker, communist, leftist, anarchist, pagan and pro Darwin web sites and forums, shows me that they are the ones who need, as in must have, a weapon like evolutionary theory, to further their own agendas; i.e. removing any sort of religious (name removed by moderator)ut from public policy and turning this country into a value neutral, gender neutral, vaguely moral but only on occasion, if it suits a particular group, country.

For the record, I don’t want to force my beliefs on anyone. I don’t want to harm anyone who believes differently than I do. My background in chemistry and science is ongoing, and my interest in science in general is ongoing.

So please, no more “Then you must not believe in gravity or that the earth goes around the sun, etc.” Those are aspects of science, and there is a lot more to science than evolution theory, but to read some posts here, I can understand why some people would think that evolution is the only “science” that matters.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

No, because Darwinian evolution has a different goal than the Genesis account. Science is interested in theories which provide predictive power when extended beyond the observations they were derived from. … The Genesis account offers us truths about the creation events, but offers us no predictive power - which is why it should never be taught in a school science class. It simply is not science. So they are not in direct conflict once they are both understood for what they really are.

Nicely put, Michael Legna

 

[Orogeny]

Thanks to many unbelievers who have lectured me on evolutionary theory, I think I could now pass a college course in it (no sarcasm here, honestly). Based on all of the evidence presented to me (especially the fruit flies), evolution is not an observable process.

No, Ed, you couldn’t pass a college course in evolutionary biology.

The effects of gravity are observable, having worked in health care, I know about germs firsthand and the directly observable cause and effect, and the same with most other scientific theories. Evolutionary theory is not a neutral, stand alone, here are the facts, make up your own mind concept.

Yes, it is. Your statement validates my point that you cannot pass a college evolutionary biology course.

You and others are committed, 24/7, to tracking down statements against evolutionary theory and attempting to squash them. Why?

I really, really dislike fellow Catholics misrepresenting science and infering that those that disagree with them are not in line with Catholic teaching at best, athiests at worst. That is why I even read these threads.

A truck driver, mailman, office clerk, myself in health care, fast food cook, nobody, and I mean nobody, needs to know about evolutionary theory to get on with their lives. most kids pick it up in high school and then promptly devote their lives to work, family and relationships, little else. Yet you, and others here, have made it not only a centerpiece of this forum (and the same by others on many, many forums on the internet), but a matter of life and death issue when, in fact, it’s not.

Who exactly started this thread? I haven’t started a thread on this topic in a very long time. You are clearly the one who sees it as a life or death issue. I see it as a science issue that is compatible with my faith.

My objections are clear. Adam and Eve are literal. Christ came to die for all because of their sin. And Jesus could raise the dead instantly, no crash cart required. I hope I’ve been clear.

I have no problem with miracles.

My reading of atheist, secular humanist, bright, free thinker, communist, leftist, anarchist, pagan and pro Darwin web sites and forums, shows me that they are the ones who need, as in must have, a weapon like evolutionary theory, to further their own agendas; i.e. removing any sort of religious (name removed by moderator)ut from public policy and turning this country into a value neutral, gender neutral, vaguely moral but only on occasion, if it suits a particular group, country.

And as I have stated before, that has nothing to do with the validity of the science of evolution.

So please, no more “Then you must not believe in gravity or that the earth goes around the sun, etc.” Those aspects of science, and there is a lot more to science than evolution theory, but to read some posts here, I can understand why some people would think that evolution is the only “science” that matters.

Your position on gravity, germs, plate tectonics and all other scientific theories is very inconsistent. You don’t apply the same criteria to those theories that you do to evolution. That is why I ever even asked you about those. And you still haven’t answered my question. Is germ theory and gravitational theory athiestic because they don’t include God as a cause or mechanism? If so, why don’t you reject them as athiestic?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Why are you so hung up on gravitation and germ theory? They have nothing to do with human origins, evolutionary theory does. That’s where the problem comes in.

I could post links here to a hundred atheist sites where “evolution” is their weapon of choice. Richard Dawkins is practically worshipped. These people want to free themselves from the God of Abraham and the Christian God. They are desperate for a means. They believe evolutionary theory has given it to them.

Gravitation can be observed and proven, now, directly, to anyone, without scientific equipment of any kind.
Bacterial infection is common and can be shown to anyone.

Evolutionary theory cannot. And not to beat a dead horse too much more, promoting evolution to Christians means evolution theory has to complement our beliefs, not the other way around. The fact that some believe the theory does that does not square with Adam and Eve whose sin is directly connected with Jesus Christ. Pope Benedict has stated that evolution looks too narrowly at human origins and that God is the rest of the equation.

And to put things another way, why are atheists working so hard to sell evolution to everyone? The science? Don’t make me laugh.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Why are you so hung up on gravitation and germ theory? They have nothing to do with human origins, evolutionary theory does. That’s where the problem comes in.

Non-answer noted.

I could post links here to a hundred atheist sites where “evolution” is their weapon of choice. Richard Dawkins is practically worshipped. These people want to free themselves from the God of Abraham and the Christian God. They are desperate for a means. They believe evolutionary theory has given it to them.

Irrelevant to the validity of the science of evolution.

Gravitation can be observed and proven, now, directly, to anyone, without scientific equipment of any kind.
Bacterial infection is common and can be shown to anyone.

And where is God in either of those theories? You actually accept an athiestic scientific theory? You know, athiests such as Dawkins accept those theories as correct. Doesn’t that mean that the theories are nothing but propaganda? After all, those are two of your main “proofs” against evolution.

The fact that some believe the theory does that does not square with Adam and Eve whose sin is directly connected with Jesus Christ. Pope Benedict has stated that evolution looks too narrowly at human origins and that God is the rest of the equation.

Yes, and the Pope is right. Evolution is valid, well supported science but, by itself, cannot answer everything.

And to put things another way, why are atheists working so hard to sell evolution to everyone? The science? Don’t make me laugh.

They aren’t. They are pushing hard for science to be taught as science, not religion. Some, such as Dawkins, have done exactly what they condemn when they make arguments for their faith using science. That makes him wrong in the matter of his faith, not his science.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Hi Tim,

God is above science and all man derived knowledge. God is perfect and true, man is imperfect and tends toward the sinful.

Evolution theory, as presented here, is irrelevant in the lives of most people. I will be following what the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church has to say about it. Science has been compromised in this area. Too bad. I’m just glad there is other information out there that has not been similarly compromised.

For the record, I am not calling you an atheist. It is my view that you put too much faith into evolution (yes, yes, the evidence as interpreted, I know). Way too much faith. That is my honest thought on the matter. No offense meant. Thanks for reading.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Why are you so hung up on gravitation and germ theory? They have nothing to do with human origins, evolutionary theory does. That’s where the problem comes in.
**I’ve followed the threads between orogeny and you and you invited that question. **
I could post links here to a hundred atheist sites where “evolution” is their weapon of choice. Richard Dawkins is practically worshipped. These people want to free themselves from the God of Abraham and the Christian God. They are desperate for a means. They believe evolutionary theory has given it to them.
Of course its their "weapon’ of choice. It’s so obviously accepted throughout the world. Nobody cares whether Dawkins is worshiped, except his followers and you apparently. I’d never heard of him until 5 weeks ago. And Ed, any one who doesn’t believe in God is free of God by his choice and God’s grant of free will. What are they desperate for? What is going on in their lives tht is being so horribly impacted by your faith? You create the usual conspiracy theory but never explain why anyone cares.

Evolutionary theory cannot. And not to beat a dead horse too much more, promoting evolution to Christians means evolution theory has to complement our beliefs, not the other way around. The fact that some believe the theory does that does not square with Adam and Eve whose sin is directly connected with Jesus Christ. Pope Benedict has stated that evolution looks too narrowly at human origins and that God is the rest of the equation.

**So science must ask permission of the Church before it investigates anything to make sure it “compliments our beliefs?” You posit a church that is incapable of learning new things. The fact that it doesn’t square with you bespeaks your faulty logic more than the compliment of Original sin and Jesus requiring a literal Adam and eve. Yup, finally you admit Benedict accepts the evolutionary model. **

And to put things another way, why are atheists working so hard to sell evolution to everyone? The science? Don’t make me laugh.

**What do they want do you think Ed? and Why? **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

some general statements:

Ed bemoans that we make this so central and issue, yet he starts most of the threads.

All would stop pretty darn quick if: folks that claim creationism as their model admit that the Church does not require this conclusion.

Most of us are here and responding because we are not about to let someone casually stopping by, get the idea that our Church is still trapped in some Medieval intellectual black hole.