Has science falsified macroevolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M0nkey said:
Orogeny, polygenism disregards Adam and Original Sin. How can you think it fits within the context of the faith? If you disbelieve in Adam, you disbelieve in the second Adam; Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
CCC:

[360](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/360.htm’)😉 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226

O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.227
[361](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/361.htm’)😉 “This law of human solidarity and charity”,228 without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and peoples, assures us that all men are truly brethren.

226 Acts 17:26; cf. Tob 8:6.
 
buffalo said:
Then it is clearly indicated that I am superior in lineage and intellect to you.
Click to expand...
Well, that goes without saying!😃
It does not reject polygenism:
Click to expand...
Thank you. Now, if monogenism is dogma, isn’t this document teaching error?
Further is this statement:

Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.

In this statement it gives assent that either way a supernatural event happened which can be attributed to Divine Intervention". As you are well aware I have stated this many times: 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 in the universe at the time.
Click to expand...
He could also have ensouled a population, could He not? That would still be attributable to divine intervention.
I see this as affirming constant Catholic teaching as to mans origins. I also see it says even if science makes a claim it doesn’t matter for we have first parents through Divine Intervention. My opinion is it is a brushoff.
Click to expand...
If it allows a belief that is contrary to a dogmatic teaching of the Church, it is much worse than a brushoff.

Peace

Tim
 
M0nkey said:
Orogeny, polygenism disregards Adam and Original Sin. How can you think it fits within the context of the faith?
Click to expand...
I accept the reality of original sin. I don’t know how it happened, but clearly there is original sin AND an evolved population.
If you disbelieve in Adam, you disbelieve in the second Adam; Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Nope. Demonstrably untrue. Try again.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
Well, that goes without saying!:DThank you. Now, if monogenism is dogma, isn’t this document teaching error?He could also have ensouled a population, could He not? That would still be attributable to divine intervention.If it allows a belief that is contrary to a dogmatic teaching of the Church, it is much worse than a brushoff.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
It clearly does depart from clear consistent Catholic teaching. So the question is:

Is the constant teaching in error or is his single document opening the door to a grave error?
 
Orogeny said:
Was Adam God?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
God is not our ancestor, so this clearly is referring to Adam.

*I read it this way:

*“from one ancestor, [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth” not

“from one ancestor [God], made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”
 
buffalo said:
It clearly does depart from clear consistent Catholic teaching. So the question is:

Is the constant teaching in error or is his single document opening the door to a grave error?
Click to expand...
It’s a reformable document on a far lower level of authority than is a papal encyclical.
 
reggieM said:
It’s a reformable document on a far lower level of authority than is a papal encyclical.
Click to expand...
I agree. The Pope gave permission to publish it though.

It admits that it can change in the future:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
 
buffalo said:
God is not our ancestor, so this clearly is referring to Adam.

I read it this way:

“from one ancestor, [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth” not

“from one ancestor [God], made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”
Click to expand...
Interesting. Your reading is not how it is written, but the other version (the one you don’t agree with) is.

Peace

Tim
 
buffalo said:
I agree. The Pope gave permission to publish it though.

It admits that it can change in the future:
Click to expand...
That is my point, though. If it can change, then the idea of monogenism isn’t dogma. Can’t be.

Peace

Tim
 
buffalo said:
I agree. The Pope gave permission to publish it though.

It admits that it can change in the future:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
Click to expand...
True. In the beginning of that section there is this sentence:

**In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching **on evolution (**especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis **), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith.

Which explicitly states that this new one is “in continuity with” the previous. That means it should be interpreted as supporting the prior teaching and not in overthrowing it. If there are speculation in the new document, they don’t have the authority of papal teaching.

The other part of that sentence could possibly be read that any “materialist” theory of evolution (namely, all mainstream theories) are not compatible with the Catholic faith.

The only theories that would be would be some kind of theistic evolution, possibly – and that basically eliminates 90% of what is called “evolutionary theory”. Certainly, it would condemn everything taught in schools and in texbooks (claims that evolution works without “plan” - denies the Divine Guidance and plan).
 
buffalo said:
It admits that it can change in the future:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
Click to expand...
Right – it’s talking about the claims of science can change, not the teaching in a papal Encyclical. Just because the science is “convincing” today, doesn’t mean it couldn’t radically change tomorrow. So, the pope is not building a foundation on today’s scientific, unproven claims.
 
Orogeny said:
Interesting. Your reading is not how it is written, but the other version (the one you don’t agree with) is.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
These footnotes support my reading.

Acts 17:26 And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him.

Tobit 8:6 Thou madest Adam and gavest him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung. Thou didst say, `It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’
 
Charles_Darwin said:
LOL like everything associated with the discovery institute, the list is bogus. Hey but nice way to avoid the question.
Click to expand...
It’s authentic enough, but it’s also a very, very tepid statement compared with the claims that the Discovery Institute actually makes, and it doesn’t have nearly enough support to demonstrate genuine scientific controversy. I mean, how many Steves are on the list?

(For the record, I count 11, and one fellow by the last name of Stephan)
 
reggieM said:
I’ll quote you: “Firstly one should believe something because it is true, not because it feels good.”

It’s clear to me that your views are not consistent. You have plenty of opportunities here to show your scientific expertise also, but I’ve seen very little of that. It’s just atheistic sloganeering. Why not put aside the hostility and engage the many arguments that many people here are giving to you? By that, I mean, back up your claims with something substantial.
Click to expand...
Thats the thing your not putting forward good arguments. Your objections are based on ignorance and misunderstandings. It is impossible to discuss the subject, with people that know nothing about it.

I mean really, evolution is taught at every major set of learning in the world. What is it that makes you believe you have some great incite to evolution that the combination of all the greatest minds, at the greats universities on earth, have missed?

Oh, and how does feeling empathy contradict true beliefs?
 
Eleve said:
It’s authentic enough, but it’s also a very, very tepid statement compared with the claims that the Discovery Institute actually makes, and it doesn’t have nearly enough support to demonstrate genuine scientific controversy. I mean, how many Steves are on the list?
Click to expand...
Actually its not.

There are MANY people on this list that have written to the insitute reqesting to have their names removed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top