Ignorance and evolution

[abu_kamoon]

Evolution is an explanation for a pre-conceived world view. Evolution is a product of the Enlightment. It is a naturalistic explanation for the existence of life. Thought it claims to be scientific, it is NOT science.

Science is what enabled us to put a man on the moon. Evoution is closer to astrology or phrenology. It uses scientific terms, but it is not based on scientific observation. If it were, it would not continue to “evolve” as true science demonstrates it’s errors.

Earlier popes condemned Modernism, of which evolution is a manifestation. It certainly doesn’t bother me if evolutionists think that I am ignorant. From my perspective, they are gullible. They have fallen for a lie. There are many lies that have come out of the Enlightenment. This is one lie that they have chosen to believe.

 

[Wolseley]

Evolution is an explanation for a pre-conceived world view. Evolution is a product of the Enlightment. It is a naturalistic explanation for the existence of life. Thought it claims to be scientific, it is NOT science.

Science is what enabled us to put a man on the moon. Evoution is closer to astrology or phrenology. It uses scientific terms, but it is not based on scientific observation. If it were, it would not continue to “evolve” as true science demonstrates it’s errors.

Earlier popes condemned Modernism, of which evolution is a manifestation. It certainly doesn’t bother me if evolutionists think that I am ignorant. From my perspective, they are gullible. They have fallen for a lie. There are many lies that have come out of the Enlightenment. This is one lie that they have chosen to believe.

Very well put, sir. I fully agree with you.

 

[Camron]

Evolution is an explanation for a pre-conceived world view. Evolution is a product of the Enlightment. It is a naturalistic explanation for the existence of life. Thought it claims to be scientific, it is NOT science.

Science is what enabled us to put a man on the moon. Evoution is closer to astrology or phrenology. It uses scientific terms, but it is not based on scientific observation. If it were, it would not continue to “evolve” as true science demonstrates it’s errors.

Earlier popes condemned Modernism, of which evolution is a manifestation. It certainly doesn’t bother me if evolutionists think that I am ignorant. From my perspective, they are gullible. They have fallen for a lie. There are many lies that have come out of the Enlightenment. This is one lie that they have chosen to believe.

That’s not fair and I thought I would speak up on this. There are a lot of good and well-researched observations to reinforce the claims of the evolutionary sciences.

I’m not saying that all things are determined to the exact time-scale of the entire geological history of the earth. But there is a good deal of raw data that can easily be understood as supporting the idea that God used natural evolutionary processes to bring about the various life forms we see here on earth today.

And if God did use evolutionary processes to bring about all the different life-forms we see on earth today, this would in no way diminish His role as our Creator. It would only reinforce the idea that God can (and has) used contingent processes to bring about humanity from previous life forms.

 

[Camron]

Interesting how you can tell me what I accept. I am with Cardinal Schoenborn, common descent “might” be true. I am very skeptical. The number of happy accidents appears to be beyond the realm of probability.

God bless,
Ed

A long time ago I read a quote by Fred Hoyle…
Fred Hoyle:

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.

…and I accepted this logic for a long time too…

Then it one day it dawned on me that God could indeed cause a whirlwind to blow through a junkyard in order to fully assemble a 747 that is completely ready to be flown.

The LORD is slow to anger and great in power; the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet.

Nahum 1:3​

In short, I thought it was impossible for evolution to have gradually produced humanity from previous life-forms. But then, after years of holding something similar to Hoyle’s view, it occurred to me that, just as the Bible states, with God nothing is impossible.

I’ve since come to the conclusion that evolution is indeed impossible without God guiding the process.

 

[ricmat]

I’ve since come to the conclusion that evolution is indeed impossible without God guiding the process.

But you still have God guiding the whirlwind, which is part of the process.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’ve since come to the conclusion that evolution is indeed impossible without God guiding the process.

Indeed, all things are impossible without God guiding the process. A stone falling from a wall is impossible without God guiding the process. Nature is His way of doing things in this world. Out of love and consideration for us, He makes it predictable and makes it follow certain laws, but He is still behind it all.

 

[Camron]

But you still have God guiding the whirlwind, which is part of the process.

True.

But if He is indeed guiding the whirlwind to form the 747, does the 747 have the free-will to resist its own creation?

 

[ricmat]

True.

But if He is indeed guiding the whirlwind to form the 747, does the 747 have the free-will to resist its own creation?

I’m not sure what free-will has to do with evolution. Other than man and angels, no other creation has free will.

It is possible that I read too much between the lines in your post above. It seemed to me that you were going down the road of “God got things started in the beginning, wound up his clock (the universe), and then stepped out of the picture so everything could happen automatically. As in, the whirlwind was an eventual inevitable result of forces which God implemented at the start of creation (the Big Bang).”

I’m not an expert on this, but the view above (which may not actually be yours…) seems very close to “Deism”, which is a theological view not supported by the Church. Again, it’s possible that I misread your intent, and I’m also not an expert on Deism.

In any case, I believe that God continues to work with and interact with his creation. So I could in theory agree that the whirlwind did it, with God’s guidance. Evolution occurred, with God’s guidance.

 

[garysibio]

Then it one day it dawned on me that God could indeed cause a whirlwind to blow through a junkyard in order to fully assemble a 747 that is completely ready to be flown.

There is no doubt that God could have done that if He chose but what God could do is not the question. God can do anything that does not oppose His nature. (For example, God cannot lie.) What were are talking about is what God did do.

The Bible, which is God’s word, does not seem to tell us that God created the universe by a gradual process over billions of years. He could have done so but, if He is going to tell us about the creation of the universe, why would He not tell us that He did it by a gradual process over billions of years.

Evolutionists will say that the Bible was written by a scientifically unenlightened people who didn’t “know” all this information. However, that’s a denial of the divine role in the writing of Scripture. Humans could not have written the messianic prophecies based on their own knowledge but there are some 325 of them (not counting the deuterocanonical books) all of which have come to pass exactly as written. God could just as easily have inspired Moses to write that He created the universe gradually if that is what He did.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Evolution is an explanation for a pre-conceived world view. Evolution is a product of the Enlightment. It is a naturalistic explanation for the existence of life. Thought it claims to be scientific, it is NOT science.

Very good post. I would add that, even if science could prove that evolution could have happened - and I don’t think it has - it cannot prove that it did occur. The study of origins belongs to the field of history, not science.

Gary

 

[Wolseley]

A long time ago I read a quote by Fred Hoyle…

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.

Yeah, but whirlwinds last, on the average, about an hour. Typhoons and hurricanes can go on for upwards of a week. Evolution requires these titanic lengths of time, billions of years, to produce a higher organism.

How many whirlwinds go on whirling in junkyards for billions of years?

The LORD is slow to anger and great in power; the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet.

I’ll agree that no matter how everything that is came into existance, God was behind it. As for evolution and evolutionists, however, there’s another quote that comes to mind:

For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.
Hosea 8:7a

 

[edwest2]

There is no doubt that God could have done that if He chose but what God could do is not the question. God can do anything that does not oppose His nature. (For example, God cannot lie.) What were are talking about is what God did do.

The Bible, which is God’s word, does not seem to tell us that God created the universe by a gradual process over billions of years. He could have done so but, if He is going to tell us about the creation of the universe, why would He not tell us that He did it by a gradual process over billions of years.

Evolutionists will say that the Bible was written by a scientifically unenlightened people who didn’t “know” all this information. However, that’s a denial of the divine role in the writing of Scripture. Humans could not have written the messianic prophecies based on their own knowledge but there are some 325 of them (not counting the deuterocanonical books) all of which have come to pass exactly as written. God could just as easily have inspired Moses to write that He created the universe gradually if that is what He did.

Gary

You bring up excellent points. The current problem is between those who believe man has reached a point where new knowledge has somehow replaced certain aspects of the Bible. The Bible itself tells us that all scripture is inspired by God.

Moses, and other prophets, did not make anything up. They wrote as God commanded. And yes, God could have told any of the prophets that life appeared gradually, over long ages. But that does not appear to be the case. Jesus Christ tells us that in the beginning, he created them male and female. This is contrary to theories that life began as single celled organisms.

The Catholic Church is aware of these theories. It has not ruled infallibly as to the age of the earth.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Very good post. I would add that, even if science could prove that evolution could have happened - and I don’t think it has - it cannot prove that it did occur. The study of origins belongs to the field of history, not science.

If that were true, then astronomy, geology, forensics, and a host of other sciences wouldn’t be sciences. Fortunately, we have ways of determining what happened in the past, by examining evidence still existing from those things.

Of course, as Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI have said, the evidence for evolution is extensive and growing. Long ago, it became extensive enough be considered a fact. And since we have now direct observation of the evolution of irreducibly complex features, and of macroevolution, there is no debate in science about it. Some religions still deny it for doctrinal reasons, but the Church is not one of those religions.

 

[Camron]

I’m not sure what free-will has to do with evolution. Other than man and angels, no other creation has free will.

I think that free-will somehow involves one’s awareness of their surroundings combined with their ability to rise above their circumstances and make choices. Inanimate objects do not possess these qualities. But animate objects do.

I suppose I’m talking about the difference between living and non-living things. Simple minerals do not have the ability to respond to what happens to them. They only react. Animals, however, can make rudimentary choices and perhaps even develop characteristics on a mental level that allows them to supersede their environment.

Humanity, being created in the image of God, seems to be the utmost physical creation of life capable of doing this. But even the lower order of animals seems to be capable of making some basic choices.

It is possible that I read too much between the lines in your post above. It seemed to me that you were going down the road of “God got things started in the beginning, wound up his clock (the universe), and then stepped out of the picture so everything could happen automatically. As in, the whirlwind was an eventual inevitable result of forces which God implemented at the start of creation (the Big Bang).”

He may have done this and He may not have done this. I really don’t know for sure and I’m open to both. All that I am saying is that if He did use contingent natural forces to create humanity, this wouldn’t be something that is outside the scope of His domain.

God permits humanity all the time to make choices for and against God even though God uses the choices they make to work according to His will. Some people seem to think that simply because God allowed His creation the freedom to choose then this means that God is not in control. I don’t agree with that view.

I’m not an expert on this, but the view above (which may not actually be yours…) seems very close to “Deism”, which is a theological view not supported by the Church. Again, it’s possible that I misread your intent, and I’m also not an expert on Deism.

But, without meandering into Deism, the Church does believe that God can use contingent natural process to accomplish His will. This could be seen in a situation like Joseph in the Old Testament. All the unpleasant trials that Joseph underwent, while very painful to go through, nonetheless contingently worked toward accomplishing God’s will.

I don’t think a solid guided Catholic theistic evolutionary belief has a much different view. The rise of life on Earth, while extremely painful, still could have nonetheless worked toward accomplishing God’s will to bring about humanity. This is how I picture theistic evolution and I don’t think this diminishes God in any way if He did indeed create in this fashion…

In any case, I believe that God continues to work with and interact with his creation. So I could in theory agree that the whirlwind did it, with God’s guidance. Evolution occurred, with God’s guidance.

That’s pretty much how I picture it too. To be honest, if one is claiming to be a theistic evolutionist (like I am) I can’t really picture it any other way. I’m not saying that God definitely did create life in this way. However, it does appear virtually certain that He did use this method to bring up humanity from prior life forms.

 

[Camron]

Yeah, but whirlwinds last, on the average, about an hour. Typhoons and hurricanes can go on for upwards of a week. Evolution requires these titanic lengths of time, billions of years, to produce a higher organism.

How many whirlwinds go on whirling in junkyards for billions of years?

I’m not trying to be flippant, but how long has this whirlwind been winding up?

I’ll agree that no matter how everything that is came into existance, God was behind it. As for evolution and evolutionists, however, there’s another quote that comes to mind:

Aside from the Bible quote you provided from Hosea 8:7a, how so? I don’t think it’s fair that all people who believe God used evolution to bring about humanity should be placed in that category to be honest. I think it’s a bit of both.

 

[richardwy]

Ignorance is certainly the wrong word. Those who do not believe evolution occurred as written in biology textbooks are accused of being ignorant or willfully ignorant. That is simply a rhetorical device that has no bearing on that person’s actual knowledge.

Yup, you’re right!

It is an insulting assumption based on the premise that understanding evolution means believing in evolution.

Personally, I’m not scandalized by insults.

I am writing this to support all of those people who have looked at the theory of evolution and said, “No. I will not accept this.” But much like the ‘tolerance’ issue, you are not allowed to speak against evolution in any way, shape or form. That if only your ‘ignorance’ were taken away you would finally see the light.

Baloney.

Baloney, indeed!

 

[ricmat]

I think that free-will somehow involves one’s awareness of their surroundings combined with their ability to rise above their circumstances and make choices. Inanimate objects do not possess these qualities. But animate objects do.

snip…

Animals, however, can make rudimentary choices and perhaps even develop characteristics on a mental level that allows them to supersede their environment.

Humanity, being created in the image of God, seems to be the utmost physical creation of life capable of doing this. But even the lower order of animals seems to be capable of making some basic choices.

snip…

I believe that it is Church teaching that of all God’s creation, only the angels and man have free-will. Free-will is the ability to know the difference between good and evil, along with the capability of choosing either. What you are describing about rising above one’s environment…that might loosely be termed free will but I don’t think that’s included in the theological definition.

 

[Camron]

I believe that it is Church teaching that of all God’s creation, only the angels and man have free-will. Free-will is the ability to know the difference between good and evil, along with the capability of choosing either. What you are describing about rising above one’s environment…that might loosely be termed free will but I don’t think that’s included in the theological definition.

These are valid points.

And yet, in a fairly solid Biblical example, Balaam’s donkey seems to have had the insight to recognize the danger whereas Balaam himself seems to have been oblivious of the danger. In fact, when beaten with a stick (perhaps even threatened with death) the donkey still refused to move. If the animal were only acting upon a survival instinct, it seems to have potentially failed obeying its mere animal instincts in favor of the danger of going against God’s angel.

I need to make it clear I’m not saying that animals totally comprehend their environment. They don’t. Humanity, being created in the image of God, certainly possesses a much greater sentience than any other animal. Humanity also has an immortal soul too, something which animals, in my opinion, do not have.

Much of what most animals do, even problem solving skills, may be pure instinct in my opinion. Apes drawing bugs from a tight space using sticks as primitive tools, for example, doesn’t compare to humanity walking on the moon. But some animals, in my opinion, do nonetheless seem to have the ability to make some very basic choices.

Whether they fully comprehend the difference between good and evil is another matter.

 

[Camron]

There is no doubt that God could have done that if He chose but what God could do is not the question. God can do anything that does not oppose His nature. (For example, God cannot lie.) What were are talking about is what God did do.

Agreed.

The Bible, which is God’s word, does not seem to tell us that God created the universe by a gradual process over billions of years. He could have done so but, if He is going to tell us about the creation of the universe, why would He not tell us that He did it by a gradual process over billions of years.

Maybe He has revealed this knowledge to us through nature itself. Jesus did say in Luke 19:40, “I tell you, if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” This passage applies to the Pharisees in the crowd saying to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples!” But perhaps it speaks on another level as well, the age of the rocks testifying to God’s Creation. The Bible does often have passages which can be applied to more than one context.

Evolutionists will say that the Bible was written by a scientifically unenlightened people who didn’t “know” all this information.

I don’t. For example, I think there is a lot of Wisdom to be found in the Book of Genesis.

When Eve’s labor pains were increase due to partaking in the TotKoG&E, this seems to blend quite naturally into the real world concept of humanity’s increased brain size causing serious pain to women when they give birth to their children. In other words, increased knowledge led to increased pain during childbirth.

This seems to be in agreement with Ecclesiastes 1:18 for example…

For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.

One could quite reasonably conclude that this Biblical passage in Genesis is, at least on one level, literally true.

I’m not saying the Bible is a scientific document. But if God is going to reveal truths to us, I think He will do a very good job in doing so and He will explain them in a way that our simpler minds can understand.

However, that’s a denial of the divine role in the writing of Scripture.

Perhaps other evolutionary theologians hold this view. I don’t.

I do believe that the authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit when they scribed God’s Word.

Humans could not have written the messianic prophecies based on their own knowledge but there are some 325 of them (not counting the deuterocanonical books) all of which have come to pass exactly as written. God could just as easily have inspired Moses to write that He created the universe gradually if that is what He did.

Gary

Can you think of any reasons why He wouldn’t have done so?

I can think of a few early Church Fathers who admitted that the days of Genesis were difficult to explain in ordinary terms. There wasn’t as much agreement about the days of Genesis back then as some today claim there was back then.

I’ve sometimes even wondered if the days should even be through of as chronological at all. For example, King David is called the “firstborn” even though he is the “eighth son” of Jesse. Maybe the days of Genesis are actually ranked by Biblical numbers according to “importance” instead of having a literal “chronological” significance.

 

[abu_kamoon]

“Well… they are our closest relatives”

Ha ha ha ha ha! Maybe they are YOUR closest relatives. All of my relatives are human.