Is believing in evolution sinful?

[hellopeople]

hey, thank you for responding.

what is not possible is reconciling the Biblical narrative with currently held scientific theory regarding the origins of earth, life, and man. no one has actually observed or measured evolution on the levels Darwin proposed. no one still living was there at the creation of man, and the current model of human evolution is based on theories, ideas, and suppositions based upon the scenario of Darwin’s theories being true, and viewing fossil remains against the backdrop of this supposition.

Creation scientists do the same, looking at phsyical evidence with the assumption that the Bible is a literal and true account of Creation, and examining physical data in light of the narratives therein.

secondly, i do indeed trust the geneologies of the Bible to record Christ’s hereditary line. yes, it is remarkable to have a geneology which traces one’s ancestry back to the first man, but it is by no means impossible, especially considering that this is God’s Word, and an historical text on divine, social, political, and phrophetic matters.

Biblical archology continues to confirm a surprising number of the Bible’s recorded historical events, places, people, and timelines for a text many consider to be fabricated, and based on legend or myth.

I am just going to have to disagree with you on this. Creation scientists start with an assumption and then try to work backwards to prove it. That is HORRIBLE science…in fact, it is not even science. The fact is that there is a HUGE amount of evidence supporting evolution and basically no scientific evidence supporting the creation story.

As for Biblical archaeology, you are a bit mistaken. We have found a select few things that do at least support that some of these people in the OT existed (an inscription talking about the house of david for one) but there are a lot of other things that we have not found. There is not one scrap of evidence for the exodus or even that the Israelites were enslaved by Egypt. Some of the towns that were supposed to be taken over by David and destroyed were in fact not destroyed at all according to archaeological evidence.

As for the genealogies, fair enough I guess. If you want to believe in them because you believe they are divinely inspired, that is your choice and I can’t convince you on matters of faith. But there are HUGE amounts of evidence to support evolution and there is even more evidence that the world is billions of years old, not thousands. Don’t be fooled because it is called a theory, the theory of evolution is basically proven.

 

[Rascalking]

I personally don’t have an opinion on it (I’m totally agnostic on evoloution. I simply don’t care) and I think you can believe in it and be a good Catholic/Christian.

 

[edwest2]

Can you explain this a bit more. You are saying that you can believe in evolution, but you are just supposed to believe that God set it into motion? In my opinion, if you believe in God and you believe in evolution, this is basically the position you take by default.

God was not the great kick starter who simply allowed evolution to do whatever it wanted. God was involved in directing everything to its purpose and goal infallibly. Pope John Paul II also spoke about “fixed points.” Adam and Eve as our first parents is non-negotiable.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

This isn’t an infallible teaching, right? Because it would really discredit the Catholic Church if it were.

What would it discredit? Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hellopeople]

What would it discredit? Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

God bless,
Ed

Stating that something that has basically been disproven by science is infallible and must be true by way of the holy spirit, it discredits the whole notion of infallibility. I personally think the church would be more intelligent than that though. If the only thing that the church holds as infallible are issues of morals and faith, they can’t be disproven. If they teach science infallibly and it gets proven wrong, it basically disproves infallibility.

 

[edwest2]

Stating that something that has basically been disproven by science is infallible and must be true by way of the holy spirit, it discredits the whole notion of infallibility. I personally think the church would be more intelligent than that though. If the only thing that the church holds as infallible are issues of morals and faith, they can’t be disproven. If they teach science infallibly and it gets proven wrong, it basically disproves infallibility.

I can understand why you think that but it ignores the way the Church examines the world. It also includes the false idea that the Church ignores scientific matters or only deals with faith and morals. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

There are too many posters here that gladly quote this or that Pope or saint to somehow prove something scientific. Does that make sense? It does only if they know that what the Church teaches about human origins matters, even to nonbelievers.

The issue of infallibility is generally misunderstood due to a lack of research by those who have preconceived ideas about the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas acknowledges that certain interpretations can be abandoned once a different interpretation is proven with certainty. “Evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” according to Pope Benedict.

Galileo made the error of running around with his theory before it had been proven. The Church warned him, but no, he just ran around without self-control.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hellopeople]

Galileo made the error of running around with his theory before it had been proven. The Church warned him, but no, he just ran around without self-control.

God bless,
Ed

Well…he was right.

 

[grace_singh]

I am just going to have to disagree with you on this. Creation scientists start with an assumption and then try to work backwards to prove it. That is HORRIBLE science…in fact, it is not even science. The fact is that there is a HUGE amount of evidence supporting evolution and basically no scientific evidence supporting the creation story.

Evolutionary scientists also start with an assumption, and work backwards to prove it. fossils are dated by the rock layers in which they are found, and the rock layers are dated by the kinds of fossil creatures found within them, and the dates for both are based on timelines and epoch names given by men in light of Darwinian assumptions about the age of the earth, and the evolution of creatures.

likewise Creation scrientists look at the same physical data, but their frameowrk for understanding what they are looking at is not the assumption of billions of years and evolution, but the Bible. so both have a framework, bring in assumptions, and make conclusions and hypothesis based on their assumptions.

there is indeed physical evidence, scientific facts, and obersvable data to support the Genesis account of Creation. i’m not a sceintist or an expert, but i can recommend one man’s books, those of Jonathan Sarfati. i recommend him so often mainly because he is among the clearest, simplest, and most reasonable Creation scientists i have come across.

As for Biblical archaeology, you are a bit mistaken. We have found a select few things that do at least support that some of these people in the OT existed (an inscription talking about the house of david for one) but there are a lot of other things that we have not found. There is not one scrap of evidence for the exodus or even that the Israelites were enslaved by Egypt. Some of the towns that were supposed to be taken over by David and destroyed were in fact not destroyed at all according to archaeological evidence.

i was refering more to archeology backing what the Biblical narrative tells us about history in the time frame of a given Biblical narration. we also have found object such as the Tel Dan Stele, the Merneptah Stele, the Cyrus Cylinder, King Ahaz’s Seal, and numerous other objects which affirm the Biblical account of history, specifically Israelite history.

the Ipuwer Papyrus has been debated by some as refering to the events of Exodus, though this interpretation is not accepted by all. its contents, however, are very interesting in light of what Exodus records.

As for the genealogies, fair enough I guess. If you want to believe in them because you believe they are divinely inspired, that is your choice and I can’t convince you on matters of faith. But there are HUGE amounts of evidence to support evolution and there is even more evidence that the world is billions of years old, not thousands. Don’t be fooled because it is called a theory, the theory of evolution is basically proven.

well, a theory can’t be proven until it’s replicated. we know that new species arise, but the observable proof that evolution as imagined by Darwin actually can happen is lacking.

 

[hellopeople]

Evolutionary scientists also start with an assumption, and work backwards to prove it. fossils are dated by the rock layers in which they are found, and the rock layers are dated by the kinds of fossil creatures found within them, and the dates for both are based on timelines and epoch names given by men in light of Darwinian assumptions about the age of the earth, and the evolution of creatures.

likewise Creation scrientists look at the same physical data, but their frameowrk for understanding what they are looking at is not the assumption of billions of years and evolution, but the Bible. so both have a framework, bring in assumptions, and make conclusions and hypothesis based on their assumptions.

there is indeed physical evidence, scientific facts, and obersvable data to support the Genesis account of Creation. i’m not a sceintist or an expert, but i can recommend one man’s books, those of Jonathan Sarfati. i recommend him so often mainly because he is among the clearest, simplest, and most reasonable Creation scientists i have come across.

i was refering more to archeology backing what the Biblical narrative tells us about history in the time frame of a given Biblical narration. we also have found object such as the Tel Dan Stele, the Merneptah Stele, the Cyrus Cylinder, King Ahaz’s Seal, and numerous other objects which affirm the Biblical account of history, specifically Israelite history.

the Ipuwer Papyrus has been debated by some as refering to the events of Exodus, though this interpretation is not accepted by all. its contents, however, are very interesting in light of what Exodus records.

well, a theory can’t be proven until it’s replicated. we know that new species arise, but the observable proof that evolution as imagined by Darwin actually can happen is lacking.

Lets look at it this way…find me a creationist scientist, someone who believes in the genesis account of creation, that is not a Christian or Jew. If the scientific evidence points to it, you would think that secular scientists would be able to see it too, right? It is not at all logical to believe that the earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago. When did dinosaurs live? Why aren’t there dinosaur bones on the same level as human bones? They were created a day or two apart, right? It is hard for me to not question the intelligence of anyone that says they believe in the creation story in genesis. I am trying to say that as nicely as I can. There is basically infinite amounts of evidence proving that it is false, and we have a story in the Bible proving it is true. Please enlighten me with some scientific evidence that suggests that the Genesis account is right.

 

[grace_singh]

Lets look at it this way…find me a creationist scientist, someone who believes in the genesis account of creation, that is not a Christian or Jew. If the scientific evidence points to it, you would think that secular scientists would be able to see it too, right? It is not at all logical to believe that the earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago. When did dinosaurs live? Why aren’t there dinosaur bones on the same level as human bones? They were created a day or two apart, right? It is hard for me to not question the intelligence of anyone that says they believe in the creation story in genesis. I am trying to say that as nicely as I can. There is basically infinite amounts of evidence proving that it is false, and we have a story in the Bible proving it is true. Please enlighten me with some scientific evidence that suggests that the Genesis account is right.

well actually, many scientists did tend to see fossil and other geological findings and features in light of the Biblical narrative, before theories about an old earth and evolution became popular, and presented a new lens through which to look at those same rocks and fossils.

as to levels of fossils, the Creationist argument is that the layering of fossils doesn’t represent millions of years of evolution, but a rapid burial in sediments of numerous kinds of creatures, many extinct and many still living. they argue that numerous fossils really could not have been created except by a rapid burial, which they attribute to the Flood. as to different creatures appearing in deiifernt layers, it’s not at all uncommon to find creatures beleived to have developed much later under rock layers where fossils of creatures supposed to be younger or less developed evolutionarily are found.

sea creatures being found in lower layers is attributed to the rapid burial in sediments they would have experienced as the ocean was churched up in the first hours and days of the flood, and humans (remember the evolutionary definition of a human ancestory can be quite broad) being found in higher layers would suggest either post-flood burial of normal human remains, extinct apes, extinct human populations or ethnic groups, or flood victims better able to flee the rising waters, and get buried last.

it may sound odd, but that is how a Creation scientist would look at those same rock beds and fossils. again, i do recommend two books by Sarfati : “Refuting Evolution”, and “Refuting Compromise”. they go into these arguments, as well as data, findings, and technicalities much better than i could.

 

[grace_singh]

here’s one point i did find interesting. remember, i grew up with evolution, trusted it for years, and basically regarded Creationists as well-meaning, looney flat-earthers.

the salination of the ocean. Sarfati proposes that at the measured rate of salt going into versus being extracted from the oceans of the world, considering the current salination of the ocean, and taking into account a major ice age, the ocean itself can not be more than (maximum) 62 million years old, assuming an originall fresh-water ocean system.

he puts this as the maximum possible and not his proposed actual age of the earth, as he argues that God could ahve and likely did create the oceans with some salinity from day two.

 

[hellopeople]

well actually, many scientists did tend to see fossil and other geological findings and features in light of the Biblical narrative, before theories about an old earth and evolution became popular, and presented a new lens through which to look at those same rocks and fossils.

as to levels of fossils, the Creationist argument is that the layering of fossils doesn’t represent millions of years of evolution, but a rapid burial in sediments of numerous kinds of creatures, many extinct and many still living. they argue that numerous fossils really could not have been created except by a rapid burial, which they attribute to the Flood. as to different creatures appearing in deiifernt layers, it’s not at all uncommon to find creatures beleived to have developed much later under rock layers where fossils of creatures supposed to be younger or less developed evolutionarily are found.

sea creatures being found in lower layers is attributed to the rapid burial in sediments they would have experienced as the ocean was churched up in the first hours and days of the flood, and humans (remember the evolutionary definition of a human ancestory can be quite broad) being found in higher layers would suggest either post-flood burial of normal human remains, extinct apes, extinct human populations or ethnic groups, or flood victims better able to flee the rising waters, and get buried last.

it may sound odd, but that is how a Creation scientist would look at those same rock beds and fossils. again, i do recommend two books by Sarfati : “Refuting Evolution”, and “Refuting Compromise”. they go into these arguments, as well as data, findings, and technicalities much better than i could.

A worldwide flood is not possible though. There just isn’t enough water on earth to do it. Where did the water come from, and where did it go after the flood?

 

[presidentjlh]

It is possible for a worldwide flood, depending on your definition of the word “world”

What do you think the definition of the world was to the ancient Israelites? Undoubtedly it was much smaller than our current definition of the world.

 

[hellopeople]

It is possible for a worldwide flood, depending on your definition of the word “world”

What do you think the definition of the world was to the ancient Israelites? Undoubtedly it was much smaller than our current definition of the world.

Yes, I can agree with this, but if it wasn’t a worldwide flood, how can dinosaur bones be found all over the world not near any human bones?

 

[presidentjlh]

Yes, I can agree with this, but if it wasn’t a worldwide flood, how can dinosaur bones be found all over the world not near any human bones?

Oh, I was not at all arguing your point that dinosaurs existed before humans (on the contrary, I find it to be virtually impossible that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, based on what we know.) Obviously, the world’s landmasses had a different position at that time due to plate tectonics, most likely in a position that made up the superlandmass Pangaea.

 

[hellopeople]

Oh, I was not at all arguing your point that dinosaurs existed before humans (on the contrary, I find it to be virtually impossible that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, based on what we know.) Obviously, the world’s landmasses had a different position at that time due to plate tectonics, most likely in a position that made up the superlandmass Pangaea.

Yeah. I was replying to another poster about the world wide flood. I have no doubt that there was some enormous flood thousands of years ago as other cultures in the area had legends about this flood, but obviously it was quite localized.

 

[presidentjlh]

Yeah. I was replying to another poster about the world wide flood. I have no doubt that there was some enormous flood thousands of years ago as other cultures in the area had legends about this flood, but obviously it was quite localized.

I have noticed that other cultures have their legends of the “flood” as well, and I find it very intriguing.

But, yes, it was undoubtedly quite localized. Still, compared to people today, such a flood would have indeed felt like the entire world was covered in water.