Is Darwinism the Cause of Secularism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter highcalling
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

highcalling

Guest
This talk was awesome: vimeo.com/14409344

Are some protestants defending our traditional doctrine of Creation better than us Catholics? I’d like see discussion about this.
 
Secularism has been around since the book of Genesis. Darwinism is the evolution of the body of man, not the spirit. How are the two related?🤷
 
I don’t think it can be disputed that in general, Protestantism includes more people that think the earth is literally 6000 years old. After all, I went to a Protestant school at one point in my life. The idea that the book of Genesis was symbolic to them was almost blasphemy.

But, I guess it depends on the individual’s experience with most groups. After all, Protestantism holds both extremes

I almost forgot, I disagree that Darwinism is the cause of secularism. Evolution simply explains the diversity of life.
 
No. Darwin developed a theory about how species came to be. It was not a theory about the origin of life, or the existence or non-existence of god(s). There is little in Darwin of immediate value to someone trying to establish that god(s) exist, but little to discomfort them either. The only people who have trouble are those who believe literally in any one of numerous creation myths which involve species being created in different ways. On of these is the so-called literal reading of the Genesis accounts (literal reading is actually impossible because of internal contradictions). Evolution is a fact. Nothing else explains our shared DNA. Darwin’s theory is about how evolution happened, not **what **happened. as I understand it, recent Popes have all accepted the fact of evolution, without worrying too much (being busy people) about exactly how. They leave that up to science.
 
? I thought secularism [not the term, the concept] could be traced back to Rome/Greece.
Modern secularism is the child of Enlightenment. The best example is the French revolution, which had an explicit goal of separating the Church and State. Before that, the two were closely linked.

French revolution: 1789
Darwin’s book: 1859

That’s exactly 70 years.

Of course, the idea of secularism predates the French revolution, so in reality secularism is even older.
 
No. Darwin developed a theory about how species came to be. It was not a theory about the origin of life, or the existence or non-existence of god(s). There is little in Darwin of immediate value to someone trying to establish that god(s) exist, but little to discomfort them either. The only people who have trouble are those who believe literally in any one of numerous creation myths which involve species being created in different ways. On of these is the so-called literal reading of the Genesis accounts (literal reading is actually impossible because of internal contradictions). Evolution is a fact. Nothing else explains our shared DNA. Darwin’s theory is about how evolution happened, not **what **happened. as I understand it, recent Popes have all accepted the fact of evolution, without worrying too much (being busy people) about exactly how. They leave that up to science.
See, this is one of the things atheists like about the RCC. You guys don’t wet your pants every time someone mentions that life evolves and feel the need to make up a whole bunch of lies.

👍
 
Huh? Secularism predates Darwinism by at least 70 years.
Huh?
Secularism predates Darwin’s theory by thousands of years!

Secularism means “without God” or without church.
People lived without organized religion or the concept of “God” for a loooong time before the various bibles and religious groups were created.
 
Evolution won’t magically become a fact just because someone says it is. The only evolution that can be scientifically tested is micro-evolution, which is variation within kind and isn’t Darwinism.

BTW, how many actually watched that whole talk before posting? I encourage all of you to do so so that we can have a discussion about the talk.

As to what Catholics believe, the traditional Catholic doctrine of Creation leaves no room for Neo-Darwinian evolution. Please educate yourself:

catholicintl.com/index.php/latest-news/753-the-catholic-doctrine-of-six-day-creation

God bless,

HC
 
Evolution won’t magically become a fact just because someone says it is. The only evolution that can be scientifically tested is micro-evolution, which is variation within kind and isn’t Darwinism.

BTW, how many actually watched that whole talk before posting? I encourage all of you to do so so that we can have a discussion about the talk.

As to what Catholics believe, the traditional Catholic doctrine of Creation leaves no room for Neo-Darwinian evolution. Please educate yourself:

catholicintl.com/index.php/latest-news/753-the-catholic-doctrine-of-six-day-creation

God bless,

HC
What’s that got to do with your original post about Darwinism being the cause of secularism, or have you given up on that?
 
Oh dear. I spoke too soon.
Evolution won’t magically become a fact just because someone says it is. The only evolution that can be scientifically tested is micro-evolution, which is variation within kind and isn’t Darwinism.
This is complete nonsense. Evolution is evolution.
Please educate yourself:
You are in no position to be making such statements. The official position of the RCC is that its dogmas are in no way challenged or threatened by acceptance of the observable fact that life evolves.

To quote Benedict XVI:

“Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.”

Apparently “highcalling” thinks he knows Catholic doctrine better than the Pope.
 
Oh dear. I spoke too soon.

This is complete nonsense. Evolution is evolution.

You are in no position to be making such statements. The official position of the RCC is that its dogmas are in no way challenged or threatened by acceptance of the observable fact that life evolves.

To quote Benedict XVI:
Micro evolution is adaptation within a species . Its not what most people think of as evolution or macro-evolution which claims that all life evolved from non-living matter.
Evolution studies are within the sphere of science and Pope Benedict is not a scientist. He is merely stating a opinion. It is not disloyal for sincere Catholics to disagree with Pope Benedict on this topic. The Bible says " we should be ready to give an account for the faith that is in us "
Nobody respects those who beat other people over the head with the Bible.
So its not acceptable to beat people over the head with an OPINION expressed by the Pope.
 
See, this is one of the things atheists like about the RCC. You guys don’t wet your pants every time someone mentions that life evolves and feel the need to make up a whole bunch of lies.

👍
Do you know what the Church teaches on this subject?

Peace,
Ed
 
…the observable fact that life evolves.

To quote Benedict XVI:

“Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.”

Apparently “highcalling” thinks he knows Catholic doctrine better than the Pope.
Life has never been observed to evolve. The only observable fact is micro-evolution which is variation within kind. That isn’t a dog coming from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. Micro-evolution cannot be summoned to prove Macro-evolution (an ape to a man). That has never been observed. If you believe that you do not have Catholic faith.

And as to the charge of knowing more than the pope, please consider this and add it to that quote that didn’t prove anything:

catholicintl.com/index.php/latest-news/776-pope-sends-letter-endorsing-critique-of-evolution

Last time I checked wikipedia is a hack job propaganda source for a wide variety of things. It doesn’t represent true Catholicism. It isn’t an organ of the Church. And it can’t pretend to know what you and I are bound to believe. And we cannot contradict the fathers.

Now back to this topic.

Who has watched that video? And what do you think of the effects of Darwinian theory on secularism? I’d say that talk was insightful to say the least.
 
Micro-evolution cannot be summoned to prove Macro-evolution (an ape to a man). That has never been observed.
Well, you cannot see what you don’t want to see. Here’s a clue: all forms are transitional.

For example, it has been already proven (genetic evidence and all) that humans were cross-breeding with Neanderthals. In fact, I do not need to look further than myself for the evidence of this. I have a prominent occipital bun. That’s a textbook Neanderthal feature.
 
Huh?
Secularism predates Darwin’s theory by thousands of years!

Secularism means “without God” or without church.
People lived without organized religion or the concept of “God” for a loooong time before the various bibles and religious groups were created.
Conveniently overlooking the fact that until the very recently all states had a state religion…

We agree on one thing though – the alleged progeny (secularism) predates the alleged parent (Darwinism).
 
I don’t see what Darwin has to do with Secularism. To my mind, secularism begins with the notion of a secular government that essentially replaces Religious Authority with a Governmental Authority. For example, a government that allows things that God forbids is secular, while one that submits to God is not.

You can kind of see this in the Islamic world, which is one of the few places in which the culture is not wholely secularized. In those parts of the world, what the Qu’ran says guides how people live much moreso than what culture or government say. In fact, you could say that in a place like Saudi Arabia, Islam guides the government and the culture as well as economics. In a place like England or France, it’s the opposite – religion is steered by culture, economics, and government. The government can oftentimes contradict and even forbid common religious practices, or the culture can negate them, or the economy can make them difficult.

So given the history of Europe, I would suggest that the rise of the Nation over Christendom probably set us up for secularism. Before say the American or French Revolution, the government publicly chose a denomination. England was Anglican, France was Catholic, Spain was Catholic, and so on. After the revolutions, the idea of religion being at the center of a state fades – the Constitution allowed everyone to pick a denomination, the French tried to make up their own religion. But after that, the idea that the King or the State would publicly uphold a religion was seen as unenlightened. No longer was it really the case that the government would force religious morals on people – instead the government got the right to impose secular rules that at best don’t contradict religion. eventually, religion is brought to heel as governments decide they have the power to do anything and that no mere church should be able to declare otherwise.

So it starts, at least to me around the 1760s or so, though the Reformation had a part in setting the stage.
 
It is not the cause but a supporting pillar, another reason to deny to Divine Providence an actual causal role for the development of life. The Church is applauded by secularists when it makes any statement in support of the theory and spoken against when it does not. The Holy Father, as head of Christ’s Church on earth, has spoken of an agnostic view of this theory. It is not a settled matter. However, it is regularly posted to be established fact on this forum.

It appears to involve the formula: nothing made me, so I have nothing to be concerned about, especially as it regards what the Church teaches. The same Jesus that ascended into heaven will come again.

Peace,
Ed
 
Micro evolution is adaptation within a species . Its not what most people think of as evolution or macro-evolution which claims that all life evolved from non-living matter.
This is incorrect. Evolution is evolution. What you call macro-evolution is actually the theory of abiogenesis. The two are not connected; Darwin did not attempt to explain the origins of life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top