Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Like Pope Benedict? who stated: “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
 
Yet the Catechism states:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Like Pope Benedict? who stated: “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
Click to expand...
And each of us is unique, and one of a kind in God’s eyes.
 
Last edited:
An interesting read is the Toledoths of Genesis.

According to this Moses had the tablets in his possession when he COMPILED Genesis. The First Tablet Gen 1 was written by God Himself. The colophon phrases are an interesting key.

The Origins of Genesis: Solving the Toledoth Mystery (i know it is not a Catholic site, but be open to the points made in the article)

http://www.talkgenesis.org/genesis-toledoth-mystery/

Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis: A Case for Literary Unity https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Records-Structure-Genesis-Literary/dp/0840775024
 
Interestingly enough modern medicine has found the rib to be very rich in stem cells.
 
“Face it - you’ve devoted large chunks of your time to studying something that is as useless a fairy tale.”

You know I could turn this around and say the same about you.

“By the way, Dobzhansky believed human embryos had “gills” - I’d be too embarrassed to quote him.”

Nice little jab, there.

Scientists have to get used to their ideas being scrutinized, criticised, over-turned, corrected, advanced, or dismissed. This is why science has been so effective. Anyway, it sounds like he was on to something regarding gills.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_02: “Ancestral characters are often, but not always, preserved in an organism’s development. For example, both chick and human embryos go through a stage where they have slits and arches in their necks like the gill slits and gill arches of fish. These structures are not gills and do not develop into gills in chicks and humans, but the fact that they are so similar to gill structures in fish at this point in development supports the idea that chicks and humans share a common ancestor with fish.”

I highly recommend Neil Shubin’s book, “Your Inner Fish” for more on this line of investigation.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Yet the Catechism states:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
Click to expand...
I think your highlighting of “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal” is prooftexting and does not lead to a correct understanding of the Catechism. If your emphasis here is to imply that all of scripture is first of all literal and then, in addition, has spiritual meaning in addition to its literal truth, you are misinterpreting the phrase “based on.” It does not mean the same thing as “includes.” Reading other documents of the Church it is clear that it is not the intention of the Church that every word in scripture is to be taken as literally and scientifically true.
 
Catholics understand Scripture to be taken literally first as opposed to literalistically.
 
No it does not. They are folds and we do not go through evolutionary stages as embryos.
 
I understand what you mean but let’s look at what you’re saying.
  1. Selective quoting is not a good idea for either side. Modern Popes (?) are always speaking in line with, or in continuity with, what other Popes have written.
  2. “idiot that’s going to hell”? I, for one, never wrote that. Those who oppose evolution here, I’ve observed, are usually the ones who are told they lack knowledge or just don’t understand.
  3. The Church considers the claims about evolution so she can address them. And usually does so in lengthy, detailed statements stating what is and is not compatible with Catholic teaching.
  4. The Church teaches us that
Romans 5:12

"New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–

New Living Translation
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

English Standard Version
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Adam was the one man. Adam and Eve were two individuals - real people.
  1. The Church allows us to consider the question of evolution as well but even the following contains an essential limitation.
“While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.” - Catholic Answers
  1. The Biology textbook contains the whole and complete answer, as we are taught. But by itself, it leaves out crucial facts.
 
Last edited:
It’s a fraud that lasted over 100 years.

press.uchicago.edu

Haeckel’s Embryos

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are drawings of embryos by the Darwinist Ernst Haeckel in which humans and other...
press.uchicago.edu press.uchicago.edu
 
Science is provisional and changes but their are forces that will not correct what is being taught.
 
We are persons from the moment of conception.

Believing that an embryo is undergoing some sort of evolution into becoming human, and would be prior to that, like a fish, makes it easy to justify the killing of many tens of million unborn children.

It comes with a sense of wonder that we gaze into the marvel of any organism’s development from a single cell that contains all the physical information to eventually become an adult capable of participating in the flowering of life through the reproduction of their own kind. Enduring the degradation of random mutation, the code continues to reveal the glory of the Word who dictated the beginning of Eden, saw its fall, and brought about its redemption, becoming one of us.
buffalo said:
An interesting read is the Toledoths of Genesis.
Click to expand...
Interesting to be sure, and comforting to imagine that the words we read stretch back to our very beginning to the first person. It makes sense that it should be through the tradition which kept the ancient story that our Saviour should arise.
 
Last edited:
It is one among other hoaxes that were done to provide fraudulent evidence of evolution.
 
anon65111186 said:
That’s general, specifically how exactly did she come from Adam? We know she started out as a rib then was a woman, what was the process in between exactly? Was it instantaneous or gradual? The account is not explicit.
Click to expand...
Do you always request scientific explanations for miracles?
 
anon65111186 said:
When has Satan not entered the temple? Look at the early church even, sinners galore inside the church of God, in the bodies of his believers which are also temples. I don’t think it is apocalyptic, just a fact that Satan will be around until the end of time.
Click to expand...
Your explanation seems rather lame to me. Pope’s don’t normally go around declaring that Satan has entered the Church.
 
Last edited:
Miracles aren’t allowed in this discussion. Only 100% science. Which kinda leaves God out of the miracle business, but science is better… or something.

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top