A
anon65111186
Guest
Okay, what is the one reason that it should not accept evolution?
- Status
G
Glark
Guest
Before the madness of Darwinism came along, I would wager that there never lived a Catholic who didn’t accept that Eve was created miraculously and instantly from Adam’s rib.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
There was also no other frame of reference for that whole episode other than religious, but when science and the scientific method appeared people started to see creation as ineligible and explainable, so they wanted a concrete explanation for what happened on a physical level and what that has to do with the apes and other fossils.
I still believe in what the Church teaches, but want to know more than the Church provides or even knows herself.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
It is incompatible with Scripture. So I believe the Church has erred in declaring that it is compatible - an error that will one day be corrected by the Holy Spirit … and the sooner the better.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
I am aware that the church small c can sometimes be in error, but aren’t we protected rather by the paraclete already? Is it your claim that from the time it accepted evolution until now the Holy Spirit did not protect her nor lead it into the truth, but rather let her go astray?
What is the one reason it is incompatible with scripture?
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Adam was created from inanimate matter.
A
anon65111186
Guest
He was formed from clay, isn’t that inanimate matter? That sounds compatible to me.
G
Glark
Guest
This is fair enough, in a way - after all, my belief that the Scriptures allow for a creation that existed prior to the “six days” creation was born from a desire to reconcile the scientific evidence (assuming it’s correct) that the earth and lit’s life-forms existed much longer than 6000 years ago. However, my Scriptural interpretation is a very literal one - as opposed to “fitting” evolution into the Bible, which requires gross distortions of Scripture.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
That’s right, Adam was formed from clay. Which hominid can be described as “clay”? The word “clay” is obviously meant to indicate inanimate matter. To interpret “clay” as a living, pre-existing creature is patently absurd and false.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
I’m merely trying to clarify your thought. The one reason it is incompatible with scripture is because it claims Adam came from inanimate matter you said. Clay is inanimate. So by that scripture is incompatible with scripture. Because clay is in scripture.
Let me ask you to reformulate your response.
What is the one reason it is incompatible with scripture , a reason so compelling that every other reason is unnecessary or irrelevant?
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
What? You don’t understand my argument? It’s not rocket science.
A
anon65111186
Guest
I’m not assuming anything, indulge me and give me a clear statement because honestly you lost me at the fourth to last post about being incompatible.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Read: “I know better than the church.” No offense, but isn’t hubris a sinful state?
G
Glark
Guest
I’m a conscientious objector.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
. . . to the Church of God? So. . . you are not Catholic, right? Are you a different denomination?
R
rossum
Guest
All hominids and all animals can be described as “clay”. God says so: “Let the earth (= clay) bring forth…” Genesis 1:24. Your interpretation obviously differs, but to describe this interpretation as “absurd and false” is incorrect.
We know that the Bible can lave out intermediate stages when summarising. See Matthew 1:1 for an example: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.” That verse leaves out many intermediate stages between Abraham and David and between David and Jesus.
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
If only that were the case.
Science doesn’t deal with the exceptional or extraordinary. It wouldn’t have anything to say about creation, just what happens after. And then, when we restrict it to the study of the physical, it should have nothing to say about life.
But, the standard theory of evolution oversteps that boundary. The idea of species is left poorly defined, not addressing what is an organism, reducing it to its constituent matter. At this point it becomes absurd, contaminating the science with the philosophy of materialism, thereby rendering itself, in modern terms, to the realm of pseudoscience.
Genetics provides us with an understanding of adaptations - changes to what already exists. Darwinism uses that science to advance its claim that greater complexity arises as a result of mutations in the genome. Random chemical activity affecting an organism’s DNA, which any reasonable person is aware causes harm, replaces miracles arising from Divine will as the proposed cause of such differences. The ideology is so powerful that it seems to extinguish common sense.
The other pillar of evolutionary thought is natural selection. It cannot be explained physically. In describing the necessary elements that allow an organism to survive and procreate, one must discern what constitutes the overriding structure of the chemical reactions that constitute individual organisms within their environment.
Much of science today focusses on the physical. This need not necessarily be the case, but even if we do impose that restriction, it does not imply materialism as it’s philosophical foundation. There are different layers of existence, ours being the most sophisticated, with every experience, every movement a physical process organized by the spirit, which exists in relation to God. Science in the next world will be God-centred, a revelation of His glory, as we might possibly fill, in eternity, this entire universe with life. Now is a good place to start.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Life has lots of physical attributes. Doctors study them scientifically all the time. It is nonsense to say that science should not have anything to say about life.
“Materialism” as used in theology, is an approach to living your everyday life as if only material possessions mattered. That has nothing to do with the sense in which you are using materialism to describe evolution. If you think that any science that deals only with the material world is pseudoscience, I would like to know what you would consider to be science? Strength of materials? No, it deals only with materialism. Pseudoscience. Refraction of light through a prism? No. It deals only with materialism. Pseudoscience. Oil exporation? No. It deals only with materialism. Pseudoscience. The PH of acids and bases? No. it deals only with materialism. Pseudoscience. It seems that all science is pseudoscience to you.
S
stavros388
Guest
It’s not very heavy at all. You should actually read it. Why not? I dare you.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Materialism philosophically is a theory or belief that nothing exists except matter - its structure and processes.
When we speak of someone being materialistic, we are saying something different, that they consider things of the world - material possessions, pleasure, fame and power to be more important than those of the spirit.
While we can apply the study of materials to understanding the constituents of life, they are no more alive in themselves than a body at a funeral viewing.
Physicians take a vow to look after the well being of their patients. That is God-centred science, as is research into improving the quality of life for all our brothers and sisters. Unfortunately, much effort today is put into the acquisition of transient and illusory goods. That science is encouraged by the view that everything is random with no purpose other that that which we choose, and that the fittest are deserving of their privilege.
Neo-Darwinism is materialism under the guise of science. You can believe what you will. But, truth, as it has been revealed, is that life was and is created. It was originally made perfect and has been hurt by original sin which damages our relationship with God and His healing graces.
Last edited:
- Status