Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

[benjamin1973]

That’s right. You have free will, and you can believe whatever you want. But if there’s no requirement to take particular passages literally, and when science has come so far in determining the mechanisms which relate species and the environments they live in, why fight it? What’s the advantage of hiding your head in the sand?

Why not just say, “Reality, whatever it is, is of and for God, so I will open my eyes, endeavor earnestly to learn as much as I can, because refusing to learn is an expression of interest in God’s creation”?

 

[edwest211]

There’s no requirement to believe in evolution either. It has no useful purpose.

 

[benjamin1973]

It has the purpose of understanding how animals of different species are related, and the mechanism by which species disappear or emerge over time.

“Useful” requires a goal: whatever helps you achieve your goal is useful. If your goal is to adhere to literal Biblical creationism because you think it’s the pure and final word of God, then evolution is highly useless for you. If your goal is to learn more about animals, and about animals that once existed, and about how they are related to each other, then the theory of evolution is very useful.

 

[edwest211]

No. It’s not. Observation is not evolution. Evolution, as presented here, is a belief system. Making observations does not require a framework called evolution. How animals may or may not be related is not useful except for the study of animals alive today. Destroy a natural habitat and the animals that lived there either find a new place to live or they die off. That’s the way it is, right now. Species appear and disappear. No evolution required.

"A major study released by the ZSL and WWF (World Wildlife Fund) in October revealed the number of wild animals living on Earth is set to fall two-thirds by 2020. Animal populations plummeted by 58 per cent between 1970 and 2012, with losses on track to reach 67 per cent over the next three years.

“Destruction of wild habitats, hunting and pollution are all to blame. This year, the mass extinction is feared to march on apace. A ‘red list’ of endangered species compiled by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) features 82,954 animals and plants, with almost a third threatened with being wiped out completely.”

 

[Aloysium]

By playing the God card they can gloss over any flaws in Darwin’s theory .

That sounds right.

God of the gaps is far more credible than randomness in the gaps. Since things are more complex, a reversal of what we observe, that chemical processes left to themselves decompose, a source of structure is needed. Also the fact that there are living beings rather than one universal soup of chemicals requires a Source of individual being.

But the theory itself is wrong, inferring causal relationships which are actually correlations. There is no way two animals can mate and their gametes produce a human being.

How God did this can be known by science, and experimental science will reveal the inconsistencies within Darwinism.

 

[Glark]

Far be it from me to claim Augustine and Aquinas are numbered among “Satan’s little helpers.”

Who is claiming these two saints were Satan’s little helpers?

I suspect some of the “greatest minds” in the Church today aren’t even believers. They are “Catholic” due only to baptism. As Cardinal Pell says, “The Church’s greatest enemies come from within the Church.”

The Church allows the faithful to believe in a literal six days, sure, but I fundamentally disagree with it.

So you think it’s a false teaching? If so, you and I are sort of in the same boat - I think the Church’s evo-correct teaching that Adam could have been the offspring of some pre-existing, living creature is erroneous and false (but what does one expect from a Church that has become exceedingly corrupt in all sorts of ways and at every level?).

 

[Glark]

I believe in God the Creator, not God the builder.

So God created microbes, but couldn’t create a duck?

Would it really annoy you if God created a duck from nothing?

 

[Glark]

What do make of this passage from Wisdom 19?:

"[6] For every creature according to its kind was fashioned again as from the beginning, obeying thy commandments, that thy children might be kept without hurt. [7] For a cloud overshadowed their camp, and where water was before, dry land appeared, and in the Red Sea a way without hinderance, and out of the great deep a springing field: [8] Through which all the nation passed which was protected with thy hand, seeing thy miracles and wonders … For they were yet mindful of those things which had been done in the time of their sojourning, how the ground brought forth flies instead of cattle, and how the river cast up a multitude of frogs instead of fishes.

[11] And at length they saw a new generation of birds, when being led by their appetite they asked for delicate meats. [12] For to satisfy their desire, the quail came up to them from the sea …"

Is this also a description of Darwinian evolution? I don’t think so; I think it describes freaks of nature that God created to either impose a curse or to bestow a blessing.

Likewise, the freaks of nature described verse 19 are not describing evolution but a curse that God imposed on “sinners” who mistreated and enslaved strangers. And as Aloysium alluded to, the nature of fire was changed also, which clearly has nothing to do biological evolution, but refers to God changing nature in order to impose a curse. Notice that the nature of fire wasn’t changed forever, but only temporarily, until it had served its purpose.

There are more examples of these freaks of nature described in earlier chapters in the book of Wisdom.

 

[Glark]

Yeah, but unless you think you are capable of fully comprehending God’s will and actions, then you don’t know the mechanism or methods by which God created living things.

Forget about human beings ever understanding how God created living things. Living things are created via miracles, and we have zero chance of understanding miracles.

 

[Glark]

I cannot believe that merciful God would say at judgment, “You were an honest, God-fearing and decent human being. You loved others, and taught them to love each other to the best of your ability. But you didn’t believe that I really made Adam in a single creative moment, so you will burn in hellfire for eternity.”

I can’t recall any Christian, anywhere, anytime ever making such an assertion.

 

[Glark]

Eve must come from Adam - why she is called woman - came from man - evolution is the culture of death - theisitc evolution is far more horrible

The Scriptures state it plain and simple, but theistic evolutionists need to twist and distort it to fit their erroneous science.

 

[Glark]

Erm… No. You are mistaken. Vishnu created the world

It’s a three-way tussle between which God created the world - Yahweh, Allah and Vishnu!

 

[Glark]

There are different stories. In one, Brahman creates the world as he sits on a lotus that grows out of Vishnu’s umbilicus as he sleeps resting on Seshanaga the multiheaded serpent who eternally sings his praises as they float on an infinite ocean of milk.

Is there any geological evidence for this infinite ocean of milk?

 

[Glark]

By playing the God card they can gloss over any flaws in Darwin’s theory .

If I were a thesitic evolutionist, that’s what I’d do, but that’s not what theistic evolutions do - they insist on “scientific” explanations and insist that God didn’t guide evolution at all. Weird.

 

[Glark]

That’s what St Augustine would agree with if he was aware of modern biology.

Wishful thinking. You’re guessing.

He wrote an encyclical, De Genesi, in which he defended a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

It’s my understanding that while Augustine accepted that different interpretations of Genesis 1 were possible, he himself considered that creation took place, not in six days, but in an instant. I don’t know why evolutionists love to quote Augustine - he offers nothing at all In way of support for their theory.

 

[Glark]

People are allowed to believe in a literal 6 day Creation.

But such people are weird and have no friends.

 

[Glark]

That’s right. You have free will, and you can believe whatever you want. But if there’s no requirement to take particular passages literally, and when science has come so far in determining the mechanisms which relate species and the environments they live in, why fight it? What’s the advantage of hiding your head in the sand?

Should we also believe these scientists when they say there is no evidence of design in nature and that no God was necessary to get life started from inanimate matter? Should we also believe their science that says all the miracles described in the Bible are impossible?

 

[anon65111186]

For the elements, in ever-changing harmony,

like strings of the harp, produce new melody,

while the flow of music steadily persists.

And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.

For land creatures were changed into water creatures,

and those that swam went over on land.

Okay interesting point but take a look again at the text

For the elements, in ever-changing harmony,
like strings of the harp, produce new melody,
while the flow of music steadily persists.

And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.
For land creatures were changed into water creatures,
and those that swam went over on land.

It doesn’t sound like punishment because it is like the harmony of music from a harp. Likewise where did it say these changes were temporary?

The purpose for which God used these seemingly evolutionary events is beside the point. He can use evolution to punish sinners and bless Saints, doesn’t mean he didn’t have a hand in evolution. Or if the start of evolution of some species was seemingly miraculous doesn’t mean it wasn’t evolution. The fire could be explained by vents of fire or even lava which does occur underwater, as I mentioned at the bottom of the sea.

Like I said, I believe God is the God of evolution.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

There are different stories. In one, Brahman creates the world as he sits on a lotus that grows out of Vishnu’s umbilicus as he sleeps resting on Seshanaga the multiheaded serpent who eternally sings his praises as they float on an infinite ocean of milk.

Is there any geological evidence for this infinite ocean of milk?

Being infinite, It transcends time and space, and also what is physical and psychological. There is no geological evidence.

While both Christianity and science deal with events that occurred in time, religious mythology is about the here and now, the structure of being.

It may be odd to think of being as having a structure but the first thing to notice about one’s existence is that it is personal, individual, and unique. We are a part of something bigger, but the parts that constitute us become whole in the person we are, and each of us has our own experience the world.

Another thing we know about existence is that it is relational. We see, hear, feel, smell, taste, things that are other to the perceiver we are. We think about what we perceive and come to understandings of how things are. We have feelings about things and act on them. We do not bring ourselves into existence, but arise through a relationship with Existence itself.

The story above describes our relationship with the Divine. Milk implies nurturance and love, He who creates the universe does so from a foundation of goodness. Everything we are, our material bodies, our thoughts, feelings and actions exist as known objects of God’s compassion. Vishnu sleeps in the sense that our relationship with God, who is ever awake, is at some stage of dormancy. In those traditions one can awaken to the Truth, but unlike Christianity, few can pass through that narrow door. Seshanaga holds the universe in its hoods - creation sings the praises of God. The lotus from which Brahman is born, symbolizes the love, truth, beauty, purity and wholeness from which the universe is created. It grows from Vishnu’s umbilicus, representing how the creation and sustenance of the universe through the same relationship we have with God. Brahman on the lotus alludes to the Word of God, but addressing the moment rather than what historically took place, does not speak of His incarnation and sacrifice for our redemption and salvation.

 

[Aloysium]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

I. The Desire for God

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.

28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behaviour: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:

From one ancestor (God) made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For “in him we live and move and have our being.”

29 But this “intimate and vital bond of man to God” can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man. Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.

30 “Let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice.” Although man can forget God or reject him, He never ceases to call every man to seek him, so as to find life and happiness. But this search for God demands of man every effort of intellect, a sound will, “an upright heart”, as well as the witness of others who teach him to seek God.
You are great, O Lord, and greatly to be praised: great is your power and your wisdom is without measure. and man, so small a part of your creation, wants to praise you: this man, though clothed with mortality and bearing the evidence of sin and the proof that you withstand the proud. Despite everything, man, though but a small a part of your creation, wants to praise you. You yourself encourage him to delight in your praise, for you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.