Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

[mVitus]

I’d say being given an immortal soul is pretty special.

Also, Ed and Buffalo, if you personally want to hold a literalistic interpretation, fine. But you overstep your authority when you say evolution isn’t allowed for as a possibility.

 

[edwest211]

A possibility isn’t a fact.

Pope Benedict:

"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."

---

“… it is impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment…”

That is the way science works. Any possibility must be verified.

 

[buffalo]

I have constant and firm Catholic teaching to back me.

 

[mVitus]

By the way, Buffalo, I addressed Eve a while back.

given all true men taking lineage through Adam maybe a split in the embryonic stage and miraculous intervention to change a Y to a second X, maybe from the rib.

And it’s been shown multiple times that Church allows evolution. Again, if you want to believe a 6-day creation happened, fine. But you can’t say the Church doesn’t allow what it has allowed.

 

[IWantGod]

A possibility isn’t a fact

Irrelevant. You cannot say that it is wrong to believe or agree with the scientific theory of evolution.

 

[edwest211]

Not getting things your way bothers you? Believe what you want but remember, this is a Catholic forum and for Catholics, what the Church has to say matters.

 

[edwest211]

So, you just want things your way. Believe what you want. But remember, according to science, souls don’t exist. Adam doesn’t exist either. Only “breeding populations.” I’ll keep that in mind the next time I read a comment like this.

 

[IWantGod]

Believe what you want but remember, this is a Catholic forum and for Catholics, what the Church has to say matters.

And i rebuke any claim that the Catholic Church does not allow its members to agree with the scientific theory of evolution. Its not true, and to say otherwise is either to be dishonest or misinformed. I am not going to claim that you are either. That is between you and the Church.

 

[edwest211]

Yes, the compliance rule. 100% of Catholics must agree. Without thinking it through. I’ll bet that most adults don’t even remember their Biology class.

 

[IWantGod]

Its already been stated that you can be a young earth creationist if you want.

 

[mVitus]

Where have I ever denied the existence of souls or Adam? Please, show me.

There’s something I say on Sundays, “I believe inGod, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth.” I’m not lying when I say it.

And as IWantGod pointed out, I’m not forcing you to give credence to evolution as fact. I do object when you falsely say evolution must be rejected to be in line with the Church. But I would expect you to rebuke someone if they said a 6-day creation must be rejected to be in line with the Church.

 

[edwest211]

I was referencing science. The theory of evolution is not about belief, but science. Right?

 

[Glark]

This slander is just untrue. Freemasonry is not allowed for Catholics. It is clearly wrong, and slandering the saintly pontiff like this is just wrong.

It’s my understanding that Canon law (Article 2335) forbade a Catholic becoming a Freemason, on pain of excommunication. But after Vat II, this law was changed - the specific references to Freemasons and excommunication were deleted. Under which Pope was this change made? Surprise, surprise … “Saint” JP II. This change in Canon law would explain how a openly-professing “Catholic” Freemason managed to become a Eucharistic Minister in my parish.

“Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry! … Freemasonry has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!” - Saint ((Padre) Pio, to Fr. Luigi Villa, 1963.
It seems I have the support of at least one (authentic) saint!

A demonically-inspired infiltration of the Church’s hierarchy would certainly help explain why a pseudo-Catholic “Church” has uncritically embraced Darwinism (both intellectually and theologically). It would also explain a lot of the garbage that has spewed out the Vatican since Vat II - JP2’s insane and unCatholic ecumenism and inter-faith circus and his expunging of the (true) Church’s missionary spirit, for example.

And note that Vatican II was a “pastoral” Council - therefore it didn’t fall under the jurisdiction of infallibility. In this way, all sorts of errors and even heresies could be passed off in the name of “the spirit of Vatican II”.

 

[Glark]

it’s being (probably purposefully) vague on what exactly has been revealed, merely that study of some kind has enriched our understanding. Can it mean research that assumes evolution? Perhaps, but even so, research done in such a manner can still review many things.

“vague”? “study of some kind”? Surely you jest!

Paragraph 283 states “The question about the ORIGINS OF THE WORLD AND OF MAN has been the object of many SCIENTIFIC STUDIES which have splendidly ENRICHED OUR KNOWLEDGE of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE-FORMS AND THE APPEARANCE OF MAN.”

The “origins of the world and of man” doesn’t refer to the history of the world and man, but to how and when the world and man came into existence - how and when they originated (as is stated in paragraph 284 of the CCC. See below).

These studies are then described as having have contributed to our knowledge of “the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.” Golly gee, I wonder what the “development of life-forms” could refer to. Do you think it might just refer to Darwinism; you know, that theory that scientific community is obsessed with and which claims life began as microbes and developed into complex creatures - like man? Have you heard of it?

And what could “the appearance of man” refer to? Creation? Of course not! It refers to how man appeared came into existence as a result of “the development of life-forms” - ie, Darwinism.

This interpretation of paragraph 283 is supported by what is stated in the following paragraph, 284:
“The great interest accorded to THESE STUDIES (ie, the scientific studies mentioned in 283) is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing WHEN AND HOW THE UNIVERSE AROSE PHYSICALLY, OR WHEN MAN APPEARED, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin …”.

The point is, the Freemason who composed these paragraphs believes “the appearance of man” is a result of evolution, not creation. He then presents this belief as a scientifically proven fact that is as sure as “unerring (infallible) knowledge” handed by God Himself.

 

[Glark]

Just read it.

Where in the Catechism does it say that faithful can believe in a literal “six days” interpretation of Genesis? I’ve looked, but as yet haven’t found any words to that effect. Maybe you can point me to it.

And what gave you the idea that the Catechism requires evolution?

What gave you the idea that I said the Catechism requires belief in evolution?

That’s easy. It is because the “major groups” were invented to match the available fossils.

We needed fossils to arrive at the taxonomic separation of birds reptiles from birds?

New species (able to breed only among themselves) have arisen in the last 100 years.

How many times have dog-breeders managed to produce a non-dog? How many times have cow-breeders managed to produce a non-cow? How many times have corn growers grown non-corn plants?

 

[Glark]

The Bible provides some clues as to where the Garden of Eden was - “A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there is divided and became four rivers … Pishon, which flows around the land of Havilah … the second river is Gihon, which flows around the land of Cush … the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the forth river is Euphrates.” Genesis 2:10-14

But one has to take into account the possibility that all land was originally gathered into one single mass … until later, when it was broken up (possibly after Noah’s Flood). This would seem to make sense as I think “the land of Cush” is roughly Ethiopia (North Africa) and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are in Middle East.

But it wouldn’t surprise me at all if what is left of the Garden of Eden is the land now known as Israel. The river that flows out of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 22 is perhaps a restoration of the river that “flowed out of Eden” in Genesis 2:10

 

[LeafByNiggle]

New species (able to breed only among themselves) have arisen in the last 100 years.

How many times have dog-breeders managed to produce a non-dog? How many times have cow-breeders managed to produce a non-cow? How many times have corn growers grown non-corn plants?

Citing non-examples of macro evolution does not counter my example of actual instances of macro evolution. Just answer this question: if I showed how new species have developed in the last 100 years, would that or would that not be macro evolution?

 

[Kei]

It’s my understanding that Canon law (Article 2335) forbade a Catholic becoming a Freemason, on pain of excommunication. But after Vat II, this law was changed - the specific references to Freemasons and excommunication were deleted. Under which Pope was this change made? Surprise, surprise … “Saint” JP II. This change in Canon law would explain how a openly-professing “Catholic” Freemason managed to become a Eucharistic Minister in my parish.

This implies that Catholics can now be free masons. This is untrue. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/09/25/can-catholics-become-freemasons/

Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry! … Freemasonry has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!” - Saint ((Padre) Pio, to Fr. Luigi Villa, 1963.

It seems I have the support of at least one (authentic) saint!

Source please? Something not from a rad trad/sede site, but a reputable source.

And note that Vatican II was a “pastoral” Council - therefore it didn’t fall under the jurisdiction of infallibility. In this way, all sorts of errors and even heresies could be passed off in the name of “the spirit of Vatican II”.

Some have said that it is pastoral, but that seems to be a new interpretation of the Council.

 

[Kei]

You 1)claim the author of the catechism is a free mason (which seems close to an act of slander unless you know this to be true) and 2) give a whole bunch of your own interpretation of it, supposing this and suggesting that.

 

[Glark]

It’s useful because there are fossils and animals, and we would like to understand more about them. We do this by thinking about what we can see, and developing ideas. We then test our ideas by collecting more information to see if they hold up.

What you’re describing here is theorising. Theorising is not a use; it’s just talk. Testing a theory is not a use.
Perhaps you are having trouble accepting the fact that your beloved theory is as useless and irrelevant as a fairly tale.

I can’t “prove” that something is useful, because utility is dependent on having some goal, and because goals are arbitrary. As I’ve said many times, if your goal is to maintain a literal view of Biblical creationism, then evolution is probably totally useless to you. If your goal is to be considered will-educated and intelligent, then you should probably consider spending a little more time at least with the basics of evolution-- I mean, if you want to argue against it, that’s fine.

Sorry, but you’re talking rubbish. A scientific use has got nothing to do with how people interpret the Bible!

Some of your comments make it obvious that you know little about the scientific process in general, or about the scientific study of evolution specifically.

Please provide examples of my misunderstanding of the scientific process and evolution. (I won’t hold my breath while you do it - your record for backing up your claims with evidence is rather poor.)

A true and existent God doesn’t need your kind of faith. But you, if you want understanding that might help you be more useful in serving your God, might want to consider opening your eyes a little more.

Please provide an example of how accepting the theory of microbe-man evolution will help me serve my God.