Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is a form of guided evolution instead of randomness or whatever.

In other words, it is a belief that God used evolutionary processes to create the species instead of creationism.

Is it true? I dunno, I have some odd thoughts about evolutionary processes perhaps
 
edwest211 said:
Theistic Evolution sounds OK but my question is: Where does the theistic part fit in? Or is it just a play on words?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Theistic evolution without God is no different to atheistic evolution. The “thesitic” part applies to how life started (abiogenesis), but not to how life evolved. But I suppose in broad terms, a theistic evolutionist could be someone who believes in both God and evolution.
 
Still don’t get it. The Church is quite clear but the ‘science only’ types dismiss it, and I think the ‘science only’ version is the only version that matters. God can be erased. Easily.
 
Does the Church require evo-Catholics to believe that God was/is involved in every step of evolution? I don’t know.

Personally, I would find God-guided evolution to be much more believable that the non-God-guided version.
 
Glark said:
The theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes is touted as the greatest “discovery” in the history of science. That being so, one would expect a myriad of practical uses to flow from it. Alas, it seems there are none.
Click to expand...
Scientists do not tout evolution as the greatest discovery in the history of science, which makes your argument a straw man argument. Furthermore, just because you are not aware of practical uses from this theory does not mean they don’t exist, which is why I asked you if you were an expert in the field.
 
Here, it is the most important scientific concept that must be accepted by all. It has no practical scientific usefulness.
 
edwest211 said:
Still don’t get it. The Church is quite clear but the ‘science only’ types dismiss it, and I think the ‘science only’ version is the only version that matters. God can be erased. Easily.
Click to expand...
Who are the “science only” types? Are they people who say God had nothing to do with the physical universe? Or are they people who say that only science should be used to formulate scientific theory? These are two very different points of view. The group that I defend is the second group, which does include believers as well as atheists.

In fields other than evolution, you probably have no trouble relying secular principles. For example, do you have a problem with chemists who analyze chemical reactions without reference to the bible? Do you have a problem with physicists who analyze a trajectory to the moon without consulting the Catechism? Do you have a problem with doctors who experiment with different anti-hypertensive drugs to combat high blood pressure without guidance from their priest? So why should you have a problem with biologists who formulate a mechanism for the generation of species without explicitly mentioning God?
 
From the Catholic perspective, God exists and human beings have two parts: one physical and one spiritual. We are body and soul. Soul being outside the realm of science. But we can never leave God out of the origin of human beings. According to Communion and Stewardship:

“According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”
 
Regarding evolution, why quote Popes when it’s a purely secular endeavor?
 
Glark said:
Does the Church require evo-Catholics to believe that God was/is involved in every step of evolution? I don’t know.

Personally, I would find God-guided evolution to be much more believable that the non-God-guided version.
Click to expand...
This is a very interesting philosophical question. It is a special case of the more general question of how God interacts with our world.

Since we do not know the details of the mind of God, we can only speculate on how he creates and maintains the world. I prefer to imagine that God sustains the entire universe and all of its subatomic movements continuously and intimately. For that reason I thank God for every breath of air I take, knowing that if He withdrew his constant will from our world, I would have no confidence that I could take my next breath. In this sense, everything that happens is a miracle - not in the usual sense of the word, but in the more philosophical sense. People often use this sense when they say the birth of baby - any baby - is a miracle. They say that even though the baby was conceived, gestated, and was born according to laws of nature and biology that doctors have known about for centuries.

If we apply that way of looking at God’s interaction with our world, biological processes (like evolution) are intimately guided by God, even though the mechanism by which it happens appears to follow ordinary laws of nature. So yes, a believer can view evolution as God-guided.

On the other hand, those who insist on putting God in a box and circumscribing His freedom of action to fit a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat - these believers are going to be disappointed. God is always bigger than we imaging Him to be.

In the first century there was a dispute in the early Church over whether new converts to “The Way” had to be circumcised. The Church fathers wisely decided not to lay any burden on the people beyond what was absolutely necessary for following Jesus. We would do well to follow their example and not require that believers subscribe to a narrow view of creation that repudiates evolution. More souls will be lost through claiming this position as a price for admission than will be lost by people deciding that with evolution we don’t need God. So consider the damage that might be done to the Church by spreading this false doctrine of anti-evolution. If you want to argue against evolution, keep your arguments strictly scientific. That way you won’t be endangering anyone’s soul.
 
Glark said:
Here is a very interesting extract from the article you linked earlier (post 558):

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART II

"ENDNOTES …
  1. Although the Catechism refrains here and in #345 from placing the words “six days” in quotation marks, it does so in #339 and #342. This apparent ambivalence suggests the intention to leave open to scholarly discussion,…
by Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D.
Associate Professor of Theology,
Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico
Click to expand...
Although this quotation starts out religious, it quickly turns scientific. The author, Brian Harrison, is a Professor of Theology. I would expect him to be an expert in matters religious. I would not expect him to have any expertise in matters of science. What he says about science is nonsense.
 
edwest211 said:
Regarding evolution, why quote Popes when it’s a purely secular endeavor?
Click to expand...
If you believe that evolution is purely a secular endeavor, then don’t say “science only types” as if it were a pejorative. They’re just doing what you said they should do - treating evolution as a strictly secular matter.
 
Glark said:
If billions of years of evolution is the truth, why is the folklore of ancient cultures dominated by stories about creation? Is there any folklore at all that tells a tale of evolution? Are there any so-called Holy Books that present evolution as fact?
Click to expand...
I hope you have a good podiatrist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top