Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

[Glark]

is true that artificial selection can accomplish evolution faster than natural selection because the selection process can be perfectly targeted. That does not discount evolution produced by natural selection.

Right. Given the right circumstances, natural selection can make a wolf “evolve” into a non-wolf just as surely as artificial selection did. But neither natural or artificial selection can make a dog evolve into a non-dog - not in a billion years. The reason for this is the same reason dogs can be breed to be small or large, but they will never be breed to be as small as a mouse or as large as a horse - that reason is genetic limitations, which God built into every “kind”.

 

[Glark]

If the Pope said a “materialist” theory of evolution is incompatible with the faith, doesn’t that oblige evo-Catholics to believe that God guided every step of evolution?

 

[Kei]

All it implies upon the faithful, presuming this was said in a manner that obliges the faithful to believe it and not merely as the opinion of the pope, then that simply means materialist ideas of evolution are untrue.
This means any version of evolution not completely based upon materialist explanations is still possibly open.

This is exercised as an exercise in understanding papal decrees, I am not sure if this is just a hypothetical.

 

[Glark]

Does the fossil record reveal what a relatively-few scientists (paleontologists) tell us it reveals? God only knows. These relatively-few scientists are in all likelihood atheists who have an a priori commitment to evolution, so their opinions could be less than objective.

---

If it is true that life has existed for much longer than the time Adam (about 6000-10,000 years ago), then I would not accept evolution as true, but that there was a previous creation on earth before the creation of humanity- a creation that was destroyed by a global flood (the end result of which is described in Genesis 1:2), possibly as a consequence of the angelic rebellion led by Lucifer. This previous creation may have included the dinosaurs and many of those other weird creatures that don’t exist today, but whose remains or fossils were been discovered in the earth.
This is known as the Gap theory of creation. It’s not well known, but I believe it’s scripturally feasible (unlike evolution) and it can explain the geological and fossil records (which has hitherto been incorrectly interpreted as evolution).

 

[Glark]

I said nothing about God separating himself from his creation. Don’t put words into my mouth.

If God doesn’t guide every step of evolution, then he has separated himself from his creation.

 

[Glark]

My point is the Genesis account does not explain what happened from the moment it was clay to the point where it was flesh. It does not say it changed directly in one moment either, or rule out the possibility that the clay was taken millions of years before then and shaped into man through other animal generations and forms.

How anyone can interpret Genesis 2:7 (and supporting verses) as Adam being formed from a pre-existing creature is a complete mystery to me. I don’t consider it a valid interpretation but an erroneous one, which I suspect is the result of Scientism, not sound Catholic theology.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I said nothing about God separating himself from his creation. Don’t put words into my mouth.

If God doesn’t guide every step of evolution, then he has separated himself from his creation.

Does he guide your footsteps as you walk down the street? If not, then he has separated himself from you. If he does guide your footsteps, then either you have lost your free will, or he is guiding them in a way that you are not able to discern. I think the last case is correct. And that is what I think of evolution too. God guides every step of the process of evolution, but does it in such a way that we are unable to discern that His actions are anything other than natural.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How anyone can interpret Genesis 2:7 (and supporting verses) as Adam being formed from a pre-existing creature is a complete mystery to me. I don’t consider it a valid interpretation but an erroneous one, which I suspect is the result of Scientism, not sound Catholic theology.

Your interpretation is allowed by Catholic teaching, but not required.

 

[Glark]

Not the origins of life. The origins of species.

You splitting hairs. As far as we humans are concerned, going from an ape to a human is the origin of life.

 

[Glark]

The whole race was taken over by ensoulment, and we are it.

Catholics are obliged to believe that only Adam and Eve were our first parents - ie, one man and one woman, not a race of many.

If this race of pre-Adamic humans existed for eons (as they must have, if evolution is true), why didn’t they invent the wheel or writing or metallurgy?

There are no remains.

I’m not surprised - they never existed.

 

[Glark]

Scripture, as interpreted by the Church, does not insist on the “inanimate matter” part.

And therein lies their error.

 

[edwest211]

Yes, it does. But it seems apparent that many have not examined the theory in detail and its implications, and realize that pure materialism, as taught in schools, is presented as the whole, complete answer… So, all they have to do is answer the test questions “correctly” and they’re done. It doesn’t affect their lives one bit, except in those cases where they don’t realize that purely materialist explanations are incompatible with the faith - Divinely revealed truth. I have found nothing in science where evolution has any practical application. None. Drug trials are still trial and error with zero guidance from evolution. That should be obvious to anyone who looks at the process. It can be said: Why do drug companies spend all this time and money and find a promising candidate that fails during animal testing or passes animal testing and fails during human trials? Why is there no ‘evolution guide book’ to speed the process along? Answer. There isn’t one.

So, I think it would be best that Catholics who believe in evolution recognize two critical things: God guided it but that can be easily discarded by those who believe that the material process is ALL. No supernatural force required. If they don’t grasp that then their whole worldview will be distorted. 'I am nothing but a biological robot who dies to nothing." Again, there will be a very literal experience after death - the judgment. If they don’t get that then life is all there is “so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die”

From Communion and Stewardship:

 

[Glark]

And how could God hold Adam and Eve responsible if they were raised by soulless animals creatures ?

Soul-less humans would have no sense of morality, so these kiddies got off to a bad start.

 

[edwest211]

“But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. 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).”

I have no reason to trust the dates given for certain events. And, as the Church teaches, Adam and Eve were two individuals - our first parents. That is the critical second part. Again, it involves a literal event and a spiritual event. Original Sin.

 

[Glark]

I suppose I could be accused of being unclear about the nature of the forest because there are trees in the way, but I’m not sure what is a species. I know that individual wolves exist, and that each has some doggyness about them. I would bet that the doggyness doesn’t evolve. Although the Theory has to do with species, it speaks only superficially about what they actually might be.

A wolf can mate with a Labrador and produce viable offspring, so I imagine they belong to the same species.

 

[Glark]

That’s not what I understand from its statements. It has decided that there exists one truth which has been revealed and that science can confirm. A scientific theory is falsified when evidence is found that contradicts it. The Theory of Evolution should be discarded where it strays from revealed Truth.

If the Church allows the faithful to believe in evolution, then she must allow Catholics to believe that Adam was formed from a pre-existing creature. Alternatively, a Catholic can reject evolution and believe that Adam was formed from inanimate matter. But I don’t believe Genesis 2:7 can be interpreted either way, but only in favour of the latter.

 

[Glark]

That’s evolution happening right before your eyes.

Which means what? That microbes can evolve into elephants and that apes can evolve into humans? I don’t think so.

 

[Glark]

I could recommend a good Flabberologist.

A good Flabberologist is worth his weight in gold.

 

[Aloysium]

God may have created a perfect couple of canines, with a surplus of genetic material which would be progressively cleaved from the original template. Reproduced with such modifications, successive generations would see the emergence of the diversity that includes wolves, feral dogs, domesticated dogs, foxes, and coyotes. It’s sort of reverse evolution with little to no random chemical activity involved, and visions of doggy or vixen perfection as the selector.

 

[Bradskii]

edwest211:

Of course, it’s so obvious… or not.

The dogs would be chasing the chickens and catching and eating them for millons of years until they can slowly evolve to fly away…doesn’t make sense .

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Dogs don’t climb very well, so if a chicken was able to flap high enough to reach a low branch, it might be safe. Now just as you might be able to run slightly faster than some of your friends, or swim slightly faster. Or climb a little better, purely due to a genetic throw of the dice, then some chickens are slightly better at gaining a little more height than others.

So the dogs find it easier to catch and kill those who are not so genetically endowed with whatever gene, or combination of genes, that enables some of the chickens to reach lower branches.

So those that are killed do not have a genetic dispostion to flap high enough to escape being eaten and those that survive do.

All sound pretty reasonable so far?

And over time we find that as most of the surviving chooks have a genetic make-up that allows them to flap a certain distance into the air, those that breed have offspring that also enables them to do the same. Just like if your parents were good runners, then there is a reasonable chance that you will be a better than average runner.

And over time, because the chooks without the genetic make-up which allows a better chance of survival do not in fact survive, they are removed from the genetic pool.

Now is there anything at all that I have said so far that is unreasonable?