Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn’t write fiction that was infinitely flexible.
It’s funny you should mention that - Darwin’s books were the very first science-fiction novels. The trouble is, a lot of folks took them seriously - and still do!
 
Would the Catechism and it’s error of fitting an evolutionist perspective be the work of the devil then?
It’s entirely possible.

“From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the Temple of God.” - Pope Paul VI, 1972.
 
Last edited:
By “guided” I mean God creates what he wants to create, regardless of the process, and he doesn’t leave creation to a sub-contractor.
 
How do they know to build honeycomb cells in hexagonal shapes? They must have engineering degrees.
No they do not. Bees build cells close together and try to build the cells outwards. That outward pressure in each individual cell results in the hexagonal pattern.

rossum
 
40.png
anon65111186:
the Church prohibits us to be dogmatic against evolution.
The Church teaches that the faithful can believe in a literal “six days” interpretation of Genesis, thereby completely rejecting evolution. I would call that being allowed to be “dogmatic against evolution.”
You would be mistaken. The Church allows you to believe that. She does not insist on it. That would be dogma.
 
Last edited:
God created a physical being (which eventually became the universe we know today) that develops on its own. This means that there is such a thing as secondary-causality. Perhaps you think God directly creates every single star, planet, and comet in the sky and doesn’t leave their development to natural processes. I disagree and neither does the catholic faith require me to believe in your version of creation… You have no dogmatic authority.
 
Last edited:
God created the initial “light” of which everything is made. He gave it the properties of atoms that allow for different configurations and properties of molecules. He used those molecules to bring into existence, new creations such as plants and animals. These are not merely collections of atoms, but individual beings in themselves with their particular structure and behaviour. He created mankind using that information. We each are one being, united in love. We perceive, think, feel and act as a unity in which a relational spirit is informed by matter to become a person. I don’t know how else to put it. No one here knows how God does this. The Church doesn’t. Not even Glark with all his “righteous” bluster, knows. This is a miracle now, maintained, which means brought into existence, by God who knows and creates all time, beginning to end, from eternity.

While i believe evolution, in the vaguest of terms, has some merit, as it is taught, as it is proclaimed by atheists, Darwinists and NeoDarwinist, as every one here was taught in school and in universities, it is wrong. It is bad science in its construction of an unprovable story that stretches beyond what science, as we do it today, can tell us about ourselves and the world. People should stick to the facts, and not call their musings, facts.
 
Last edited:
Darwin’s books were the very first science-fiction novels.
How does going to the galapagos islands and recording exactly what he witnessed and developing an explanation for the differences in species amount to fiction?
 
I’d be a fool to rely on an atheist cult (aka the scientific community) to inform me about the origins of life and man.
I knew that was your assumption! That is your central error. The fact that there were Saints, priests and millions of faithful Catholics disproves that it is athiest, for no holy person would belong to such a group. You know that the Catholics were among the first to develop modern science, right?

Go and learn what science is because you obviously are completely confusing a group of athiest philosophers who happen to be scientists with the entire scientific community.

To support evolution is not to support the athiest philosophy about God and religion. Once you learn to separate their agenda from science and evolution you can see it makes a lot of sense.

Otherwise you are left with God creating a miracle everytime new species come about. Which seems to diminish his design, like he built it in such a way it couldn’t produce variation and adaptation.
 
I don’t know, but the vast majority of Church Fathers believed in a literal “24-hour day” interpretation.
The Fathers are authorities on faith and morals, and whether it was a 24 hour day or not doesn’t seem to fall into that realm. Even the pope has warned that theologians and scientists stick to their own fields of expertise.

An example of scientists overstepping their bounds would be the athiest philosophy you are so obviously railing against.
 
Consider:

What is IDvolution?
IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church. http://www.idvolution.org
 
The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
Code:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
 
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
Exactly, the deed of forming man from the dust is a fact, not a method or a detailed description of the process. It doesn’t tell us the exact how or the time frame.

Same with the rib coming from Adam. There is no process, other than open up side, take rib out, and form Eve. If this were a recipe, we would have no idea how to reproduce it. There is no time frame mentioned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top