Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
Eve was not born but made from Adam’s side by God.
Click to expand...
We can properly accept this because there is no evidence that stands in contradiction to it. But much of this thread rails against evidence because it can’t be reconciled with a particular interpretation of scripture - One the Church herself does not read in the same way as some here do.
 
Glark said:
If the earlier Church Fathers (most of them are canonised saints) could be wrong about the days of creation, then the current “Church Fathers” can be wrong about evolution. It’s worth noting that of all the things that a Catholic is required to believe, none of them are scientific. And no wonder, the Church is not an infallible judge of science.
Click to expand...
Exactly, so you should not be so self-assured. I would tread lightly, to not distance myself from the Church and the truth it reveals to us.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Perhaps I didn’t express myself properly in that post. What I meant was, since the Church allows the faithful to completely reject evolution and believe in a literal six days of creation, she allows the faithful to be “dogmatic against evolution”, should they choose. All the same time, the Church allows the faithful to fully accept evolution.
Click to expand...
OK, I see the misunderstanding. You were talking about personal dogma and @anon65111186 was talking about Catholic dogma. With that understanding, you were correct about personal dogma and Tim was correct about Catholic dogma.
Glark said:
40.png
anon65111186:
The account in Genesis uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.’
Click to expand...
This is a misleading statement - if Genesis used '“FIGURATIVE language”, how can the faithful believe in a LITERAL interpretation of it?
Click to expand...
Why not? People do it all the time - put a literal interpretation on a figurative narrative.
What the CCC should say is, the Church allows Genesis to be interpreted figuratively or literally. But it doesn’t; it only mentions the figurative option, thus mislesding the unwitting reader into thinking that is the only option.
Click to expand...
I never hear that understanding. I don’t think anyone is that unwitting.
Glark said:
40.png
anon65111186:
How is it obvious that it is an error, you haven’t demonstrated that evolution is incompatible with the faith.
Click to expand...
If evolution is incompatible with Scripture, then it is incompatible with the faith … evolution is incompatible with Scripture.
Click to expand...
That would only be true under the doctrine a “sola scriptura,” which is a protestant, not a Catholic doctrine.
Glark said:
And you find nothing suspect about the theology of evolution? Wow. Let me guess … all your lecturers were theistic evolutionists. The Catholic education system is so corrupt.
Click to expand...
I wonder how anyone can, from their own personal education and knowledge, pass judgement on the Catholic educators?
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
If evolution is incompatible with Scripture, then it is incompatible with the faith … evolution is incompatible with Scripture.
Click to expand...
Do you mind explaining how exactly it is incompatible? You are making a statement even the Church does not make. What expertise do you have to make such a claim, you who are not the Magisterium?
Glark said:
God can create the universe out of nothing and raise people from the dead, yet he can’t take a rib from a man without waking him up?
Click to expand...
He can do all things. The argument is did He do or not do what He possibly could have, we don’t know either way with certainty.
Glark said:
If the earlier Church Fathers (most of them are canonised saints) could be wrong about the days of creation, then the current “Church Fathers” can be wrong about evolution. It’s worth noting that of all the things that a Catholic is required to believe, none of them are scientific. And no wonder, the Church is not an infallible judge of science.
Click to expand...
You must read Genesis as we read all of the Bible, within it’s context. “read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church”. Though most of the Fathers had the same position, the key point is there was no “moral unanimity” among them on Genesis. So no one can claim them to be right or wrong, there was no unified “right position”.

The current Church magisterium, not Church Fathers have said the literal interpretation of six days of 24 hours is not necessary, because it can be interpreted symbolically or figuratively.

To say the Magisterium is wrong about whether it is permissible to interpret it figuratively is to put yourself above the Magisterium, which is basically to go the Martin Luther route.
the question of the literary forms of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is far more obscure and complex. These literary forms do not correspond to any of our classical categories and cannot be judged in the light of the Greco-Latin or modern literary types. It is therefore impossible to deny or to affirm their historicity as a whole without unduly applying to them norms of a literary type under which they cannot be classed
Click to expand...
The Catechism states
Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days
Click to expand...
Glark said:
Now you’re beginning to get the picture!
Click to expand...
You’re right, and millions of Catholics and the Magisterium are wrong? Behold, the Protestant point of view.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
And you find nothing suspect about the theology of evolution? Wow. Let me guess … all your lecturers were theistic evolutionists. The Catholic education system is so corrupt.
Click to expand...
Forgive him Father for he knows not what he does.
  1. I went to Ave Maria, founded on the encyclical Ex Corde Ecclesia, the professors take an oath to the Magisterium.
  2. They never once discussed evolution, because like good Theologians they didn’t go outside their depth.
  3. Same Catholic schools are corrupt, but without ascertaining which ones are and which ones aren’t discredits those who are.
  4. I also studied Theology in seminary, at the St. John Vianney seminary under Archbishop Chaput.
Glark said:
Science is infallible and so is the atheist cult that controls it.
Click to expand...
I never made that claim and neither would any good scientist. An atheist cult does not control it. That is false on the face of it, nobody controls science, it isn’t an organization, anybody can test theories independently on their own.

Your atheist claim is a genetic fallacy. It’s like:

Anything coming from an atheist is untrue or bad.
Darwin was an atheist.
Evolution came from Darwin.
Therefore, his theory is false and bad.
 
It is no surprise that given the same design building blocks that there are some that look like us and share same features. Many creatures have eyes and appendages.

I always question those drawings that are so primitive caveman like.

Why? Because that is the language that God breathed into living things. DNA is like the hardware in a computer. Epigenetics is the programming.

I explained in prior posts that living creatures share the basic 500 or so conserved elements that were present in the beginning. From these building blocks wondrous things were made.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
OK, I see the misunderstanding. You were talking about personal dogma and @timothyvail was talking about Catholic dogma. With that understanding, you were correct about personal dogma and Tim was correct about Catholic dogma.
Click to expand...
Exactly, thank you @LeafByNiggle! We cannot be dogmatic in the Catholic sense because there is no dogma on evolution. So we cannot be dogmatic personally unless we have incontrovertible proof, otherwise we go beyond what is prohibited by the Magisterium, making pronouncements that even the supreme authority of the Catholic Church wouldn’t dare.
 
So the claim is that life evolved to produce a man, then at his peak he begins to degrade. The first part goes against the 2nd law, the latter is consistent with the 2nd law.
 
buffalo said:
It is no surprise that given the same design building blocks that there are some that look like us and share same features. Many creatures have eyes and appendages.
Click to expand...
Of course, but show all the animals to a child and ask them which one looks most like a human, and they will pick homo naledi or homo ergaster, or others in the supposed family tree.

The key is the DNA, and how close it resembles our own. Over 99.9% is pretty convincing.
 
Pope Pius XII stated in Humani Generis that we may speculate on bodily evolution, if we leave unquestioned the human soul’s direct, immediate creation.

It is not dogma in the way you mean, provide the source please. Eve can come from Adam and still fit with the evolutionary perspective.
 
Last edited:
Once again, we are using a 200lb scale to weigh a 150lb object.

The rock dating methods could be in error. Plenty of assumptions are built in to the process. One thing for sure, is not evos have to deal with these new findings. But, blind faith assures us they will come up with an explanation no matter how absurd. Why? Because evolution has to be true. 🍭
 
You missed the polygenism part. And yes, no one argues micro-evolution.

You think the church is going to say Adam and Eve were not our first parents? That they had parents?
 
buffalo said:
You missed the polygenism part.
Click to expand...
Polygenism claims humans came from humans. Evolution says homo sapiens came from homo (missing link), i.e. human like animals with no soul. Those are two different ideas.

You have to have reason and a soul to be human, those animals had neither so could not properly be called our ancestors.

Having a reason and an immortal soul is what makes us human. You could have a human body walking around without reason and a soul and that would be properly an animal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top