Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

[buffalo]

What is the true origin of marriage? That, Venerable Brethren, is a matter of common knowledge. For although the revilers of the Christian faith shrink from acknowledging the Church’s permanent doctrine on this matter, and persist in their long-standing efforts to erase the history of all nations and all ages, they have nonetheless been unable to extinguish, or even to weaken, the strength and light of the truth. We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept. In bringing this about, God, in his supreme Providence, willed that this spousal couple should be the natural origin of all men: in other words, that from this pair the human race should be propagated and preserved in every age by a succession of procreative acts which would never be interrupted. And so that this union of man and woman might correspond more aptly to the most wise counsels of God, it has manifested from that time onward, deeply impressed or engraved, as it were, within itself, two preeminent and most noble properties: unity and perpetuity. Pope Leo XIII

 

[buffalo]

Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Responsum of June 30, 1909, on the interpretation of Genesis, chapters 1 to 3. The main point of this document that interests us is the third question addressed by the Commission:

Whether, in particular, the literal historical sense (sensus litteralis historicus) may be called in question (vocari in dubium possit), where it is a question of facts narrated in these chapters (ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis) which involve the foundations of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt), as are, among others, the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special [or, particular] creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man (formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine); the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precept given by God to man in order to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine precept under the persuasion of the devil in the guise of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from the aforesaid primaeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Saviour?

Response: In the negative (Negative).30

 

[buffalo]

Nevertheless, his comment is correct.

 

[Glark]

Yes, it has relevance. Grants are written and awarded reinforcing a particular point of view. Try getting funded to study anti-evolution. It is very difficult and researchers have lost their jobs trying it. This is a bias that should not be present in science.

This is typical cult behaviour - dissidents will not be tolerated; weed them out and then cast the infidels into the outer darkness.

 

[Glark]

Ad hominem argument on a yet grander scale!

If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger.

 

[buffalo]

the

Leo XIII in Providentissimus “But if some dispute should arise [between faith and science], the same Doctor (St Augustine)sums up the rule to be followed by the theologian: If they have been able to demonstrate some truth of natural science with solid proofs, let us show that it is not contrary to our Scriptures; but if they maintain anything in any of their treatises which is contrary to Scripture (that is, to the Catholic faith), let us believe without hesitation that it is completely false, and if possible find a way of refuting it”

 

[Glark]

That may be a very valid issue that the Vatican has to deal with. On the other hand there are many Catholic scientists who have funding from Catholic institutions to do whichever funding they wish.

If what passes for the Catholic Church these days funded scientists to refute evolution, I will eat my hat.

 

[Glark]

So all the Great Saints and all the Great Scholars of the Catholic Church never had a inkling of the idea of evolution, until Darwin came along ?

No, because the Bible wasn’t complete until the Book of Darwin was included in the canon of Scripture.

 

[Glark]

The soup took care of its self. God just keeps it in existence.

In other words, God separated himself from his creation.

 

[Glark]

It seems to me evo supporters appeal to authority all the time as well as blind faith.

The cult of evolution has a Magisterium and requires blind faith - sounds a bit like a religion.

 

[Glark]

So random mutations ,natural selection and survival of the fittest aren’t necessary because God guides the whole process ?

God must want to hide himself so he makes it look random, thereby contradicting what he wrote in Romans 1.

 

[buffalo]

Evolutionism is a religion.

The Magician’s Twin - CS Lewis
A powerful must see video:

The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism

The Similarity Between Science and Magic

1. Science as religion
2. Science as credulity
3. Science as power

Evolution is an alternative religion

 

[Glark]

Yes according to God’s purpose and will. Some may deny God had anything to do with it, but that position isn’t part and parcel of evolutionary theory.

But God-guided evolution isn’t science.

 

[buffalo]

Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species
A New Scientific Revolution Begins

Darwin’s theory of evolution may be one of science’s “sacred cows,” but genetics research is proving it wrong. Changing an entrenched narrative, even if it’s wrong, is no easy task. Replacing Darwin asks you to consider the possibility that, based on genetics research, our origins are more easily understood in the context of . . . In the beginning . . . God, with the timeline found in the biblical narrative of Genesis. There is a better answer to the origins debate than what we have been led to believe. Let the revolution begin!

Loading…

www.masterbooks.com

 

[Glark]

Just because God is purposefully guiding all of creation does not mean His laws of nature must be contradicted by it (although sometimes they are.)

Billions of years of suffering, violence and death to produce creatures God could have created instantly. Does that make sense?

 

[anon65111186]

But God-guided evolution isn’t science.

To be honest, this thread is a merry go round, I don’t know how many times I have repeated myself about a number of issues.

I’m not saying God guided evolution is science, it would be the only interpretation of evolution as a Catholic for me if evolution was true.

The value of evolution is that it explains things we see in nature.

One question it answers is why do separate species share DNA? Because they evolved that way.

 

[buffalo]

No, the modern synthesis is not standing up to further scrutiny. It is failing. You are getting the heads up and can get on the train early.

 

[Glark]

The reference to dust here is figurative and unrelated to the “clay” mentioned in Genesis, which is also figurative.

If the Genesis meaning IS figurative, how can the faithful believe in a literal interpretation, which the Church allows?

 

[anon65111186]

iteral interpretation, which the Church allows?

You keep mentioning a literal interpretation, but I wonder if you know what a literal interpretation would look like, considering the literary intent of the author living at the time. This is not Greco-Latin interpretation mind you.

Please give us your literal interpretation according to hebrew literary style at the time Genesis was written.

 

[Glark]

It is made of soil, dust lifted by weather, volcanic eruptions, and pollution. It can also be plant pollen, human and animal hairs, textile fibers, paper fibers, minerals from outdoor soil, human skin cells, burnt meteorite particles, and many other materials which may be found in the local environment

Inanimate matter, in other words. So there is no way to interpret “dust” as any form of life.