Is evolution a fact?

[MichaelTDoyle]

Gravity is an odd theory to bring out in defense of the immurtability of evolution as Gravity underwent a conceptual change with Einstein. It is a perfect example of how a theory held onto by the masses was reinvented by one gifted individual.

What if Einstein had not thought outside the normal parameters of the days debate?

There’s an argument here for the free flow of ideas.
There’s also an argument for not indoctrinating children with ideas that have been consistently perverted to have nefarious spiritual and political implications.

 

[a_priori]

I submit those who trumpet that there is no conflict between faith and evolution may want to search themselves a little harder.

I’m not sure “trumpeting” accurately decribes the approach. The answer is not inside of anyone so in “searching themselves” everyone is likely to come up short in this context.

Atheists (afaik) universally hold Darwinism as the tenet that “disproves” God, that makes God superfluous. .

Atheists also hold that cheese sandwiches are edible. Just because they take the data and interpret it to reinforce their faulty worldview doesn’t mean the data itself isn’t reality-based .

**
If you like to trumpet that Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not incompatible, I would really like to beg you also to work on how this can be an ecumenical tool for atheists who have entrapped themselves in a metaphysics based on their interpretation of evolution.**

I don’t think it’s our job to squeeze out tools to reach entrapped atheists on their terms . We should live out the Gospel (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc., etc.)as a witness to atheists and also resist the temptation to ignore observable evidence.

 

[mikew262]

God “exists” outside of time and space.

The process of natural selection itself is a non-negotiable fact. Just ask someone with a multi-drug resistant bacterial infection and they surely know it’s a fact.

God created everything. There is evidence that a “Big Bang” ocurred and that the earth is old. Many things have happened over the last few billion years that we will never fully comprehend. Whatever the mechanism, we know that the “First Cause” was God. If evolution was a component in the process of making us who we are, what on earth is the problem?

Nothing will knock God off the throne. Some people act as though evolutionary processes and God are mutually-exclusive. They’re not. There is really no need to kick up so much dust. God is. Period.

Exactly!! What difference does it make how God did it or at least initiated it? Nobody will ever know for sure until we’re up there with him. He was involved somehow and thats what’s important.

 

[Orogeny]

I submit those who trumpet that there is no conflict between faith and evolution may want to search themselves a little harder.

I would be one of those you are referring to. I don’t think searching myself a little harder would change that which I hold true - there is no conflict between faith and evolution any more than there is between faith and plate tectonics.

Atheists (afaik) universally hold Darwinism as the tenet that “disproves” God, that makes God superfluous.

So? Are you really suggesting that athiests would be believers if it weren’t for evolution?

This theory already swells the pride of such people as “man as animal on the top” being the measure of the universe.

Who are you referring to?

This is one of a long line of serios spiritual evils stemming from misapplications of evolution thought, e.g. the devaluation of human life.

Yep, those Roman evolutionists were real big on the value of human life.

If you like to trumpet that Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not incompatible, I would really like to beg you also to work on how this can be an ecumenical tool for atheists who have entrapped themselves in a metaphysics based on their interpretation of evolution.

How are you going to convert someone to Christ by telling them to ignore facts? How is telling them that to be a Christian, they must believe in something (creationism) that is contrary to fact going to help the situation? That is just like telling that geocentrism is real as others that participate in this forum would insist upon. I would suggest that just the opposite of what you are suggesting is true.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Gravity is an odd theory to bring out in defense of the immurtability of evolution as Gravity underwent a conceptual change with Einstein. It is a perfect example of how a theory held onto by the masses was reinvented by one gifted individual.

You miss the point of how gravity and evolution are similar, at least in the context of this discussion.

Fact: Gravity Theory: How it works (Newton, Einstein).

Fact: Evolution Theory: How it works (Darwin, Gould).

Gravity didn’t change with Einstein. Our understanding of how gravity works changed, but gravity didn’t. Just as the original concept that Darwin proposed has changed over time but evolution is the same.

There’s an argument here for the free flow of ideas.

Come up with science that is different than descent with modification, publish your science and then we will have a free flow of ideas. Until then, non-scientific “theories” are not being held, by non-scientists, to the same standard as the science behind evolution. I call for a level playing field here.

There’s also an argument for not indoctrinating children with ideas that have been consistently perverted to have nefarious spiritual and political implications.

You mean religion?

Peace

Tim

 

[mchale]

I submit those who trumpet that there is no conflict between faith and evolution may want to search themselves a little harder. Atheists (afaik) universally hold Darwinism as the tenet that “disproves” God, that makes God superfluous. This theory already swells the pride of such people as “man as animal on the top” being the measure of the universe.

This is one of a long line of serios spiritual evils stemming from misapplications of evolution thought, e.g. the devaluation of human life.
**
If you like to trumpet that Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not incompatible, I would really like to beg you also to work on how this can be an ecumenical tool for atheists who have entrapped themselves in a metaphysics based on their interpretation of evolution.**

As you have pointed out here, the problem is not one of physics or biology, but rather metaphysics and philosophy. The problem is that people have enormous capacity for looking for proof of their metaphysical systems in the natural world. When they don’t find that proof, or worse, find evidence that seems to contradict their metaphysical system, they have to resolve the issue in some fashion. One of three things happen, they either dispute evidence, ignore the evidence or they figure out a way to incorporate the evidence into their belief system. Thus Athiests might trump evolution as “proving” that life can develop without God… but they may well ignore the fact that evolution says nothing about how life emerged in the first place. They may also ignore the fact that pretty much all variations of Big Cosmology (except perhaps some variants of string theory which is more a hypothesis anyway) basically have Universe being created out of nothing which kind of smacks of a creator.

Personally, i prefer to find ways to fit evidence into my Catholic Belief system rather than ignore or dispute it (unless of course i have a very good reason to dispute it).

–
Bill

 

[Future_Prodigy]

thats the common response… it doesn’t matter… i on the other hand belief it does matter. IF there was evolution and the big bang and we came from a molecular soup then there was no adam and even and original fallen sin! I persaonlyl cant factor in a belief in original fallenness if we just evolev from molecules to animals to rationalistic humans!!! This Darwinian thought can easily be applied to freudian/feuerbachian atheism… and religion can easily be reduced to a man made fabricaiton!

 

[VociMike]

thats the common response… it doesn’t matter… i on the other hand belief it does matter. IF there was evolution and the big bang and we came from a molecular soup then there was no adam and even and original fallen sin! I persaonlyl cant factor in a belief in original fallenness if we just evolev from molecules to animals to rationalistic humans!!! This Darwinian thought can easily be applied to freudian/feuerbachian atheism… and religion can easily be reduced to a man made fabricaiton!

We’re delighted to hear that all of this stuff is so easy for you.

But I wonder where you get the idea that the Big Bang and evolution mean there was no Adam and Eve? That certainly does not follow.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

easy? I never said easy! I said personally the whole theory begs that sort of reasoning. I personally find it very hard to reason with this sort of logic. This is why in the 1800s darwin was very trouble by his findings. There is a new book out on his biography and his torubled soul from his findings. There is hidden implacations to the theory. How did the fall occur and in what context? I know the story contains essential truths but in what shape and form when taking into darwinian evolution? I think this is a good question and needs a theological response if we are to keep the students of our generation. I was shaken to my core when i entered university as a biology major and ended up changing to religion because of this sort of thing. If you guys can reconcile all the beliefs of random unmediated evolution then please share your view points with me.

 

[a_priori]

There is hidden implacations to the theory.

Whatever implications there are to the Theory of Evolution they do not include a direct, inexorable pathway to atheism.

We do not arrive at a fork in the road where one road is labelled “God” and the other “evolution”. These are both compatible. For some reason we think that the creation story of Adam and Eve has to be as literal and airtight as a crime scene investigation in order to have relevance. I disagree.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

I know what you are saying… i to believe that the story itself is not meant to be literal… but i do find it hard to express the story in reality. I know it is to express a truth, a truth being our disobedience and following of our own ways instead of Gods… but how does this fit into the scheme of evolution for you personally? I am open to new views.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I would be one of those you are referring to. I don’t think searching myself a little harder would change that which I hold true - there is no conflict between faith and evolution any more than there is between faith and plate tectonics.So? Are you really suggesting that athiests would be believers if it weren’t for evolution?

Do you think atheists are irredeemable? God calls all to be saved, right? Do you not see that confirming the quasi-evolutionary theories by trumpeting how evolution is a fact without carefully describing what you are describing as fact you are confirming atheists in their views that extend far beyond cross species evolution? Inside every atheist there is a soul with free will to assent to God’s plan a soul that in God’s plan may be waiting for our cooperation with that plan. Confirming atheists in their foundational belief structure is very dangerous.

These are the same views that ultimately give rise and foundation to the culture of death. They are not evolution but they carry the banner of evolution.

Who are you referring to?Yep, those Roman evolutionists were real big on the value of human life.

They did not have the benefit for some time of growing in the fellowship of Christ. Today we have the Holy Spirit and whether you believe it or not Christianity is an amazing force for good and love on this planet as surely true as evolution exists. We promote true love when we promote Christ. When you promote evolution, are you so sure you are promoting truth? What do the readers read when you promote so fervently the truth of evolution that dovetails so neatly into a God absent, man as beast metaphysic?

I am not saying you are wrong, but that prudence needs to be used here.

How are you going to convert someone to Christ by telling them to ignore facts?

That is not what I meant to say.

st believe in something (creationism) that is contrary to fact going to help the situation? That is just like telling that geocentrism is real as others that participate in this forum would insist upon. I would suggest that just the opposite of what you are suggesting is true.

That is not what I meant to suggest. I hope I have clarified my post someone and I am sorry if it came out brashly.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I know what you are saying… i to believe that the story itself is not meant to be literal… but i do find it hard to express the story in reality. I know it is to express a truth, a truth being our disobedience and following of our own ways instead of Gods… but how does this fit into the scheme of evolution for you personally? I am open to new views.

With evolution I still see the problem of Adam and Eve being conceived in sub-humans. It spins into a Jungle Book type story of being raised and nursed by gorillas until Adam realized he was made in God’s image and decided to disobey.

However in that case when Adam called his mother in law a big dumb ape I guess he was right.

And the other problem is the evolution proposed in the school textbooks wont allow the Catholic notion that man was made in God’s image and that Adam and Eve were the first humans, so yes this does are undermining the faith on those grounds.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Whatever implications there are to the Theory of Evolution they do not include a direct, inexorable pathway to atheism.

I agree, but in the thinking of the world today evolutionary ideas are a foundational tenet of atheism. I do not know why this is. For some reason a scientific explanation of evolution and abiogenesis seems to be an explanation of creation and renders God superfluous, so the atheist simply has no need to seek a supernatural life. They do not knock, so the door is not opened.
I am not talking about logic constructs but about how real people go through life grow old and die without the Eucharist.*

We do not arrive at a fork in the road where one road is labelled “God” and the other “evolution”. These are both compatible. For some reason we think that the creation story of Adam and Eve has to be as literal and airtight as a crime scene investigation in order to have relevance. I disagree.

I agree again, but some have taken evolution to mean man is simply an animal and so abortion is just pregnancy tissue and infanticide is okay until some extrinsic value society places on the infant determines it as human. This is not about evolution precisely described, but about souls.

peace to y’all too

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

You miss the point of how gravity and evolution are similar, at least in the context of this discussion.

Fact: Gravity Theory: How it works (Newton, Einstein).

Fact: Evolution Theory: How it works (Darwin, Gould).

Gravity didn’t change with Einstein. Our understanding of how gravity works changed, but gravity didn’t. Just as the original concept that Darwin proposed has changed over time but evolution is the same. Come up with science that is different than descent with modification, publish your science and then we will have a free flow of ideas. Until then, non-scientific “theories” are not being held, by non-scientists, to the same standard as the science behind evolution. I call for a level playing field here.

Tim

I thought calculations in gravity did minutely change and gravity conceptually changed as to its nature and how we functionally calculate gravity for rockets and stuff also changed. Seems to me to be a strong argument for scepticism of the scientific community, not scepticism of science. Reminds me of the Global Warming debate and how people are getting threatened with being fired if they have alternate theories regarding global warming. Scary stuff. The scientific community has a mindset. Level playing field, indeed.

If you like to trumpet that Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not incompatible, I would really like to beg you also to work on how this can be an ecumenical tool for atheists who have entrapped themselves in a metaphysics based on their interpretation of evolution. Doing so without denying scientific method I agree would be laudable and in fact required to reach out to them I think. Someone with your passion for evolution and your faith would be perfect for this

 

[a_priori]

I know what you are saying… i to believe that the story itself is not meant to be literal… but i do find it hard to express the story in reality. I know it is to express a truth, a truth being our disobedience and following of our own ways instead of Gods… but how does this fit into the scheme of evolution for you personally? I am open to new views.

The following opinions are my own (although shared by others). Your mileage may vary. Consult your own theologian.

I think the problem in many circles is how to define reality when it comes to creation. Most societies throughout history have had their own creation myths. Christians tend to hang their hats on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 in order to distinguish Christianity from pagan myths. I believe Genesis 1. Even though I don’t think it is literal, the information it imparts about the condition of man/women in relation to his/her Creator is Truth itself and it should inform the conduct of all mankind.

I think Plato caught a GLIMPSE and had it right except he was wanting because he lived before Christ came. Christ came and brought true perspective to it all. The Greek concept of Logos was appreciated long before Christ as was its eastern analog, the Tao. Christ was indeed Himself the Logos. (John 1)

St. Paul saw that they had the right idea but their understanding was incomplete:

"Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else." (Acts 17)

Plato suggested that we were once in an elevated place, we fell and now the purpose of life is to get back to the high place. His realm of the Forms hints at these higher things.

I think that other religions do contain bits and pieces of truth but that the fullness of God’s revelation culminates in Christ. He is absolutely central in all things. To say He is the God of the universe falls short and limits Him. He has His being outside of time and space. He “exists” outside the universe. (or for the Quantum/String guys, universes)

I do not know in exhaustive detail how we got here. I cannot fully comprehend kenosis or the Hypostatic Union. I don’t know who’s “in” and who’s “out”.

But I do know that God created all things and sent His son to atone for our sins. Jesus Christ “exists” at the epicenter of all that is true. I know that the guy in the subway is hungry, the girl in Darfur being raped is in agony and the little boy watching his mother die of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa deserves better.

We don’t know all the details, but we know EXACTLY what He expects of His people. HE is the guy in the subway. HE is the girl in Darfur. HE is the little boy. That’s a good starting point. Absolutely no ambiguity there.

 

[a_priori]

I agree, but in the thinking of the world today evolutionary ideas are a foundational tenet of atheism. I do not know why this is. For some reason a scientific explanation of evolution and abiogenesis seems to be an explanation of creation and renders God superfluous, so the atheist simply has no need to seek a supernatural life. They do not knock, so the door is not opened.

Michael,

I understand your point. But St. Paul says in Romans that the physical universe reveals God. So it doesn’t really ultimately matter how we got here as long as we appreciate the One who made it all happen. God put the capacity to appreciate who we are and what He did into our “wiring”. Some simply choose to “override” the program and rationalize away that knowledge to their own peril.

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

easy? I never said easy! I said personally the whole theory begs that sort of reasoning. I personally find it very hard to reason with this sort of logic. This is why in the 1800s darwin was very trouble by his findings. There is a new book out on his biography and his torubled soul from his findings. There is hidden implacations to the theory. How did the fall occur and in what context? I know the story contains essential truths but in what shape and form when taking into darwinian evolution? I think this is a good question and needs a theological response if we are to keep the students of our generation. I was shaken to my core when i entered university as a biology major and ended up changing to religion because of this sort of thing. If you guys can reconcile all the beliefs of random unmediated evolution then please share your view points with me.

The mistake atheists often make is to assume that biblical fundamentalism is real Christianity. That is incompatible with evolution, so Christianity falls, and Catholics, who believe in evolution if they are at all educated, are merely putting some sophisticated gloss on an untenable position.

The mistake Catholics often make is to to say “Sure we believe in evolution. This was the process God chose for Creation. There are no further theological implications”.

However evolution is as much a problem for most atheists as for Christians. Stephen J. Gould was quite happy to believe in the evolution of the body, but when it came to the evolution of the brain, and therefore of human behaviour, suddenly he started advancing all sorts of specious objections in the manner of a creationist.

Most people act in their adaptive interests, most of the time. When people claim to be acting from other motives they are usually deluding themselves. However who popularised the word “hypocrite?”.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

Malcolm, I am curious as to how you make sense of all the evolution things (not a personal attack, sincerely curious… i often struggle with it and am unsure where i stand/what i think)

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Michael,

I understand your point. But St. Paul says in Romans that the physical universe reveals God. So it doesn’t really ultimately matter how we got here as long as we appreciate the One who made it all happen. God put the capacity to appreciate who we are and what He did into our “wiring”. Some simply choose to “override” the program and rationalize away that knowledge to their own peril.

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20

I agree with this. I do not think we are contradicting each other. The cross of Christ implies man is capable of belief where there was none and contrition and repentence where there was only false pride. Such men are without excuse, but they are still, while they breathe, temporal beings with minds and spirits not wholly closed off to the Holy Spirit. They still have free will.

In another thread, believers are eloquently describing the Eucharist to those who have faith in Christ but not in His testimony that he is the literal Bread of Life. Is their cause hopeless? Couldn’t one seed be planted? Didn’t Scott Hahn at one time not believe and now he does believe in the Eucharist? Think of the wonderful honor a person earns if he cooperates with God’s plan in helping some christian from false symbolism to worship of the Eucharistic Christ and receive such graces from the Bread of Life. Talk about good deeds! As great as that is, it would be maybe even greater to plant a seed in one of these trapped atheists, so that they would in humility one day knock! And Jesus promised the door would be opened!

The point I am making is that though these Atheists speak resoundingly about how evolution makes God superfluous, you and I know that is not the case. We have experiential knowlege of the effect in our lives of following the Master, but that knowlege by its nature does not lend itself to transmission, it is internal, spiritual, and to a closed mind, one who has not even knocked, meaningless.

What kind of knowledge then might make these evolutionary atheists consider knocking on the door to a spiritual life? it would have to be a kind of knowledge they recognize, such as knowledge from debate or knowledge from logic (not always the same thing) Who could reach out to them in a meaningful way? A Catholic who is also fervent about evolution! Like you, like Orogeny.

If (and for me it is a mighty big if ) evolution is true, then truth leads to Jesus; He is the Way and the Truth. It seems to me that if evolution is true, then it is being satanically perverted now. Maybe that means the correct interpretation of evolution, the correct appreciation of evolution brings much glory to God, sheds much light on His nature. It makes sense that Satan attacks most viciously those things that would lead us to Jesus. Maybe if this scientific truth can be properly described and presented, to atheists in its proper Catholic context and in a proper ecumentical tone understandable to them seeds will be planted!