Is evolution a fact?

[Seamus_Sully]

They could use metaphysics.

The science of being or ontology.

Philosophers have come to conclusions such as:

Being cannot account for itself.

Being cannot bring itself into existence.

Being cannot hold itself in existence.

Being cannot account for different levels of being.

Being cannot account for the laws that govern being.

Being is contingent.

The early Greeks came to conclusion such as these.

Furthermore, the human intellect and will are immaterial.

Well, the early Greeks and many philosophers hold this to be true.

One simple example of this is our ability to do abstract thinking.

If scientists ignore these ideas, then they are limiting themselves.

 

[Orogeny]

If scientists ignore these ideas, then they are limiting themselves.

Of course they are limiting themselves! They are limiting themselves to science, not philosophy or metaphysics! Is that really hard to accept?

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

Can you explain what you mean by this? So modern day evolution doesnt support our coming from 2 humans who evolved from subhumans yet were zapped with souls one day? Now this is getting more confussing haha

p.e thanks oregony for a mutlip word answer lol

I mean is that there was significant debate at one time in the scientific community as to whether biologically modern humans arose in one location and then spread out (AKA the recent single-origin hypothesis or monogenism) or whether modern humans evolved separately from pre-humans that had already spread across the eastern hemisphere (AKA multiregional hypothesis or polygenism)

AFAIK Monogenism seems to be supported by most scientists especially in view of modern genetics (there are a few hold outs for polygenism). So yes, science supports monogenism by it doesn’t mean the exact same thing as what the Church means by this term. It is about as close as the two can get I’m guessing

Notions of multiple “races” of men or separate origins have been around since ancient times. The notion of “pre-adamites” or multiple Adams was suggested by those who could not conceive that Asians, Africans and Europeans had common ancestry and still accommodate their 6,000 time frame.

The Church has always taught that we had common ancestry but some Christians came up with a variety of multiple origin theories. Often these were thin veiled (if veiled at all) racism. In the 19th century there was a lot of this blending of a then poorly understood scientific principle and articles of faith to come up with a useless hodgepodge.

As for being “zapped” with souls, biology can say nothing about that. That was my own $0.02.

 

[Linkowski]

Why is scripture and its testimony of creation left out of this conversation???

Obviously, the mind steeped in modern science and its antisupernatural bias struggles to fathom how so much could occur in so short a time. But there’s no reason a Christian should doubt that God could have created everything fully mature in a nanosecond if He chose to do so. There’s certainly no reason a Christian should balk at believing that God created everything in six days. After all, that is what a straightforward reading of Scripture plainly teaches.

Much of what science teaches with regard to these things is mere theory and is based upon wild assumptions. Do you interpret the Bible through science or do you interpret Science through the Bible?

 

[Pondero]

at some point he had to have had non biological human parents because that is what evolution says.

Then Adam and Eve would have had a previous( let’s call them) Adam and Eve, as parents, as you say they were human, and the difference between the two pairs would not be physical, the latter pair having a soul and the former pair without a soul.

That is the only way it could be according to your statement.

That doesn’t make sense, because in evolution there is change, and there may have been a previous pair from which Adam and Eve evolved but they would not be fully human. To be fully homo sapiens sapiens ,means they would have had to have a soul and that was not so, as the first man and woman who were truly human were given, by a special act of creation, by God a human soul. That is part of our Catholic belief, and as I said early on in this debate it can neither be proved or disproved, scientifically.

Therefore, I conclude once you know the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you realize that this particular debate is a complete waste of time from a religious viewpoint.

If one wants to debate evolutionary theory, Darwinism etc then that’s OK but you don’t need to have this discussion on a Catholic website. And again many like to discuss these things here and show off their scientific knowledge.

 

[rossum]

Why is scripture and its testimony of creation left out of this conversation???

The OP asked if evolution was a fact. Since scripture does not contain all relevant facts then it is necessary to go outside scripture in order to ascertain what the relevant facts are. I have not been able to find any mention of deoxyribonucleic acid in the Bible, yet DNA is relevant to a discussion of evolution.

The testimony of creation has been part of this discussion from the beginning - any mention of facts in the real world is a reference to the “testimony of creation”.

Obviously, the mind steeped in modern science and its antisupernatural bias struggles to fathom how so much could occur in so short a time. But there’s no reason a Christian should doubt that God could have created everything fully mature in a nanosecond if He chose to do so. There’s certainly no reason a Christian should balk at believing that God created everything in six days. After all, that is what a straightforward reading of Scripture plainly teaches.

I would be careful of a straightforward reading of scripture if I were you, it can get you into some strange positions:
Sheep have souls:
“one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep.” [KJV - Numbers 31:28]

Jesus was a sheep:
“John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God…’” [John 1:29]

Jesus only saves Israeli sheep:
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” [Matthew 15:24]

These sheep hate their parents:
“For I have come to set a man against his father” [Matthew 10:35]

They are all atheists:
“There is no God” [Psalms 14:1, 53:1]
Not all “straightforward” interpretations of scripture are correct, as my examples show. You need to actually show that your interpretation of Genesis is correct, you cannot just assert it. Some rocks with fossil lobsters mixed with fossil trilobites would do nicely.

Much of what science teaches with regard to these things is mere theory and is based upon wild assumptions. Do you interpret the Bible through science or do you interpret Science through the Bible?

To a scientific minded Christian the correct interpretation of God’s word must be consistent with the correct interpretation of God’s creation: truth cannot contradict truth. Since both are from God it is as valid to use the Bible to help interpret the world as it is to use the world to help interpret the Bible. The young earth interpretation of Genesis is not consistent with the scientific evidence in God’s creation. For that reason many Christian scientists reject the young earth interpretation of Genesis.

rossum

 

[Linkowski]

What do you do with the geneologies of the Bible?

 

[Linkowski]

What do we find in the New Testament? In every New Testament reference to Genesis, the events recorded by Moses are treated as historical events. And in particular, the first three chapters of Genesis are consistently treated as a literal record of historical events. The New Testament affirms, for example, the creation of Adam in the image of God (James 3:9).

James 3:9 NAS95 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;

Paul wrote to Timothy, “Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Timothy 2:13–14). In 1 Corinthians 11:8–9, he writes, “Man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.”
Paul’s presentation of the doctrine of original sin in Romans 5:12–20 depends on a historical Adam and a literal interpretation of the account in Genesis about how he fell.

Romans 5:12-20 NAS95 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

Furthermore, everything Paul has to say about the doctrine of justification by faith depends on that. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Clearly Paul regarded both the creation and fall of Adam as history, not allegory. Jesus Himself referred to the creation of Adam and Eve as a historical event (Mark 10:6).

Mark 10:6 NAS95 6 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.

To question the historicity of these events is to undermine the very essence of Christian doctrine.

I am afraid you have corrupted yourself with mere human opinion and hypotheses…

 

[Linkowski]

Christ is the ultimate truth and all that is called Christian doctrine is the only truth worth proclaiming. I think you need to repent and trust Christ as your Lord and Savior…but that is beside the point. We are talking about the fallacy of evolution here.

 

[Orogeny]

Obviously, the mind steeped in modern science and its antisupernatural bias struggles to fathom how so much could occur in so short a time. But there’s no reason a Christian should doubt that God could have created everything fully mature in a nanosecond if He chose to do so. There’s certainly no reason a Christian should balk at believing that God created everything in six days. After all, that is what a straightforward reading of Scripture plainly teaches.

Certainly, God could have chosen to create a world that is not what it appears to be. I choose to believe that God is not a deceiver and that the evidence of creation that He left is valid. That evidence makes it clear that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old and life on earth has evolved over time.

Much of what science teaches with regard to these things is mere theory and is based upon wild assumptions.

Mere theory indicates that you don’t understand what that term means in the scientific sense.

Do you interpret the Bible through science or do you interpret Science through the Bible?

Neither.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Christ is the ultimate truth and all that is called Christian doctrine is the only truth worth proclaiming.

I agree that Christ is the ultimate truth, but the second part of your statement only makes sense if we are discussing theology. It certainly is silly to say that 1+1=2 isn’t worth proclaiming because it isn’t Christian doctrine. It is just as silly to ignore the evidence for evolution that God has given us the intelligence to understand.

Peace

Tim

 

[Future_Prodigy]

Then Adam and Eve would have had a previous( let’s call them) Adam and Eve, as parents, as you say they were human, and the difference between the two pairs would not be physical, the latter pair having a soul and the former pair without a soul.

That is the only way it could be according to your statement.

That doesn’t make sense, because in evolution there is change, and there may have been a previous pair from which Adam and Eve evolved but they would not be fully human. To be fully homo sapiens sapiens ,means they would have had to have a soul and that was not so, as the first man and woman who were truly human were given, by a special act of creation, by God a human soul. That is part of our Catholic belief, and as I said early on in this debate it can neither be proved or disproved, scientifically.

Therefore, I conclude once you know the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you realize that this particular debate is a complete waste of time from a religious viewpoint.

If one wants to debate evolutionary theory, Darwinism etc then that’s OK but you don’t need to have this discussion on a Catholic website. And again many like to discuss these things here and show off their scientific knowledge.

I htink it is important to have this debate on a cahtolic website… where else do you talk about it! It’s not something you just ignore. I thnk you misunderstood my post. I was trying to clear up what others are saying. From ym understanding we evolved from say group A to become group B and group B was given souls whereas group A was not. Group A is the more sub-human species and was not fully human whereas group B now was, am i correct in thinking this?

 

[EBSSTF4]

I htink it is important to have this debate on a cahtolic website… where else do you talk about it! It’s not something you just ignore. I thnk you misunderstood my post. I was trying to clear up what others are saying. From ym understanding we evolved from say group A to become group B and group B was given souls whereas group A was not. Group A is the more sub-human species and was not fully human whereas group B now was, am i correct in thinking this?

Sounds about right.

 

[Linkowski]

That is if the evidence is being used properly and interpreted properly. I tend to side with the Creationists and their use of scientific fact to corroborate the biblical account of creation. I would also side with their assumptions.

Do you honestly believe that natural selection and mutations have given us what we have today?

Also…what do you do with the specific geneologies in scripture?

 

[Linkowski]

I agree that Christ is the ultimate truth, but the second part of your statement only makes sense if we are discussing theology. It certainly is silly to say that 1+1=2 isn’t worth proclaiming because it isn’t Christian doctrine. It is just as silly to ignore the evidence for evolution that God has given us the intelligence to understand.

Peace

Tim

If I know that 1+1 is 2 and have not Christ, I am eternally condemned, and 1+1 being 2 means nothing to me. That is the perspective that I am looking at this from.

 

[Orogeny]

If I know that 1+1 is 2 and have not Christ, I am eternally condemned, and 1+1 being 2 means nothing to me. That is the perspective that I am looking at this from.

Well, since evolution does not keep you from Christ, you should have no problem with it.

Peace

Tim

 

[a_priori]

If I know that 1+1 is 2 and have not Christ, I am eternally condemned, and 1+1 being 2 means nothing to me. That is the perspective that I am looking at this from.

1 + 1=2 means a great deal to me because it came from the “mind” of God.

 

[Orogeny]

That is if the evidence is being used properly and interpreted properly. I tend to side with the Creationists and their use of scientific fact to corroborate the biblical account of creation. I would also side with their assumptions.

Creationists don’t use science. That is the problem. Creationism is a theology and a rather poor one at that.

Do you honestly believe that natural selection and mutations have given us what we have today?

Yes.

Also…what do you do with the specific geneologies in scripture?

Nothing. It is irrelevant to the science.

Peace

Tim

 

[EBSSTF4]

That is if the evidence is being used properly and interpreted properly. I tend to side with the Creationists and their use of scientific fact to corroborate the biblical account of creation. I would also side with their assumptions.

Do you honestly believe that natural selection and mutations have given us what we have today?

Also…what do you do with the specific geneologies in scripture?

What scientific fact have creationists used?

 

[Linkowski]

Are you an Atheist, Tim?