S
SebastianTorres
Guest
Sorry, I forgot about it.
- Status
N
ndmoharo
Guest
oh really? that makes it a little difficult to share the full logic of things for those who want it then
K
Kathleen18
Guest
I am sure you will find a way. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
K
Kathleen18
Guest
Lol! It happens. And it was only a suggestion.
G
GLam1761
Guest
These days, Creationism is making a comeback,many
scientists and intelligentsia have come to respect it, and
did you know that G.K.Chesterton won against a panel
of scientists and/or intellectuals who were evolutionist
in a debate? I personally believe in micro-evolution, but
evolution on a LARGE scale such as Darwin postulated
is preposterous!!
And, did you know that “survival of the fittest” is actually
the CURSE of original sin, making this world’s nature
such a corrupted and deadly environment to live in?
scientists and intelligentsia have come to respect it, and
did you know that G.K.Chesterton won against a panel
of scientists and/or intellectuals who were evolutionist
in a debate? I personally believe in micro-evolution, but
evolution on a LARGE scale such as Darwin postulated
is preposterous!!
And, did you know that “survival of the fittest” is actually
the CURSE of original sin, making this world’s nature
such a corrupted and deadly environment to live in?
A
Annie
Guest
I must say that some of what science is finding out is exciting to me as a Catholic! For example, altho humans may have evolved polygenically, the descendents of the others in the group may have died out so that all who are left are those who descended from one couple. And sure enough, we find mitochondrial Eve! We are all descended from one woman, way back when!
And the fact that we are all descended from one man, who lived later, fits in perfectly with the story of Noah (which we are not required to accept literally)!
You seem more comfortable with the idea that evolution is compatible with the idea of a Guide in the process; is that correct?
I agree that going from the is Someone Out There to that Someone is the Christian idea of God, and Christ’s being Good made man are two different processes. I also recommend Mere Christianity, which helped me out a lot
Then we’ll have to explain why we are Catholic rather than any other kind of Christian!
And the fact that we are all descended from one man, who lived later, fits in perfectly with the story of Noah (which we are not required to accept literally)!
You seem more comfortable with the idea that evolution is compatible with the idea of a Guide in the process; is that correct?
I agree that going from the is Someone Out There to that Someone is the Christian idea of God, and Christ’s being Good made man are two different processes. I also recommend Mere Christianity, which helped me out a lot
Then we’ll have to explain why we are Catholic rather than any other kind of Christian!
S
SebastianTorres
Guest
I don’t know man, there seems to be a wide ammount of evidence for evolution on a large scale rather than just micro-evolution. The fossil records, genetics, compared anatomy, etc… seems almost unrefutable.
I’m pretty much sure evolution on a large scale happens, what I’m trying to do here is to reconciliate macro-evolution with abrahamic religions in the first place (specially with first part of Genesis), and after that with Chirstianity.
I’m pretty much sure evolution on a large scale happens, what I’m trying to do here is to reconciliate macro-evolution with abrahamic religions in the first place (specially with first part of Genesis), and after that with Chirstianity.
Last edited:
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
I honestly don’t know the answer to that, I don’t really think it matters much honestly.
A
Annie
Guest
I came to believe in God from a slightly different direction: I came to realize that undirected evolution didn’t work. Why?
If evolution occurred quickly, entire systems needed to change at once, in a coordinated fashion. In order for the eye, for example, to bring an evolutionary advantage, there had to be all the structures, the eye itself, the nerves which transmit the information to the brain, and a part in the brain which could not only make sense of the information, but also to use the information. That’s a lot of sophisticated equipment even for a rudimentary eye which can only tell the difference between light and dark.
And a similar problem exists with slow evolution. Each incremental change has to be advantageous in itself in order to be retained well enough for continued development of the structure. And then all future improvements have to fit into and enhance anything which already exists.
And all that in a context in which most mutations are unhelpful and if large enough, lead to sterility.
Contrast that chaotic situation with the development of the automobile, of computer coding, of most anything!
And this is my reasoning for the poster above, who says evolution doesn’t matter… Either we believe Someone created the world, or we don’t. If we do, it doesn’t matter how He chose to do it, right?
I can see an evolution in which God created the universe to be like an enormous flower, gradually unfolding as it blooms. God creating the first living creatures with an inner tendency to evolve upwards (which considering that most things fall apart, seems counter to what we know of the universe!).
I don’t know if this will help you, but I hope it does!
If evolution occurred quickly, entire systems needed to change at once, in a coordinated fashion. In order for the eye, for example, to bring an evolutionary advantage, there had to be all the structures, the eye itself, the nerves which transmit the information to the brain, and a part in the brain which could not only make sense of the information, but also to use the information. That’s a lot of sophisticated equipment even for a rudimentary eye which can only tell the difference between light and dark.
And a similar problem exists with slow evolution. Each incremental change has to be advantageous in itself in order to be retained well enough for continued development of the structure. And then all future improvements have to fit into and enhance anything which already exists.
And all that in a context in which most mutations are unhelpful and if large enough, lead to sterility.
Contrast that chaotic situation with the development of the automobile, of computer coding, of most anything!
And this is my reasoning for the poster above, who says evolution doesn’t matter… Either we believe Someone created the world, or we don’t. If we do, it doesn’t matter how He chose to do it, right?
I can see an evolution in which God created the universe to be like an enormous flower, gradually unfolding as it blooms. God creating the first living creatures with an inner tendency to evolve upwards (which considering that most things fall apart, seems counter to what we know of the universe!).
I don’t know if this will help you, but I hope it does!
P
Pobreton
Guest
Oh, es verdad. Son parientes, según el otro Haldane. No, me refería a John Haldane, el filósofo (dentro de la literatura accesible contemporánea). A él se le ocurrió ese término de “Analytic Thomism” hace unos años.
P
Pobreton
Guest
¡Saludos, hermano!
EDIT: The arguments you are being presented directly above, by the other poster, are what natural philosophers generally call “irreducible complexity”. I have a feeling you are not going to like that route… But, I may be wrong.
Se que ya sugerí una posible ruta de estudio (en mi primer comentario). Pero, en vista del comentario acerca de la interpretación fundamentalista literalista, vuelvo a hacer énfasis acerca de ello.
“…to reconciliate macro-evolution with abrahamic religions…”
También hay que recordar lo que aquí suelen llamar “non-overlapping magisteria”.
Habría que definir la clase de prueba que buscamos en primer lugar. Ya mencionaba la propia opinión de Darwin. Ahora consideremos que Dios se encuentra fuera del tiempo y del espacio. Para este problema de “la clase” de prueba recomendaría a John Lennox (no Lennon jeje), un matemático (Oxford) cristiano (alumno de C.S. Lewis).
EDIT: The arguments you are being presented directly above, by the other poster, are what natural philosophers generally call “irreducible complexity”. I have a feeling you are not going to like that route… But, I may be wrong.
Se que ya sugerí una posible ruta de estudio (en mi primer comentario). Pero, en vista del comentario acerca de la interpretación fundamentalista literalista, vuelvo a hacer énfasis acerca de ello.
“…to reconciliate macro-evolution with abrahamic religions…”
También hay que recordar lo que aquí suelen llamar “non-overlapping magisteria”.
Habría que definir la clase de prueba que buscamos en primer lugar. Ya mencionaba la propia opinión de Darwin. Ahora consideremos que Dios se encuentra fuera del tiempo y del espacio. Para este problema de “la clase” de prueba recomendaría a John Lennox (no Lennon jeje), un matemático (Oxford) cristiano (alumno de C.S. Lewis).
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
If matters miraculous are a barrier, then much more than “That” must be a barrier.
Last edited:
N
nearlycatholic
Guest
I am doing no such thing. That is Scripture. You can read it for yourself.
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK, so… what kind of “reconciliation” do you believe is necessary? What do you see as “at odds” between science and Christianity, such that it needs reconciling?
A
AIPM1615
Guest
Saint Augustine of Hippo was one of the first to suggest that Genesis not be read literally. Why? Because he wasn’t stupid. He knew that snakes don’t talk and the world clearly seemed to be older than 4400 years old (at his time). The author of Genesis–Moses, maybe–was trying to explain why human nature seems broken and disconnected from God. Why do we have a tenancy to do evil? Hence the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was formed. It’s not a historical account, but a fundamental truth about the human condition: pride goeth before the fall. In other words, our egos betray us.
Now, with that in mind, here’s my $0.02 about much of the OT.
It’s Jewish mythology.
“WHAT?” You ask. “MYTHOLOGY? I thought the Bible was supposedly the inerrant word of God!”
I think that, if you assume the validity of Christianity but find parts of the Old Testament to be …strange? … unbelievable? … it’s because they are. God sought a means to reconcile humanity to himself, and picked one group of people–the Israelites–to start with. They, like most cultures, had their own religion and folklore (maybe the Book of Exodus, if you reject that on historical grounds). When the time was right, God proved his existence by fulfilling the Jewish prophecies, but also started something “new” on his own terms. That “newness” was the Church. Judaism was mostly the Jews writing about who they believed God to be; Christianity was founded on God telling us personally who he is. The Jews wanted a God who was little more than a great warrior, and wrote about him as such extensively. Christ, followed by the Apostles and especially Paul, tell us the real story. Guessing wasn’t needed anymore–they heard it from the horse’s mouth.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I’m a Catholic and I believe in evolution as taught by my university. God authors all things, but that doesn’t mean that he authors all things to require more supernatural (name removed by moderator)ut from Him from time to time.
Just because my university doesn’t recognize God’s role as supreme creator doesn’t mean there’s necessarily a conflict. I think God also created my car. I also think Ford made it too.
Hope ya find what you’re looking for. And I hope it’s Catholic.
A
AIPM1615
Guest
Perhaps. I wonder that often myself.
You meant OT I believe. The New Testament is mostly read as both theological and historical, with the exception of Apocalypse.
Philosophical speculation. I’m not sure anyone can prove that without God, everything would unravel into nonexistence. This was a part of Aquinas’ First Cause argument. He thought that it was unclear whether or not time and space had a beginning. What was most important to Aquinas was the here and now. He thought of God not as the “first domino,” but as a musician. When the bow is pulled across the strings of a violin in such a way, music is created. As long as the musician wills it, the music will flow. But should he stop…
B
buffalo
Guest
Consider - IDvolution http://idvolution.org/
- Status