Should Christians embrace evolution ?

[Abu]

Re hominids: The facts are in Creation Rediscovered, Gerard J Keane, TAN 1999, p 106, and Bones of Contention, Marvin L Lebenow, Baker Book, 1992, p 21;* Darwin on Trial*, Philip E Johnson, 1991, Regnery, Chap 6 and notes; The Crumbling Theory of Evolution, J W G Johnson, Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, 1987, Chap 3.

 

[rossum]

That is false.

http://en.wikivisual.com/images/0/0e/Lucy_Mexico.jpg

You were saying?

rossum

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

You were saying?
rossum

I was saying that the [apparently] simian bone fragments displayed in the photo posted prove nothing, nor can they, and aside from human and simian deformities, among which there are legions of samples, your side must needs provide a complete series of intermediary links bewteen apes and homo sapiens to prove your point*.* Since you’ve had 150 years and uncountable excavations to do it, it would have been done by now had the evidence been there.

This discussion is about Christianity Mr. Rossum, and while your comments are most welcome, they are not adding much substance to the discussion. If you as a Buddhist find no contradictions between evolutionism and Buddhism, very well. Many Roman Catholic Christians, including some of our most saintly Popes reject it as a pagan myth and a rationalist heresy. The issue isn’t whether a consensus of atheist scientists accept evolutionism or not, but whether a Christian should embrace it.

Jesus’ cosmology knows nothing of this pagan myth.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

St. Theresa of the Child Jesus provides a blessed insight:

At times, when I am reading certain spiritual treatises in which perfection is shown through a thousand obstacles, surrounded by a crowd of illusions, my poor little mind quickly tires; I close the learned book that is breaking my head and drying up my heart, and I take up Holy Scripture. Then all seems luminous to me;* a single word* uncovers for my soul infinite horizons, perfection seems simple to me, I see it is sufficient to recognize one’s nothingness and to abandon oneself as a child into God’s arms.
St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Letters II: 1093-4

Shalom,
cj

 

[rossum]

I was saying that the [apparently] simian bone fragments displayed in the photo posted prove nothing, nor can they, and aside from human and simian deformities, among which there are legions of samples, your side must needs provide a complete series of intermediary links bewteen apes and homo sapiens to prove your point. Since you’ve had 150 years and uncountable excavations to do it, it would have been done by now had the evidence been there.

You accused me of making a false statement. Your accusation was incorrect. I said in post #224 that ‘We know that there were “pre-humans” and “hominids” because we have their fossils.’ That statement is correct. The fossil I showed was a fossil hominid, specifically Australopithecus afarensis. If you have a look at the definition of the Hominidae you will read: “Humans, great apes, and their extinct relatives”, and the more detailed chart includes the Australopithecines among the extinct relatives. Your accusation of falsehood was incorrect and I ask you to withdraw it please.

This discussion is about Christianity Mr. Rossum, and while your comments are most welcome, they are not adding much substance to the discussion.

I have confined my comments in this thread mainly to the science side of the discussion, not to the religious side.

rossum

 

[donsnow]

Re hominids: The facts are in Creation Rediscovered, Gerard J Keane, TAN 1999, p 106, and Bones of Contention, Marvin L Lebenow, Baker Book, 1992, p 21;* Darwin on Trial*, Philip E Johnson, 1991, Regnery, Chap 6 and notes; The Crumbling Theory of Evolution, J W G Johnson, Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, 1987, Chap 3.

Thank you, Abu -

Looks like the type of books I like to read. Only, I’m behind on reading the CCC and St. Augustine’s The City of God, which I have (the latter an English translation). I feel I better do the reading of the books I bought already, before I dash out to buy more. But, thanks for the references.

 

[Abu]

Hi donsow
Without having to purchase anything else, you can find great facts and comments at::
rtforum.org/lt/lt63.html .

It is interesting that Msgr McCarthy traces the deception that has characterised the evolutionist path through Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 1995. He cites: “Ramapithecus”, “Australopithecines”, “Pithecanthropus erectus” (“Java man”), "Piltdown man”, “Sinanthropus” (“Peking man”), “Neanderthal man”,

“The ape-men of biology classes in the 1940s have hung on in the popular imagination, even though they have been discarded in the scientific world.”

 

[donsnow]

Hi donsow
Without having to purchase anything else, you can find great facts and comments at::
rtforum.org/lt/lt63.html .

It is interesting that Msgr McCarthy traces the deception that has characterised the evolutionist path through Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 1995. He cites: “Ramapithecus”, “Australopithecines”, “Pithecanthropus erectus” (“Java man”), "Piltdown man”, “Sinanthropus” (“Peking man”), “Neanderthal man”,

“The ape-men of biology classes in the 1940s have hung on in the popular imagination, even though they have been discarded in the scientific world.”

Thanks, Abu,

I bookmarked it, for further perusal.

 

[donsnow]

You accused me of making a false statement. Your accusation was incorrect. I said in post #224 that ‘We know that there were “pre-humans” and “hominids” because we have their fossils.’ That statement is correct. The fossil I showed was a fossil hominid, specifically Australopithecus afarensis. If you have a look at the definition of the Hominidae you will read: “Humans, great apes, and their extinct relatives”, and the more detailed chart includes the Australopithecines among the extinct relatives. Your accusation of falsehood was incorrect and I ask you to withdraw it please.

I have confined my comments in this thread mainly to the science side of the discussion, not to the religious side.

rossum

Hi, Rossum -

Have recognized and appreciate your restraint. You may or may not know what you’ve walked into, here. It appears to many Catholics and other Christians, that a lot of evolutionists in the beginning grades of public education are pushing our Creator out of His Creation and substituting Darwin. That’s the emotional and spiritual context of this discussion. I can remember during my first grade in 1949, hearing the teacher say that we’re descended from monkeys. Some educators didn’t even get it right. Anyway, we all made fun of her later at lunch, that day.

As far as myself, I think that any theory of evolution is temporary, because what the scientists try to describe as evolution is temporary. Every thing’s temporary. But, we believe in an Eternal God who is not temporary. Darwin can never replace our God, although some seem to treat him like a god or like a Buddha. When, frankly, Charles Darwin was a snot-nosed wet-behind-the-ears teenager or 20yo boy, when he investigated the flora and fauna at the Galagapos Archepelago. The Captain of the HMS Beagle had a friend who was on the Uniformtarian side of the debate on evolution at that time. That friend found Charlie boy in Seminary (where his parents had put him, after he dropped out of Med School), and took advantage of the lad’s rebelliouness to enlist him and put him on the Beagle for it’s research voyage. With this background, I have formed the firm opinion that said Captain guided Charlie’s searches on the islands. But, don’t tell a Darwinist, that. Anyway, that means I consider Darwinism faulted from the start.

That’s enough of that. Hope everybody had a good Thanksgiving. I did.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Should Christians embrace evolution ?

Christians should embrace TRUTH. Therefore, whateve elements of evolution theory are actually true, they should be accepted. Truth is truth, and TRUE science can never conflict with Divine Revelation.

People should read this book written by the pope before he was pope:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SBQP5D3PL.SL500_AA240.jpg

**“In the Beginning…: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall” **
by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

.

.

 

[Abu]

Msgr McCarthy: Is There A Second Literal Meaning Of The Six Days Of Creation In Genesis 1? (May, 2009)
rtforum.org/lt/lt141.html

“26. Evolution is science; creation is religion. **Answer: **This objection is based on the false Kantian notion of science. And, actually, evolution is not a theory of empirical science; it is a historical theory which uses data of empirical science in attempting to explain how the existing living species historically arose. But evolution has not used empirical data to establish any physical or chemical laws. In fact, the so-called laws of random mutation and the survival of the fittest are not evolutionary laws at all, since chance is the absence of all law and the survival of the fittest does not pertain to how the “fittest” came to be. On the other hand, creation science is a historical approach that uses empirical science and higher sciences to defend the historical truth of the biblical accounts of divine creation.

1. “Creation science” is a contradiction in terms. Answer: Creation science is a legitimate pursuit. Just as empirical science is used to defend and promote the (non-empirical) theory of evolution, so may empirical science be used to defend and promote the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures and to raise objections to the theory of evolution.
2. Defense of the scientific inerrancy of Genesis 1 is unreasonable fundamentalism. Answer: The original principles of “fundamentalism” are in agreement with the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, although extreme literalism has sometimes been used under that name. The chief objection against fundamentalism among many Catholics today is that it opposes the method of “higher criticism,” now called “historical criticism,” a method condemned by Popes Leo XIII and Pius X, because it denies biblical inerrancy. Actually, only extreme literalism is unreasonable.
3. Pope John Paul said in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that “the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.” **Answer: **What is more than a hypothesis is a theory, not necessarily a fact. As Pope Benedict XVI later explained this statement at a meeting with a group of his former postgraduate students: “When the Pope said that, he had his reasons. But at the same time it is true that the theory of evolution is still not a complete, scientifically verified theory.”16
4. Insufficient attention is being paid in these days on all levels of study to the gaps and weaknesses in the theories of the Big Bang and of the evolution of species. Answer: Granted, and this is why these theories should be recognized as mere historical theories and not as certified historical facts.
   [My underlining].

Notes:
16. Horn and Wiedenhofer, eds., Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2008) p. 162.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you very much.

Peace,
Ed

 

[MindOverMatter]

1. Pope John Paul said in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that “the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.” **Answer: **What is more than a hypothesis is a theory, not necessarily a fact. As Pope Benedict XVI later explained this statement at a meeting with a group of his former postgraduate students: “When the Pope said that, he had his reasons. But at the same time it is true that the theory of evolution is still not a complete, scientifically verified theory.”16
2. Insufficient attention is being paid in these days on all levels of study to the gaps and weaknesses in the theories of the Big Bang and of the evolution of species. Answer: Granted, and this is why these theories should be recognized as mere historical theories and not as certified historical facts.
   [My underlining].

Notes:
16. Horn and Wiedenhofer, eds., Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2008) p. 162.

But isn’t this more or less true of all theories? If something is more than a hypothesis, then it is a theory. Either way, the Pope is giving the hypothesis of evolution the respect of a scientific theory regardless of its incompleteness. Either that or the Pope doesn’t understand science.

 

[Abu]

MindOverMatter
the Pope is giving the hypothesis of evolution the respect of a scientific theory regardless of its incompleteness. Either that or the Pope doesn’t understand science.

Obviously, Darwinian evolutionism is an **historical **assumption which seeks to affirm its beliefs with empirical science, and it has not been scientifically verified, as Pope Benedict XVI has suggested.

The opinion of John Paul II that “the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis” refers to what the Pope had been told and does not have the status of being even equivalent to, much less superior to, his doctrinal affirmation of Pius XII’s teaching. Fr David Becker in his letter to John Paul II pointed out: “Fr Jaki, we must note, played a major role in composing the Message which Your Holiness signed and sent to the Pontifical Academy.” [Dec 25, 1996. *WatchMaker, Nov-Dec 1996].

The above opinion by John Paul II is not even on a par with his opinion that adequate punishment, including the moral and physical defence of society, can generally be accomplished by bloodless means, which are always to be preferred rather than the death penalty. Neither here nor on evolutionism has he tried to recant the doctrinal teaching of previous Popes.

Note that Pope John Paul II reiterated the teaching of Pope Pius XII in *Humani generis *that the evolution of the human body “should not be adopted as though it were a certain and proved doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises.” [Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996, 4].

Addressing theologians in 1966, Pope Paul VI reiterated that “Catholic doctrine on original sin was re-affirmed in the Second Vatican Council” (Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes) “in full consonance with divine revelation and the teaching of the preceding Councils of Carthage, Orange and Trent.” He affirmed that “the sin of the first man is transmitted to all his descendents, not through imitation but through propagation.” (The Crumbling Theory of Evolution, 1987, J.W.J. Johnson).
[Note: Wallace Johnson was a great Australian Catholic and former evolutionist who wrote: “I do not understand those who, not only will not listen to counter-argument, but would prevent others from listening.” (Foreword)].

The fantasy of evolutionism by chance and natural selection still persists, but in even in 1980 (Nov 3) Newsweek wrote: “Evidence from the fossil record now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school; that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment.” [Johnson, op cit. p 13]. But that is still parroted today as evolutionist groups try to censor the facts of intelligent design, and the new knowledge on creation.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Well Abu, a wise man once said, one man’s modus ponens is another’s modus tollens.

One caveat to put out there at first: evolution (meaning the arrival of different species via descent with modification) need not necessarily be materialistic or even atheistic. Even if evolution were proven beyond all doubt it wouldn’t show it happened by “blind chance”, an expression with no real meaning, except perhaps unexplained brute fact. So, evolution hasn’t made me a materialist or an atheist - it entails neither. So I disagree entirely with atheists who attempt to use evolution in support of atheism - it doesn’t.

But, it’s evident that evolution is at odds with the Church’s simplistic view of things, as you document amply. Your argument is, the Church and evolution don’t mesh, therefore evolution is wrong. Of course your modus ponens is my modus tollens, and, inverting the argument, the Church is wrong. You call evolution a fairy-tale. But which is a bigger fairy-tale, I ask, evolution or the Garden of Eden and talking snakes? In fact evolution played a big factor in my decision to leave the Church.

Now of course Msgr. McCarthy (who I have in fact corresponded with via e-mail a few years ago) and people like yourself bemoan the fact that not enough attention has been paid to weaknesses in the theory. But when do you actually pay attention to the evidence in favor of it? When do you address evidence like the GULO pseudogene, or the endogenous retroviral insertions in the same spot in the genome in primates and humans? This is much more powerful evidence for common descent than Foucault’s pendulum was against geocentrism. And if common descent is true, despite the heroic efforts of some for a reconciliation, the Church is wrong and it’s time to pack it in. Maybe it didn’t occur via “random” mutation. But it happened in some way, and say that there is no historical evidence is simply a bold-faced lie. Now Msgr. McCarthy himself is familiar with some of this evidence (having, for instance, read Francis Collins’ book) and if after having read this he maintains there is not historical evidence he is simply an unashamed liar. Which is of course what many people do when inconvenient facts get in the way of ideology.

 

[MariaTS]

Rejecting scientific theories is simply ignorant. Scientific theories are proven and tested hypothesis. I believe that God created evolution because it is scientifically proven that atoms do not make themselves so there has to be a divine creator. Scientific theories are what have saved many lives and cured many medical conditions. Without science, we would still be living in the dark ages.

 

[donsnow]

Maybe it didn’t occur via “random” mutation. But it happened in some way, and say that there is no historical evidence is simply a bold-faced lie.

“But it happened in some way,…”

So, you don’t claim ‘random’ mutation.
But, you claim ‘some way’ for the alleged descent of species.
Any claimed evidence then remains circumstantial. My family has no ‘monkey’s uncles’, since we’re all made in the image of God. You can claim descent from an animal, if you like.
So, I’m not going to hold my breath 'til the Church “…pack it in.”. And, neither should you.

 

[edwest2]

Rejecting scientific theories is simply ignorant. Scientific theories are proven and tested hypothesis. I believe that God created evolution because it is scientifically proven that atoms do not make themselves so there has to be a divine creator. Scientific theories are what have saved many lives and cured many medical conditions. Without science, we would still be living in the dark ages.

There is only one theory being discussed. Which scientific theories have saved many lives? How is that connected to the subject being discussed?

Peace,
Ed

 

[donsnow]

Rejecting scientific theories is simply ignorant. Scientific theories are proven and tested hypothesis. I believe that God created evolution because it is scientifically proven that atoms do not make themselves so there has to be a divine creator. Scientific theories are what have saved many lives and cured many medical conditions. Without science, we would still be living in the dark ages.

Hi, MariaTS -

I believe God created what scientists claim that evolution describes. I wonder if Darwinism occludes the glory of God’s Creation? And leads science down a shaded lane? Science has mixed blessings. The medical establishment has taken ordinary human conditions and given them scarey clinical labels. Law has and does criminalize ordinary human behavior, because of science. In a sense, the dark ages were an age of innocence; or at the very least a romantic age (submit all the romantic novels written and movies made about the dark ages ).
And, thanks to some laws, favored by science, we are fast regressing into a moral dark age.

Anyway, as I’ve written before, all this science, all these laws, and even God’s Creation are all temporary. I think the science, technology and man’s laws will vanish, before His Creation will, 'though. I also think the Roman Catholic Church will outlive the present dark age we are sliding into, just as it outlived the last dark age. I think the Church will also outlive this civilization just as it outlived the Roman Empire. I wonder, if two or three hundred years from now, evolution were seen as another type of Creation myth? Hard to tell.

I wish you would defend Mother Church as adroitly as you do science.

 

[MariaTS]

I wish you would defend Mother Church as adroitly as you do science.

If you didn’t simply pick and choose what you chose to read from what I wrote then you would see that I defend Catholicism and Science equally.