Should Christians embrace evolution ?

[ricmat]

(1) This side of the eschaton I don’t think there is any way for us on this little planet to know what the universe was made for. A hundred billion galaxies averaging a hundred billion stars each is a lot of stars and potential planets. We may speculate theologically as to what it’s all about, but we really have no clue.

(2) Humankind does appear to be favored on earth; so do bacteria and viruses, as they seem to do very well. Penguins are favored, as are sharks, coelacanths, and fungi.

(3) You echo a great lecture by Simon Conway Morris at the Notre Dame conference two weeks ago: he argued that because of convergent evolution it is likely that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would be more or less humanoid. It might be marsupial or reptilian, but it would probably be warm-blooded, large brained, bipedal with hands and opposable digits, verbal, highly evolved in the senses, etc. In other words, even if Gould’s “rewinding” of the tape of evolution took place, it is likely that whatever evolved as the dominant species with intelligence would have recognizably humanoid characteristics.

(4) “Pinnacle of physical Creation” is an awfully ambitious title to claim when all we know is our one little planet and a bit about the moon and Mars, and nothing even of the rest of our galaxy, much less of the other hundred billion galaxies.

(5) None of this means that we shouldn’t regard ourselves as special, as representing creation to God in our own human way, and therefore as holding an awesome responsibility for our world.

StAnastasia.

Dr. StAnastasia,

Coming back to this for a moment…

I know that you are a great fan of “common ancestry” (I’m referring here to the first self replicating life, not Adam/Eve). I’ve been told many times here in polite terms (and sometimes not so polite terms) that it is a key element of the TOE, and is as certain as gravity, and the sun rising in the East.

But common ancestry seems to me to be a problem for your views above, particularly items 1 and 3. If as you speculate, the universe is teeming with life (outside of Earth) because there is nothing special about Earth, and there is some sort of unknown law that biases random chemical processes toward complex life, then isn’t it rather puzzling why there has been only 1 “first life” event on Earth itself?

Why don’t we have living along side us here other forms of life (basic or advanced) which did NOT originate with that first “common ancestor”. Certainly there should be more than just one single common ancestor. It seems that we should be awash in alien life forms living right here alongside us. No?

Just something to think about…

Yawn…going to bed now!

 

[ricmat]

Which brings us to another interesting question raised by Simon Conway Morris and others: the necessity of DNA. Some exobiologists (i.e., biologists who study the possiblit of extraterrestail life) wonder whether DNA is universal.

That is, could another biochemical process for the transmission of what we call “genetic” information have evolved on a planet with slightly different biochemistry. Or is biochemistry built into the fine-tuning of the universe to bring about life? If God instantiated an evolving cosmos with the fine tuning we seem to observe in the anthropic argument (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle), would the universe be constrained to use more or less the same biochemical method (i.e., DNA) for the transmission of information?

Interesting question.

StAnastasia

OK - I just read this so I’ll comment quickly, THEN go to bed.

I think what you are describing is called “chemical evolution” - whose originator is Dean Kenyon. This was a popular theory in the 70’s (80’s?). But Kenyon himself has abandoned it.

Or so I recall reading in Signature in the Cell.

Good night!

 

[Cling2Cross]

The title of a new book. The preface is here:

mothwo.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-book-should-christians-embrace.html

An issue that is at the forefront of a global anti-theist marketing campaign, including this forum. The goal is to create a sense of urgency linked with an emotional plea for acceptance. I would encourage my Fellow Catholics to abandon any sense of urgency regarding this subject, read what the Church has said and written about it, and be mindful that the origin of man cannot be fully explained by science.

Peace,
Ed

The Theory of Evolution is exactly that - a theory and one that cannot stand up to scrutiny. A theory backed by randomness cannot account for uniformity in nature, laws of logic, laws of morality, etc. We are more than robots but are physical beings with a spirit inextricably woven together. Yes, we can choose - we have creativity, search out the meaning of life, and seek freedom…machines and chemicals do not do this.

To partner with the theory and try to squeeze it into the Bible is not theologically correct either. There are many issues there. One of the main ones being that death would have happened prior to sin…this also would include thorns as well given the propositions of those who preach evolution.

Evolution is science that is supported by philosophical presuppositions held by faith.

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6 KJV)

 

[tjm190]

“The Theory of Evolution is exactly that - a theory and one that cannot stand up to scrutiny”

Stopped reading.

S: theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”
S: hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”; “he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices”
S: theory (a belief that can guide behavior) “the architect has a theory that more is less”; “they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales”

Which one do you think the ‘theory’ in ‘theory of evolution’ refers to? (Hint- if we were to send cameras back in time somehow and observed evolution and everyone on Earth believed it, the name wouldn’t change to "the fact of evolution’)

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Don, all:
You must first understand that a modernist approaches the Divine in a completely alien way to the believer. They begin, not with credulity towards the object of our faith, that is to say the Divine Word, but rather as agnostics: Hence so many “we cannot know” statements. St. Pius X made this argument forcefully in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

1. We begin, then, with the philosopher. Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is usually called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that are perceptible to the senses, and in the manner in which they are perceptible; it has no right and no power to transgress these limits. Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognising His existence, even by means of visible things. From this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject. Given these premises, all will readily perceive what becomes of Natural Theology, of the* motives of credibility, of external revelation*. The Modernists simply make away with them altogether; they include them in Intellectualism, which they call a ridiculous and long ago defunct system. Nor does the fact that the Church has formally condemned these portentous errors exercise the slightest restraint upon them. Yet the Vatican Council has defined, “If anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made, let him be anathema” (De Revel., can. I); and also: “If anyone says that it is not possible or not expedient that man be taught, through the medium of divine revelation, about God and the worship to be paid Him, let him be anathema”

Moreover, they place religion and science against one another, always with science in the position of critic and judge:

1. Having reached this point, Venerable Brethren, we have sufficient material in hand to enable us to see the relations which Modernists establish between faith and science, including history also under the name of science. And in the first place it is to be held that the object of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object of the other. For faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be unknowable for it. Hence each has a separate field assigned to it: science is entirely concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which faith does not enter at all; faith on the contrary concerns itself with the divine reality which is entirely unknown to science. Thus the conclusion is reached that there can never be any dissension between faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore never be in contradiction.
2. Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.

Endless speculation about things which cannot be known such as the number of stars, galaxies, etc… is a smoke screen, cover and concealment for the modernist. The Divine Word and human reason render to the ready mind the clear and obvious truth that God placed all things under the feet of men (Psalm 8) and that Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. There are no other worlds to ponder; if there were, God would have revealed it through His servants the Prophets:

7Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7)

What we can and should know is available to us:

29The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

What is revealed to us in revealed in Christ Jesus:

15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col. 1:15-17)
3In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col. 2:3)

Therefore, we devote ourselves piously to that which is revealed to us and reverently adore Him Who is not fully revealed yet. This also applies to the profane sciences rightly ordered not as masters but as servants of faith.

 

[october_ruler]

I once heard that there is nothing really wrong with evolution… especially if one understands that it is nothing more than “change over time in accordance with God’s will…” There is no doubt that things change over time. The longer the time, the greater the change COULD be.

 

[StAnastasia]

I know that you are a great fan of “common ancestry” (I’m referring here to the first self replicating life, not Adam/Eve)…But common ancestry seems to me to be a problem for your views above, particularly items 1 and 3. If as you speculate, the universe is teeming with life (outside of Earth) because there is nothing special about Earth, and there is some sort of unknown law that biases random chemical processes toward complex life, then isn’t it rather puzzling why there has been only 1 “first life” event on Earth itself?..Why don’t we have living along side us here other forms of life (basic or advanced) which did NOT originate with that first “common ancestor”. Certainly there should be more than just one single common ancestor. It seems that we should be awash in alien life forms living right here alongside us. No?!

Ricmat,

(1) I don’t know that I would describe myself as a “fan” of common ancestry; it’s part of evolutionary theory. I guess I’m as much a fan of it as I am of plate tectonics.

(2) I am not convinced the universe is “teeming with life,” although I may not be as pessimistic as Ward and Brownlee who in Rare Earth argue that complex life is uncommon in the universe. Joel Primack (U.C. Santa Cruz) thinks they are unduly pessimistic. In any case, even if only one planet per galaxy is life-bearing, there would be one hundred billion such planets in the universe.

(3) I have friends who are working on the various scenarios of the origin of life (surface pools, deep sea thermal vents, etc.) (See Christopher Southgate, The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil). It seems plausible that life might have been created more than once, just as it seems plausible that we ourselves are the product of endosymbiosis.(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory). I assume that all chordates share a common ancestry, but perhaps not all phyla do. I don’t know the genetics; Alex McAndrew could help here.

(4) I find the question of the origins of life very intriguing. Panspermia seems to be a cop-out; Dawkins’s postulated arrival of life on earth in asteroids or meteorites merely pushes the question of origins back one step, and solves nothing. Life’s origin seems a likely locus for the Genesis “let the earth bring forth…” Michael Lodahl explores creation ex nihilo in “Out of Nothing’s Womb Produce” Is Next-to-Nothing Enough?-or Is It Too Much?", chapter three in God of Nature and God of Grace.

StAnastasia

 

[Abu]

Are some (StAnastasia) still blithely unaware of the falsifications practised by evolutionists?

Darwin’s theory is indefensible and so are the “desperate explanations” (Fr McCarthy) from theoreticians such as Gould, Eldridge, Huxley or Dawkins, like “punctuated equilibria”. 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, at rtforum.org/lt/lt63.html .

He cites: **“Ramapithecus”, “Australopithecines”, “Pithecanthropus erectus” (“Java man”), "Piltdown man”, “Sinanthropus” (“Peking man”), “Neanderthal man”, **

Excerpts:
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. Brown summarizes (p. 11) the outcome of these invented “missing links.” “Nebraska man” was fabricated from one unusual-looking tooth discovered in 1922. What this tooth was supposed to signify is depicted in an artist’s drawing published in the Illustrated London News of 1922 (reproduced by Brown on page 11). Nebraska man and his wife look distinctly ape-like in the drawing, but they, nevertheless, faded away after 1927, when it was demonstrated that the tooth belonged to an extinct pig.

Brown (p. 51) summarizes the scientific value of these alleged discoveries with a quote from W.R. Thompson in his Introduction to The Origin of Species: “The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. … A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before then a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human.”

With this long array of bogus ape-men, of wrongly reconstructed fossils, of over-estimates and under-estimates on the part of palaeontologists, of circular arguments, of distortions of the evidence to fit hoped-for results, of the suppression of counter-evidence that does not fit the model, of forgeries, frauds, and free-wheeling imagination, it is saddening to observe how many historians continue to be supremely uncritical when it comes to evaluating the claims of evolutionists. The lack of objectivity which has characterized much pro-evolutionary research is the kind of mental object that historians should be equipped to handle, and yet it often appears that not even a doubt crosses their minds. The explanation of this blindness lies not so much in historical method as in reasons of a psychological and sociological nature. [End]

Has scientific and historical integrity improved?

 

[Cling2Cross]

“The Theory of Evolution is exactly that - a theory and one that cannot stand up to scrutiny”

Stopped reading.

S: theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”
S: hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”; “he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices”
S: theory (a belief that can guide behavior) “the architect has a theory that more is less”; “they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales”

Which one do you think the ‘theory’ in ‘theory of evolution’ refers to? (Hint- if we were to send cameras back in time somehow and observed evolution and everyone on Earth believed it, the name wouldn’t change to "the fact of evolution’)

Say that to Richard Dawkins - he has already called it a fact. What I see in evolution are micro changes in species being extrapolated to do something that we have never observed nor do we see evidence for it in the past. Again…this theory uses random chance to account for uniformity and order, laws of logic, conscious searching of a mind for meaning, reliable senses (i.e. preconditions for intelligibility). It makes much more sense to me that a God who transcends space, time, and matter created from nothing a universe with all that we see. He is very big…He is love (for He created being and beings)…and He is a judge (having given us a conscience and written his laws on our hearts…

for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Romans 2:14-16 NKJV)

And we all know Him…

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:19-21 NKJV)

If we do not accept His existence, then we supress the truth.

tjm190, you cannot account for the millions of irreducibly complex systems, for the information in DNA that is meaningful gathering together by chance and trial and error experimentation (mutation) over myriads of time, for laws of morality (i.e. loving your neighbor as yourself), etc. Evolution is science supported by unsubstantiated philosophical presuppositions held by faith.

Repent and turn to Christ…don’t reject the great love that He showed on the cross to satisfy the justice that we deserve - infinite punishment. It was told to us in the Old Testament by types, figures, and bold statements that God would come to earth one day to die for the nations…and it happened and the earth exploded with Christianity immediately following these events (not a myth purported hundreds of years later).

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.” (Micah 5:2 NKJV)

**"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 NKJV)

For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6 NKJV)

But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-6 NKJV)**

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:14-18 NKJV)

So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31 NKJV)

C2C

 

[Ismael]

The Theory of Evolution is exactly that - a theory and one that cannot stand up to scrutiny.

It stands up in scientific scrutiny. Science seems to confirm that the THEORY of Evolution is a good theory about the development of living organisms on Earth.

We are more than robots but are physical beings with a spirit inextricably woven together. Yes, we can choose - we have creativity, search out the meaning of life, and seek freedom…machines and chemicals do not do this.

I’ll leave out the questions if machines will ever be able to be self-aware (in any case they would not have evolved but they would have been created… by man )

The Theory of Evolution regards only the PHYSICAL properties of human beings, certainly not the spiritual ones.

Only materialists argue that evolution explaines everything, but it’s just an illogical assumption (and a metaphysical one, hence not scientific).

To partner with the theory and try to squeeze it into the Bible is not theologically correct either. There are many issues there. One of the main ones being that death would have happened prior to sin…this also would include thorns as well given the propositions of those who preach evolution.

Death of animals yes… death ofa FULL human being… Body+Soul, no.

Evolution cannot prove or deny that Adam was immortal. At best it might find Adam’s remains as a mortal human.

If Adam and Eve indeed were ‘super-humans’: immortal and free from pain and sin, they have left no PHYSICAL proof. Hence science cannot tell us about them.

If God put a soul into a ‘proto-human’ (a soulless homo-sapiens) and made him immortal, it’s very possible. Science cannot deny or prove that this is true.
It is indeed a theological question, not a scientific one.

Science seems to confirm that we are discendents of a single human being though, which might well be ‘fallen Adam’.

Evolution is science that is supported by philosophical presuppositions held by faith.

Yes and no.

For some fundamentalist atheists… yes. But that’s a form of extremism.

For a scientist who uses reason then Evolution is based, like all theories, upon some assumptions and upon empirical facts.

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6 KJV)

Yes but it does not say HOW.

A good point is:
**If God is onnipotent and eternally wise, that it is plausible that he dictated the laws of nature in such a way that he would NOT have to break them to creat life or human beings **

Of course the human soul is a different matter, being spiritual and not physical.

 

[Ismael]

That depends on whether or not you are willing to consider the Bible as an authority on Creation. My experience with you is that you are NOT willing to do so.

The Bible is an authority on creation but it’s not a science book. The tale is ALLEGORICAL.

Before the reformation no one tought it was literal: not the Jews, not the Early Fathers, nor pre-reformation Christian theologians (like Thomas Aquinas for example). Maybe ignorant people tought so…

And please tell us where this other life that exists outside of our planet - where is it located that we may put away such “foolish” thoughts about our pinnacality.

Humans remain quite special in both the case there are ‘intelligent aliens’ or not.

If there are not, then we are the only corporeal intelligent (excluding thus angels) beings in the universe… which is pretty special.

If we are not the only corporeal intelligent species in the universe we still are pretty special if God became man to save us… don’t you think?

Is there intelligent life outside Earth? It’s possbile.
Is it probable? here opinions are found in both ends of the spectrum
Where is it if it exists? On a planet somewhere…

 

[rossum]

Are some (StAnastasia) still blithely unaware of the falsifications practised by evolutionists?

While you are still blithely unaware of the falsifications practiced by your sources. You are being lied to by your sources.

He cites: “Ramapithecus”, “Australopithecines”, “Pithecanthropus erectus” (“Java man”), "Piltdown man”, “Sinanthropus” (“Peking man”), “Neanderthal man”,

Ramapithecus, the Australopithecines, Pithecanthropus erectus, Sinanthropus and Neanderthals are all perfectly good fossils. Anybody who calls them “falsifications” is lying. The only falsification in your list is Piltdown Man, which was indeed a forgery. For the rest you are being lied to by your source.

Has scientific and historical integrity improved?

You are the one who is quoting lying sources. Please show what is a “falsification” about the Australopithecines for example.

Beware of sources that follow Christianity Lite[sup]TM[/sup] - the one with 10% less commandments.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

The Theory of Evolution is exactly that - a theory and one that cannot stand up to scrutiny. A theory backed by randomness cannot account for uniformity in nature, laws of logic, laws of morality, etc. We are more than robots but are physical beings with a spirit inextricably woven together. Yes, we can choose - we have creativity, search out the meaning of life, and seek freedom…machines and chemicals do not do this.

To partner with the theory and try to squeeze it into the Bible is not theologically correct either. There are many issues there. One of the main ones being that death would have happened prior to sin…this also would include thorns as well given the propositions of those who preach evolution.

Evolution is science that is supported by philosophical presuppositions held by faith.

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6 KJV)

What I highlighted in red is near to the truth as can be stated. There are scientific facts that support evolution theory, but those facts are separated from the context of their environment and then recontextualized to create a false truth.

Good post, Cling2Cross!

 

[PEPCIS]

“The Theory of Evolution is exactly that - a theory and one that cannot stand up to scrutiny”

Stopped reading.

Hmmmm. No surprise there. Typical of those with closed minds who refuse to engage in real debate. Just want to shout past others, huh?

tjm:

S: theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”

As you noted, the word “theory” also means:

"hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”; “he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was …”

Of course, evolutionists will attempt to claim that the theory of evolution is so accepted that it is as good as a fact. But, no one ever said, EVER, that consensus is fact. However, a concensus of people who believe something and operate according to that belief is nothing more than organized religion.

 

[donsnow]

Donsnow, I’m glad your dogs are content – life is good!

I assume you mean “humanoids” on another planet; humans are biologically part of the terrestrial evolutionary story; another planet might have a very different story.

Which brings us to another interesting question raised by Simon Conway Morris and others: the necessity of DNA. Some exobiologists (i.e., biologists who study the possiblit of extraterrestail life) wonder whether DNA is universal.

That is, could another biochemical process for the transmission of what we call “genetic” information have evolved on a planet with slightly different biochemistry. Or is biochemistry built into the fine-tuning of the universe to bring about life? If God instantiated an evolving cosmos with the fine tuning we seem to observe in the anthropic argument (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle), would the universe be constrained to use more or less the same biochemical method (i.e., DNA) for the transmission of information?

Interesting question.

StAnastasia

Ohhhh, StAnastasia -

That is so beautiful.
But, what am I supposed to do with this mystery of DNA in the universe?
I dunno.
Maybe whether or not God applied DNA universally or not, is one of those little mysteries we all have to live with, with no answer to it.

 

[donsnow]

Don, all:…

…Therefore, we devote ourselves piously to that which is revealed to us and reverently adore Him Who is not fully revealed yet. This also applies to the profane sciences rightly ordered not as masters but as servants of faith.

Good morning, Johnny -

This is where I think I’m at. But, I really appreciate the Church documentation you’ve provided here, for my stand and the stand of others who keep the faith.

 

[Cling2Cross]

Evolutionary theory applied…

A connect the dot with no numbers with the dots 1,000 miles apart. The eye of the evolutionary theorist has his eye 1mm from the paper. Once completed, out pops his presupposition…Mother Nature. I would say this is a good likeness…I invite you to step back, become a child, and see the big picture…

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. (Psalms 19:1-3 KJV)

 

[PEPCIS]

Catholic Johnny,

There are a couple of things that you stated that I’d like to highlight - certainly things that always seem to get lost and left behind in a discussing between Christians. It’s also quite refreshing to hear such sentiments from the Catholic perspective. Thanks!

Don, all:
You must first understand that a modernist approaches the Divine in a completely alien way to the believer.

Here, I believe that you’re being too kind. The “modernist”? Really? This seems like an adjective intended to define those who think and hold to ideas which are indicative of those who reject traditional Christian thought. In that vein, a modernist is one who rejects the traditional teachings of the Church regarding Creationism, and the design of man, and man’s preeminent place in this Creation.

There is at least one or two “Christians” who would fit easily into that category.
Catholic Johnny:

They begin, not with credulity towards the object of our faith, that is to say the Divine Word, but rather as agnostics:

I guess you mean to say that anytime that they (the modernists) approach any traditional teaching of the Church, that they approach it in the typical philosophy of an agnostic, and therefore their conclusions are going to reflect those who are antagonistic to the faith, instead of those who have embraced the faith.

I’ve noticed that with at least one of our members here, that they hold to many of the thoughts of a modernist, and reject clear Catholic teaching, embracing those Catholics on the extreme fringe of orthodoxy, and reaching even into heterodoxy.
Catholic Johnny:

Hence so many “we cannot know” statements.

Ahhh, yes. The favorite place for those “modernists” is in the realm of “we cannot know.” That is because such a position, if we are forced into it (which is their goal) would necessitate that you accept the possibility based solely on their pressupositions, and not on any scientific evidence.

It’s like saying that because their are trillions and trillions of moons, that you could never negate the POSSIBILITY that there could be a moon that is made of swiss cheese, and therefore anyone who tries to claim otherwise is a heretic.
Catholic Johnny:

Moreover, they place religion and science against one another, always with science in the position of critic and judge.

Very true. Stephen Gould did this with his theory of “Non-overlapping magisteria”, which actually succeeded in holding science as superior to religion in categories which science had no ability to give an answer, thereby creating the very controversy he claimed to try resolving.
Catholic Johnny:

Endless speculation about things which cannot be known such as the number of stars, galaxies, etc… is a smoke screen, cover and concealment for the modernist. The Divine Word and human reason render to the ready mind the clear and obvious truth that God placed all things under the feet of men (Psalm 8) and that Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. There are no other worlds to ponder; if there were, God would have revealed it through His servants the Prophets:

And this is really where we, as Christians, should always return: to the Bible and clear doctrinal teaching which shows that we don’t need to speculate because we have the very Word of God to show us, instead of the endless musings and speculations of things which cannot ever be known outside of God’s mind.
Catholic Johnny:

What we can and should know is available to us:

Indeed, within the Word of God.
Catholic Johnny:

What is revealed to us in revealed in Christ Jesus:

Yes. Why is it that He seems to be pushed to the side in all of our pontifications?
Catholic Johnny:

Therefore, we devote ourselves piously to that which is revealed to us and reverently adore Him Who is not fully revealed yet. This also applies to the profane sciences rightly ordered not as masters but as servants of faith.

Thanks for that reminder!

 

[donsnow]

The Bible is an authority on creation but it’s not a science book. The tale is ALLEGORICAL.

Before the reformation no one tought it was literal: not the Jews, not the Early Fathers, nor pre-reformation Christian theologians (like Thomas Aquinas for example). Maybe ignorant people tought so…

Humans remain quite special in both the case there are ‘intelligent aliens’ or not.

If there are not, then we are the only corporeal intelligent (excluding thus angels) beings in the universe… which is pretty special.

If we are not the only corporeal intelligent species in the universe we still are pretty special if God became man to save us… don’t you think?

Is there intelligent life outside Earth? It’s possbile.
Is it probable? here opinions are found in both ends of the spectrum
Where is it if it exists? On a planet somewhere…

I don’t know if there is or is not intelligent life on other planets. My surmise is, that if there were, they might come by here to see the only planet and humans who killed (that crucifixtion cleansing all creation) and buried their/our Creator’s Son. And, then he arose from the grave. Quite a thing to happen, because all the other planets are free of Satan and worship the Holy Trinity and praise and thank Him, naturally.

Just a thought.

 

[donsnow]

What I highlighted in red is near to the truth as can be stated. There are scientific facts that support evolution theory, but those facts are separated from the context of their environment and then recontextualized to create a false truth.

Good post, Cling2Cross!

Excellent post, PEPCIS :tiphat: