Should Christians embrace evolution ?

[donsnow]

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.

Hi, MariaTS -

Well, ma’am, your wording appeared to me to subordinate the Church to Science. Because of the five sentences in your paragraph, four praised science and one acknowledged our Creator.

I prefer it when Christians praise our Creator and acknowledge science. I think maybe the Heavenly Father would prefer that, too, imho.

 

[NowAgnostic]

“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.

Well of course it does! Any evidence could only be circumstantial!

 

[Abu]

While recognition of design in the world is now overwhelming, absolutely no evolutionist mechanism, not Darwinian, not neo-Darwinian nor any other assumed mechanism, has been substantiated, and blind chance and natural selection are fables.

From: rtforum.org/lt/lt117.html
“2. Weaknesses of the Darwinian Theory. Just to mention a few of the weaknesses of the Darwinian theory of evolution treated by Denton in his 1986 book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis], consider the following: a) the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record (prescinding from a handful of exhibits that are all suspect of fraud or misinterpretation); b) the absence of any plausible idea of a mechanism of upward change from the less complex to the more complex or even just to a different species; c) the tremendous complexity of all organisms right down to the living cell, as has now been demonstrated by molecular biology; d) the many organs, such as the lung of a bird and the feather, which could not have been formed “by numerous, successive, slight modifications;” e) the enormous gap between non-living matter and the living cell; f) the necessity of perfect coadaptation of many other components of a living organism in order that one feature may change; g) the fact now known that the life of a living cell depends upon the integrated activities of thousands of different protein molecules.”

The evolutionist deceptions were the prelude to the man-made global warming deceptions, both doing untold harm to mankind, the society, to faith and reason and thus to the integrity of scientists themselves. The Western civilization built by the Catholic Church on faith and reason, which enabled scientic developments, has been weakened badly and can be restored only by a return to faith and reason.

The world’s most renowned former atheist Antony Flew attests: “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

In Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, New York, The Free Press: a division of Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1998, naturalist Dr Andrew Denton believes that DNA “is remarkably fit for directed evolution” (ND 265) but he also admits that the mechanism for the jump from chemistry to living organisms remains to this day, even granted intelligent design, a total mystery (ND 292-293).

 

[donsnow]

Well of course it does! Any evidence could only be circumstantial!

Hi, Now Agnostic -

Bless my soul and bless your heart. You have just made my day. I never thought any of those who favor ID over the Church would admit that.

With that, I’m going off-line and to bed :tiphat:.

 

[MariaTS]

Hi, MariaTS -

Well, ma’am, your wording appeared to me to subordinate the Church to Science. Because of the five sentences in your paragraph, four praised science and one acknowledged our Creator.

I prefer it when Christians praise our Creator and acknowledge science. I think maybe the Heavenly Father would prefer that, too, imho.

Wrong. All of them praised Evolution and Creation equally. Do not take them individually, take them as a whole. I praise God and Science because God created Science. You cannot speak for the Heavenly Father. A divinely intelligent and loving being that is above all would not be so unsophisticated as you would like to believe.

 

[Abu]

NowAgnostic
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…. evolution played a big factor in my decision to leave the Church.

You now have the opportunity to reconsider the fact that God in Jesus of Nazareth built His Church on Peter and so She can neither be “simplistic” nor erroneous in Her dogma and doctrine, despite the fallibility of even popes on matters of economics or science. If She did not exist, there would be no scientific method, no knowledge of intelligence in the development of the universe by atheists and scientists. If you really want to see a simpleton, examine Richard Dawkins’ floundering in a quagmire of self-deception and idiocy when exposed in Answering The New Atheism (Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God) by Drs. Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker, Emmaus Road, 2008. The argument is simple: examine and subscribe to only what is shown to be factually based evidence in science; assent to the dogma and doctrine of Christ through His Church on faith and morals.

From rtforum.org/lt/lt117.html:
‘Darwin knew that he did not have sufficient evidence to back his theory, and none has appeared since then, and yet within a little more than twenty years after 1859, Denton recalled, Darwin’s theory had become an “unchallenged dogma” among modern biologists and remains so to the present day. Darwin’s theory embodied the claim that all biological life on Earth had arisen from exclusively natural and random processes and not from any creative acts of God, but Darwin had no direct empirical evidence that large-scale evolution had ever occurred, and he was not able to point to a single bona fide case where natural selection had actually generated an evolutionary change of any kind, let alone a new species (Denton, ETC 62). Denton pointed out that, in the hierarchy of living biological species, one could continue citing almost ad infinitum complex defining characteristics of particular classes of organisms which are without analogy or precedent in any other part of the living kingdom and are not led up to in any way through a series of transitional structures" (ETC 107), and he went on to show that, if the hierarchic patterns themselves are suggestive of some kind of theory of descent, they do not tell us how the descent may have occurred or “whether the causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or even creationist” ‘(ETC 155).

‘Denton continued his research for a dozen more years into the theory of evolution, and then, in 1998, brought out another outstanding work, entitled *Nature’s Destiny *[ND]. In this new book he continues to defend the theory of evolution and he continues to deny that it could have come about randomly and by chance. The difference from his earlier work is that he now steadfastly proclaims in a new and better way the intelligent design of the universe and of all biological species, which he had also defended in his earlier work as “a purely a priori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy” ‘(ETC 341).
(ETC= Evolution A Theory In Crisis)

 

[Kevroy]

The theory of evolution is solid, but Darwin’s philosophy was terrible. From what I understand, it’s atheism. I think we need to separate the science from the philosophy. Pope John Paul II said that something along the lines of “Evolution is more than a mere hypothesis.”
To me, the description of the universe that science offers, from the big bang to evolution, offers such majestic description of how God created things. Also, in Genesis it says that God created life from “the slime of the earth,” which coincides with what scientists believe about the first life forms, which was sort of like algae that covered the entire planet, i.e. slime.
Also, St. Augustine said something, I don’t remember the quote exactly, the the Earth could have been made in 7 days, or seven times seven days, or some third estimate which is actually twice as old as what scientists believe the earth’s age to be today.
In Hebrew, day could mean 24 hours or it could mean an age. So I don’t see a problem with accepting both Genesis and Evolution.

 

[Abu]

Kevroy, as you seem to have little understanding of the Church’s Scriptures or of science, a careful look at the web references given should be very useful for you. In particular a goldmine is at The Roman Theological Forum: rtforum.org/lt/index.html

You might note that naturalist Dr Andrew Denton believes that DNA “is remarkably fit for directed evolution” (ND 265) but he also admits that the mechanism for the jump from chemistry to living organisms remains to this day, even granted intelligent design, a total mystery (ND 292-293).

Most evolutionists have all sorts of assumptions, and little science, but this eminent molecular biologist says the MECHANISM (how life might have arisen from a chemical soup) is a TOTAL MYSTERY. The big problem is that no claims have been demonstrated to be true out of all the assumptions of mechanisms said to be true, from Darwin to now. The ape ancestors and multitudinous claims are all false – in this gigantic fraud the emperor has no clothes.

 

[StAnastasia]

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.

Donsnow, do you have any evidence to support these extraordinary claims about Darwin?

 

[StAnastasia]

To me, the description of the universe that science offers, from the big bang to evolution, offers such majestic description of how God created things. Also, in Genesis it says that God created life from “the slime of the earth,” which coincides with what scientists believe about the first life forms, which was sort of like algae that covered the entire planet, i.e. slime…

Kevroy, my bible does not use the word “slime.” Rather, God tells the earth and the seas to bring forth appropriate creatures (Genesis 1:20, 24).

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

I praise God and Science because God created Science.

Maria:
God created Adam. Adam, with boundless intellect undiminished by the effects of original sin developed the sciences. Even after the Fall, this masterpiece of the Living God lived for 930 years and taught the entire human race it’s language, arts, sciences, architecture and religion. Far from being the neanderthal evolutionists fantasize, Adam was superior in every way to every created man that followed. Even Jesus is called by St. Paul, the second or last Adam. Adam is extremely relevant to our Christology.

God did not create science. He created a man in His own divine image and likeness. That man bequeathed to the whole human family the roots and foundations of all intellectual and artistic achievment. Part of what is so hideous about you theistic evolutionists your rejection of the Lord God’s limitless power and infinite mastery over His creation. All the double talk about ‘seeing God’s handiwork in evolution’ is a blasphemous rejection of His revealed Word. God did not create Adam from thousands of sub species competing in natural selection through processes of death, disease, mutation and extinction. If it were so, He would have revealed it to us. It is the pinnacle of illogical thinking to believe God would allow His Church to teach error for 1900 years on the doctrine of creation just to have her rebuked by atheists engaged in building a communist Babylon.

Oh! If only you truly feared the Lord and believed His prophets! How foolishly you dismiss Jesus and Moses!

 

[StAnastasia]

If it were so, He would have revealed it to us. It is the pinnacle of illogical thinking to believe God would allow His Church to teach error for 1900 years on the doctrine of creation just to have her rebuked by atheists engaged in building a communist Babylon!

How do you know God didn’t reveal evolution to us? After all, God revealed heliocentrism, gravity, continental drift, cell theory, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and DNA to us. And these things were revealed progressively over a rather long period of time. God even waited until the Church had been teaching geocentrism for 1500 years before correcting her.

StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

How do you know God didn’t reveal evolution to us? After all, God revealed heliocentrism, gravity, continental drift, cell theory, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and DNA to us. And these things were revealed progressively over a rather long period of time. God even waited until the Church had been teaching geocentrism for 1500 years before correcting her.

StAnastasia

According to my sources, God’s revelation to mankind was objectively complete by the death of the last apostle. But then, I’m not a theologian. I guess I should be thankful for that.

Your examples above all reflect the “current current thinking” (as opposed to “past current thinking”) of the scientific community. The only thing you seem to have missed is “Man made catastrophic global warming.”

It seems to me that if God revealed it, it wouldn’t be changing, and all the things you mention have changed. How do you know that these current theories are revealed by God, whereas previous ones were not? How do you know that these are the end of the trail?

Science is not God.

 

[buffalo]

God even waited until the Church had been teaching geocentrism for 1500 years before correcting her.

StAnastasia

Really now - your claim is the Holy Spirit arbiter of truth was sleeping on the job?

 

[StAnastasia]

It seems to me that if God revealed it, it wouldn’t be changing, and all the things you mention have changed. How do you know that these current theories are revealed by God, whereas previous ones were not? How do you know that these are the end of the trail? Science is not God.

Of course science is not God, and of course these are not the end of the trail. I was merely following the logic of Catholic Johnny, who said “It is the pinnacle of illogical thinking to believe God would allow His Church to teach error for 1900 years on the doctrine of creation just to have her rebuked by atheists.”

It is no more illogical to think that scientific conclusions change in biology than it is to recognize that scientific conclusions change in physiology, anatomy, geology, astronomy, chemistry, or physics. Since these latter sciences have changed our worldview since 1500, why should we not complain about “God allowing His Church to teach error for 1900 years” on other subjects?

StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

Of course science is not God, and of course these are not the end of the trail. I was merely following the logic of Catholic Johnny, who said “It is the pinnacle of illogical thinking to believe God would allow His Church to teach error for 1900 years on the doctrine of creation just to have her rebuked by atheists.”

It is no more illogical to think that scientific conclusions change in biology than it is to recognize that scientific conclusions change in physiology, anatomy, geology, astronomy, chemistry, or physics. Since these latter sciences have changed our worldview since 1500, why should we not complain about “God allowing His Church to teach error for 1900 years” on other subjects?

StAnastasia

Because science changes our worldview does not mean that science is God, or that it has any relationship to God’s revelation.

Does God’s revelation change, or not?

 

[StAnastasia]

Really now - your claim is the Holy Spirit arbiter of truth was sleeping on the job?

I didn’t mention the Holy Spirit. I merely meant that the Church – through Her natural philosophers, theologians, pastors, monks, bishops, etc. – taught within a geocentric framework for 1,500 years or more, and then changed that framework.

 

[StAnastasia]

Because science changes our worldview does not mean that science is God, or that it has any relationship to God’s revelation. Does God’s revelation change, or not?

God’s revelation unfolds, deepens, and becomes enriched.

 

[twinc]

How do creationists who believe the ‘literal account’ of Genesis deal with the two different accounts given therein?

Genesis 1-2:3, states that the earth, the plants, the animals and the first two human beings are created in that order. In the rest of Genesis 2, Adam is made first, then all plants and animals, and then Eve.

This appears contradictory and thus is problematic for those w

ho state that creation occured as described in Genesis. How is it resolved?

a problem only for you and some others but no problem for creationists,and this is one of the most frequently asked questions answered by any creationist website.This is in the main asked by those who doubt the Bible is inerrant and that somehow,somewhere in error or contradiction.In this case it is not contradictory but complimentary - twinc

 

[cassini]

How do you know God didn’t reveal evolution to us? After all, God revealed heliocentrism, gravity, continental drift, cell theory, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and DNA to us. And these things were revealed progressively over a rather long period of time. God even waited until the Church had been teaching geocentrism for 1500 years before correcting her.

StAnastasia

St A., given the Church defined and declared what you say above is formal heresy as regards heliocentrism, and has never abrogated this definition, I must challenge this new religion of yours. The Church never TAUGHT geocentrism, the Church does not teach science and certainly not heresy. God never revealed heliocentrism. God revealed geocentrism as can be witnessed by the senses and confirmed geocentrism in His Scriptures.

If you cannot accept those things the Church has TAUGHT, what worth your other opinions?