Should Christians embrace evolution ?

[ricmat]

Thanks for your effort and for reporting it; now, I know it’s neither my computer nor my server.

Here’s another site with the same e-sword stuff on it.

Also, the sites below have additional “modules” that can be downloaded and used with the E-sword software.

esnips.com/web/CatholicApolegetics/

davidcox.com.mx/e-swordmodules/bibles.html

These files are pretty big, so with a slow connection it may take a while to download…

 

[Kevroy]

St. Pius X solemnly warns you so-called theistic evolutionists in the Papal Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis to examine your errors in the light evolutionism’s effect on belief

I think the Pope in this circumstance is warning against the heresy of modernism trying to apply evolution to religion and not to the actual physical evolution of life. Modernists were attempting to undermine the faith by taking documented scientific occurrences and applying them to culture, which is were the problem the Pope was talking about comes from. The problem is not with the science itself, only with the philosophy.

 

[Kevroy]

No - you are missing the point by a wide margin. We observe what we observe, the devil enters in when we start the human reasoning process.

Actually the devil is not allowed to interfere with the our higher faculties, which are seated in the soul, i.e. our intellect and will. He can’t actually effect our ability to reason, but he can effect our body. So he can affect our brain, which is where our lower cognitive faculties come from, like memory and imagination.

 

[buffalo]

Actually the devil is not allowed to interfere with the our higher faculties, which are seated in the soul, i.e. our intellect and will. He can’t actually effect our ability to reason, but he can effect our body. So he can affect our brain, which is where our lower cognitive faculties come from, like memory and imagination.

So he cannot lead us to sin?

 

[Abu]

StAnastasia
the world’s paleontological museums are crammed with transitional fossil sequences.
As for your second claim, can you offer some examples of “fakes by those without integrity"?

Those so blinded by assumptions fail persistently to seek the facts, already made available.

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)….”

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.”

rtforum.org/lt/lt135.html:
On the Jesuit Fr. Telhard de Chardin: "As a non-degreed ‘scientist,’ he turned out to be a brazen deceiver with his participation in two anthropological frauds: the hoax of Piltdown man and the false fabrication and announcement of the so-called Peking man.

W.R. Thompson in his Introduction to *The Origin of Species *(1956): “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 first elementary fact to grasp is that:
"Evolution is not a theory of empirical science; it is an 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." [LT141 - REGARDING THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION]](LT141 - REGARDING THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION])

“….whenever science tries to explain a unique historical event, careful testing and replicability are by definition impossible…(but) science can see the effects that a designer has had on life.” Journal of Molecular Evolution, 34, 277 1992, summarising his [Richard Dickerson’s] views on science and religion. (Behe : Darwin’s Black Box, p 238-243].

"This is an historical theory aimed at explaining how the concrete forms of biological life on Earth today actually arose. As an historical theory it is not called upon to be predictive of how new species will arise; it is only required to verify that this historical succession of events took place." [LT124 - Francis S. Collins and The Language of God - Part I: Random Change Versus Intelligent Design]](LT124 - Francis S. Collins and The Language of God - Part I: Random Change Versus Intelligent Design])
[My emphasis].

 

[Kevroy]

So he cannot lead us to sin?

I didn’t say that, I said he can’t interfere with our higher faculties, like our intellect (reason). He can however interfere with our imagination, which is predominantly how he leads us to sin. Also, out of the three sources of temptation (the world, the flesh, and the devil) he is the weakest. There is some fascinating stuff about this on sensustraditionis.org Just be sure to follow the penanceware guidelines at the top for anything that you download. The info on demons is toward the bottom of the page under spiritual warfare, and a few others are spiritual theology.

 

[buffalo]

I didn’t say that, I said he can’t interfere with our higher faculties, like our intellect (reason). He can however interfere with our imagination, which is predominantly how he leads us to sin. Also, out of the three sources of temptation (the world, the flesh, and the devil) he is the weakest. There is some fascinating stuff about this on sensustraditionis.org Just be sure to follow the penanceware guidelines at the top for anything that you download. The info on demons is toward the bottom of the page under spiritual warfare, and a few others are spiritual theology.

I still have an issue - the Devil did play with Adam and Eve’s higher faculties.

 

[Kevroy]

I still have an issue - the Devil did play with Adam and Eve’s higher faculties.

Not directly. He didn’t interfere with their free will and make them eat the fruit, and He didn’t actually go into them and interfere with their reasoning process; what he did was talk to them, they chose to listen, they chose to accept his lie, and they thought themselves into it. It’s kind of like if I tell you that stealing a car is a good idea, I’m not interfering with you’re higher faculties, I’m just tempting you. It’s entirely up to you to choose whether to steal the car or not.

 

[buffalo]

Not directly. He didn’t interfere with their free will and make them eat the fruit, and He didn’t actually go into them and interfere with their reasoning process; what he did was talk to them, they chose to listen, they chose to accept his lie, and they thought themselves into it. It’s kind of like if I tell you that stealing a car is a good idea, I’m not interfering with you’re higher faculties, I’m just tempting you. It’s entirely up to you to choose whether to steal the car or not.

But I used my reasoning powers to buy the lie and do the act.

 

[StAnastasia]

Not directly. He didn’t interfere with their free will and make them eat the fruit, and He didn’t actually go into them and interfere with their reasoning process; what he did was talk to them, they chose to listen, they chose to accept his lie, and they thought themselves into it. It’s kind of like if I tell you that stealing a car is a good idea, I’m not interfering with you’re higher faculties, I’m just tempting you. It’s entirely up to you to choose whether to steal the car or not.

So the devil has miraculous powers. Are these equal to or less than those of God? Equal to or less than those of God?

 

[edwest2]

I’m sorry, but just because a belief is based upon a scientific theory doesn’t mean that the idea follows logically or necessarily from what it is based upon. There are many erroneous versions of Christianity that are based on the gospel of Jesus Christ. It does not follow that all the gospels are false.

Its very simple. How scary that i live in a world with people who cannot grasp something so simple.

I am not speaking for the Church. I am telling you what the Church has told me!

So according to you the Church teaches that the scientific theory of evolution is an evil lie promoted by modernists and atheists?

Its not hard to Google the churches official position on the theory of evolution. But you are only interested in promoting fallacious propaganda. There is no excuse. Perhaps your pride will not allow you to see the light. The Catholic Church, in so far as divine revelation is concerned, neither accepts evolution or rejects it as a core teaching of the faith; simply because it s not a matter of faith. Its a scientific matter. In so for as theology is concerned, there are no irreconcilable elements in the Theory Of Evolution; and that is to say there is no contradictions in what has been purported to be scientifically proven evidentially speaking.

If there was an intrinsic problem with the theory of evolution, they would not support it at all; they would explicitly condemn it in its entirety and would not waste time trying to explain whats okay to believe about evolution and what is not. The Pope would not say publicly that the Theory of Evolution is more than a hypothesis, since that is giving the theory scientific respectability, and thus an element of truth. He would have rejected it as materialist propaganda. The Pope knows what evolution involves. Evolution involves chance, biological change, as well as natural selection as a defining element in the development of living organisms. Without these factors, there is no theory of evolution. It either happened or it didn’t. The Church rejects materialism and is very explicit about what is acceptable for a christian to believe. Christians are free to believe the theory of evolution as represented by the scientific theory and the evidence, so long as it is in respect of their faith, judgment, and conscience; but only this and not that which is taught by materialist propaganda.

It does not deny it either, and it has not and never will accept the idea that there is an intrinsic contradiction between Church teaching and the theory of evolution.

Then i am afraid you already missed the funeral.

The theory of evolution is not a form of worship. It is a scientific theory, which you are free to reject or accept according to Catholic teaching.

Worshipping the mind of man has been mentioned here. Why should any rational person give up their rationality to believe in faeries or God or pink unicorns? No evidence, No God. Right?

There are problems with the theory of evolution. The Church recognizes more than one theory of evolution. And Communion and Stewardship, part 64, places Pope John Paul II’s comment in its proper context.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

In the current atheist school system, as opposed to one not long ago when prayer was allowed, the biology textbook explains a self-generating and self-operating engine that runs on random mutations. Any theory that explicitly denies to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe is a problem for the Church.

Consider the numerous posts here that supposedly disprove Adam and Eve. The link is direct. It was all natural - no God required. The textbook supports this. It came into being by itself, it spit out organisms by itself. Why add anything supernatural to the process? It’s not necessary and that’s what the Church is trying to tell people: a creative Reason not a creative Unreason existed.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

Also, out of the three sources of temptation (the world, the flesh, and the devil) he is the weakest.

It was my understanding that the three sources of temptation are desires of the flesh, desire for power, and desire for fame/glory (per St. Thomas in Summa Theologiae). These, in fact, line up with the temptations of Jesus in the desert (turn these stones into bread, I will give you all these kingdoms, and if you are God, your angels will save you). Obviously, the devil was involved in all 3 of those temptations.

If there are temptations greater than what the devil can bring to bear, then it seems that Jesus wasn’t actually tempted to the full extent we are. And that would be a problem for Hebrews 4:15.

 

[rossum]

Those so blinded by assumptions fail persistently to seek the facts, already made available.

Among the facts already made available to you are:

1. *]Dr Denton has written a second book (Nature’s Destiny, 1998) which repudiates many of his arguments from his first book, the one which you quote from so freely.
   *]We had many transitional fossils when Denton published, and we have found many more since.
   
   I can agree with you on “blinded by assumptions fail persistently to seek the facts” but not, I suspect, in a way which you would support.
   
   In your favour, I suspect that you do not actually have a copy of Denton but are relying on a creationist website for your quotes. If that creationist website failed to mention Denton’s revised opinions then that website is lying by omission. If that is the case then I suggest that you avoid that lying website in future.
   
   rossum

 

[edwest2]

To rossum -

Do you know or can you guess as to why that lying web site would publish such information? What do they get out of it?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Abu]

To Rossum and any whose powers of observation are as limited, see:

Post #498: The claimed mechanism for evolution – random chance and natural selection – does not exist and none is known. Further, “….the mechanism for the jump from chemistry to living organisms remains to this day, even granted intelligent design, a total mystery.”** (Dr Michael Denton, ND 292-293).**

Post #25, 29/11/09 Re: Evolution not compatible:
“Denton incisively notes that evolution is an historical theory, not a scientific one, where he says that, if dynamically stable patterns of electrons, protons, and neutrons could be worked out in relation to biological life, ‘this would transform biology from a purely historical science to one with a logical, dynamic foundation’ (ND 284).

For those of limited observation, ND = Nature’s Destiny by Michael Denton, 1998.

**See #23, 29/11/09
Re: Evolution not Compatible **

According to Darwinian theory, which states that new species arose as a result of many successive small changes over a long period of time, there should be in the fossil record an enormous number of specimens with partially formed organs, such as part of a wing, or of an arm, or of an eye, or of a heart, etc., but they have never appeared.

No transitional fossils exist except in the mind, not in reality.

 

[StAnastasia]

No transitional fossils exist except in the mind, not in reality.

All fossils are transitional.

 

[donsnow]

Perhaps the evilushunist siuntists made all the “fossils” in there labitories and went around the wurld at nite, berrying them so we wold digg them up and think their real and bulieve they’re evil theiry about specie like munkies coming from lezards and men from microbes

Love your accent; so, did you take accent from “The Beverly Hillbillys”, then?

 

[donsnow]

All fossils are transitional.

Maybe there’s a difference of interpretation, here?
I go along with that fossils with partially developed members of body or organs would demonstrate transitional attributes.
What definition of transitional are you and general evolutionists going by?

Yes, semantics are important: it’s all in the interpretation of the data. To paraphrase Stephen Hawkings’ little ole turtle lady, “It’s interpretation, all the way down.”

 

[Abu]

StAnastasia
All fossils are transitional

Wow, do the neo-Darwinists know that? You’ve solved their biggest problem with the stroke of a PC!
Correct definition of a fossil: The remains (or an impression) of a plant or animal that existed in a past geological age and that has been excavated from the soil.
That’s what makes any theory of evolution an historical exercise – empirical sciences can then be used to try to look for a relationship to other fossils and a possible mechanism of change.

BTW (#523) for those with short memories: Dr Denton in his 1986 book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis], asserted: “….the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record (prescinding from a handful of exhibits that are all suspect of fraud or misinterpretation)….”

Denton “maintains that the Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) theory of mindless evolution has no scientific or historical evidence to back it up….” (ND 280)
[LT117 - Michael Denton's Nature's Destiny - Book Review]](LT117 - Michael Denton's Nature's Destiny - Book Review])

On being asked why he had not included any examples of transitional forms in his book Evolution, Dr Colin Patterson replied: “If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.”(1979). [Quoted in *Darwin’s Enigma, 1984, p 89, Luther D Sunderland, Master Books].
[Dr Patterson was the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History].

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

I think the Pope in this circumstance is warning against the heresy of modernism trying to apply evolution to religion and not to the actual physical evolution of life. Modernists were attempting to undermine the faith by taking documented scientific occurrences and applying them to culture, which is were the problem the Pope was talking about comes from. The problem is not with the science itself, only with the philosophy.

Kevroy,
In all honesty, brother, how can they not apply evolution to religion? This is the grave danger posed by so-called theistic evolution. In Pascendi Dominici Gregis St. Pius X explains how the modernist always makes faith the servant to science. Its part of their agnostic philosophy. There is no satisfying way to ‘baptize’ evolutionism without destroying significant chunks of revelation: special creation, the Sabbath Day, imageo dei, original sin, redemption, ect… Modernism is not content to ravage Genesis 1-3; they use that as the springboard to apply evolutionary principles to dogma itself. How can anyone separate the two? If evolution is true, then we are members a changing species that will evolve beyond the Christianity of the Scriptures. That position is roundly rejected by Pascendi and Humani Generis as well as many other Papal Encyclicals as monism and pantheism.

Hear Tielhard:

It [evolution] is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must henceforward satisfy if t hey are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow (P, 219) . … evolution has finally invaded everything … all nuclear physics, all astral physics, all chemistry are in their manner `evolutionary.’ And the whole history of civilization and ideas is at least as much so (V, 246).

Hear Pius X:

1. To conclude this whole question of faith and its various branches, we have still to consider, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about the development of the one and the other. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death – dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself.
2. The result of this dismembering of the records, and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming generally that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed from a primitive brief narration, by additions, by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretations, or parts introduced only for the purpose of joining different passages together. This means, to put it briefly and clearly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with the evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of it. Indeed, this history they actually do write, and with such an easy assurance that one might believe them to have seen with their own eyes the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labor to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their assured verdict as to whether a thing is or is not out of place. Let him who can judge how far they are qualified in this way to make such distinctions. To hear them descant of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even turned over the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men.

Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary description of the apologetic method of the Modernists, in perfect harmony with their doctrines – methods and doctrines replete with errors, made not for edification but for destruction, not for the making of Catholics but for the seduction of those who are Catholics into heresy; and tending to the utter subversion of all religion.

So you see Kevroy, St. Pius X will not grant dual tracks, one to natural science (and it’s attendant atheist/agnostic philosophy) and another to divine revelation. The Word of God is transcendant, not subject to scientific scrutiny or rationalism or any of the other maidens of modernism. Once one accepts any tenet of evolution, he has joined hands with satan and is actively aiding and abetting the destruction of religion and more importantly, the damnation of immortal souls.