Humans are not descendents of apes. Apes and humans diverged from a common ancestor. In other words, supposedly I am no different than my cousin chilly chimp. The real question is at what point did the origin of the truly complete human species take place. Evolutionists hold that humans are not a separate, distinct species which is different in kind from all other species.
Ed, DonSnow, friends:
Now, these troublers of men’s souls openly, audatiously and brazenly pour contempt on the warnings of Peter, and promulgate pride, self-righteousness, contempt of the Teaching Authority of the Church, and spread these miserable errors throughout the world as though Peter approved. One can only wonder what wrath awaits them for the willfull pollution of so many innocents, in whose defense our Blessed Redeemer warned:
This is not merely a matter of quibbling about semantics and scientific arguments; the souls of many are being wounded and lost because of those that syncretize the purity of Christian Faith with these pagan theories that reduce the faith to a mere set of pious ethics and ahistoric traditions.
An ape is one of God’s many creatures, over which we are given dominion. You and I have no dominion over each other nor other people, without their consent. An ape’s consent is not required, it has no rights.
An ape is one of God’s many creatures, over which we are given dominion. You and I have no dominion over each other nor other people, without their consent. An ape’s consent is not required, it has no rights.
Nevertheless, the ape should still be respected as one of the Creator’s creatures.
Oh, Albert,
I have learned to censor what I read. For fundamental questions, I stick to the Church and am reading through the CCC. Then, I have a copy of an English translation of St. Augustine’s City of God, that I want to read. At present, I have paused to read a Clive Cussler novel for entertainment.
One time, about 1980, I was in Boston and walking. After awhile, I saw I was on a campus. The lawns were well kept and the buildings, too, although they were older. I saw a young man setting on the steps of one building, and asked him where I was. He answered, “M.I.T.”.
All of a sudden, I was filled with reverence, for all the knowledge, there.
I’m not against college, nor science, but against misusing them to lead people from God.
What you call evolution, I see as Creation. All the data on this planet, the moon, other planets etc, shout out the existence of our Creator. He has made an impact on my life. He’s real. As real as you. As real as me. It saddens me, thay you use your time to part company from Him. He loves you. He loves all His Creation.
We’re all God’s creatures, all of us and everything on this planet and this planet, sun, moon, other planets, stars…all God’s creatures. Just some of us are His children.
I wish you knew what you were missing.
Ok i will try again… Real slow now, and this has NOTHING to do with evolution we are talking about biological classification. You do know Carl Linnaeus was a creationist, in fact do you even know who Carl Linnaeus is??? Is again, and please answer the question…
Thank you, friend.Don, thanks for sharing your personal experiences - they matter. Evolutionists are fond of babbling about abstractions, theories, models, hypotheses, formulae, etc… They react with great acidity however when pressed to admit to evolutionism’s fruits in the domain of social science, philosophy, and political theory. The fruit of evolutionism is decay, loss of faith, degeneracy, utopianism, war and mass murder. Anyone who owns a history book can see this very plainly.Thanks, Catholic Johnny -
That’s a big help. Reminds me when in public school during the '40’s and '50’s and '61 we became aware of the big Commie repeated lies vs what was true for our Republic. The whole Cold War was a war of ideas, back up by nuclear missiles.The thing is, those of us who lived through that war learned to listen for the message, compared to the truth.
Science has data, math, hypothesis and theories, but little truth, imho.
The arts play too much with the truth, imho.
The Catholic Church takes the truth very seriously and has the truth, imho.
Your (name removed by moderator)ut really helped at this time, sir, to remind me of where I’ve been and where I’m at.
Bless you.
Maybe the answer lies in the common ancestor. Maybe the answer is that humans are not the same as apes, period. Maybe the time frame from divergence was so long that humans became a distinct, separate species different in kind from apes and their common ancestor.
An ape is a member of the Hominoidea family, this includes HUMANS!!!
So if you don’t agree… define APE!
Love the implications. Our technological advances are going to be our demise - not evolution.Do you mean this kind of difference?
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=4715
Where did you get the idea of this uninvolved God? Certainly, God spoke through the prophets. We say that at Mass. God delivered the Israelites out of bondage. And God so loved the world that He sent His Son. When was God not involved?
Carl Linnaeus - evolutionary classification??? Your kidding right?
Hello MonFrere,
I think you are missing the subtle distinctions Benedict would have made. The soul is an objective, non-material, and immortal reality of human nature. It is a spiritual substance that can subsist of its own, but it is an incomplete substance since its nature is to be united to a physical body as the life and organizing principle of the body.
The bible does not say much about the “soul” in the sense that we use the term. The Platonic error is to conceive of man as a soul, only. Plato believed that man was temporarily imprisoned in a body for past offenses. Through deiformity, conforming oneself to God by acquiring virtue, the soul escapes re-incarnation into another body.
Neo-Platonic dualism was replaced in Catholic philosophy by St.Thomas Aquinas’ more accurate understanding of the nature of the soul and body. Aquinas’ doctrine is a moderate dualism of a spiritual soul united as the life and organizing principle of the body. Plato’s view, on the other hand, was an extreme dualism in which man, as stated above, is only a soul; while the body is a prison house. Rene Descartes’ thinking represents another well-known version of extreme dualism.
While I’m not normally going to argue theology here, I’d just like to point out that this means the Church doesn’t reject any and all theories of evolution. Moreover, with God the kick starter there is a truly causal role for divine providence. The initial conditions would need to be set right.
Monod’s position appears to be self-refuting, unless I have missed something. For there to be “mistakes” there has to be a teleology, a “correct” direction in the first place.
Teleology of some sort must exist, but that does not mean it is recognized in one’s evolution theory.
Is true culture even possible in a highly technological society, a society committed to achieving technological progress at the fastest rate possible?
But if one’s evolution theory appeals to “mistakes” then one is implicitly assuming a teleology. If there’s no teleology there are no “mistakes”.
Monod’s evolutionary theory was different - he was appealing to “mistakes” rather than “blind chance” or “randomness” as is usual.
Right. I should not have added chance and randomness issue, since that could be a long discussion.
I’ll do my response over. Granted there are problems with the role Monod gives to “mistakes”. However, teleology in nature never implies nature working infallibly towards its goal. It implies only that ends are achieved for the most part.
Agreed. I had a certain philosophical notion in mind that I disagreed with, but it may not apply after all to Monod’s unstated presumptions.
Agreed. I did not have in mind a mere sequence of events.
Thanks Itinerant for your reply. I’m still in the process of trying to understand all this correctly and accurately and your reply helped me get some pieces better positioned in my thinking.
