So...are the evolutionists here saying that direct special creationism is impossible?

[Tom_of_Assisi]

So my final evolution question is: do the evolutionists think, according to the atheistic scientists they read,** that it is impossible for Adam and Eve to be a direct special creation** from God as described in the Bible? Must we have evolved, according to the laws of nature, from Apes (uh, er, I mean the common ancestor of men and apes–which of course WAS AN APE!!!)?

And before you say it—yes I’m a Catholic “fundamentalist.”

And Phil, yes I am an exceptionally lazy person who is soooo lazy that I would never dream of exerting myself so as to read a book or visit any web page…

[now that that’s out of the way–to the answer if you please]…must we have evolution?

 

[kwitz]

[now that that’s out of the way–to the answer if you please]
…must we have evolution?

No, I definitely don’t think we MUST have evolution although I allow that it is an option. God’s method of creation is not known to me.

However, even if evolution is true, Adam & Eve are directly created by God. The way I understand and accept this is: God began the process of creating the world and let evolution be that method. BUT, he stepped back directly into creation when it came time to create humans. I don’t believe that a “missing link” will ever be found because that link has to be God.

I accept a theistic evolutionary theory but am not overly attached to it. I hope this makes sense.

Kris

 

[turboEDvo]

kwitz:

No, I definitely don’t think we MUST have evolution although I allow that it is an option. God’s method of creation is not known to me.

However, even if evolution is true, Adam & Eve are directly created by God. The way I understand and accept this is: God began the process of creating the world and let evolution be that method. BUT, he stepped back directly into creation when it came time to create humans. I don’t believe that a “missing link” will ever be found because that link has to be God.

I accept a theistic evolutionary theory but am not overly attached to it. I hope this makes sense.

Kris

I find that the exact method of creation is far less important to my faith than the messages provided in the story. There is evdience or lack thereof to argue either way. But, like Kris said, I’m not attached to evolution, I just leave it open.

Eamon

 

[Fashina86]

evolution is perfectly okay for Catholics to believe in… just remember that God put His hand in it ast some point and gave the human a soul that made them differnt from the animals.

God Bless–JMJ
Laura

 

[JimG]

Adam and Eve certainly had to be a “special creation” of God, since they had spiritual souls, and spirit cannot evolve.

That says nothing about whether their bodily forms might have evolved over the course of millennia before those two were endowed by their creator with spiritual souls.

Science, as such, is incapable of studying spirit. It is concerned only with matter and energy. (Philosophy can study the spiritual. It is not as though we have no experience of spirit–since we each are also endowed with a soul which is spirit.) Because of that, scientists studying or speculating about the evolution of populations of hominids certainly could not say that this group was “human” in the way that theologians mean “human”–i.e. composed of body and soul, having mind and will.

That’s why I don’t really see much profit in the argument, or any problem with allowing both science and theology to study their own proper spheres.

The problem arises, I suppose, because human beings, viewed accurately as a composite of body and soul, are by definition not totally appropriate subjects for scientific study, since the spiritual side is not amenable to science. Science by definition cannot advert to the soul. Theology cannot ignore it.

 

[PhilVaz]

TomA << And Phil, yes I am an exceptionally lazy person who is soooo lazy that I would never dream of exerting myself so as to read a book or visit any web page… >>

Ah ha, I knew it! But you will look at a picture!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Adam is the one holding the spear, Noah the rake, and Abraham the jackhammer. We’re near the front on the computer. DCDurel is the one at the back of the line.

Phil P

 

[MaggieOH]

I believe in taking the each way bet (not that I vote at the TAB) on this issue. First of all, I believe that there are grounds for accepting evolution but that part of the theory that involves Darwin’s “Origins of the species”. I think that there is adequate evidence to prove that the world was not created in 6 literal days. What I believe is that God created the order of the world, including man, and that this creation occurred over a long period of time. Man is different from the animals because of man’s higher intellect. I do not accept the alleged relationship between dolphins and man.

Maggie

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

turboEDvo:

I find that the exact method of creation is far less important to my faith than the messages provided in the** story**.
Eamon

I hear what you are saying…but if man can evolve from animals according to natural laws (what the vast majority of evolutionists assert) then there is no proof or need of God. Therefore the creation narrative and indeed the entire Christian drama become little more than a story. Therein is the problem I think.

If God’s exact method of creation just happend to be the same way that nature would naturally have done it then it should cause us to pause.

Remember that most scientists do not believe there is a soul at all…can we on the one hand accept the atheistic scientific view of the body…but then privately insert a soul in the process somewhere?

 

[RSiscoe]

PhilVaz:

TomA << And Phil, yes I am an exceptionally lazy person who is soooo lazy that I would never dream of exerting myself so as to read a book or visit any web page… >>

Ah ha, I knew it! But you will look at a picture!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Adam is the one holding the spear, Noah the rake, and Abraham the jackhammer. We’re near the front on the computer. DCDurel is the one at the back of the line.

Phil P

Phill,

That DCDurel comment was hilarious. No offence DC, I would have laughed just as hard if the joke would have been on me.

I actually think I am beginning to understand why so many people have been deceived by “the evolution hoax”. It is finally dawning on me and it makes perfect sense.

I will give my “theory” as to why on the “evolution hoax” thread, but I am waiting for a few answers before I do.

 

[Ghosty]

I hear what you are saying…but if man can evolve from animals according to natural laws (what the vast majority of evolutionists assert) then there is no proof or need of God. Therefore the creation narrative and indeed the entire Christian drama become little more than a story. Therein is the problem I think.

This may come as a shock to you, but there never has been proof or need for God. What you are doing is making the story contingent upon your conclusion, rather than visa versa. What I mean by that is you believe God is real, therefore the story must be true, even though the story is designed to show that God is real. You are making a grave error in logic.

God as we know it has never been necessary. Look at all the people who believe differently. Look at all the different creation myths that, logically speaking, could just as easily be true. We believe in God not because of the weight of evidence in Scripture, but because we have faith. It is because we have faith that we are able to accept scripture in the first place. Believing in God because of some “necessity” is a very poor place to hold your faith because it is constantly threatened by rational alternative explainations (which might explain why you are so hostile towards rational arguments that differ from your beliefs). My faith is not shaken by the plausibility of the Hindu creation story, because I know that it isn’t true by virtue of my faith. My contingencies are in the proper order, in other words.

 

[awalt]

I agree totally - we believe because we have faith. For example, to me I can’t see how flying creatures evolved, because you can’t evolve from 0 wings to two - 0 works, two works, anything in between does not. But I am confident and assured that some PhD will come in and explain how that all makes total sense, despite the fact that there is little in life that I am aware of where a model of constant incremental change forever is viable - it breaks down at some point.

Faith…

PS - boy is this site slow today!!!

 

[dcdurel]

PhilVaz:

Adam is the one holding the spear, Noah the rake, and Abraham the jackhammer. We’re near the front on the computer. DCDurel is the one at the back of the line.
Phil P

Philip Johnson noted very often the reaction of those who support an evolution by chance without God. Instead of discussing the issues, which they can’t explain, as the formation of extremely complex cells by random chemicals, they resort to ad hominim attacks, as above.

That is why today 40% of scientists themselves have been disgusted with the evasions, ad hominem attacks, delays in discussing the truth, etc,. and now believe in evolution by design, in other words, God directed evolution. Eventually they will all come around, just as the Einstein and the astrophysicists have done.

 

[Ghosty]

Flight is actually a perfect example of why pure Darwinian evolution is virtually impossible as we understand it. Anyone who’s seen a bird with a few clipped feathers knows that wing and feather design must be almost perfectly optimized for any kind of proper flight, and there is almost no room for error. I consider myself a reasonably bright fellow, and I definately accept evolution, but I see no way that random mutation and natural selection can account for true flight among avians.