The Problem of DARWIN'S EVIL

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Catholic church has always until recently taught a literal creation, now they sit on the fence
And how is the question irrelevant? and why is it not answered by anyone other than we don’t believe that any more. I could also show you many fathers who taught a literal creation Luke being one of them.
And how are we Created in Gods image if we came from Apes?
You need to answer questions not sweep them under the rug and say I’;m off to the high ground to look down on the uneducated. God never even hints at evolution through out the old and new testaments but he does attest to it being literal when he says it was not like this in the beginning when God created Man and woman.
But science that has been proven wrong many many times and has many many times tried to fraud the public with old bones is always right?> I think it becomes very relevant.
 
sevenswords said:
The Catholic church has always until recently taught a literal creation,
Click to expand...
That is not true. St. Augustine a doctor of the church clearly had different ideas. He clearly made a distinction between the literal words of genesis and how he thought creation happened in the real world when he said that creation happens all at once in an instant instead of 6 days. He wasn’t called a liar or a heretic.

While it may be true that a literal interpretation may have been popular since we had no reason to think otherwise, the idea that a literal interpretation was infallible church doctrine until recently is not true, and is most certainly a lie by anybody who persists to the contrary.

ST. AUGUSTINE VS. YOUNG EARTHERS AND GEOCENTRISTS.

St. Augustine held that God created the universe from nothing. Two fundamental (and surprisingly modern) notions were introduced by Augustine: first, Creation was instantaneous (from the Old Testament teachings of Sirach, he argued that six days was a metaphorical device); second, not all animal forms were present initially at creation—for some, the potential or seed to develop later in a different form was given initially (justifying evolution and the descent of species?). He also stressed that one should not use Scripture to contradict what reason and experience (“Science”) tells us about the world:

> “Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”( De Genesi ad litteram; the Literal Meaning of Genesis, an unfinished work.)

rationalcatholic.blogspot.com

Let's Hear it for St. Augustine--a Theologian for Our Times

blog about science and the Catholic Church, by a retired rational Catholic Scientist.
rationalcatholic.blogspot.com rationalcatholic.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
My Friend, I pasted an article here for you, many take this position that the Church Fathers taught this, This article will show that out of 24 Church Fathers only 1 taught that the ages my be longer and he based this on his belief that the sun could not set on God when he was creating so a day could not be a day and it was not his thought to begin with.
I hope you get a better understanding of why Some try to rehash the bible to make it palatable to pagans, and move away from tradition. I believe we need to hold to traditions so let the traditions show you, please enjoy reading.
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43
 
sevenswords said:
out of 24 Church Fathers only 1 taught that the ages my be longer and he based this on his belief that the sun could not set on God when he was creating so a day could not be a day and it was not his thought to begin with.
Click to expand...
It’s never been church doctrine that a literal interpretation of genesis is the only possible way to interpret genesis. You just showed us a Church Father whom respected this fact to add further proof to my point. The popularity of an opinion is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
This thread is for those Christians who think that natural evolution is an intrinsically evil process and that therefore Christians must reject the theory in principle.
Click to expand...
Evolution is a scientific theory. Science is not true or untrue based on beliefs. Gravity works whether I believe in it or not. I don’t believe in evolution because I see no evidence to support it. I see much more evidence to support intelligent design.
 
The problem I see is that some people have latched on to evolution with religious zeal. If you don’t accept the theory as fact, you are too religious or close minded or the like.
 
Anybody who argues that a literal interpretation of genesis is infallible church doctrine is being dishonest.

That’s all i have to say on the matter because that’s the only point that is relevant in so far as official Catholic Teaching is concerned.

If you are not Catholic, then this does not apply to you and you are welcome to define Christian truth according to popular vote if you so choose…
 
Last edited:
Hello IWantGod, this topic is definitely worthy of its own thread. Because of time constraints I’ll hold off on getting involved except to provide the instigating quote for this discussion (I figure it should be posted for the sake of fairness to us primitive skeptics who question the cherished dogmas of evolutionary faith). 🙂

Henry Morris, The Long War Against God:

The idea that a loving, wise, and powerful God used evolution—with its “struggle for existence” and “survival of the fittest”—as his method of creation is grotesque! Evolution is the cruelest, most wasteful and most irrational method of “creation” that could ever be
imagined…

The postulated suffering and death of multiplied billions of animals in the course of evolutionary “progress” from amoeba to man is a libel against the character of the Creator—who must certainly have been capable of creating each organism complete, with its own
perfectly designed structure for its own unique function, right from the start. Evolution may make some sense in the context of atheism, but it certainly does not fit Christian theism!

…Monod was an outstanding biologist, winner of a Nobel Prize, and thoroughly convinced of evolutionism, but he could see no way it could be compatible with theism:
“[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species. . . The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. . . . I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this
is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Bertrand Russell, another atheistic scientist/philosopher, put it this way: “Religion, in our day, has accommodated itself to the doctrine of evolution. . . .We are told that. . . evolution is the
unfolding of an idea which has been in the mind of God throughout. It appears that during those ages . . . when animals were torturing each other with ferocious horns and agonizing stings, Omnipotence was quietly waiting for the ultimate emergence of man, with his still more widely diffused cruelty. Why the Creator should have preferred to reach His goal
by a process, instead of going straight to it, these modern theologians do not tell us.”
Click to expand...

I imagine there’s a good chance this thread may still be active in Advent–if so I may check in at that time. In the meantime, I’ll allow natural selection to take its course 😉
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Anybody who argues that a literal interpretation of genesis is infallible church doctrine is being dishonest.
Click to expand...
I never did, apart from showing that Christ was 66 generations from Adam, now if you want to count them generations anything but literal then go ahead, because the bible makes it real easy to count the years from Christ back to Adam and it says 4000 years. That is what the Church teaches now if someone in that church wants to put another take on that and say this is what is meant, then by all means, but don’t try to make out that the Church and Catholicism is all for evolution and we accept it is a fact and how God created things, because I am a Catholic and depend on the word of God being true for my salvation then I must believe that the word of God when it comes to Adam is literal. Science does come in when it comes to Y chromosome adam and Mitochondrial Eve because they lead to around 6000 years ago because it can’t go any further into a parent of both Adam or Eve.
Tradition of our church is one of literal creation, how could it not have been given the theory of evolution did not exist before the 17th century?
 
sevenswords said:
Science does come in when it comes to Y chromosome adam and Mitochondrial Eve because they lead to around 6000 years ago because it can’t go any further into a parent of both Adam or Eve.
Click to expand...
More like 150,000 or more years ago
 
Neither is it official church teaching that at the time of Jesus, the human race was only 4000 years old. Feel free to prove me wrong

We are not required to believe that, but we are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

A Remarkable Fact and a Unique Finding

Note however, Homo sapiens eventually spread throughout the planet and is the only surviving hominin species. That is a fact, and it is stunning when you stop and think about it. Humans filled the earth.

If we follow generations back far enough, conceptually we come to the most recent common ancestor — an individual who is a progenitor of all present-day people. Genealogical computation models suggest this ancestor lived around a few thousand years ago (Rohde, et. al., Nature , 2004). If we continue further back, we come to the first human population, thought to have lived some 50,000 to 200,000 years ago (Noonan, Genome Research, 2010).

A worldwide survey of human mitochondrial DNA using genetic molecular clocks has shown that all mitochondrial DNAs stem from one woman, known as Mitochondrial Eve, who lived about 200,000 years ago in Africa (Cann, et. al., Nature , 1987). Similar genetic studies suggest a Y-chromosome Adam lived roughly the same time (Francalacci, Science , 2013). These results do not conclude that there was only one woman or man living in the same place. They absolutely do not point to a monogenetic pair of parents. They only suggest that there may have been a “genetic bottleneck,” i.e. a time when a relatively small population of around 10,000 early humans lived. Rather than pointing to this conclusion as evidence against the existence of two first parents, I would rather say that this finding is consistent with a unique emergence of human beings. However, I am quick to add that such studies are provisional and ongoing, intended to calibrate and increase the resolution of the human phylogenetic tree. They neither prove nor disprove what we profess in faith.

www.ncregister.com

How Do Adam and Eve Fit With Evolution?

Biological evolution will never fully account for humanity because we are persons, made in the image and likeness of God. It is not unreasonable to assume humanity began with a miracle.
www.ncregister.com www.ncregister.com

continued…
 
Last edited:
Continued…

_Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul . Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).
So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are

 
Last edited:
That is old we now know that eve the first woman using Mitochondrial Dna based on the new known rate of decay puts her around 6000 years .
 
STT said:
Don’t forget that evolution allows the strongest to survive while the weak ones die.
Click to expand...
This is a common misunderstanding. It is not about the survival of the individual, but about their DNA. A wimp with four children who dies age 30 is “fitter” than a big strong hulk with no children who lives until 60. The wimp has passed on more DNA to future generations than the hulk.

Remember: “If your parents didn’t have any children, then the chances are you won’t have any either.” 😃

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top