The Problem of DARWIN'S EVIL

[IWantGod]

But then this entire thread seems bent on causing bad feelings. Darwin’s evil? Come on…

Why are you saying that this thread is intent on causing bad feelings? What? You don’t like the idea of multiverses? Or maybe it was my use of the word “Archaic” that got your blood boiling?

 

[Aloysium]

Why read more into things than there is. The reference is to the term “Darwin’s evil”.

I also did not like the adjective used to describe another person’s opinion. I wondered if it were a pattern. But this is the internet; of course there is. And I acknowledge that I do refer to evolution as a simplistic and wrong-headed explanation, but that’s because it is.

We are all sinners and Darwin would be no different, but it’s between him and God. As to the the Origin of the Species, its best not to attribute what is the result of an error in understanding to malevolence.

 

[IWantGod]

The reference is to the term “Darwin’s evil”.

We are all sinners and Darwin would be no different, but it’s between him and God.

Loooooool. It is you who is reading more into this thread than there actually is. Although it’s not surprising that you might be desperate to score points.

Here is the first line of the OP.

This thread is a response to those Christians who think that natural evolution is an intrinsically evil process and that therefore Christians must reject the theory in principle.

The thread name is just a clever play on the problem of evil. Do you like it?

 

[Aloysium]

Please see above.

 

[IWantGod]

Why should i?..

 

[Aloysium]

IWantGod:

This thread is a response to those Christians who think that natural evolution is an intrinsically evil process and that therefore Christians must reject the theory in principle.

There is reality that we can think of as an existent structure that is open to discovery. Nature exists and we can understand its workings.

In terms of the ways in which we understand our world, natural evolution as an explanation seeks to explain the existence and flowering of diverse life forms on earth in terms of processes we find in nature. It has been elaborated over and over on numerous other threads that it is a mistaken view. The science behind it, the data is valid, the evolutionary interpretation is not. So, this mythos of our times is not evil. What would be evil would be the purposeful propagation of a known falsehood. It should also be pointed out that its implications are used to justify evil acts.

As to what we find in the world about us, natural evolution is an aspect of death - random disruption of an established order and the removal of organisms and species from the world. As such, it is a consequence of original sin and might be thought of as an evil.

This is what I was referring to.

 

[IWantGod]

So, this mythos of our times is not evil. What would be evil would be the purposeful propagation of a known falsehood.

But i don’t know that the theory of evolution is a falsehood. On the other hand it seems to be you and a few others that are propagating falsehood by claiming that the theory of evolution in principle contradicts the established doctrine of our Catholic faith, and i would like to know why you are doing that…

 

[IWantGod]

It should also be pointed out that its implications are used to justify evil acts.

There is no need to point that out because it’s irrelevant to the question of whether evolution is true or not. People have often used science in the past for evil.

 

[IWantGod]

As to what we find in the world about us, natural evolution is an aspect of death - random disruption of an established order and the removal of organisms and species from the world. As such, it is a consequence of original sin and might be thought of as an evil.

Animals have always been eating each-other, there has always been suffering in the animal kingdom regardless of whether evolution is true or not.

 

[Aquinas11]

On the other hand it seems to be you and a few others that are propagating falsehood by claiming that the theory of evolution in principle contradicts the established doctrine of our Catholic faith, and i would like to know why you are doing that…

There is no contradiction between theistic evolution and Catholic doctrine, but theistic evolution isn’t Darwinian theory of evolution.

 

[IWantGod]

but theistic evolution isn’t Darwinian theory of evolution.

Then lets discuss that. I disagree. But it would be helpful if you could point out the key difference, assuming of course you understand that the term “theistic” before any subject is the idea that God is somehow involved in the existence of any given process, which i of course agree-with; but it is not something that science can talk about. It’s the extent to which God is involved that i might disagree with you on…

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I believe in crazy things like God

Yet you do the one totally offensive and disrespectful thing

Replace Christ with an X in Christmas.

 

[PickyPicky]

Yet you do the one totally offensive and disrespectful thing

Replace Christ with an X in Christmas

I used to think it disrespectful, too, but I’ve come to understand that it has a long and respectful history. Here’s our good friend (?) Wikipedia:

The word “Christ” and its compounds, including “Christmas”, have been abbreviated in English for at least the past 1,000 years, long before the modern “Xmas” was commonly used. “Christ” was often written as “Xρ” or “Xt”; there are references in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as far back as 1021. This X and P arose as the uppercase forms of the Greek letters χ and ρ used in ancient abbreviations for Χριστος (Greek for “Christ”).

The labarum, an amalgamation of the two Greek letters rendered as ☧, is a symbol often used to represent Christ in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christian Churches.

The Oxford English Dictionary ( OED) and the OED Supplement have cited usages of “X-” or “Xp-” for “Christ-” as early as 1485. The terms “Xtian” and less commonly “Xpian” have also been used for “Christian”. The OED further cites usage of “Xtianity” for “Christianity” from 1634.

According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, most of the evidence for these words comes from “educated Englishmen who knew their Greek”.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Where is my strongly disagree icon, or just because 1000 wiki users drink red cordial, it’s ok.

One big reason is it’s a very popular atheist acronym, and Christians who use it usually have no idea about Early language. Or the Early Church.

Put Christ back in Christmas

 

[Aloysium]

it seems to be you and a few others that are propagating falsehood by claiming that the theory of evolution in principle contradicts the established doctrine of our Catholic faith, and i would like to know why you are doing that…

There are versions of evolution that do not contradict the established doctrine of our Catholic faith. Those stories include one first man and orginal sin. I have never had explained to me where those that do tend towards an evolutionary understanding see that the faith and the science intersect. This is something I have tried to do, expressing the view that all is based on a foundation that it is existence rather than matter, which is simply a rudimentary form of relational being. People should clarify for themselves what they do believe. Ultimately, do they believe that God is Love and that He has been intimately involved from the beginning when He created us.

 

[PickyPicky]

Where is my strongly disagree icon

You manage fine without the icon.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Put Christ back into Christmas. X. Takes Christ out of the English speaking word and just gives us an excuse for lots of food and a materialistic fall down the credit card rabbit hole.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

As to what we find in the world about us, natural evolution is an aspect of death - random disruption of an established order and the removal of organisms and species from the world. As such, it is a consequence of original sin and might be thought of as an evil.

Animals have always been eating each-other, there has always been suffering in the animal kingdom regardless of whether evolution is true or not.

In a fallen universe for sure. This reality could have followed an act by humanity at the beginning where we ontologically appear, changing everything temporal. The two trees at the centre of the Garden in this case would be Jesus Christ and the wood of the cross. The hand that grasped at the fruit that belonged to God was in that eternal moment revealed in time, that same hand that drove the spike into its own hand in Christ.

There also is a suggestion that this condition of nature is a consequence of the earlier fall of angels who as God’s messengers brought about a death and life struggle among instinctual creatures, whose souls possess feelings.

On the other hand, life can be understood as sacrificing itself to life. Fear and anger, natural protective emotions leading to action would be part of a mechanism dedicated to the maintenance of harmony in the world. Animals are transient beings and not meant to live in perpetuity although the kind of being they are may itself be eternal.

Self-interest changes the relationship between living things, so maybe all these three scenarios are one.

 

[IWantGod]

In a fallen universe for sure.

There is nothing in Catholic doctrine or science that states that animals became carnivores after the fall of man.

That is your belief which is separate from the Catholic faith, and so long as you understand that we have no qualms.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

In a fallen universe for sure.

There is nothing in Catholic doctrine or science that states that animals became carnivores after the fall of man.

That is your belief which is separate from the Catholic faith, and so long as you understand that we have no qualms.

I obviously have difficulty making my ideas understood.

Scripture I’m sure you will agree is not a science book, nor a treatise on metaphysics. It speaks of mankind’s relationship with God. From that basis, in addition to tradition and a leagion of scholars, we try to make sense of all this.