Why do so many Catholics accept evolution as fact?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradski said:
Maybe somebody can dig out the church’s position on gravity. Maybe Catholics are allowed to make up their own mind about that as well.
Click to expand...
Religion should be interest in every topic which interest human. Everything is creature of God.

I do not know Church but Gravity is one law of God of which the material cause(subatom particle which supposed to cause gravity cannot be detected yet) is not certain. The certain thing is that there is an effect which cause gravity. So scientifically Gravity actually have could not be defined yet.

Evolution is one law of God. I do not mean the evolution between specieses. That is not observed and not proved. But just suppositions through chances which have near zero possibility as mathematically. All species were created by God.

Evolutionists use the valid part of evolution to defend a fictional thought in name of evolution. They do that by unscientifical methods which grounded on chances. The scienctific knowledge cannot be source from probalities. Look at whole universe. Is there any chance for such perfect order?

The valid evolution is fulfilled by wisdom and power of God. Because there is no mind, aesthetic thought, wisdom in physical laws. And most important thing there is no life and moral in energy which supposed to animate!

Well. The evolution between species is not valid and not proved.
 
Michael85 said:
From reading posts on here and also from listening to Catholic Answers, it seems like a lot of Catholics simply accept that evolution is a fact and then try to make it fit with the Catholic faith. As someone coming to Catholicism from the Reformed perspective who is also a creationist, this troubles me.

Why do Catholics not seem to have encountered the myriad of books, articles and videos that show the major weaknesses of the evolution theory? Sites like Answers In Genesis, Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research show that there are serious problems with evolutionary theory. There are books written by PhD scientists (including one from my alma mater, Victoria University of Wellington) that blow holes in evolution.

With such a myriad of resources at hand, why do so many Catholics try to make evolution fit with the Catholic faith when there really is no need to?

Also, are there any Catholic creationists (either young earth or old earth) on this board?
Click to expand...
I think the Catholic Church is wise to allow people to make up their own minds on this subject. William Lane Craig, an Evangelical philosopher, shares with us in one of his podcasts how many young people end up leaving Christianity because their church forces them to make a choice between reason and science vs faith and Christianity. The Catholic Church is wise to incorporate both faith and reason. Dr. Craig also teaches courses on Evolution and Christianity and various ways they can be compatible. Truth cannot contradict truth.

My own personal opinion is agnostic on the matter of evolution. I used to think that evolution was more certain, but I am not entirely sure how much of evolution is actually a fact. There are some holes in the theory in being able to explain things. If you get a chance read GK Chesterton’s book called the Everlasting Man. He puts a compelling case against the evolution of intelligence. The difference between us and the animals is staggering in terms of intelligence. I don’t think evolution can explain that difference. I think this is clear evidence that confirms our faith that man has been given an intellect and a will that does not come entirely from nature. (Even if his body came through Evolution).

GK Chesterton says the more you examine man as an animal the more you realize he is not an animal. And if an alien or advanced intelligence came to earth would he see man as just another animal that found greener pastures or as the cow that jumped over the moon? .

How many of us assume that the theory of evolution is fool proof? That it can explain everything? However, Dr. Craig in one of his recent podcasts informs us that one of the top micro biologists in the world told him that he doesn’t really understand how Evolution could actually work. He might accept that it happened but he doesn’t understand the mechanism of how it can be possible to happen. He invites anyone to explain it to him. But since he is on the cutting edge of nanotechnogy being applied in medical research and his background is in biology he is already at an advanced level. So if someone thinks they understand evolution they might want to think again.
 
Gorgias said:
It’s banned on CAF. Causes too many intense, uncharitable arguments, I guess… 🤷
Click to expand...
Someone pointed out to me that, in fact, that particular Sticky is gone, so I guess the topic is no longer banned. However, I agree that care should be taken to avoid “too many intense, uncharitable arguments” and instead provide more light, less heat.
 
edwest2 said:
In the case of human beings, we have our first parents and the reason for Original Sin.

From Catholic Answers:

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Ed
Click to expand...
:clapping:
 
fisherman_carl said:
I think the Catholic Church is wise to allow people to make up their own minds on this subject. William Lane Craig, an Evangelical philosopher, shares with us in one of his podcasts how many young people end up leaving Christianity because their church forces them to make a choice between reason and science vs faith and Christianity. The Catholic Church is wise to incorporate both faith and reason. Dr. Craig also teaches courses on Evolution and Christianity and various ways they can be compatible. Truth cannot contradict truth.

My own personal opinion is agnostic on the matter of evolution. I used to think that evolution was more certain, but I am not entirely sure how much of evolution is actually a fact. There are some holes in the theory in being able to explain things. If you get a chance read GK Chesterton’s book called the Everlasting Man. He puts a compelling case against the evolution of intelligence. The difference between us and the animals is staggering in terms of intelligence. I don’t think evolution can explain that difference. I think this is clear evidence that confirms our faith that man has been given an intellect and a will that does not come entirely from nature. (Even if his body came through Evolution).

GK Chesterton says the more you examine man as an animal the more you realize he is not an animal. And if an alien or advanced intelligence came to earth would he see man as just another animal that found greener pastures or as the cow that jumped over the moon? .
Click to expand...
I second the suggestion to read this book. It is quite good.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
rossum said:
textbook biological evolution can show the origin of man’s physical body accurately.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is possible for a claim in textbook biological evolution to be accurate. However, what good is that if there is no way to distinguish between the true claims and the false claims?

For example, if bones of an extinct primate species are found with stone tools, then do we know that they are bones of creatures that were ancestral to homo sapiens? Is there some undisputed fact of biology that guarantees that beings who don’t have spoken language are en route to acquiring spoken language if they can make stone tools?

Alternatively, is there some undisputed fact of biology that guarantees that beings who can make stone tools also have language?

Of course, the matter cannot even be discussed unless you are willing to distinguish between human languages and the general capacity for communication that is shared with other species.
 
Bradski said:
It seems so (rolls sleeves up, spits on hands).
Click to expand...
You might begin by explaining how to distinguish between the following two kinds of genes:

(1) A gene that came into existence along with some scaffolding that no longer exists, and
(2) A gene that is now “broken” because it has mutated away from a functional form

For example, the Peppered Moth is cited as an example of micro-evolution. It isn’t said to be merely the recovery of gene that had broken, because the development of complicated, functioning genes isn’t thought to be given an evolutionary explanation if we say that some complicated, functioning gene previously existed in functioning form, later mutated to non-functioning form, and then still later recovered.

Human inability to synthesize vitamin C in the body is considered to be a result of gene that is now “broken”, a kind of devolution or loss a gene that allegedly functioned in extinct primate ancestors of human beings.

However, why isn’t it possible that the so-called “broken” gene is the ancestral form, and that the functioning gene developed in other primate species that aren’t extinct, but didn’t develop in human beings?
 
PseuTonym said:
You might begin by explaining how to distinguish between the following two kinds of genes:

(1) A gene that came into existence along with some scaffolding that no longer exists, and
(2) A gene that is now “broken” because it has mutated away from a functional form

Human inability to synthesize vitamin C in the body is considered to be a result of gene that is now “broken”, a kind of devolution or loss a gene that allegedly functioned in extinct primate ancestors of human beings.

However, why isn’t it possible that the so-called “broken” gene is the ancestral form, and that the functioning gene developed in other primate species that aren’t extinct, but didn’t develop in human beings?
Click to expand...
I suggest the following, ordered from simplest to more detailed:

Evolution Basics: Genomes as Ancient Texts, Part 4
(scroll down in this to “Looking for typos”)

Evolution Basics: The Placental Revolution, Part 2

A Tale of Three Creationists, Part 3
 
How are creation and evolution are mutually exclusive?

The Lord God created evolution and evolved creation. In my book.

And I do not presume to say to the Lord my God, sorry mate, but your great work of evolution is a fairy tale.

Not one thread of evidence discounts the existence of evolution to me.
 
PseuTonym said:
However, why isn’t it possible that the so-called “broken” gene is the ancestral form, and that the functioning gene developed in other primate species that aren’t extinct, but didn’t develop in human beings?
Click to expand...
Because every other mammal (and a few early primates) have the functioning version of the gene. At one point an early primate got a mutation in the gene (IIRC a STOP codon very early on). All the descendants of that animal also have the GULO-P mutation with the same STOP codon in the same place in the GULO pseudogene.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Because every other mammal (and a few early primates) have the functioning version of the gene. At one point an early primate got a mutation in the gene (IIRC a STOP codon very early on). All the descendants of that animal also have the GULO-P mutation with the same STOP codon in the same place in the GULO pseudogene.

rossum
Click to expand...
It sounds as though there would have been two animals (a breeding pair) that both had exactly the same mutation, and that no descendants of any other animals of the same species survived. For this reason, random mutation sounds somewhat unlikely as an explanation of the origin of the mutation responsible for non-functioning of vitamin C synthesis in human beings.

Perhaps infection with a pathogen that can cause mutation of gametes in an animal is a more plausible explanation. That all animals (of one particular species) that were infected with the pathogen would have their gametes affected in the same way is plausible. There could also be some explanation of why non-infected animals didn’t produce any surviving descendants.

We think of pathogens as harmful because they harm the infected individual, but perhaps they help the species and play a role in evolution.

After all, we normally think of it as essential that there is a breeding population consisting of many individuals, if we are talking about a complicated, multi-cellular organism that reproduces sexually, and that carries harmful, recessive genes. A catastrophic event that reduces the population to just two animals, even if they produce offspring together, is often enough to cause extinction. If you disagree, then we should discuss the concept of an “endangered” species.
 
Originally Posted by PseuTonym:
However, why isn’t it possible that the so-called “broken” gene is the ancestral form, and that the functioning gene developed in other primate species that aren’t extinct, but didn’t develop in human beings?
rossum said:
Because every other mammal (and a few early primates) have the functioning version of the gene.
Click to expand...
There are different functioning versions in different species. If evolution can generate complicated, new genes then why can’t it fix broken genes that are broken in a small number of places?

One possibility to consider is that the so-called “broken” gene is the ancestral form of the gene, and that it serves (or used to serve) some function other than vitamin C synthesis. Perhaps it is non-functional with respect to vitamin C synthesis, but perhaps it isn’t absolutely non-functional.

That we see the “broken” gene only in human beings and some other primate species doesn’t imply that it first arose in primates. Another possibility is that there has been enough time and selective pressure for it to change in most mammal species.
 
PseuTonym said:
If evolution can generate complicated, new genes then why can’t it fix broken genes that are broken in a small number of places?
Click to expand...
Your post implies that it could if it wanted to. That if something doesn’t work, then evolution could fix it.

It doesn’t fix anything. It just removes that which doesn’t work. Leaving that which does.
 
I am a Catholic, who doesn’t really accept evolution. It seems absurd to me to say that a peacock evolved from a herring (or something).

And, even if it was true, it would be on such a large time scale, that the human mind cannot make any real use of it…

What’s more, since it the process of evolution (if it happened) is not really a repeatable experiment, the evidence seems flimsy.

Not that I’m a ‘literal creationist’- it just seems like a pointless question.
 
PseuTonym said:
It sounds as though there would have been two animals (a breeding pair) that both had exactly the same mutation, and that no descendants of any other animals of the same species survived.
Click to expand...
Interbreeding within a family can easily produce dual inheritance of a non-lethal faulty gene.

The vast majority of animals from that long ago have no living descendants. Only a small minority of dinosaurs have living descendants of all the dinosaurs that ever lived. None of the billions of trilobites or ammonites that ever lived have living descendants. It is far more common to have no living descendants than to have some.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top