Why do so many Catholics accept evolution as fact?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Right, they want to attribute human behavior good or bad to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
It’s not necessary to accuse or blame any particular Catholic, who may “hold” any of myriad hypotheses of what gets loosely grouped as “evolution”, for supposedly applying Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism to psychology or morals, as those of us with true Catholic belief don’t do so.
 
“I still think that the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.” EJH Corner, 1960

“Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.” Carl O Dunbar, 1960

“There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.” T Neville George, 1960

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” Ronald R West, 1968

“Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles. The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian—reptile transition unanswered.” Lewis L Carroll, 1969
Ohhh… look mummy. Quotemines. Can I do some quotemines too please?

“There is no God” – The Bible.

“Eat my flesh and drink my blood.” – Jesus.

So, I have proved that Christians are atheist cannibals and you have proved that evolution is wrong (except for the Dunbar quote which agrees there is evidence for common descent).

Alternatively, quotemines don’t prove anything. Take your pick.

rossum
 
If you only read articles or books based on faith based presuppositions you will likely fail to know when you come across the actual science and facts.

It helps to know what you are looking for:

What Is A Transitional Fossil?

A Quick Definition

A transitional fossil is … Due to the difficulties in creating fossils in the first place, and the fact that speciation sometimes occurs very quickly in small groups, transitional fossils can be rare in the fossil record. However, even given these circumstances, there are still thousands of transitional fossils known to science, including those illustrating the evolution of modern fish, the transition of fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, and the evolution of human beings (as well as many other species).

Examples of transitional fossils
See this video for great examples of transitional fossils: evolutionfaq.com/videos/transitional-fossils

Also, see this Wikipedia page detailing just a partial list of transitional fossil examples: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Where are your examples of creationism?

  • Speciation occurs quickly in small groups - probably every time.
  • It’s not easy for fossils to form in the first place. Also, the amount of layers of earth across all areas of all countries that have been thoroughly excavated (so that we find remains) is only just beginning.
  • It may additionally be that in some cases kinds currently being described as “transitional” are just more kinds, which may have existed earlier also.
  • Others (almost certainly not a majority of these) may moderately plausibly - hypothetically - indeed be “transitional” but in the context of the rapid speciation in particular localities mentioned above.
 
“When do we see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organism did not evolve elsewhere.” James Le Lanu, 2012

“The main reason for paleontologist’s loss of faith in the orthodox evolutionary doctrine was the realization that the most notable features of the fossil record is that most of the time nothing happens.” James Le Lanu, 2012

“This ‘stasis’ clearly contradicts Darwin’s supposition if a continuous process of gradualistic transformation” James Le Lanu, 2012
Excellent, judging by these quotes you now support the Punctuated Equilibrium version of evolution. However, I will point out that Le Lanu is wrong about Darwin:

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.
  • Origin, 6th Ed. Chapter Four
“The problem is that the fossil record isn’t always obliging when it comes to direct evidence.” Brian Switek. 2014.
And naturally you have the complete line of fossils from Adam to Noah and from Noah to David. Oh… You don’t? Well obviously, “The problem is that the fossil record isn’t always obliging when it comes to direct evidence.”

rossum
 
Techno,

For every quote you list, I could list a thousand in reply. All you did, ultimately, was force the servers on Catholic Forums to store a bunch of cut-and-paste text that no one will will read.

Evolution occurs as a result of environmental pressure.

If there’s no pressure, then a species won’t change much over the course of millions of years - as we frequently see with “living fossils” today.

If there’s too much too fast, then a species will totally die out, as we see in the rocks and ice.

When the pressure is “just right”, a species will respond to that pressure.

It’s so simple that little kids can understand it.🤷

I’ll try one. more. time. to convey how simple it is with a for-instance :banghead:

If the only human beings that were able to eat were the humans that won basketball games, then in a few generations, the human population would be observably taller.
This will happen because all the shorter people would chronically lose basketball games. Thus they would not eat. Thus they would die. Only the taller people would be successful enough to have kids. That. is. evolution. :yup:

Let it go on long enough, then eventually the “humans” that existed in that future would be so different as to not be able to successfully mate with the humans of long-ago because they would be so genetically different. They would then cross the boldest line in determining if they were a new, separate species.

As Popes have even said that evolution does not necessarily contradict Christian teaching, you do not need to feel that the legitimacy of your faith is threatened by the possibility of evolution’s reality. You’re unnecessarily painting yourself into a corner that can’t be rationally defended. You’ll certainly get very little help from the Holy Office on this one.
 
At what point in the Spiders evolution did it gain the ability to construct a web ?
 
Going back to the OP’s question, I think confusion occurs when Catholic students see speculation like this in Biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

Ed
 
Excellent, judging by these quotes you now support the Punctuated Equilibrium version of evolution. However, I will point out that Le Lanu is wrong about Darwin:

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.
  • Origin, 6th Ed. Chapter Four
And naturally you have the complete line of fossils from Adam to Noah and from Noah to David. Oh… You don’t? Well obviously, “The problem is that the fossil record isn’t always obliging when it comes to direct evidence.”

rossum
I randomly chose a few names to track down. Le Lanu was the first I chose, he doesn’t not appear in a Google search.

The references look like they came from someone’s review of the literature for a college paper.

Edit: Found the source at: darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemmas/fossil-record/. Comes from a book: “Darwin, Then and Now”

Edit 2: The reviews at Amazon are so bad I won’t quote any for fear of getting banned:
 
Right, evolution is all about speculation.
And you didn’t even read the links. Do you even science bro? If it was “speculation” then someone should have disproved it. If this person did then they have a Nobel prize and a mess ton of money.
 
And you didn’t even read the links. Do you even science bro? If it was “speculation” then someone should have disproved it. If this person did then they have a Nobel prize and a mess ton of money.
Trigonotarbids share many superficial characteristics with spiders, including a terrestrial lifestyle, respiration through book lungs, and walked on eight legs, with a pair of leg-like pedipalps near the mouth and mouth parts. Arguments still remain open as to whether they possessed the ability to create silk. This had been a popular thought for quite some time, until an unpublished fossil was described with distinct microtubercles on its hind legs, akin to those used by spiders to direct and manipulate their silk.
Trigonotarbids are not true spiders, and most Trigonotarbid species have no living descendants today. One lineage, however, led eventually to the earliest tetrapulmonates, which then evolved into spiders, whip scorpions, and close relatives.
Emergence of true spiders[edit]

Geratonephila attacking Cascoscelio incassus preserved in amber
At one stage the oldest fossil spider** was believed **to be Attercopus which lived 380 million years ago during the Devonian. Attercopus was placed as the sister-taxon to all living spiders, but has **now been reinterpreted **as a member of a separate, extinct order Uraraneida which could produce silk, but did not have true spinnerets.
The oldest true spiders are thus Carboniferous in age, or about 300 million years. Most of these early segmented fossil spiders from the Coal Measures of Europe and North America probably belonged to the Mesothelae, or something very similar, a group of primitive spiders with the spinnerets placed underneath the middle of the abdomen, rather than at the end as in modern spiders. They were probably ground-dwelling predators, living in the giant clubmoss and fern forests of the mid-late Palaeozoic, where they were presumably predators of other primitive arthropods. Silk may have been used simply as a protective covering for the eggs, a lining for a retreat hole, and later perhaps for simple ground sheet web and trapdoor construction.
As plant and insect life diversified so also did the spider’s use of silk. Spiders with spinnerets at the end of the abdomen (Mygalomorphae and Araneomorphae) appeared more than 250 million years ago, **presumably **promoting the development of more elaborate sheet and maze webs for prey capture both on ground and foliage, as well as the development of the safety dragline. The oldest mygalomorph, Rosamygale, was described from the Triassic of France and belongs to the modern family Hexathelidae. Megarachne servinei from the Permo-Carboniferous was once thought to be a giant mygalomorph spider and, with its body length of 1 foot (34 cm) and leg span of above 20 inches (50 cm), the largest known spider ever to have lived on Earth, but subsequent examination by an expert revealed that it was actually a middling-sized sea scorpion.
By the Jurassic, the sophisticated aerial webs of the orb-weaver spiders had already developed to take advantage of the rapidly diversifying groups of insects. A spider web preserved in amber, thought to be 110 million years old, shows evidence of a perfect “orb” web, the most famous, circular kind one thinks of when imagining spider webs. An examination of the drift of those genes thought to be used to produce the web-spinning behavior suggests that orb spinning was in an advanced state as many as 136 million years ago. One of these, the araneid Mongolarachne jurassica, from about 165 million years ago, recorded from Daohuogo, Inner Mongolia in China, is the largest known fossil spider.
 
Trigonotarbids share many superficial characteristics with spiders, including a terrestrial lifestyle, respiration through book lungs, and walked on eight legs, with a pair of leg-like pedipalps near the mouth and mouth parts. Arguments still remain open as to whether they possessed the ability to create silk. This had been a popular thought for quite some time, until an unpublished fossil was described with distinct microtubercles on its hind legs, akin to those used by spiders to direct and manipulate their silk.
Trigonotarbids are not true spiders, and most Trigonotarbid species have no living descendants today. One lineage, however, led eventually to the earliest tetrapulmonates, which then evolved into spiders, whip scorpions, and close relatives.
Emergence of true spiders[edit]

Geratonephila attacking Cascoscelio incassus preserved in amber
At one stage the oldest fossil spider** was believed **to be Attercopus which lived 380 million years ago during the Devonian. Attercopus was placed as the sister-taxon to all living spiders, but has **now been reinterpreted **as a member of a separate, extinct order Uraraneida which could produce silk, but did not have true spinnerets.
The oldest true spiders are thus Carboniferous in age, or about 300 million years. Most of these early segmented fossil spiders from the Coal Measures of Europe and North America probably belonged to the Mesothelae, or something very similar, a group of primitive spiders with the spinnerets placed underneath the middle of the abdomen, rather than at the end as in modern spiders. They were probably ground-dwelling predators, living in the giant clubmoss and fern forests of the mid-late Palaeozoic, where they were presumably predators of other primitive arthropods. Silk may have been used simply as a protective covering for the eggs, a lining for a retreat hole, and later perhaps for simple ground sheet web and trapdoor construction.
As plant and insect life diversified so also did the spider’s use of silk. Spiders with spinnerets at the end of the abdomen (Mygalomorphae and Araneomorphae) appeared more than 250 million years ago, **presumably **promoting the development of more elaborate sheet and maze webs for prey capture both on ground and foliage, as well as the development of the safety dragline. The oldest mygalomorph, Rosamygale, was described from the Triassic of France and belongs to the modern family Hexathelidae. Megarachne servinei from the Permo-Carboniferous was once thought to be a giant mygalomorph spider and, with its body length of 1 foot (34 cm) and leg span of above 20 inches (50 cm), the largest known spider ever to have lived on Earth, but subsequent examination by an expert revealed that it was actually a middling-sized sea scorpion.
By the Jurassic, the sophisticated aerial webs of the orb-weaver spiders had already developed to take advantage of the rapidly diversifying groups of insects. A spider web preserved in amber, thought to be 110 million years old, shows evidence of a perfect “orb” web, the most famous, circular kind one thinks of when imagining spider webs. An examination of the drift of those genes thought to be used to produce the web-spinning behavior suggests that orb spinning was in an advanced state as many as 136 million years ago. One of these, the araneid Mongolarachne jurassica, from about 165 million years ago, recorded from Daohuogo, Inner Mongolia in China, is the largest known fossil spider.
Are your posts plagiarism? :sad_yes:
 
Did I say I wrote this :confused:
You posted it without quotation marks or reference. 🤷
It’s verbatim copied from Wikipedia.

🤷

You could save yourself a lot of time by taking a 100 level geoscience course.
I think you’ll find that it meshes fairly well with Catholic thought, as Popes themselves have said in the last few decades.

Do you agree with the thought of JP2 and others on science/faith?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top