Why do so many Catholics accept evolution as fact?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
goout said:
You posted it without quotation marks or reference. šŸ¤·
Itā€™s verbatim copied from Wikipedia.

šŸ¤·
Click to expand...
NM505StKate sent me this link about spiders (without quotation marks or reference ) I was just pointing out how speculative the theory of evolution is by highlighting it in her link.
 
Iā€™ve asked myself this beforeā€¦I donā€™t know lol. I have come to realize that the church doesnā€™t take the bible in itā€™s literal form in a lot of instances. I suppose they used to, but now a days with catholic scientistā€™s ( it was a catholic who proposed the big bang theory ) answering questions we didnā€™t know before, well I suppose the church canā€™t just ignore it. Iā€™ve been told the churchā€™s stance on evolution is that god drove the big bang to happen and directed evolution or something along those lines but I donā€™t know how correct that is. I donā€™t agree with the idea we evolve from monkeyā€™s or some other primate. I think humans have always been distinct on their own, which is why scientistā€™s cant find a ā€˜missing linkā€™ or why the other species of humanoids died out but we flourished.
 
We are unambiguously unique. No other species has had this level of dominion over our planet, ever! The closest rivals we have are ants, but they obviously pale in comparison to us.

On your notion of a missing link, the scientific world has found hundreds.

The issue with ā€œmissing linksā€ is that thereā€™s always another link between the chains. If the common ancestor of all primates is represented by ā€œ0ā€ and weā€™re ā€œ100ā€, we have found 12, 17, 33, 45, 65, 77, 89 and 95 (the numbers are just used to represent an idea, donā€™t take them literally). Youā€™ll notice, there are plenty of numbers not found yet. But of the ones we have, there is a pattern of progress toward becoming ā€œusā€ that is very difficult to deny. We can even predict what ā€œ77ā€ was going to look like. And when it was found? Science is just about right-on-the-money.

Does that mean there was never an ā€œAdam and Eveā€. Of course not. However, they may not have existed in the hyper-literal way many want to interpret them. Remember that these stories were told for thousands of years before being written down - all before the era of scientific reasoning. To look at them with a literal, scientific lens is a foolish thing to do.

The Genesis stories arenā€™t MEANT to convey facts, even if they do. Theyā€™re meant to convey TRUTHS.
 
NM505StKate said:
What truths?
Click to expand...
Go see your priest. Heā€™ll be happy to explain šŸ‘

Thatā€™s not a cop-out. Itā€™s a nod to the necessity of the apostolic succession of our faith and the fact that they sit in the chair and not me. Scripture without a divinely inspired interpreter is a breeding-ground for theological chaos - as the Protestant Reformation clearly displays.

Eventually the materialist, rational ā€œyouā€ and the metaphysical, symbolic ā€œyouā€ must meet somewhere.

I think they meet at Mass. They do for me, at least.
 
Vonsalza said:
Go see your priest. Heā€™ll be happy to explain šŸ‘

Thatā€™s not a cop-out. Itā€™s a nod to the necessity of the apostolic succession of our faith and the fact that they sit in the chair and not me. Scripture without a divinely inspired interpreter is a breeding-ground for theological chaos - as the Protestant Reformation clearly displays.

Eventually the materialist, rational ā€œyouā€ and the metaphysical, symbolic ā€œyouā€ must meet somewhere.

I think they meet at Mass. They do for me, at least.
Click to expand...
Iā€™m not following. I donā€™t have a priest to explain and even if I did I may get multiple explanations.
 
Della said:
Considering they are part of Godā€™s creation they are good. Very good was reserved for humankind in the creation story. šŸ˜‰

I believe it was St. Augustine who taught that all the organisms that are harmful to us werenā€™t meant to be so, but only to the lower life forms. Only after the fall did we become vulnerable to diseases, parasites, insects, etc. They serve a purpose in the natural world, such as population control of species, adaptations of species, ridding the environment of carcasses, etc. So, they are good, but not necessarily good for us humans. After all, there are good bacteria and bugs that inhabit our bodies, too. They must be there for a reason and since God created everything we have to accept that the reason is a good one.
Click to expand...
Many Jews believe that the term very good in the *Book of Genesis *means evil.
 
The following from the New York Times shows that science is not neutral on this subject. Again, with the vague consequences.

ā€œIf for some reason the Catholic Church gets on the wrong side of the science, then itā€™s going to in the long term do huge damage, just as it did when they went against Galileo,ā€ said Lawrence M. Krauss, chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University and a highly visible opponent of intelligent design. ā€œIt threatened their credibility.ā€

ā€œBecause like it or not,ā€ he added, ā€œevolution happened.ā€

That explains the unnecessary emphasis. And this Acceptance Campaign.

Further evidence that these discussions are rarely about science, just ā€˜acceptance checks.ā€™

Ed
 
If science gets on the wrong side of the truth, the direction in which the learned Physics Professor is trying to push it, then we will get deeper and deeper into the ā€œalternate factsā€ that characterize this fallen world. Believe what you will, but as has been revealed, we started with one man, formed from earth into which Godā€™s spirit entered. If your philosophy does not include this fact, it is wrong.
 
edwest2 said:
The following from the New York Times shows that science is not neutral on this subject. Again, with the vague consequences.

ā€œIf for some reason the Catholic Church gets on the wrong side of the science, then itā€™s going to in the long term do huge damage, just as it did when they went against Galileo,ā€ said Lawrence M. Krauss, chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University and a highly visible opponent of intelligent design. ā€œIt threatened their credibility.ā€

ā€œBecause like it or not,ā€ he added, ā€œevolution happened.ā€

That explains the unnecessary emphasis. And this Acceptance Campaign.

Further evidence that these discussions are rarely about science, just ā€˜acceptance checks.ā€™

Ed
Click to expand...
Why are you bringing up a 10 year old article with no reference?
Pope Benedict and his ex-students holding seminar on evolution - Europe - International Herald Tribune

By IAN FISHERSEPT. 1, 2006
As might be expected from a German professor, all sides of the evolution question will get a hearing, though with an emphasis on skepticism. The seminar on Friday reportedly began with a presentation by Peter Schuster, an eminent molecular biologist, president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and a defender of evolution.
Click to expand...
There will be three other speakers to the study group, most notably Cardinal Christoph Schƶnborn of Vienna, who sparked a contentious debate last year after he wrote an Op-Ed article for The New York Times questioning evolution. The article was submitted by the same public relations firm used by the Discovery Institute.
Click to expand...
The two other speakers are Professor Robert Spaemann, a German philosopher who has criticized evolution as a full philosophical theory; and the Reverend Paul Elbrich, a Jesuit priest and scientist whose work on proteins questions whether chance alone could play the decisive role in evolution.
Click to expand...
And why complain? It looks as if the deck was stacked?
 
Darwinā€™s Theory Of Evolution = The Emperorā€™s New Clothes
 
NM505StKate said:
Iā€™m not following. I donā€™t have a priest to explain and even if I did I may get multiple explanations.
Click to expand...
Sure, and thatā€™s the point. You get the application of a biblical truth from a human perspective. However, I hasten to add that if your priests are actually Catholic priests, there would be many commonalities between the explanations since the authoritative Church has certainly touched on the subject. Many, many times.

And as to not having a priest - as your posts say ā€œCatholicā€ on the side, I recommend you find one. Respectfully, itā€™s kinda required in order to receive sacraments, which is kinda required in order to actually be Catholic.

If youā€™re only nominally Catholic, I genuinely hope you come back. The men of the Church are, without a doubt, fallible men. The Church itself is not.

I believe in the Church like I believe in love. Neither have a rational, provable basis for material existence. But they give my life the meaning and fullness it needs.
 
Techno2000 said:
Everyā€¦ Tom ,Dick and Harry believes we came from monkeys .
Click to expand...
sigh youā€™ve even got that wrong. Our common ancestor wasnā€™t a monkeyā€¦

Iā€™m also assuming that you donā€™t know the difference between apes and monkeys, or what a ā€œhominidā€ is.

Go ahead and ā€œWikipediaā€ it real quick so you can serve another limp-wristed, half-baked response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top