Why evolution doesnt matter.

[itinerant1]

Ryan, to broaden your critique of non-biblical science, I haven’t yet found any evidence in the biblical text either for or against the theory of gravity.

If the Bible does not say anything about gravity, then gravity does not exist.

 

[itinerant1]

One final comment (maybe): Nowhere did I find in my reading of the Bible any mention of quasars, nebulae, or red-shift. I must therefore conclude that they do not exist, either.

 

[rwaechter]

Evolution theory is a scientific theory, while the Bible does not teach science. The Bible teaches religious and moral truths.

There are theories of evolution that are materialist and thus conflict with religious truth. However, a theory of evolution that is strictly scientific, one that does not try to explain more than it is capable of doing, will not conflict with religious truths contained in the Bible. That is my view.

We cannot use the Bible to challenge scientific theories because the Bible does not teach natural science. The Old Testament, for instance, reflects the pre-scientific cosmology of the ancient near east.

Nonetheless, you are more than welcome to argue any differences of opinion you might have.

I would disagree with you that science conflicts with the bible. Our ability to understand science only exists because God has designed our brains with that capability.
I accept that God made man in His image.
Once again, your reply proved my original statement that this forum is not using biblical truths. Genesis1 lays down creation with no mention of evolution. There’s my biblical (name removed by moderator)ut. Why argue in a theological forum if your ultimate standard and worldview is not biblical?
Ryan

 

[rwaechter]

If the Bible does not say anything about gravity, then gravity does not exist.

Is gravity not a man-made term to describe what force is preventing objects from flying off the face of the earth, or floating as in space? Do we see this in the text? I think the laws of gravity are upheld nicely, whether they are called gravity or not. Psalms describe God’s creation very well.

Ryan

 

[twinc]

there are a number of posts on evolution, and they seem to draw the most attention, which seems funny to me in that Catholics are free to accept or not the ideas of evolution. of course we are not biblical literalists, that is a feature of protestant Christianity. evolution represents a threat to their literal reading of Scripture and thereby their existence, in that the defining precept of protestantism is Sola Scriptura or only the information contained in cannonized Scripture, matters. this is their main seperation from us and therefore evolution is a threat to their very survival.

evolution is not however, a threat to us. it can be absolutely true and still have nothing to do with matters of faith, cosmogony, or Catholicism. ergo, our freedom to accept

that said, evolution in its entirety has several flaws, which i think people like to talk about, abiogenesis, holes in the fossil record, irreducible complexity. all of which make for interesting discussion. (yes, ive heard the arguments back and forth, and no, i dont care to hear more)

but in the end, evolution, one way or the other doesnt matter. **its 13.7 billion years too late. **it says nothing more interesting about faith than “wow, G-d works in mysterious ways”, it doesnt affect the issue of G-ds existence in any way at all.

so evolution simply doesnt matter.

according to you iy does not matter,but you keep saying us,so this is where I and the Church are involved,for I say it does matter and so does the Church.Actually the Church does seem to accept that Evolution does not matter and is not even mentioned once in the Catechism.Creationism,however, it seems does matter and catechesis on creation is of major importance[282] - twinc

 

[edwest2]

What are people accepting? An engine that requires no God to operate? Wake up Catholics. Science is inferior to the revealed word of God. That is why Pope Benedict had to clarify things for Catholics, and anyone willing to listen: “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” That’s it.

I encourage no Christian to accept textbook evolution at face value. It is perfect for the anti-theist. Why connect that to God? It doesn’t include Him, and scientists are certainly not silent about it. Tim Matthews grilling a politician on TV shows what it’s good for: a Dictatorship of Relativism that excludes God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

I would disagree with you that science conflicts with the bible. Our ability to understand science only exists because God has designed our brains with that capability.
I accept that God made man in His image.
Once again, your reply proved my original statement that this forum is not using biblical truths. Genesis1 lays down creation with no mention of evolution. There’s my biblical (name removed by moderator)ut. Why argue in a theological forum if your ultimate standard and worldview is not biblical?
Ryan

The problem here is your perspective on science is skewed by your sectarian and superficial reading of Genesis 1.

 

[itinerant1]

Is gravity not a man-made term to describe what force is preventing objects from flying off the face of the earth, or floating as in space? Do we see this in the text? I think the laws of gravity are upheld nicely, whether they are called gravity or not. Psalms describe God’s creation very well.

Ryan

I was just joking with that post. It’s uncanny how much you and the poster Ed West seem to have in common.

 

[rwaechter]

The problem here is your perspective on science is skewed by your sectarian and superficial reading of Genesis 1.

Actually, I became a Christian at the age of 35, with my worldview shaped by years of highschool and college secular science. I was a sold out evolutionist with the science to back it. Only after my eyes were opened did I realize how my thinking was trying support the “supposed evidence”. I am testing everything I know to God’s Word, and I am having to unravel years of blind beliefs with humility.
So, to give an accurate assessment, my perspective of Genesis was skewed by my sectarian and superficial beliefs of science.
I would, though, appreciate biblical references to back up your statements. The bible is our ultimate standard and must be used as such.

Ryan

 

[rwaechter]

Rwaechter~If this is forum based on biblical truths,… It might be more useful in this context to state “biblical truths” as something like “individual scriptural interpretations some of us use as bases for stringing thoughts as if they were fact.” We again encounter the baffling phenomenon of the denial by religionists of the difference between fact and belief. We need to remember that religious belief, like any belief, is an adult posture of “lets pretend.” Science, dealing strictly with a particular way of knowing, fits as well into this category, but at least it admits its limitations, is amenable to change with new data, and can in some instances predict future events based on its premises with utility. Religion has no such advantage, and as where science brings unified understanding at least of phenomena, religion is a divisive factor in human experience. It is as well useless to claim that religion promotes “good,” because “good” exists on an axis independent from religion and only in certain instances appears to be congruent with it as a mental construct.

Did evolution produce this “good” ? I only see this form of reasoning in Man, who was created in God’s image. This thought could also include morals and absolutes.

My understanding is not that God is promoting good, but is offering salvation to those whom He elected, through Jesus Christ’s finished work, all for His glory. If any good comes out if this, it entirely from the grace of God, as Man is only capable of sin by his own measures. This may make as much sense to you as your axis theory did for me. Not to worry, Pharaoh had a tough time with this one too, as did I before God’s saving grace.

Ryan

 

[itinerant1]

Actually, I became a Christian at the age of 35, with my worldview shaped by years of highschool and college secular science. I was a sold out evolutionist with the science to back it. Only after my eyes were opened did I realize how my thinking was trying support the “supposed evidence”. I am testing everything I know to God’s Word, and I am having to unravel years of blind beliefs with humility.
So, to give an accurate assessment, my perspective of Genesis was skewed by my sectarian and superficial beliefs of science.
I would, though, appreciate biblical references to back up your statements. The bible is our ultimate standard and must be used as such.

Ryan

First, there are materialist versions of evolution that by their very nature conflict with revealed religion. But scientific truths do not conflict with religious truths.

Second, read the following book: A Path Through Genesis by Bruce Vawter, and let me know what you think. The book can give you a basis for discussion. You can buy the book used, online, so it is easy to acquire.

Third, one should never let school interfere with their education.

 

[Detales]

Rwaechter, do enjoy God’s saving grace.

Itinerant!, cool statement about school!

 

[rwaechter]

First, there are materialist versions of evolution that by their very nature conflict with revealed religion. But scientific truths do not conflict with religious truths.

Second, read the following book: A Path Through Genesis by Bruce Vawter, and let me know what you think. The book can give you a basis for discussion. You can buy the book used, online, so it is easy to acquire.

Third, one should never let school interfere with their education.

I would agree to say that science and the bible do not contradict. I would, however, like to see where you find scripture pointing toward evolution. That would be the best basis for discussion, as this should be our ultimate authority. I will look up Bruce Vawter and find out what I can. I have read many books which have changed the word of God, or somehow made us our own God by removing His sovereignty, in order to fit their view. I’m very cautious.

Very good quote on school and education. We educate all our children at home because firstly, we are commanded to teach them God’s word, and second, the student will become like the teacher, which in most schools is a secular humanist.

Ryan

 

[rwaechter]

First, there are materialist versions of evolution that by their very nature conflict with revealed religion. But scientific truths do not conflict with religious truths.

Second, read the following book: A Path Through Genesis by Bruce Vawter, and let me know what you think. The book can give you a basis for discussion. You can buy the book used, online, so it is easy to acquire.

Third, one should never let school interfere with their education.

Bruce Vawter comments on the first three chapters of Genesis…

“deal with myths which the church has appropriated and developed independently of biblical history: in this instance, the myths of creation and the fall of man.” 15

I won’t delve much deeper into this man’s error. He is certainly in a sad state to believe that man’s creation and fall was a myth. This would negate the entire redemptive story of Jesus, and the other 65 books for that matter.

This next quote clearly shows Vawter’s doubting of God’s word.

“Here again we have the non-scientific mind at work, of course, which did not necessarily see a causal connection between the sun and daylight, and which certainly was unaware that the light of the moon was a reflection, and that there is a difference of the same kind between the planets and the stars.” 14

If you believe this, you cannot accept any truth of the bible, unless you continue to change and modify. If this is your belief, then our lines cannot meet. Your honesty is appreciated. Take care.

Ryan

 

[itinerant1]

I would agree to say that science and the bible do not contradict. I would, however, like to see where you find scripture pointing toward evolution.

Why? You merely limit your understanding of how God creates and governs his creation by requiring a reference to evolution in the bible. Your criterion is unsound. I take it you also reject Einstein’s theory of general relativity because it is not in the bible. What about Mendelian genetics? What about Newton’s theory of optics? Or plate tectonics? Olber’s paradox? Cosmic red-shift? And so on, ad infinitum. You won’t find those ideas in the bible, either.

The bible is an authority, but private interpretation is not an authority. Private interpretation is unscriptural, as the bible itself says, no prophecy of scripture is for anyone’s private interpretation.

Are you familiar with St. Augustine’s commentary on Genesis? Augustine offered a theological notion of evolution involving the rationes seminales, since it was clear to him that a serious reading of Genesis does not support a literal creation in six days.

St. Thomas Aquinas said a direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture.

That would be the best basis for discussion, as this should be our ultimate authority. I will look up Bruce Vawter and find out what I can. I have read many books which have changed the word of God, or somehow made us our own God by removing His sovereignty, in order to fit their view. I’m very cautious.

Caution is good, but on what or whose authority do you determine which books have changed the word of God, and which books are reliable? And what is your authority for believing that the particular books which are in your bible are the inspired word of God?

Very good quote on school and education. We educate all our children at home because firstly, we are commanded to teach them God’s word, and second, the student will become like the teacher, which in most schools is a secular humanist.

Agreed

 

[edwest2]

I would agree to say that science and the bible do not contradict. I would, however, like to see where you find scripture pointing toward evolution. That would be the best basis for discussion, as this should be our ultimate authority. I will look up Bruce Vawter and find out what I can. I have read many books which have changed the word of God, or somehow made us our own God by removing His sovereignty, in order to fit their view. I’m very cautious.

Very good quote on school and education. We educate all our children at home because firstly, we are commanded to teach them God’s word, and second, the student will become like the teacher, which in most schools is a secular humanist.

Ryan

The science book is not a theology book, and yes, there are contradictions. Please read part 64 of Communion and Stewardship, available at the vatican web site.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

Bruce Vawter comments on the first three chapters of Genesis…

“deal with myths which the church has appropriated and developed independently of biblical history: in this instance, the myths of creation and the fall of man.” 15

I won’t delve much deeper into this man’s error. He is certainly in a sad state to believe that man’s creation and fall was a myth. This would negate the entire redemptive story of Jesus, and the other 65 books for that matter.

This next quote clearly shows Vawter’s doubting of God’s word.

“Here again we have the non-scientific mind at work, of course, which did not necessarily see a causal connection between the sun and daylight, and which certainly was unaware that the light of the moon was a reflection, and that there is a difference of the same kind between the planets and the stars.” 14

If you believe this, you cannot accept any truth of the bible, unless you continue to change and modify. If this is your belief, then our lines cannot meet. Your honesty is appreciated. Take care.

Ryan

You are falsely presuming that you understand what you have read. Apparently, you understand “myth” in the common or vulgar sense as something that is not true.

On the other hand, a myth can convey religious and moral truths in figurative language, much as a parable, allegory, and so on can.

It looks like you do not have the necessary education and background to discuss and interpret the Bible competently.

 

[Detales]

Itinerant1, my view is similar to yours. It is my contention that the Bible and the Ieshua story are elevated, not demoted, by understanding them as myth. Myth, in my understanding, means “psychological map.” And like maps, some are sketchy, like drawings in the sand, and others are like the topos + data from the Geodetic Survey. but they are maps, nonetheless, even if we take a literalist interpretation. We weren’t there when the dead supposedly walked from their graves when Ieshua died. So even if we have a topo map, we might mistake it, and if we have a sand scratching, we might give it too much credence as a treasure map.

Nevertheless, we do know that myth has been used historically as a transformative tool. We also know that the story of Ieshua fits even in name, “Iusu” with a similar story from Egypt, and other heroic myths meant as maps for introspective change. So even for one who might discount the historicity of the Bible, which is historic coincidentally, not deliberately, then we yet have a means of introspection useful in the considerations surrounding spiritual growth.

The same is true of such as the story of the “falls” of Lucifer and of Adam and Eve, both of which in fact are allegorical in nature as to the evolution of the human psyche and its possible return to an elevated state of awareness, perhaps including even after physical death in some sense not understood by intellectual means. Certainly it does apply to a “heavenly” state experiencible after the “death” of personal involvement with ego identification as we know from individual experience and the libraries of material that testify to that state.

 

[itinerant1]

The science book is not a theology book, and yes, there are contradictions. Please read part 64 of Communion and Stewardship, available at the vatican web site.
Peace,
Ed

You are still fixated on making crude generalizations. CS # 64 should clear away your confusion but it does not seem to help. The Vatican makes distinctions between scientific theories of evolution and materialist theories of evolution. Why can’t you get on board with that reality?

A scientific theory of evolution does not contradict theology, which is what you actually deny because of your fundamentalist-creationist leanings.

So far, you have sorely failed to present any good facts to support your personal opinions, opinions that find no support in *Communion and Stewardship *or *Fides et Ratio.
*

 

[donsnow]

there are a number of posts on evolution, and they seem to draw the most attention, which seems funny to me in that Catholics are free to accept or not the ideas of evolution. of course we are not biblical literalists, that is a feature of protestant Christianity. evolution represents a threat to their literal reading of Scripture and thereby their existence, in that the defining precept of protestantism is Sola Scriptura or only the information contained in cannonized Scripture, matters. this is their main seperation from us and therefore evolution is a threat to their very survival.

evolution is not however, a threat to us. it can be absolutely true and still have nothing to do with matters of faith, cosmogony, or Catholicism. ergo, our freedom to accept

that said, evolution in its entirety has several flaws, which i think people like to talk about, abiogenesis, holes in the fossil record, irreducible complexity. all of which make for interesting discussion. (yes, ive heard the arguments back and forth, and no, i dont care to hear more)

but in the end, evolution, one way or the other doesnt matter. **its 13.7 billion years too late. **it says nothing more interesting about faith than “wow, G-d works in mysterious ways”, it doesnt affect the issue of G-ds existence in any way at all.

so evolution simply doesnt matter.

Hi, warpspeedpetey -

Ah, but evolution does matter to those who make money from it; by teaching it; by obtaining grants to go out into the field and investigate it; and by selling books about it. It also matters to a few biologists and mathematicians who see what looks like evolution in germ and other animal growth as well as in algorithims developed by them about evolution.
(It’s not my fault that this forum doesn’t have ‘spell check’.)

However, (may I address you as petey?) petey, other than the above examples, I have observed that evolution doesn’t matter to most people. Oh, another example would be the godless, who like to misuse the TOE to ‘prove’ God doesn’t exist. Sort of closing the door on God, and ‘out of sight out of mind’, they go. OK, but to the rest of us, there’s more important things:

1. Getting along with our family.
2. Getting the groceries.
3. Getting and keeping employment to get the groceries to feed the family.
4. Getting and keeping my retirement and pension to get the groceries to feed this old bachelor and his dogs
5. Getting and keeping the shelter to live in and furnish, heat, cool and bring water to said shelter.
6. Getting and maintaining, insuring and safely operating the vehicle to carry the groceries from the store to the abode.
7. Getting the bus pass to ride bus in replacing the private vehicle.
8. Getting the cabfare to ride the taxi because of no personal vehicle.
9. Studying other interests such as history, astronomy, music, or vocational or trade education to make a better living.
10. Spending time with families, friends and other loved ones.
11. Going to Church.
12. Other people prefer to think about going to the club, watching TV, and drinking with friends, than think about anything.

There’s a whole planet here, with all kinds of different ‘worlds’ on it: miltiary, educational, industrial, commercial, financial, medical, religious, entertainment, political, media, government, etc. All those worlds function quite well, without the TOE. Oh, yeah, the educational world does not need the TOE to function because it’s functioned for centuries without the TOE; however, the TOE very much needs the educational, government and media worlds, to propagate its teachings. The government doesn’t need TOE because there’s been government for millenia without any development of the TOE. And, media doesn’t need TOE, because that’s been around and developing for at least 300 years.

The medical world may think it needs the TOE, but the researches could find the data without it. However, the TOE does need the medical world, to support some facets of the TOE.

Imho, the TOE is neither needed nor necessary because about 95% of the 7 billion people on this planet don’t give it a thought, once they or their kids get out of the classroom. Public school students tolerate it because it’s in the text book. Once out of school, there’s more important things to do, like get a life.. And, then live the life.

Consequently to all of the above, yes, I agree with the OP that ‘evolution’ doesn’t matter.