Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the origin of death? Adam’s sin. “Therefore by one man, death entered the world.” If death did not exist prior to Adam, the entire natural struggle of life, death and birth was not yet in effect, ergo man preceded what we find in the fossil record.
 
StAugustine said:
man preceded what we find in the fossil record.
Click to expand...
There are different ways to think about death in this world.

It seems to me that unbridled growth would not be a good thing. While we have an individual uniqueness built into our being, the rest of nature may not share that characteristic. A cluster of grass would exist as a different being from another cluster, but at the same time they might be understood as being expressions of grassness. They could both die as individual manifestations of their kind of being, but what they are, grass, would not. Within that grassness would be the capacity to change in accordance with the environment system that includes them as participating components. So too cats, each seems to have its own personality, and if we include lions, sabretooth tigers and other felines in that group, they show great diversity as members of one kind of creature, that kind as the basic reality of each, never dying.

But that wouldn’t be the whole story. One third of angels are said to have fallen, following Lucifer; i.e. their own will over that of God. Eternal beings, they didn’t die, but would have corrupted the work they were to do for God. In the battle within heaven, they fell to earth, the mundane realm where they act out their evil impulses. If we imagine gene transfer as a process that was to allow for the blossoming and diversity of life, viruses, selfish DNA as the physical manifestation of this power turned evil, would be the outcome. There was a serpent in the Garden, so not all was good, although allowing for a greater good to happen. Nature, rooted in randomness built on a foundation of determined properties in matter as well as instincts at the level of animals, could have fallen prior to the appearance of mankind as a consequence of Satan’s rebellion and fall. There was a tree of eternal life at the centre of the Garden; while this represents the the eucharist, it does speak to the fact that death was a possibility, a possibility that became fact once we ate the fruit of the other tree to become gods, the fruit of the cross.

If that sounds weird, this might be weirder. God creates from eternity. All that is in all time and space exists, having One Cause, One Now that is in everything and includes everything. It is free will that allows those beings who possess it, to not only participate in their own fashion within creation, but to know God through their acts of love. We each individually are created from and are rooted in eternity as persons. At the very core of our being on the other side of the thinnest of veils away from God, we connect with everything within the Beatific Vision. With original sin, humanity chose to place itself ahead of God. As the crown of creation, the vehicle through which God’s purpose of having creation enter into communion within the Trinity, was to be acheived, our failure brought about the fall of everything. Mankind precedes the creation of everything else ontologically, and as a result everything came apart - death and suffering truly entered the world from its beginning to its end.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Another ‘Bufallo’.
Click to expand...
Well to me that looks like just a repeat of Buffalo1. But then Buffalo often has me buffled. Sorry, baffled.
Click to expand...
Fair point. But should he be awarded let’s say a half point for something already posted, OR double points for being daft enough to do it twice with the same one?

Nah. I think one point whenever he uses a link that by its very existence contradicts his view that evolution does not exist.

Why don’t you take ‘Eds’ and the first to eleven wins.
 
Bradskii said:
Why don’t you take ‘Eds’ and the first to eleven wins.
Click to expand...
Too easy. An Ed, of course, is a pointless, aimless question with no context or follow-up. One posting session by Ed and I’d be in the winner’s enclosure.
 
StAugustine said:
What is the origin of death? Adam’s sin. “Therefore by one man, death entered the world.” If death did not exist prior to Adam, the entire natural struggle of life, death and birth was not yet in effect, ergo man preceded what we find in the fossil record.
Click to expand...
This is a narrow and non-canonical interpretation of scripture.
 
StAugustine said:
Says who? In fact, I condemn evolution as a heresy.
Click to expand...
Well, when you get to be Pope you can do that. But right now I don’t see any reason to suppose you have Magesterial authority. I dismiss the rest of your “explanation” as just more of them same non-canonical interpretation. If you want to put forth a convincing argument that evolution (strict Darwinian evolution now, not “extended” neo-Darwinism that goes outside the bounds of science) is a heresy, then the only argument that would be convincing is an authoritative Magesterial document that says so clearly without any need of your “interpretation.”
 
Have you not noticed there is nothing that can be appealed to without simultaneously being dismissed as a “misinterpretation”?
 
And what the heck is a canonical interpretation?99% of the Bible has NO official interpretation other than the unanimous consensus of the Fathers of the Church. Read Vatican I.
 
StAugustine said:
And what the heck is a canonical interpretation?99% of the Bible has NO official interpretation other than the unanimous consensus of the Fathers of the Church. Read Vatican I.
Click to expand...
For us laymen, the Catechism is our best go-to document for what is binding Catholic doctrine. Read section 283:
The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”
Click to expand...
If evolution was a heresy, here is undoubtedly where the Church would have said so. But they did not.
 
Last edited:
StAugustine said:
I therefore execrate and abominate the heresy of evolution as simply a Neo-Pelagian Panacea for men who ultimately want nothing to do with the Sovereignty of Christ, who refuse to be ruled by God.
Click to expand...
Not really bumper sticker material though, is it. Needs a bit of work. Notwithstanding that people are going to need to Google ‘execrate’ by which time the thrust of the idea itself has gone awol (plus they charge extra for all those unecessary capital letters).

How about: ‘How come there are still monkeys!’ Short, sharp and to the point. It really says something about the guy up front.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
may accept micro-evolution as it is true. Macro? Not so much.
Click to expand...
😔

Humani Generis has been quoted enough for us to practically know by heart that PPXII allowed Catholics to accept evolution as a possible explanation for the evidence of human bodies. And no where have there been any official statements saying a Catholic cannot accept what you (and let me reiterate that, what you, not the Church or scientists) term macroevolution.

You don’t have to agree with evolution to know whether or not the Church allows Catholics to accept it as the physical process by which the diversity of life occurred.
Much in the same way we can probably agree that not only is the moon not made of cheese, but that it wouldn’t be heretical for a Catholic to hold that the moon is made of cheese. We’d argue against anyone holding such a silly vuew, but we’d overstep our bounds if we said it was heretical.
So you may disagree with evolution, but gets your facts straight when talking about what a Catholic may accept because that discussion can be held regardless of the trueness of evolution.
 
buffalo said:
No, he allowed the investigation, with the church having the final say.
Click to expand...
😔

The Church does not distinguish between “micro” or “macro” evolution. So if you’re going to say “Marco” can’t be accepted, then that “micro” you’re always on about is equally prohibited.
 
mVitus said:
The Church does not distinguish between “micro” or “macro” evolution. So if you’re going to say “Marco” can’t be accepted, then that “micro” you’re always on about is equally prohibited.
Click to expand...
Really? She accepts micro to be true. Why? Because it has been shown to be true. Molecules to man, has not been shown to be true and is an extrapolation of micro. Now we are learning that the distances macro evolution has to traverse are greater than ever thought. This matches up nicely with what the fossil record shows, abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.

Once again, Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

 
buffalo said:
She accepts micro to be true.
Click to expand...
Whoa whoa. Hold your horses. Where has the Church official stated “micro” is a certain fact? Source needed.

I would agree that such a view as yours that only microevolution occurs is compatible with Catholic faith. And the Church’s statements around evolution would clearly allow you to hold such a view and be a faithful Catholic, but that is not the same the Church as saying something is true in a matter of science.
 
They want this:

“23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.”

Humani Generis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top