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.
rossum said:
Why do you deny the evidence shown to you by God in the world He made?
Click to expand...
I am not, you are, by sticking to the failed modern synthesis.

God, through our findings of ID in science, is further Revealing His glory.
 
buffalo said:
The Holy Spirit allowed a misinterpretation for so long?
Click to expand...
Well, it was about 1500 years before the geocentric interpretation was corrected. Given the number of different Christian denominations, there are still a lot of incorrect interpretations around today.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Well, it was about 1500 years before the geocentric interpretation was corrected. Given the number of different Christian denominations, there are still a lot of incorrect interpretations around today.
Click to expand...
What verse is this in the Bible?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The Holy Spirit did inspire them, but that does not guarantee that the grammar was correct or that every irrelevant detail is correct. Only Protestants profess sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit allowed a misinterpretation for so long?
Click to expand...
Yes, if the thing being misinterpreted is irrelevant to the story of God’s relationship with man.

Consult the Church you profess to belong to for further answers to questions of this sort.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
What verse is this in the Bible?
Click to expand...
Joshua’s sun standing still in the sky is a common reference. Alternatively read a good book on Christian or Catholic history which quotes those who followed that interpretation.

Here is part of Galileo’s Abjuration
I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged 70 years, tried personally by this court, and kneeling before You, the most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General throughout the Christian Republic against heretical depravity, having before my eyes the Most Holy Gospels, and laying on them my own hands; I swear that I have always believed, I believe now, and with God’s help I will in future believe all which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doth hold, preach, and teach.
Click to expand...
But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth was not the centre of the same and that it moved, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I did write and cause to be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned doctrine, and bring forward arguments of much efficacy in its favour, without arriving at any solution: I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the Sun is the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth is not the centre of the same, and that it does move. (emphases added)
Click to expand...
The Holy Office certainly thought that “Holy Writ” supported a geocentric cosmology.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
God, who created everything, could not do this?
Click to expand...
God, who created everything, could not do evolution?

Since He could do anything, we need to look at his works, which tell us what He actually did do. For example, the Bible does not tell us that God made America, Pluto and kangaroos. God’s work tells us that.

Did any Bible interpretation tell us about kangaroos?

rossum
 
Actually, I do have a theological objection to evolution - I’d forgotten about Genesis 1 and the verses which describe God creating organisms “according to their kind”. In my opinion, such verses rule out any possibility of one kind evolving into a completely different kind. My model of Progressive Creation, on the other hand, doesn’t contradict such verses, as each new creation is a kind that remains the same kind.
 
IWantGod said:
evolution could be wrong, but it’s the best scientific explanation so far.
Click to expand...
Catholics don’t need a “best scientific explanation” or even a “scientific explanation” for the history of life on earth (in fact, no one does. And as far as I can tell, the evolution explanation is a scientific irrelevance, having no practical scientific use). While the “literal six days” interpretation is theologically acceptable, its drawback is that is that it’s outdated, as it contradicts the findings of modern science - ie, the fossil and geological records.

I think my Progressive Creation model offers the best of both worlds for Catholics - (a) unlike evolution, it doesn’t contradict Scripture, and (b) it fits the fossil and geological records much better than evolution does.
PC has another advantage over biological evolution - it doesn’t require any far-fetched and thoroughly unconvincing explanations for morphological change based solely on mutations and natural selection.
 
Last edited:
William_Scott said:
The well known evolutionist Richard Lewontin speaks forthrightly regarding the dogmatic worldview …
Click to expand...
Lewontin’s words read like something taken straight out of an atheist manisfesto - which hardly surprises me, as it’s obvious to me that the theory of evolution is a godless attempt to explain the history of life on earth (despite it’s incompatibility with the fossil record).
 
William_Scott said:
I’d rather be prejudiced, though, by the words of the Lord Jesus Christ who said “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6)
Click to expand...
I used to believe this verse stated that Adam and Eve were present at “the beginning of creation”, but then I realized that what Jesus meant was, marriage was instituted “at the beginning of (the) creation” of Adam and Eve.
 
mVitus said:
It may not explicitly mention evolution, but I’d ask what you think 283 refers to … To me, it’s a clear reference to modern science, which includes evolution.
Click to expand...
Oh, I completely agree with you - #283 is obviously referring to evolution, although it doesn’t use the word “evolution” probably because evolution cannot be confirmed as a fact. Not to be deterred, this blantantly pro-evolution paragraph is very sneaky and cleverly worded, as it does its best to imply evolution IS a fact:
  1. Notice how the “scientific studies” into “the orgins … of man” are described as “knowledge” and “discoveries”. The impliction is, evolution is a fact, as only a fact can qualify as knowledge or discovery.
  2. The paragraph implies that the scientists who are responsible for this “knowledge” and “discoveries” about “the origins … of man” (ie, evolution) have been blessed by God with “unerring knowledge” - ie, infallible knowledge. This wording implies evolution is not only a fact, but it is infallible knowledge handed down from God - this is just absurd.
So it is fair to say I oppose the implictions of #283, because evolution is not a fact and can never be confirmed as a fact, and therefore cannot possibly be “infallible knowledge”. I believe #283 is in fact in error, is very misleading and should be removed from the Catechism.
Out of curiosity, does that mean you’re open to the possibility of non-human evolution?
Click to expand...
No, I oppose non-human evolution on the basis of the verses in Genesis 1 which state that organisms were created “according to their kind”.
 
Last edited:
William_Scott said:
However, the same naturalistic faith that necessitates the biological evolution mythology likewise necessitates abiogenesis, and the cosmological evolution mythology (I can attest from experience that it’s almost as silly as biological evolution)
Click to expand...
I disagree - in light of what science now knows about the functional complexity of even the simplest known cell, it is impossible for a human being to come up with a sillier idea than life arising naturally and by mere chance from inanimate matter. Humans may well think of something equally absurd, but to think of something that is actually more absurd … no, I don’t think so.
This is why Romans 1 says of people who reject belief in a divine Creator (eg, athesits) “claiming to be wise, they became fools”.
 
rossum said:
Science gets its power from concentrating on what it is good at: the material world
Click to expand...
The claim that all life on earth evolved from microbes or that humans and chimps share a common ancestor is theoretical science - it therefore has nothing to do with “the material world”; it is simply a story. And no one is obliged to accept the claims of theoretical science - unless one has a good excuse … atheism, for example.
As a Buddhist, my universe is eternal, requiring no creator.
Click to expand...
In that case, how did it come about that one’s deeds in this life result in good or bad “karma” in the next life? It seems that your godless, self-created universe is also a judgeless universe that somehow judges people and then unfailingly administers infallible justice.
How does something with no mind determine and administer perfect justice, and how does something with no mind “pull the strings” of the universe to ensure that this perfect justice is served to each and every creature?
 
Last edited:
bveritas said:
The “seven days” oif creation story is a metaphor that implies that we should recognize multiple epochs in God’s creative plan, including His creation of new species whenever He sees fit
Click to expand...
Hey, this sounds rather like my Progressive Creation model! These “epochs in God’s creative plan” and “His creation of new species whenever He see fit” are what we find reflected in the fossil record - ie, with all its gaps (the distinct lack of transitionals), stasis and sudden appearances of fully-formed creatures. These characteristics that have always bugged evolutionists but they fit quite well into a Progressive Creation model.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top