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

[Edgar]

Where I would disagree is with your belief that the genome itself, of previous life forms was used in the construction of higher, more complex life forms

I have decided to simplify my progressive creation model - by leaving out the geneticis part of it - because

a) the idea that Adam was in any way created from a lower animal doesn’t sit at all well with me;

b) I don’t trust the scientific claims that the genomes of all living creatures - including man - are linked in a pattern of common descent. Conversing online with Darwinist scientists has taught me that their approach to biology is sometimes far from objective and dispassionate, which can seriously affect their intellectual integrity. Something they tend to do is conflate the conclusion of common descent with the evidence for common descent.
Moreover, science attemps to explain what I believe is a supernatural process, so really, what is it worth? No much, I would say.

 

[Edgar]

That is your literalist interpretation, not how the Church interprets Scripture.

Can you explain how Genesis 2.7 can be interpreted such that Adam was the offspring of a pre-existing creature?

 

[Edgar]

Your opinion.

Actually, I got the idea from some drongo called Saint Thomas Aquinas.

I think it is absolutely awesome that God created a world with evolution - much more awesome than the sideshow magician rabbit-out-of-a-hat understanding you present as "greater.’

Even man can modify an existing creature (via genetic engineering), which is what really what evolution is. God made living creatures from inanimate matter - can man do that?

So which is the greater feat? To modify an existing creature, or to make a creature from dust?

 

[Edgar]

that wouldn’t negate the possibility that it was his intention that the world should develop according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Otherwise, whats the point.

Did God rely on the laws of physics and chemistry when he created the universe out of nothing? No. Did God rely on those laws when He created life from inanimate matter? No. So why would He rely on those laws to develop life?

 

[Edgar]

God has not revealed all the details of His creation, so I don’t know exactly how He managed creation. I am naturally curious as to how that creative act played out, and I encourage the use of the scientific method to discover what we can.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for science to explain the miracle of life.

 

[Edgar]

I don’t doubt that “some” people see science as replacing God, but I don’t think their numbers amount to “many.”

In my book, hundreds of millions of atheists qualifies as “many”.

 

[Edgar]

Here are a couple of interesting quotes from that article:

“Overwhelmingly the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity and to survival of death …”

“… biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists and were more likely to perceive conflict between science and religion.”

 

[Edgar]

True, but where did the dust come from ?

Well, according to my atheist brother-in-law, “It just happened!” He’s a deep thinker, obviously.

 

[Edgar]

I’m implying that he can make things pop into existence just by his word.

I once saw a bloke make Google Search come up on his phone just by speaking to it! I concluded he was a god.

 

[Edgar]

Well you know evolution has to go through a lot of trial and error to get it right.

A sure sign of an omnipotent God! Stumbling … bumbling … groping in the dark …but He got there in the end.

 

[Edgar]

You’ll never get any details of how it works from these people, because the whole thing is speculation right from the start.

Never underestimate the human capacity for self-delusion. Scientists think they understand how life came to be, but if you ask me, they haven’t got a clue. They’re like clueless little children trying to figure out how the grown-ups split the atom.

 

[Edgar]

So the dinosaurs went extinct, but the dino-birds didn’t .

Little meteorites rained down and hit only the dinosaurs on the head and extincted (that’s a word) them. Everything else survived.

 

[Edgar]

I have been involved in writing fiction for decades, and evolution takes the cake.

What do you expect? The athesits who invented it and who have been promoting it for more than 150 years live in a dreamworld.

 

[PickyPicky]

I once saw a bloke make Google Search come up on his phone just by speaking to it! I concluded he was a god

Trust me, if he was using Google he was no god.

 

[Aloysium]

conflate the conclusion of common descent with the evidence for common descent.

Exactly! And, that evidence makes far more sense within a creationist framework that is more comprehensive, going beyond the material and utilitarian, which it places in its rightful place, as necessary but secondary.

science attemps to explain what I believe is a supernatural process

Empirically derived evidence is misused to promote a secular myth of creation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That is your literalist interpretation, not how the Church interprets Scripture.

Can you explain how Genesis 2.7 can be interpreted such that Adam was the offspring of a pre-existing creature?

It is not a matter of my interpretation, but the Church’s interpretation, which as you can see defer to science for the “how” while placing limits on science concerning the meaning of creation and the “why”, which is the proper domain of faith.

LeafByNiggle:

Your opinion.

Actually, I got the idea from some drongo called Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Then it is his opinion - one that I am not bound to share.

I think it is absolutely awesome that God created a world with evolution - much more awesome than the sideshow magician rabbit-out-of-a-hat understanding you present as "greater.’

Even man can modify an existing creature (via genetic engineering), which is what really what evolution is.

Man can only do what the tools God has provided will allow. But God made those very tools. That is greater.

 

[o_mlly]

It would seem to me that if God decided …

That’s not God. But it seems that so many want to restrict Him.

You are correct if by the above you imply that a projection is faulty that extends our finite existence limitations onto the existence of a being in eternity.

If the finite are to invade the infinite then it must be on common ground and by invitation. The invitation is Revelation, the common ground is right reason and the motive force is always love freely given.

Leaving aside necessity of Revelation and love for the moment and focusing only on right reason, it is irrational to write that an act of a being in eternity is either in the future or the past tense. In eternity there is no future and no past, only the present. The present-participle best describes all the acts of a being in eternity.

For instance, it is irrational to write that “God decided” as that phrase incorrectly puts God into time restricting His action to a mode unnatural to His existence. Rationally, one would write that for all eternity, God is deciding.

 

[o_mlly]

That’s bradskii with a double i, thank you.

Of course you are. The poster obviously confused you with your progenitor, a species that went extinct circa 2017.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It would seem to me that if God decided …

That’s not God. But it seems that so many want to restrict Him.

You are correct if by the above you imply that a projection is faulty that extends our finite existence limitations onto the existence of a being in eternity.

If the finite are to invade the infinite then it must be on common ground and by invitation. The invitation is Revelation, the common ground is right reason and the motive force is always love freely given.

Leaving aside necessity of Revelation and love for the moment and focusing only on right reason, it is irrational to write that an act of a being in eternity is either in the future or the past tense. In eternity there is no future and no past, only the present. The present-participle best describes all the acts of a being in eternity.

For instance, it is irrational to write that “God decided” as that phrase incorrectly puts God into time restricting His action to a mode unnatural to His existence. Rationally, one would write that for all eternity, God is deciding.

So change the tense. Use the ‘eternal now’ tense if you like.

And if something exists outside of time then it will be forever unknown unless it connects with us in time. So it is perfectly valid to use the normal tenses when referring to something that God has done (flooded the planet), is doing (making it rain) or will be doing (sending me to hell).

Failing that, I expect you to use the present continuous from now on whenever you are referring to God. Your call.

 

[Elf01]

Can you explain how Genesis 2.7 can be interpreted such that Adam was the offspring of a pre-existing creature?

So all of Genesis 1-3 is literal history?