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

[IWantGod]

Yes, you are. You are imposing and operating from the false premise that anything and everything related to the creation of species must or should be included in the Bible, or it is not true. This is not what Catholics believe about Scripture, which is why it is also a strawman.

I never argued that everything true is included in the Bible. But the fact remains, the universe revealed by science is very different from what is described in genesis. It’s very old and it has developed according to the laws of physics.The tension between science and the bible, if there is any at all, comes only from an unwarranted belief that genesis is how it really happened in history. And instead of accepting that genesis is not a description of events that took place, those who know that it is inconsistent with the facts try to twist and stretch genesis to suit their assumptions. So no, i don’t think an ad-hoc rendition of genesis to fit the facts is reasonable.

There are core fundamental truths in genesis that are integral to the Christian faith, the idea that God created our reality and that the human race originates with Adam and Eve. However the story used to embody those truths is just a story; a plot device used to help us relate to our Creator and understand the origins of sin…

I am not refuting the bible, i’ refuting your interpretation of it.

 

[o_mlly]

But I’m just stating the obvious, as were you. Atheists, by definition, are not going to believe in a proposal that requires a belief in God (or any other gods for that matter).

No, what you claim is not only not obvious; it does not even logically follow. Denying one thing (evolution) does not require one to affirm another (theism).

But judging by the lack of responses so far, it is true the f(x) = y, where x = atheist, and y = TofE.

Christians do not have a dog in this fight but the atheists clearly do.

 

[guanophore]

I never argued that everything true is included in the Bible.

You may not realize it, but this the foundation of your premise. If you claim that something is true (in this case, about Creation) and that is “should” have been included in Scripture, then you are forcing your expectations onto the text.

God included everything in the Scriptures we need to lead us to salvation. It is not a science book.

But the fact remains, the universe revealed by science is very different from what is described in genesis.

On the contrary, there are no conflicts there. The conflicts exist in your perception, only.

It’s very old and it has developed according to the laws of physics.

We believe that God created the universe, and the laws of physics. Why is there a “difference” for you?

The tension between science and the bible, if there is any at all, comes only from an unwarranted belief that genesis is how it really happened in history.

Catholics believe the Scriptures are inerrant and inspired because this is what Jesus taught. The Scriptures record religious history (as you have been repeatedly told on this thread) and the account is entirely consistent with all the other history of the universe.

And instead of accepting that genesis is not a description of events that took place, those who know that it is inconsistent with the facts try to twist and stretch genesis to suit their assumptions.

Of course it is a description of what took place. It comes from a spiritual perspective, not a scientific one. That does not mean they are in contradiction with each other. The facts may look different depending upon where a person is standing…

However the story used to embody those truths is just a story ; a plot device used to help us relate to our Creator and understand the origins of sin…

You certainly have the right to take whatever frame of reference you desire. Catholics are bound to take the perspective of Jesus, which means that it is more than a “plot device”.

I am not refuting the bible, i’ refuting your interpretation of it.

Actually, I have not given any interpretations, so I think you must be talking about yourself, here.

The interpretation you are refuting is the one that God has given to the Church. You have been created a free being, so that you can choose to reject what God has given.

 

[IWantGod]

and that is “should” have been included in Scripture

When did i say that something should be included? I merely pointed out that it wasn’t. So why should i accept your reinterpretation above the more reasonable idea that genesis was not a literal expression of how creation went but rather a figurative expression?

 

[IWantGod]

We believe that God created the universe, and the laws of physics. Why is there a “difference” for you?

You are the one saying there is a difference. You are the one creating a straw-man

 

[IWantGod]

It comes from a spiritual perspective, not a scientific one.

All i ever said is that genesis is not a literal historical account.

 

[IWantGod]

Catholics are bound to take the perspective of Jesus, which means that it is more than a “plot device”.

If you are saying that the world being created in 6 days and God resting on the seventh was intended to be taken literally, then your interpretation is wrong.

 

[IWantGod]

Actually, I have not given any interpretations, so I think you must be talking about yourself, here.

I think you have just made a strawman of my argument. You responded without thinking. Also you responded in relation to what someone else said. So i take it that you agree with that person.

 

[IWantGod]

The interpretation you are refuting is the one that God has given to the Church.

No it is not. It’s an interpretation, it is not doctrine.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

But I’m just stating the obvious, as were you. Atheists, by definition, are not going to believe in a proposal that requires a belief in God (or any other gods for that matter).

No, what you claim is not only not obvious; it does not even logically follow. Denying one thing (evolution) does not require one to affirm another (theism).

Christians do not have a dog in this fight but the atheists clearly do.

You aren’t following the conversation. I am not, and did not say that to deny evolution means you must be a theist (although that is overwhelmingly true).

I am saying, to repeat, that if you do not believe in the supernatural then supernatural explanations for how life came to be as it is now are automatically discounted. By definition.

But I will ask again, if you know of alternative theories that do not require a belief in God, then I am keen to discuss them. Otherwise it might seem as we only have two options. One requiring a belief, such as ID, creationism and theistic evolution for example, and variations on the secular version of evolution.

I might note that not a few people on this forum have no problem with the secular version on the understanding that God formulated the natural laws under which it proceeds (to His intended ends).

So if we have any alternatives…?

 

[Juvenal]

Why should mitochondria define species?

Fixed the link.

 

[Juvenal]

I am not, and did not say that to deny evolution means you must be a theist (although that is overwhelmingly true).

In the U.S. there are many times more theists than atheists, and nearly half of those theists accept evolution. In fact, as there are more theists who are evolutionists than atheists, as a strictly statistical exercise the expectation is that any randomly selected evolutionist is a Christian.

fwiw, ymmv, …

 

[o_mlly]

You aren’t following the conversation.

Oh, I know that I am following this conversation as I started it before your attempted muddling.
To refresh your memory.

The theory of macro-evolution has many proponents and opponents who profess also to be Christians. But how many atheists oppose macro-evolution? I think that number is zero. Prove me wrong.

Or are you just trying to wiggle out of what you’ve posted so far in response?

 

[Juvenal]

But how many atheists oppose macro-evolution? I think that number is zero. Prove me wrong.

Have you ever heard of the Raelians?

Life on Earth was created by extraterrestrials who were mistaken for gods by our primitive ancestors. Help us to build an embassy for them!

 

[guanophore]

Genesis implies that God created distinct species of creatures. There is no reason at all given in the bible to think that they evolved.

First of all, Genesis did not “imply” this, it clearly states that God created distinct species of creatures.

Your perception is that there is “no reason at all in the bible to think that they evolved”. Such a statement indicates a premise that such a reason “must” be included in the text. You have imposed an expectation upon the text that is not reasonable.

Better to not reference the bible at all for how God chose to create the world because your explanation is not what is presented in genesis.

This statement reflects your perception. Those of us with a different perception do not see a conflict between the Genesis account, and what has been discovered in science.

I am not trying to refute the bible, i am just telling you whats not in it.

Clearly you seem to believe that something should be contained in it that is not there, or that you do not “see” is there.

getting evolution from a literal account of genesis is unsupported

You seem to want to find biblical evidence of evolution?

At this point, given what scientists has uncovered in different fields, it makes no sense to look at genesis as being anything more than a symbolic representation of true events; the truth that God created the world.

Perhaps you have a problem with the nature of symbol? A symbol can contain that which it signifies. This is how we understand the sacraments. Outward signs of invisible realities.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You aren’t following the conversation.

Oh, I know that I am following this conversation as I started it before your attempted muddling.
To refresh your memory.

The theory of macro-evolution has many proponents and opponents who profess also to be Christians. But how many atheists oppose macro-evolution? I think that number is zero. Prove me wrong.

Or are you just trying to wiggle out of what you’ve posted so far in response?

Far from me trying wiggle out of what I’ve posted, I am trying to encourage a debate on what YOU have posted. As you said above, the number of atheists denying ‘secular’ evolution, if I may put it that way, is probably zero. To repeat - I am agreeing with you.

And I am agreeing with you because, again as I have already said, there appear to be only two proposals as to how life is as it is now. One requires a belief in God (or some other supernatural agency) which an atheist obviously cannot countenance. And the other is the usual ToE as per the op. So you have not said anything that is not blindingly obvious.

Unless there are other theories which would give those who don’t believe in God another option. Do you know of any? If so, yet again, I would like to discuss them.

 

[IWantGod]

First of all, Genesis did not “imply” this, it clearly states that God created distinct species of creatures.

And science says otherwise. It’s called the natural theory of evolution.

If evolution is correct then genesis is not a literal historical account of creation, and it doesn’t need to be. It’s people who are arguing otherwise that are creating the conflict.

I’ll leave what ever else you said to the wind,

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I am not, and did not say that to deny evolution means you must be a theist (although that is overwhelmingly true).

In the U.S. there are many times more theists than atheists, and nearly half of those theists accept evolution. In fact, as there are more theists who are evolutionists than atheists, as a strictly statistical exercise the expectation is that any randomly selected evolutionist is a Christian.

fwiw, ymmv, …

I concur. From what I have seen, Christians who accept evolution - about 2/3) are spit 50:50 on whether God was involved. Which, I must say, I found surprising. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/

As to what atheists believe, I am struggling to think that there might be a secular version of creationism or ID that we could throw into the mix. Lamarkism and vitalism etc hardly count (likewise Raelians).

 

[guanophore]

All i ever said is that genesis is not a literal historical account.

I wonder if you are using the word “literal” to mean “physical”. It is literal in the sense that it is literally true. There are things that exist in reality that are not physical. They are literally ‘true’ though cannot be proven scientifically.

If you are saying that the world being created in 6 days and God resting on the seventh was intended to be taken literally, then your interpretation is wrong.

I can appreciate why you feel that way, but I think you are mistaken. Something that is symbolic does not make it untrue.

“But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.” 2 Peter 3:8

If you think I believe that each of the “days” in Genesis is exactly 1000 years, then your interpretation is wrong.

I think you have just made a strawman of my argument.

Actually, you did not furnish any “argument”. You have made assumptions (inaccurate) about what I believe, and assigned those beliefs to me. And in the previous post, you have informed me that the interpretation you assigned to me is “wrong”. I can’t think of a better example of a strawman!

No it is not. It’s an interpretation, it is not doctrine.

Perhaps you are misinformed about what “doctrine” is, what “dogma” is, and how that relates to interpretation. Have you read any of the Church documents on these matters, or do you just pull these ideas out from where sunlight fears to tread?

And science says otherwise. It’s called the natural theory of evolution.

I fail to see the contradiction. How can you prove that God did not create the individual species through this method?

If evolution is correct then genesis is not a literal historical account of creation, and it doesn’t need to be.

I think the problem here is how you perceive the concept of “literal”. You seem to think it means it is not “true”.

I’ll leave what ever else you said to the wind,

There does seem to be a great deal of blustery overheated air on this thread!

 

[Juvenal]

As to what atheists believe, I am struggling to think that there might be a secular version of creationism or ID that we could throw into the mix. Lamarkism and vitalism etc hardly count (likewise Raelians).

I, for one, welcome our newly revealed alien overlords.

When every creature you’ve ever seen or heard of resulted from reproduction, there’s little philosophical urge to needlessly multiply their causal entities. But if we’re looking for a more reasonable secular hypotheses, well, there’s always Directed Panspermia.