Should Christians embrace evolution ?

The title of a new book. The preface is here:

mothwo.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-book-should-christians-embrace.html

An issue that is at the forefront of a global anti-theist marketing campaign, including this forum. The goal is to create a sense of urgency linked with an emotional plea for acceptance. I would encourage my Fellow Catholics to abandon any sense of urgency regarding this subject, read what the Church has said and written about it, and be mindful that the origin of man cannot be fully explained by science.

Peace,
Ed

“The fossil record and modern genetics falsify Darwin’s theory again and again.”

I actually laughed out loud- this man has no business writing a book.

Definately not.

Yes we should accept Evolution as much as we accept any other scientific theory. I mean, why be prejudice to this one theory? It seems to me that the only reason that Christians choose to challenge evolution is because it was presented by anti-theists as a challenge to belief, and so Christians mistakenly believe that it disproves or servery undermines the truth of our beliefs. Because many Christians lack understanding of there own belief system, they felt it suitable to hold to a literal understanding of scripture as being a definitive expression of Christian truth, as they had done before in the past, assuming that they were being attack by false information stirred up by the scientific witchcraft of the naturalists. Such a person has fallen for the propaganda of naturalism, and is striking out in fear rather than with reason. They are fighting the wrong enemy. Evolution does not undermine our faith, although it does challenge us to be more mature and knowledgeable about what we actually believe. But we shouldn’t accept Evolution as the the being and end all of existence. It certainly is not the whole story. Evolution doesn’t tell us why there is something rather then nothing, or how we should conduct ourselves morally. In terms of value, it doesn’t tell us how we should view our selves as people or whether or not there is a meaningful purpose to why we exist. We should resist naturalist gurus who claim that science has an answer to these questions. Anybody who claims that science does have an answer is false.

We hold to the constant teaching and understanding of Scripture and Tradition.

So you believe that the world was created in seven days and is only 6000 to 10,00 years old.
Well it seems that the last couple of Popes have been working to undermine Scripture and Tradition since they seem to think its okay to believe in an old earth and evolution.

I don’t think you really know what you are talking about when you say scripture and tradition, and i would appreciate it if you didn’t make sweeping comments that have no basis in reality.

How do creationists who believe the ‘literal account’ of Genesis deal with the two different accounts given therein?

Genesis 1-2:3, states that the earth, the plants, the animals and the first two human beings are created in that order. In the rest of Genesis 2, Adam is made first, then all plants and animals, and then Eve.

This appears contradictory and thus is problematic for those who state that creation occured as described in Genesis. How is it resolved?

Personally, I accept Evolution as LITTLE as I accept any other scientific theory.

I think it absolutely hilarious that scientists demand that we accept their current explanations of things. While keeping in mind, of course, that all theories are provisional, and they are likely to change, even to the point of completely dismissing the last theory du jour.

Evolutionists tell us that Evolution is just a proven as the theory of gravity (as one example). Therefore we must believe it or we are ignorant or dishonest. But how much does science really know? I’m an engineer so certainly I know of much science that is useful for predictions of how things can be designed such that they work correctly (bridges, computers, etc.). But at a more basic level, how much does science REALLY know?

Here are 2 articles which cast doubt on a lot of things, including our current explanations of gravity.

link1

link2

Some of the things listed in these articles undercut the very basics of what we consider to be reality, and how things work. The point I’m making is that those who consider themselves to be “smart” because they believe in “scientific reality” (as opposed to us stupid folks who believe in revelation and/or are dubious of some scientific claims) are standing on very thin, melting ice.

And speaking of melting ice, science is not the “objective, non-political, unbiased voice of pure reason” discipline that it makes itself out to be.

link3

It’s worth keeping in mind that scientists are wrong. They always have been, and they always will be. Sure, there are models of reality that are useful under certain conditions (like I mentioned above). But when they say the TOE (or whatever) MUST be believed because it is Truth - just remember that this is the Truth-du-jour - and that there will be a new Truth-du-jour tomorrow.

Yes, It is amazing to see God’s great work in Evolution.

Hi, edwest2 -

I think Christians should embrace Jesus Christ and his church first. Then, we should be careful what we add to our train of mental, emotional and spiritual baggage. Especially technical and scientific Christians.

magic

Oh, ricmat!

I just finished reading all three links.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.

You think philosophy could do a better job of explaining origins than Darwin?:smiley:

You have absolutely no basis for your claim. It has been shown by me and others time and time again the constant belief and understanding.

Easy - the first account is the order of creation. The second shows the importance of man. They are complementary accounts. The first account also seems to be written from God’s perspective. There is no need to repeat the first account in the second.

ignorant

There is a good answer to your questions here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401sbs.asp

Peace,
Ed

It’s already gotten into the Biology textbooks, and therefore, into young people’s heads:
We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

Peace,
Ed

Hi, edwest2 -

Thanks for the above synopsis of Darwinist thought on theories of evolution.

I have the impression that some contemporary biologists are drifting from Darwinist uniformtarianism, to a concept that contains both catastrophic and gradual changes in the natural world. Hopefully, Darwin’s impact on theories of evolution will continue to subside. I think basically Darwin was the 19th century PR man for the Uniformtarian school of evolutionary thought at that time. Evolutionists really need a contemporary rather than 19th century foundation to their theories. Unfortunately many of them cling to Darwinism with religious fervor. What a pity.

You can not insist on a literal interpretation of a piece of work that contradicts itself if taken literally. Without magic.

The Bible is not a science book. It is a spiritual book. People who don’t understand science think or project their scientific ignorance onto the Bible and quote from it as if it was scientific theory.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.