Our scriptures do not touch on the how of creation, because that wasn’t the point of them. It’s silly to read science into something that was never meant to convey such things. The purpose of the scriptures is to reveal God’s purpose for man via the person of Christ. Evolution- or a vehement denial of the lack thereof- simply isn’t found in the scriptures AT ALL. The only thing the scriptures tell us is that God is responsible for creation. The details are actually so unimportant in the bigger picture as to not even warrant a mention. The Old Testament points to Christ with types and anti-types of Christ. The scriptures aren’t scientific documents, and I honestly don’t see how science can be applied to them. Genesis is based on oral tradition and has a completely different focus than what science would even be looking at. Not everything is meant to be taken literally (especially in the way many seem to) and Genesis is meant to be a spiritual description of events that took place before time even existed. I’ll stick with the church fathers and what they have to say over the evolution vs. YEC debate that attempts to read things into the scriptures that aren’t there.
Science is subjective - one man’s “evidence” is another man’s junk.
Take embryology for example:. Some Darwinists believe a human embryo has “gills”! Hilarious. Darwinian embryology is quack science.
Most Darwinsts think the fossil record supports universal common ancestry. Hilarious - the fossil record actually contradicts UCA.
The neo-Darwinian version of the history of life on earth and its explanation of the process involved has not produced a single practical use. It is totally irelevant to “real science”.
… despite the fact that it can’t explain the fossil record. So much for “the best explanation” available - it fails the most fundamental test and falls at the first hurdle!!
Btw, your claim that “evolution is currently the best explanation available” is just your opinion - lots of people think creation is the “currently best explanation available”. What you should have said is, Neo-Darwinism is “currently the best SCIENTIFIC explanation available” (for what it’s worth, which is nothing).
… the understatement of the century.
Neo-Darwinism is useful only for explaining changes in gene frequency within a species population. As for explaining the history of life on earth, it’s a farce and a failure.
It’s accepted by the scientific community only because it’s their “best” explanation, not because it’s a satisfactory explanation.
The neo-Darwinist explanation for the history of life on earth has only one enemy - reality, in the form of scientific evidence.
Yes, Scripture does speak to this. Genesis is history and speaks with significant detail about the six days of Creation, the genealogies of Adam and Eve and their descendants, about the global flood at the time of Noah, about the origin of nations. For genealogies, see Genesis chapters 5, 10, 11. If Genesis chapters 1-11 were meant to be a spiritual/spiritualized description of events then it wouldn’t have included so much precise detail.
Also, Hebrews 11:3 tells us how God did it: What is visible came into being through the invisible.
If necessary, I can provide multiple quotes to affirm six day creation from the Early Church Fathers with the specifics on the source of the quote. I could quote these Early Church Fathers: St. Ambrose, St. Archelaus, St, Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Basil, the Venerable Bede, St. Clement of Alexandria, more.
Nothing is impossible with God. Almighty God can make a young universe look old if He decrees so.
For what purpose? To confuse everyone and make people like you look completely non-credible and give religion a bad name to prospective believers?
So, you fall into the “I haven’t read Darwin because I know he was wrong” camp.
These two quotes come form Chapter Six of ‘Origin’:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
The first of these was used by Professor Behe to develop the idea of Irreducible Complexity. That had a small success in that it made an improvement to the then existing theory, which has now been incorporated.
All fish and tetrapod embryos have gill arches (not gills) at an early stage. In fish, those arches develop into jaws and gills, in tetrapods they develop into jaws and various structures in the neck and ear. See Branchial arches for details.
I assume your source did not explain all of that. It just lied by omission to try to make evolution look silly.
You are not the first to make this argument. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox Christian, replied to it far better than I can:
One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos (“the Navel”). The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now - a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for.
Forgive me, my friends, for being an uneducated Catholic convert.
What is the official church teaching on evolution?
Catholics are free to believe in it or not so long as they do not deny the existence of Adam and Eve as first parents who sinned and caused our fallen nature, and that God created all things at the beginning of time. Catholics are also free to believe in a literal Genesis.
I find that uncalled for myself. I don’t believe in “fake fossils” planted by God. That’s not God’s way.
- God was moved by His Goodness to create the world.
- The world was created for the Glorification of God.
- The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation.
- God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity.
- God has created a good world.
- The world had a beginning in time.
- God alone created the World.
- God keeps all created things in existence.
- God through His providence protects and guides all that He has created.
- The first man was created by God.
- Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul.
- The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body.
- Every human being possesses an individual soul.
- God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny.
- Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace.
- They were also endowed with donum immortalitatis , i.e., the gift of bodily immortality.
- Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment.
- Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God.
- Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil.
- Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent.
- Original sin is transmitted by natural generation.
- In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity.
- Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.
- In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences (angels) out of nothing.
- The nature of angels is spiritual.
- The secondary task of the good angels is the protection of men and care for their salvation.
- The Devil possesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam’s sin.
If memory serves, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says Genesis presents creation “figuratively” as six days. Scientific discoveries strongly suggest that reading the Genesis account “figuratively” (not literally) is the correct way to read it.
The Bible concerns itself with the relationship between God and man, so pre-Adamic history is unimportant and is therefore presented “figuratively” as six days. Post-Adamic history, on the other hand, is presented much more literally, because this the information that matters.
The ECFs knew nothing of what modern geological science has revealed about how long life has been on earth. If they did, they would have realized that Genesis and the “six days” is almost certainly not a literal account of history.
What does any of that have to do with evo-dreamers like T. Dobskansky claiming that human embryos have “gills” (see Nothing in bilogy makes sense except in the light of evolution)?
No one has to lie to make evolution “look silly” - it does that all by itself.
Darwinists have to sweep the “embarrassment” of the fossil record under the carpet for precidsely that reason … to make evolution not look silly!
“Darwin’s argument [that the fossil record is imperfect and incomplete] still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the EMBARRASSMENT of a record that seem to show so little evolution directly … I wish only to point out that it [gradualism] was NEVER “SEEN” IN THE ROCKS” … We [paleontologists] fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as SO BAD that we ALMOST NEVER SEE the very process we profess to study” (S.J Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, pp. 181-182. Emphasis added ).
Since Gould, the fossil record has proven even more of an embarrassment - the fossils of two different fish (Metaspriggina and Myllokunmmingia) - ie, vertebrates - have been discovered in the Lower Cambrian. According to Darwinist folklore, the first vertebrates (fish) did not evolve (from invertebrate chordates) until the Devonian Period, about 120 million years after the Lower Cambrian.
Oh dear … how do Darwinists explain away the embarrassment of the first vertebrates appearing suddenly and fully-formed out of an evolutionary vacumm?
He would … Dr. Ken Miller strikes me as your typical science-worshipping theistic-evo-warrior who and has swallowed the Darwinist fable hook, line and sinker. Even if he wanted to, he wouldn’t dare oppose the Darwinist cult that dominates his profession - he knows he’d probably find himself out of a job.
Miller rejects any suggestion that - God forbid! - God might be an intelligent designer and that the history of life on earth might involve the miraculous.
IC stll stands.
Not exactly I think but see CCC 390.
For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life. - 1 Corinthians 15:22
Adam is a figure of death for all. Christ is a figure of life for all. Both were real historical persons.
Common descent from Adam is affirmed in 1 Corinthians 15:22. Common descent from Adam is affirmed in Romans 5:12-14.
The Passover Lamb in Exodus 12 is figurative of Jesus Christ the Lamb of God in the New Testament. The miraculous feeding of manna as in Exodus 16 is figurative of Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes and of the Holy Eucharist. Something can be both figurative and real.
So? Or are you claiming that we had already found every single early vertebrate fossil? Evolution says that every living organism except the very first had earlier ancestors. All you have here is a new pair of earlier ancestors which evolution predicted but which had not yet been found.
Your sources are lying to you if they told you that these new discoveries were a ‘problem’ for evolution.