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


At the very Centre of Existence, the Source of everything that is the perfect Divine and eternal relationship that is the Triune Godhead, from whom everything is given its being. The Trinity is Love, the mutual giving, Father and Son through the Holy Spirit. The cosmos with the intent that His creation would share in His glory and love. But, we chose to usurp that which is God, placing our selves at the centre of our relationships with Him, the world and one another. In doing so we “detached” ourselves form the creative and healing power that is His love. Justice is the face of love that is seen by sin, and justice, the surrendering of this broken humanity back to God is done with or without our will. In Jeus Christ, who became one of us and died to sin, we find our salvation, the healing of our brokenness, acheiving transcendence in communion with God.

As a manifestation of love, there is nothing so rational.

Poof, you here now exist, your entire life stretching before this moment and ahead to where no one knows, each momnet lived as it is, was and will be, “now”, where everything happens. Out of nothing in time and, depending on the definition of time, back to nothing. Poof. And, that’s just you, who is not anyone else who has ever or will ever live. At the same time, you are a human being, with the particular perosnal and environmental physical, psychological and spiritual qualities that go into making you who you are. Both you and the kind of being you are, poof, here we are conversing. True but considered irrational seen through the looking glass from the other side.

I’ve noticed how my ideas have evolved since way before I entered into these discussions. By evolved I mean growing in depth of explanatory and revelatory value, in complexity and clarity. I don’t think anyone else but me could know this. I share what I know and think and others get what they can from it.

It’s wise to consider that how one sees others can frequently reflect that defect within oneself.


That is a fundamentalist reading of scripture. God is the very essence of being, or the act of “to be”. Or however you’d like to express that reality.
The passage in question is part of scripture, and can be read with different senses, but the Catholic Church does not read Scripture through literalist fundamentalist eyes. And so God ordering destruction must be read in the proper context.


No, the logic is quite intact.

Most folks think it already sufficiently proofed. The vast majority of the small segment of holdouts do so only because they think it conflicts with their ideas on God.


You keep leaving out the importance of the ecosystem that the long and short hair organisms are connected to, and how is all that going to evolve.


How are the rats going to survive if everything else is dead ?


I have abandonned any expectation that my replies will mean anything to the posters to whom I am responding. I trust that there are others who will derive benefit from this.

The bacteria remain bacteria. The offspring are different from their progenitors because of pre-existing genetic and epigenetic structures and processes. These allow for adaptation to the environment in which they participate as components of that greater whole, transforming and being affected by what is other to their individual being.

The observation of mountains is the connection between who we are and what is the mountain. We do not observe mutations arising from chemical processes acting in accordance to the random activity of matter alone. The mutations we observe are the result of programmed capacities within the bacterium, to adapt itself and to pass that on to its offspring. Things die as a result of their not fitting in; and, we can call that natural selection, I suppose. We do not observe natural selection nor evolution; we frame what we see in accordance with those beliefs.

That things come into existence ex nihilo, and that their existence is dependent on God, who grants them their existence does nothing to change the reality behind what is called natural selection. It is not creative. As things change, what was, is replaced by what is new. The fading does not cause the emergence of a new light although it precedes it temporally. There comes to pass is a new creation.



A rat eat rat world I guess.


Yeah… but wouldn’t the radiation build up to intolerable levels ?


Whatever the context, it is still God ordering destruction, no doubt for Godly reasons. To deny that God can order destruction is obviously a misreading.

Hence, the idea the evolution cannot be of God because it involves destruction is incorrect. Merely involving destruction is insufficient; more detail of the argument is needed.



Yes, the ecosystem evolves as well, in parallel with the particular species under consideration. Both predators and prey will find longer (or shorter) hair more beneficial since the temperature change affects them both. Plants will need to adapt to changed temperatures as well, using existing variations.



First, they are evolved bacteria. Evolutionary processes have changed their DNA.

Second, you need to learn a lot more about biology. “Bacteria” covers many species, probably about a billion. Just as “Eukaryote” covers many species. All plants, all fungi, all animals (including humans) as well as a number of single celled species, like amoeba, are Eukaryotes.

Saying “they are still bacteria” is like saying “they are still eukaryotes” when comparing an elephant with a mushroom.



College Theology courses


Genetic and epigenetic factors inherent in pre-existing bacteria provide them with the mechanisms to adapt to their environment, to re-configure the relationship they have with the world of which they are a part, such that they can grow and multiply. No evolution, simply change.

FYI - In any kind of conversation or discussion, this is where the people you are talking to shut off and you begin to speak only to yourself. Usually it sets an accusatory tone going both ways and therefore nowhere. Especially on the internet, we have no idea to whom we are talking to and it is best to stick to the argument. See, now I’m telling you what to do. Pointless

But I actually did read on and found what is an example of the worst kind of semantic argument.


Definition of “Biblical Inspiration” from The Catechism of the Catholic Church, p 868:

“The gift of the Holy Spirit which assisted a human author to write a biblical book so that it has God as its author and teaches faithfully, without error, the saving truth that God has willed to be consigned to us.” (italics added)

What is inspired in the Bible is that which is important to know for salvation. What is NOT inspired is the history, science or sociology which is found in the Bible.


So that means… you’re going to need a whole lot of perfectly synchronised random mutation going on.


I would return that the same could be said, in some regard, of other subjects, such as quantum physics. Theories are simply theories, because we really don’t know enough. But people don’t have the issues they do with quantum physics that they do with evolution because it’s a bit of a scapegoat for atheism. It’s made to be something it isn’t. It is, at its purest form, an idea that potentially answers a question of life diversity. Just an idea, that has some evidence that points to part of it being justified as a theorem. Nothing more, nothing less.

That’s not to say evolution is 100% factually true. Much of its groundwork remains the best available natural explanation for the natural order as it exists. And it certainly isn’t a proof for the unexistence of God. As long as that’s agreed upon, which it seems like everybody in this thread is in agreement upon, it’s mostly a disagreement about the burden of scientific proof.


For thousands of years the Holy Spirit let us get it wrong?


Maybe a more cohesive way of putting it – if all things were equal, evolution would be put under the same scrutiny as quantum and astrophysics and relativity, all of which have a basis for belief but are by no means as solidly understood as gravity.

But it isn’t the case that those things are as scrutinized by some pockets of Christians, so it must not be the case that all things are equal. And I think that things aren’t equal because there is some incorrect understanding that evolution disproves God. And maybe that’s because some individuals read Genesis literally, or some other reason.

The main point is that the undue over the top focus on evolution as crappy speculation isn’t warranted because it’s 1) just a somewhat sound idea and 2) not at all an argument against God


The difference between evolution as a theory and those related to physics is that it speaks to who we are.

I don’t know what you mean by evolution, but I assume you think it a sound idea that human beings are a species of animal and that we evolved from ape-like creatures. If you think about why you believe this chances are that it has something to do with the fact that you’ve heard it since you remember and also that those who don’t buy it are rather slow or scared or brainwashed. But it also must make sense because you would know that we share so many similarities, physically and psychologically with what we consider our animal cousins. We also come from one cell, so although it is something very different and would support creation, it can appear to support the idea that we came from some sort of bacteria.

The fact is that we share many of the characteristics of animals because we too were created to live in this world. What makes us human is our spirit, which unites all the matter and psychology that makes us who we are, and whatever other thing we are relating to, into a whole. We can know the beautiful, the true and the good, and have the capacity to form intent and act. In order to do this we need an appropriate brain; it would be very lucky indeed that it would have happened randomly. Although we possess different gifts and challenges, we share in the same humanity. No one is less human because their genetics and abilities are different from the norm, no matter how far along the statistical curve they are placed. This humanity, with its eternal nature, was created at a point in time and is not a transformation of a previously existing soul. This is the case in the same way that you are not a transformation of something else, but rather individual and unique, irreplaceable in yourself, even if there were an infinite number of other persons; none of them would be you. This is a fundamental quality of human existence, which also has it that we are united as the body of Christ through love.

I could go on, but just to briefly address your second point. I don’t see it as an argument against God; it doesn’t need God at all. The way things are is b elieved to be randomly produced as a result of material processes and is directed by necessity, what is usefull for survival, rather than what is good. What is good according to evolution is survival of the kids, which emotionally makes some sense, but is in conflict with God’s will that we love our enemy. A poster advocating for evolution proposed that mercy is irrational.

This is a very interesting topic for me, but I don’t know why it would have any relevance for others.


Which is a description of evolution: “Genetic and epigenetic factors” cover random mutations and “such that they can grow and multiply” covers natural selection.


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.