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


#2437

Part of a problem we run into a lot is that some people use “theory” in the common venacular that’s quite different then how we use it in science: The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to “theory’” for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common [vernacular]. In everyday speech, “theory” can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of “prediction” in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory


#2438

It’s best not to simply make a claim as if it means anything to those who hold it to be untrue. Tell us how it fits and we can discuss that.

The point that has been made numerous times is that evolution is not science but utilizes science facts as part of the mythos that tells modrn man who we are in relation to the world. To call the “theory” out as not being science is not to be antiscience. Also, I’m not sure what agenda you are speaking about; I am merely asserting my opinions and presenting my reasoning on the matter, and see others here as doing the same.


#2439

I don’t think what you describe here applies to what I read here. It just comes across as another attempt to stiffle debate, not debating but asserting that those who hold contrary views don’t get it.


#2440

I’m trying to show you how you are mistaken. You don’t have to trust me, but I do know what I am talking about. I can only assume that you simply do not wish to pursue the facts that support my view, and are interested in only seeing your own thoughts in print, or arguing with some voice in your mind.


#2441

False premise.


#2442

I’ve run across your positions many times over, plus I grew up, as I mentioned before, with such an opinion. My experience on such matters with all too many “creationists” is that they simply play games, know relatively little about scientific techniques, so I have no desire to play their games.

After abandoning the anti-science position of my Protestant church, I went on to get a graduate degree in anthropology, and then taught the subject for about 30 years. But what you are doing is pushing pseudo-science while trying to pretend it’s actually science, and your misused of the scientific term “theory” demonstrates that fact.

Hey, as far as I’m concerned, if you say that Earth s just a big marshmallow, that’s clearly your choice, but I think others here need to realize what actually the scientific community has long concluded and why. If the Catholic Church had stayed with your position, I never would have converted because it would be like sticking my head in the ground while loudly saying “la la la…” to block out the reality.


#2443

Which church is that? It is not the Catholic Church.


#2444

Why can you not post a straight answer? Your avoidance to do so betrays a lack of faith in your beliefs.


#2445

Why can you not post a straight answer to my question asking what your problem with my two examples of speciation is? Your avoidance to do so betrays a lack of faith in your beliefs.

rossum


#2446

Agreed. The conscience could only come from God. I consider it as the embarkation point of when man was given a human soul.

I disagree. I believe that animals do have souls & we will them find in heaven. I know that is not the Church’s position even though Scripture does support it (Isiah 11:6-9). I came to believe it when I had an incredible experience that convinced me otherwise. I do not think it is His plan that one soul to become another but rather one type of soul becoming another… animistic to human… anything is possible with God. The physical qualities of the brain have nothing to do with our souls.

I believe that it is the conscience which drove man’s larger brain size. I see it as the basis of ALL of man’s achievements. It creates the constant search for something better, whether that be a greater good or a greater evil. It drove man from the trees to caves, to huts, to houses to skyscrapers and from stones to spears to arrows to guns to thermonuclear weapons. It is what creates in us the search for the GREATEST good which is God.

Genesis did speak about it. The so-called “punishments” given to man for his sin were toil, pain and suffering, and death were not punishments at all; they were realizations. It is man realizing that there is something better than those and he no longer has to live by the status quo.

Once again read Genesis because it IS stated there. Genesis 1 does not say that God zapped plants and animals into existence. Instead it twice said that He charged the EARTH to produce them. Time is meaningless to God so He would not have cared how long it took. And it was the Earth that produced them under the direction of God. If you look at the order of appearance of plants, fish, “great sea monsters”, mammals and man then you will see that it corresponds nicely to an evolutionary development.


#2447

Not precisely. Birds are on day 5 while land animals are on day 6. Taken literally that is contrary to the scientific evidence; birds evolved from earlier land animals.

rossum


#2448

I need clarification there as to what your position on this is. What would you say is the difference between a soul becoming another but a type of soul necoming another? I’m not understanding the difference.

Me, as one who accepts evolution, my view is that you’ve got our pre-true human ancestors with animals souls and then they had offspring with true human souls. (I simplify the order of physical events of course to deal only with the spiritual.) So if Martha (random name) was Adam’s pre-true human mother, she’d have had am animal soul and God would’ve given Adam a human soul from his conception. Is that in line with what you’re saying?


#2449

So, you believe Adam and Eve came from soulless apelike creatures ?


#2450

Is that any less believable than Adam coming from a soulless lump of clay, and Eve coming from a soulless rib?


#2451

I agree , but would go with the clay scenario, because it lines up with the Bible better.


#2452

This is all speculation.


#2453

Both stories are equally consistent with Catholic teaching. So we are free to use science to decide between them without any problem with contradicting our faith.


#2454

Yes and no. What you say is what I believe did happen. But according to my look at the Genesis story (which I know cannot be taken literally) it would have been the animistic soul of the pre-human “Adam” became a human soul of the human Adam when he “ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” or developed a conscience as a result of the new human soul given him by God.

I firmly believe that the reason for the physical realm is for us to learn true selfless love so as to be one with Him who IS love. Because love cannot be forced to learn it we had to be set free from Him and given the complete freedom to choose between good and evil. It could actually be that Satan is not in conflict with God but is in fact doing His will of offering us the free choice to do any and all evil without which we could never reject evil and do the good that leads towards love and God.


#2455

Whatever they were I do believe that they were beings who possessed an animistic soul rather than a human one.


#2456

The difference between pre and post Fall Adam wouldn’t have been his soul. He would have needed the rational soul to choose sin in the first place. The diferrence would be the loss of the preturnatural gifts (physical immortality, ect.) and the severing of the pre-Fall direct relationship with God.

That would be wrong. Satan is against God. To name one example, when Peter tries keeping Christ from His Passion,He says “Get behind me Satan.” It’s not a statement of “We’re on the same team, give me some support from behind” but “You’re going against what I need to do and are against me.” (Weak example for the moment, but reading such a statement was like reading someone say the world is flat where you know the person is wrong, but don’t have all the apologetics at hand because it’s so rare.)

The only case I could see is if you take into account God’s permissive will, but that’s not the same as doing God’s will.


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.