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


@edwest @William_Scott @Edgar I don’t presume to convince you of anything. As you are all quick to point out, the Church allows both of these views that we discuss. I understand that it is difficult to let go of what you have been taught and believed for so long. For those reasons, I don’t try to convince, but just inform if its welcome. If you’d rather ignore what I say or ridicule it, by all means, go ahead. Just know that it will do very little to deter me, just as I’m sure what I say will do very little to deter you from what you believe.

Quite frankly, I don’t care one way or another what you believe about Genesis. I believe in what I have laid out for you, and honestly, it makes a lot of sense, is emphasized by many people much smarter than myself, and doesn’t in the slightest bit mean I am not faithful or don’t believe in God or believe the Bible is a lie. I’ve spelled out for you a lot of what I have because I am genuinely intrigued by the topic and believe knowledge should be propagated to those who are willing to be open to receiving it. What you do with that information is up to you, but I don’t feel the need to try to defend my view to you, as I believe it speaks for itself.

At the end of the day, God is good, no? So why bother with such a small thing when the Church herself doesn’t condemn either of us? The truth will out. Until then, I think its just a really fun area for academia.


Let’s try another:

A scientist from today is standing next to Jesus while the multiplying of the loaves and fishes is going on. The scientist decides it’s impossible.


A scientist from today walks up to Jesus:

Scientist: “I’m going to create life from this dirt.” And he scoops up some dirt.

Jesus: Get your own dirt.

God created the Universe out of nothing.


Absolutely to this. As for the rest, I’ll refer you to my more recent post


The Holy Spirit allowed a misinterpretation for so long?


I am not, you are, by sticking to the failed modern synthesis.

God, through our findings of ID in science, is further Revealing His glory.


Well, it was about 1500 years before the geocentric interpretation was corrected. Given the number of different Christian denominations, there are still a lot of incorrect interpretations around today.



What verse is this in the Bible?


Yes, if the thing being misinterpreted is irrelevant to the story of God’s relationship with man.

Consult the Church you profess to belong to for further answers to questions of this sort.


Hmmmmm. I don’t think sooooooo…


Joshua’s sun standing still in the sky is a common reference. Alternatively read a good book on Christian or Catholic history which quotes those who followed that interpretation.

Here is part of Galileo’s Abjuration

I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged 70 years, tried personally by this court, and kneeling before You, the most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General throughout the Christian Republic against heretical depravity, having before my eyes the Most Holy Gospels, and laying on them my own hands; I swear that I have always believed, I believe now, and with God’s help I will in future believe all which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doth hold, preach, and teach.

But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth was not the centre of the same and that it moved, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I did write and cause to be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned doctrine, and bring forward arguments of much efficacy in its favour, without arriving at any solution: I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the Sun is the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth is not the centre of the same, and that it does move. (emphases added)

The Holy Office certainly thought that “Holy Writ” supported a geocentric cosmology.



As I said, consult the Church to see if it Church doctrine that every detail in the scriptures is literally and scientifically true and demanding of our assent.


This is a miracle.


God, who created everything, could not do this?


God, who created everything, could not do evolution?

Since He could do anything, we need to look at his works, which tell us what He actually did do. For example, the Bible does not tell us that God made America, Pluto and kangaroos. God’s work tells us that.

Did any Bible interpretation tell us about kangaroos?



If He intended to, sure. He did not say He did.


Actually, I do have a theological objection to evolution - I’d forgotten about Genesis 1 and the verses which describe God creating organisms “according to their kind”. In my opinion, such verses rule out any possibility of one kind evolving into a completely different kind. My model of Progressive Creation, on the other hand, doesn’t contradict such verses, as each new creation is a kind that remains the same kind.


Catholics don’t need a “best scientific explanation” or even a “scientific explanation” for the history of life on earth (in fact, no one does. And as far as I can tell, the evolution explanation is a scientific irrelevance, having no practical scientific use). While the “literal six days” interpretation is theologically acceptable, its drawback is that is that it’s outdated, as it contradicts the findings of modern science - ie, the fossil and geological records.

I think my Progressive Creation model offers the best of both worlds for Catholics - (a) unlike evolution, it doesn’t contradict Scripture, and (b) it fits the fossil and geological records much better than evolution does.
PC has another advantage over biological evolution - it doesn’t require any far-fetched and thoroughly unconvincing explanations for morphological change based solely on mutations and natural selection.


Lewontin’s words read like something taken straight out of an atheist manisfesto - which hardly surprises me, as it’s obvious to me that the theory of evolution is a godless attempt to explain the history of life on earth (despite it’s incompatibility with the fossil record).


I used to believe this verse stated that Adam and Eve were present at “the beginning of creation”, but then I realized that what Jesus meant was, marriage was instituted “at the beginning of (the) creation” of Adam and Eve.


Theistic evolution is like a religion within a religion … and “another gospel” perhaps.

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.