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


#3106

Oh, I completely agree with you - #283 is obviously referring to evolution, although it doesn’t use the word “evolution” probably because evolution cannot be confirmed as a fact. Not to be deterred, this blantantly pro-evolution paragraph is very sneaky and cleverly worded, as it does its best to imply evolution IS a fact:

  1. Notice how the “scientific studies” into “the orgins … of man” are described as “knowledge” and “discoveries”. The impliction is, evolution is a fact, as only a fact can qualify as knowledge or discovery.
  2. The paragraph implies that the scientists who are responsible for this “knowledge” and “discoveries” about “the origins … of man” (ie, evolution) have been blessed by God with “unerring knowledge” - ie, infallible knowledge. This wording implies evolution is not only a fact, but it is infallible knowledge handed down from God - this is just absurd.

So it is fair to say I oppose the implictions of #283, because evolution is not a fact and can never be confirmed as a fact, and therefore cannot possibly be “infallible knowledge”. I believe #283 is in fact in error, is very misleading and should be removed from the Catechism.

No, I oppose non-human evolution on the basis of the verses in Genesis 1 which state that organisms were created “according to their kind”.


#3107

I disagree - in light of what science now knows about the functional complexity of even the simplest known cell, it is impossible for a human being to come up with a sillier idea than life arising naturally and by mere chance from inanimate matter. Humans may well think of something equally absurd, but to think of something that is actually more absurd … no, I don’t think so.
This is why Romans 1 says of people who reject belief in a divine Creator (eg, athesits) “claiming to be wise, they became fools”.


#3108

The claim that all life on earth evolved from microbes or that humans and chimps share a common ancestor is theoretical science - it therefore has nothing to do with “the material world”; it is simply a story. And no one is obliged to accept the claims of theoretical science - unless one has a good excuse … atheism, for example.

In that case, how did it come about that one’s deeds in this life result in good or bad “karma” in the next life? It seems that your godless, self-created universe is also a judgeless universe that somehow judges people and then unfailingly administers infallible justice.
How does something with no mind determine and administer perfect justice, and how does something with no mind “pull the strings” of the universe to ensure that this perfect justice is served to each and every creature?


#3109

Hey, this sounds rather like my Progressive Creation model! These “epochs in God’s creative plan” and “His creation of new species whenever He see fit” are what we find reflected in the fossil record - ie, with all its gaps (the distinct lack of transitionals), stasis and sudden appearances of fully-formed creatures. These characteristics that have always bugged evolutionists but they fit quite well into a Progressive Creation model.


#3110

The modernist lexicon doesn’t contain the word, “inspired”. One often comes across a “modern” theologian who claims that the ancient authors of the Bible borrowed myths from other cultures - the implication is, these ancient authors may not have been inspired - they just copied ideas from somewhere else.


#3111

Scientists can genetically modify certain organisms, but they’ll never be able to create life (or even an atom) from nothing. According to Thomistic philosophy, it is a far greater feat for God to create life from nothing than to modify an existing creature. From this perpective, a process of progressive creation (separate creations) demonstrates God’s power and glory far greater than a process of evolution ever could.


#3112

The confusion is stll going on, apparently - Thevo’s claim the first eleven chapters of Genesis are “symbolic” - if so, no one knows what all that “symbolism” means!


#3113

I agree - the history of the world before Adam, for example, presented figuratively as six days of creation. But post-Adam (“the story of God’s relationship with man”), the Genesis narrative switches to the literal.


#3114

The original post was flagged and consequently removed. Whoever that was, plus you (unless they are one and the same person and maybe you can confirm that) completely missed the the point of the post.

Which is: If you think that people thought that it was miraculous to believe that God stopped the sun from moving, then they had accepted that it was moving in the first instance.

Do I detect a new modus operandi at work here…?


#3115

He did say. Not in words, “Let the waters bring forth…” is compatible with many interpretations. He said so in His Works. The evidence of the world shows that God used evolution.

Remember that God wrote two books: the Bible and the World. You appear to be ignoring what He said in His second book.

rossum


#3116

From a biological point of view, there is only one ‘kind’: the Life on Earth kind. That makes biology, including evolution, compatible with Genesis.

The evidence of the history of life tends to confirm the all life is one kind hypothesis.

rossum


#3117

If I throw a stone straight up in the air, they whose fault is it if that stone comes down and hits me on the head? Karma works like gravity. There is no need for a god of gravity to seek out Wile E Coyote when he has run off the edge of a cliff and push him down.

Karma is not like a law administered by a judge; it is like a law of physics – it is a part of the universe. Actions have consequences, or “By their fruits shall you know them” if you prefer.

rossum


#3118

Classic god of the gaps: “never”. Be very careful here. Thor once lived in the gap called “What causes thunder?” Science closed that gap and now Thor has to live in comic books, not Asgard.

As a philosophical point, God did not create the first life, since He Himself is a living God, so He is the first life, and He did not create Himself. At most He created the second life.

rossum


#3119

I disagree, but then evolution is such a slippery word that I can’t say what you might mean by this.

I suppose Adam could have had an umbilicus. This would not imply that random chemical processes were at work in his creation, nor that natural selection had a role, other than as a distortion of the fact that everything exists as part of an environment. Adam would have to have been the first man and no polygenism. He would not have been formed with any genetic-cellular components that did not have a present and future role in the formation of the human body, meaning no viral inclusions. Evolution as an explanation for our creation pretty much disappears as we consider mankind in Eden before the fall. I believe we would have been told if an animal had been given a spiritual soul to start us off.

I suppose I have trouble with the cognitive dissonance that arises from a belief in theistic evolution, again whatever than means. There is one reality, and acceptance of evolution will whittle down a belief in God. That might be what is at the bottom of these discussions, that the god that people who hold strongly to evolution,is not He who is revealed in scripture.


#3120

Except that it isn’t.

The Church does not make that distinction.


#3121

Of course it doesn’t.

It is absurd, and it is not implied by the wording.

There you have it. Sola scriptura. (Your private interpretation.)

Straw person argument.
[/quote]
I believe #283 is in fact in error, is very misleading and should be removed from the Catechism.
[/quote]
I will stick with what the Church teaches.

No, I oppose non-human evolution on the basis of the verses in Genesis 1 which state that organisms were created “according to their kind”.
[/quote]


#3122

I don’t believe I’ve read anything you’ve posted in this thread that any Catholic in good standing could not have also posted.


#3123

To be philosophically correct, as God is eternal and not created, He did create the first life.


#3124

He may have created the first created life. He did not create the first life, because the first life is uncreated.


#3125

An alternate hypothesis to evolution (small errors in the beginning result in large errors at the ending) is to assume a large and fixed gene pool at the beginning. What evolutionists call “mutations” become simply “permutations” and no evolving occurs. God’s plan merely plays out over time.


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.