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


Origen makes a fair point, but it should be remembered that he had a reputation for allegorizing just about everything in Scripture - a technique which was critized by Saints Epiphanius, Methodius, Eustathius of Antioch and Alexander of Alexandria.
St. John of Damascus referred to some of Origen exegesis as “the ravings of Origen”.
Referring to Origen, the Catholic Encyclopaedia states, “it must be confessed that he allows too many cases in which the Scripture is not to be understood according to the letter”.


It i s pretty much impossible to “witness” such a large change as that’s because the gap is wide enough whereas it would take a great deal of time. However, the effects of such a change will leave tell-tale signs such as what we see with the fossil record and the genome testing. Again, if you were to be correct, the geneticists would be on your side thus against mine, but that simply isn’t at all the case.

Also, the fossil record in no way is compatible with a literal interpretation of the Creation accounts.


And yet the irony is that it was especially Origen that felt that it was important for the Church to more closely use the scriptures as an “anchor” so as to keep the Church from straying off course.


The fossil record is an excellent reason to doubt that the “creationary” history of life is an unnatural process, as is the fact that no one has ever witnessed God creating any new species.



Well, determining one species from another is really a matter of humans categorizing and naming species ourselves. It fits along with man naming the animals. We know from science that humans were not alive during the time of the dinosaurs and that there is a prolonged period in the fossil record where we didn’t exist. Many ancient species simply did not exist. The oldest species, to my understanding, is the cockroach. Those buggers reproduce far too quickly and are nearly invisible.

I think it’s best to understand Genesis as being a mixture of genres. They are the oral traditions of the Isrealites written down. The word ‘adam’ means man. You’ll note, a lot of children’s bibles screw with out perception of what Genesis actually says. We tend to presume a lot of false things that aren’t actually in the written text. I find the creation accounts have powerful spiritual meanings about the nature of sin. To what extent they are literal events is beside the point. Some of the stories are best read as parables. I wouldn’t go so far as to say there’s no historicity to them, but I think searching for that answer misses the point of Sacred Scripture. And mind you, I’m only speaking of Genesis.


Correct. The archetypes were created before man.


Please show us where the Bible describes God creating “archetypes”. Is this just a synonym for “Biblical kind” dressed up to look more sciencey and less theological?

If so, then you will still need to tell us how to distinguish between archetypes. Are kangaroos and wallabies formed after two different archetypes or one single Marsupial archetype. How can we objectively determine the answer?



Yes, the original “kinds” were the archetypes.

We are finding the Linnaean system outmoded and genetic studies will be a better classification system. We already see the tree of life has been felled since HGT and is now a tangled bush.


Thank you for confirming that. However, you failed to answer my question about the Kangaroo archetype/kind, the Wombat archetype/kind and the Marsupial archetype/kind. How are we to objectively determine the boundaries between the various archetypes/kinds?

If we cannot determine the boundaries then the concept is useless, whatever word we use for it.



The gene survey paper I have linked many times now has shown the vast space between species. We will only get better at it.


And as I said that last time you linked to that paper, it is about determining the boundaries between species, not the boundaries between archetypes/kinds. If archetypes are the same as species, then the concept is redundant. If archetypes are not the same as species, then you will need a different way to determine boundaries.



The circles will simply get larger with more “species” fitting within that originated from the archetypes. We will see some get booted to other circles entirely.


Which fails to answer my question. How do we determine archetype/kind boundaries? You are trying to make future predictions here, but failing to deal with the present. Are kangaroos and wombats the same archetype or two different archetype? How do we answer objectively?



I have already repeated that we will hone the classifications according to genetics and its programming.


So, “will hone”, meaning that you cannot currently answer the question. Go away and work on an answer and get back to us when you have one. Until then you do not have science, you have personal opinion.

Without science you will not win the scientific debate.



Of course not. I said, once again, we will hone in on this. It is being developed, scientifically.

We have some science and will build on it. Morphology is a failing classification system, but if you want to stand by it, go ahead. Do you admit to HGT causing the tree of life to fall? Or are you still sticking with the old “tree of life”?

A System to Automatically Classify and Name Any Individual Genome-Sequenced Organism Independently of Current Biological Classification and Nomenclature


Thank you.


Not quite. Standard evolutionary biology has some science – that paper was not published by the ID side.

All the ID side is doing is piggy-backing on the work of standard evolutionary biology.



It does not have to be.


But a paper on “archetypes” or “kinds” would have to be, since those categories are not recognised in biology.


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.