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


What is random or impossible in the weak imagination of a human is a known quantity for God. It only needs the Divine Will for such be made so. I take this as revealed truth.


That’s also “magic” like to me. How do you get life or consciousness from stars?


OK, but watch out for all that sodium, lol!!

Adios, all! If I don’t leave now, I really will be neglecting the duties of my state in life…


God works infallibly in His Creation:

"Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).


You are essentially saying it looks random but isn’t really, because God. Which makes me wonder why you think you’re making an opposite argument. Isn’t this the very point I’m making? You include a creator there, you’re no longer talking about “random” however distantly you try to place him from the events in question. Bottom line, you are positing a being that designed the whole thing in the first place.


Correct. But that “eventually” can be a lot longer than a human lifetime, which is all the time we need.


Yeah… there are 5 million fungal species alone.


Consider: What is IDvolution?

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.


Go backwards with this scenario and one must conclude that this started with a higher level of organization as it moves in time towards increased overall entropy.


Omniscience would include knowledge of all possible contingencies because everything that occurs is known. The two aspects of knowledge are possible because God exists in eternity bringing forth everything as it exists in its moment and time, while also being present in every now that is, was and will be in reference to any particular point in time. If time were like the rim of a wheel, the beginning and end to be the same moment, He would be the axle and the spokes that reach out to every existent thing as its Creator. He knows every hair on every head because God brings them all into being.

The contingent aspect arises because we have free will. While the universe is a symphony of events happening within eternity, we like jazz musicians, improvise our parts. So, in His relationship with us as temporal beings, participating in our own creation, He cautions Cain about the sin he is about to commit. Cain as we all do, has a choice to make. While God knows the outcome, that outcome includes His warning. In that moment the universe hinges on Cain’s decision, God is aware of both the possibility for goodness and the outcome which is evil.

In terms of this discussion, God did not foresee an emergence of mankind from the Big Bang. He brought atoms into existence and then created single cell creatures, followed by plants and animals. Scripture is quite clear that He directly formed the human body which is animated by His spirit. It makes rational sense that this is what happened because, as He here and now brings all this into being, He also did (does) so at the beginning of time. He did not foresee this moment in which we now participate, He has always seen it, because He exists as One Being, now and always.


Sorry, but you’re barking up the wrong tree and the conclusions in your post are incorrect. You might be interested to know that it was by a bunch of ATHEISTS on another site who made me aware some years ago of the scientific evidence that life on earth may be millions-billions of years old and that the fossil record cannot be explained by a literal interpretation of Genesis. I studied this evidence to the best of my ability and with an open mind and ultimately found it compelling enough to accept, which then forced me to reinterpret the Bible in a very different light.

Furthermore, there are many fine scientists who are atheists. But when it comes to the science of the origins of life on earth, I’m well aware that atheist scientists can be less than objective and this can produce very biased and suspect opinions. However, I’ve also encountered Christian evolutionary scientists who can be less than objective in their own ways and who therefore also offer very questionable opinions.


Entropy was at a minimum at the Big Bang. Minor changes on a single planet are at about the 150th decimal place. Entropy changes in the sun are a lot larger than changes on earth, and there are a lot of stars in the universe.


No one here here is claiming that critters don’t change and adapt or that they don’t “evolve”. The question is, What is the extent of this evolution - for example, Did humans evolve from some kind of ape?

If you ask me, the evidence suggests that the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth is wrong and that a progressive creation model best describes that history, which appears to be a scientific impossibility.
Furthermore, since said Darwinian interpretation of the history of life offers no practcal uses to science, there must be another reason the scientific community, the mass media and education systems dogmatically and aggressively ram it down the throat of the masses. That reason, I suggest, has nothing whatsoever to do with science, but has everything to do with undermining belief in a Creator and the subsequent promotion of atheism. Which all boils down to this:

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” - Ephesians 6:12.


Ya got that right … and we can all learn a great deal from him, as his knowledge of science is vast … although he does venture into scientism at times.


I admit my knowledge of entropy is very limited, but this subject strikes me as being so littered with ambiguities and uncertainties that it looks mostly like “pie in the sky” and so hardly seems worth discussing. But having said that, I appreciate that many evolutionists revel in pointless and useless theorising (which is basically what evolutionary biology/science amounts to).


And how does a creature evolve a lung-heart system which was previously non-existant? Apparently … by piece-meal mutations (Mystery No. 1) that not only enhances the creature’s chances of survival (Mystery No. 2), but all just happens to connect up perfectly to from a stupendously complex function system (Mystery No. 3).

Believe it or not, this absurd fantasy is accepted by multitudes of otherwise very intelligent people as “science” (Mystery No. 4). What a circus.


Lungs, or some equivalent oxygen exchange system, evolved first. Hearts only evolved later when animals got large enough to need some circulatory system. Initially the two were not directly connected, as in insects, having evolved separately. Only later were the two connected, as with fish hearts and gills.

Mystery? Try holding your breath for a year and see how many children you have after that year. How on earth is this a mystery to you?

First make the individual parts, then assemble the parts together to make the whole. Dawkins’ Mount Improbable analogy applies here.

Believe it or not many anti-evolutionists think that this ludicrous strawman of evolution is an accurate description. What a circus.


What I don’t get is why you should evolve features you don’t have just because you now need them. Was the DNA some kind of super clay that could be moulded into anything at all? One that carried within itself the potential for all the features of all animals that have ever existed? Where were these features before they “evolved”? I mean, where did DNA find them if it didn’t have them to begin with?


I don’t recall arguing that “The second law of thermodynamics is not evolution. Evolution is not the second law of thermodynamics.”
My argument is that there is no scientific law that says a bacterium will evolve into something other than a bacterium.

You may claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says the “evolution” of an organism is inevitable, but how does one even test this claim? How does one measure the entropy of an organism? Whatever, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics cannot be used to argue that a bacteria will evolve into all the life-forms that have existed on earth.


I think what’s happening is, you no longer want to debate us evo-denying creationists because our excellent arguments have finally swayed you around to our superior way of thinking. Yes, even though you are not fully aware of it yet and you feel conflicted, you are slowly but surely turning against evolution and at last breaking free of the indoctrination you were subjected to for so many years.

“The truth shall set you free.”

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.