Creation And Science

[mortify ii]

Sorry about the spelling errors, typed that on the fly, hopefully you get the gist : )

[4588686]

I have a doctorate, does that make me more eligible to discuss these topics in your opinion?

Is it a doctorate in chemistry?

[Basilisa Marie]

For one, lighting striking primordial ooze does not create life. Secondly, a significant amount of Catholics no longer possess a Catholic mindset. The only thing that strikes me is why such Catholics remain Catholic? It seems superfluous and contradictory. How do such Catholics for example accept Jesus' virgin birth, resurrection, ascension, and transubstantiation? What is their view of God, a "watch-maker" or sorts? 

 

I feel like a No True Scotsman is lurking around here. 

 

Dude, just because I believe evolution is a thing that happened, I don't automatically become some sort of deist hypocrite monstrosity.  I am a product of my times, and because I live during the cusp of the 20th and 21st centuries, I believe evolution is a thing that happened. Plenty of Catholics used to believe in humors. Am I not a Catholic because I don't believe that a balance between bile, phlegm, and blood is the key to good health? In a thousand years, I'm certain we'll have a different explanation. That's how the study of science works. 

There is zero problem with me believing that our bodies got to be the way they are over a process of billions of years of chemical reactions and cell division. Evolution says nothing about our souls! Guess what, it's also completely fine that you believe God created a man named Adam out of literal dirt. Taking those parts of Genesis literally doesn't make sense to me, but if it makes sense to you, great! We're allowed to disagree on this issue. We both believe that God is the Creator, he willed us into existence, his will holds the cosmos in existence, humans have a special relationship with God, and humans are both body and soul. That's what the Church really says. 

[mortify ii]

I feel like a No True Scotsman is lurking around here. 

 

Dude, just because I believe evolution is a thing that happened, I don't automatically become some sort of deist hypocrite monstrosity.  I am a product of my times, and because I live during the cusp of the 20th and 21st centuries, I believe evolution is a thing that happened. Plenty of Catholics used to believe in humors. Am I not a Catholic because I don't believe that a balance between bile, phlegm, and blood is the key to good health? In a thousand years, I'm certain we'll have a different explanation. That's how the study of science works. 

There is zero problem with me believing that our bodies got to be the way they are over a process of billions of years of chemical reactions and cell division. Evolution says nothing about our souls! Guess what, it's also completely fine that you believe God created a man named Adam out of literal dirt. Taking those parts of Genesis literally doesn't make sense to me, but if it makes sense to you, great! We're allowed to disagree on this issue. We both believe that God is the Creator, he willed us into existence, his will holds the cosmos in existence, humans have a special relationship with God, and humans are both body and soul. That's what the Church really says. 

 

 We live in a era where a Pope who found it acceptable to get blessed by a Pagan shaman is getting canonized and no one bats and eye, so how can anything be said about your position? All I can say is that we ought to value the unanimous opinion of the Church fathers, in fact such unanimity is recognized as infallible. I'm not about to change millenia old doctrine over speculation on something that is beyond scientific inquiry. If the Second ADam had a miraculous beginning, why not the first Adam? 

[4588686]

We live in a era where a Pope who found it acceptable to get blessed by a Pagan shaman is getting canonized and no one bats and eye, so how can anything be said about your position? All I can say is that we ought to value the unanimous opinion of the Church fathers, in fact such unanimity is recognized as infallible. I'm not about to change millenia old doctrine over speculation on something that is beyond scientific inquiry. If the Second ADam had a miraculous beginning, why not the first Adam?

Evolution is not beyond scientific inquiry.

[Seven77]

 Here is in perspective/theory of mine that may or may not shed light on this topic: 

 

 God is outside of time. We are inside of time. God created everything instantaneously because he's outside of time. But if we who are inside of time saw the beginning of creation it would take millions of years. It is like those stop motion progression videos of flowers growing from seeds or sunsets--- they all take a long time to unfold but thanks to the sped up video, they seem to be unfolding instantly. For God it is like the video-- for us, It is not.

 

"But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." -2 Pet. 3:8

[Archaeology cat]

I love that explanation, Seven!

[CrossCuT]

I concur! Never heard it said like that; I like it

[An Historian]

I do not accept Darwinian evolution, or evolution as it is obviously understood by the media and society in general.  There's simply a lack of sound evidence for it.  I can accept the age of the universe, of the earth, etc., as deduced by science, but I don't believe it's infallible.  It's simply the best guess, but it's a guess made by sound logic and reasons, and with the evidence that is currently at hand.  It doesn't really effect me at all.  I could accept a young universe or an old universe, but not young in the traditionally accepted sense of 6000 years as worked out by that Anglican bishop.  It takes too many assumptions from Scripture, and doesn't account for omissions in Scriptural genealogies, etc.

 

What I can accept is that some form of evolution does occur within nature (micro-evolution).  What I can accept is that some species have evolved into other species (macro-evolution).  What I don't accept believe is that man's physical body is a product of evolution.  Of if science can actually build a solid case for it, I'll be able to accept special creation (man's physical body a product of evolution, his soul directly made by God and infused into his physical body, thus becoming man).  As it stands, I believe his physical body was directly created "from the slime of the earth" and there was no evolutionary process at work.  And of course, I believe with Catholic faith in monogenism, that we are all descendants of our First Parents.

[CrossCuT]

 There's simply a lack of sound evidence for it. 

False.

 

I hate to be THAT person, but the only reason anyone would really say this is because they A) Misunderstand evolution, or B) Knew very little about evolution. :(

[An Historian]

False.

 

I hate to be THAT person, but the only reason anyone would really say this is because they A) Misunderstand evolution, or B) Knew very little about evolution. :(

 

Then by all means, correct my knowledge of evolution if you believe it to be faulty.  What evidence is there that man evolved from lower animals?

[CrossCuT]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+

 

LT research. If you rely on everyone else to spoon feed you basic stuff, then youre going to have a hard life.

One of my favorite scientific search engines is PubMed. But basic Google tactics will work as well. Drink up the power of knowledge! 

Edited April 24, 2014 by CrossCuT

[An Historian]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+

 

LT research. If you rely on everyone else to spoon feed you basic stuff, then youre going to have a hard life.

One of my favorite scientific search engines is PubMed. But basic Google tactics will work as well. Drink up the power of knowledge! 

 

Very witty.  Your original post in response to me is now made clearer.  You have no intention of engaging in fruitful discussion and debate, your sole concern is making snarky and ignorant comments.  I believe you are simply afraid of engaging this discussion.  I have no reason to be overly attached to my position.  I have already made clear that, if scientific evidence could convince me of evolution, as is generally understood by the public, then I would simply accept special creation.  As it stands I base my current position on the evidence that I have in front of me.  And the evidence, so far, does not say that man's physical body evolved from lower animals.  I have no theological horse in this race, as it were.

 

Let me as you something.  Currently, most evolutionists in the world reject monogenism, which is fundamental to the Catholic faith.  Do you reject monogenism?

[CrossCuT]

Very witty.  Your original post in response to me is now made clearer.  You have no intention of engaging in fruitful discussion and debate, your sole concern is making snarky and ignorant comments.  I believe you are simply afraid of engaging this discussion.  

Sigh no, it is just a difficult thing to explain to someone who has no intention of even trying to understand it. If you HONESTLY want to engage in an evolution discussion with the intent for me to teach you evolution, I invite it to take place in a PM because then we wont be interrupted. 

[GregorMendel]

Dude, youre asking to us to condense at least a semester's worth of material into a forum post. That is grossly unfair and displays a lack of interest bordering on contempt. You found your way to a site on which your opinions could be expressed; surely you can find your way to a site on which you can discover more than a century of research to the contrary, if only to judge it illegitimate. Come back when you have a specific question instead of denouncing a gigantic field of scientific study.