Theory of Evolution

[track2004]

So today I read an article from Time magazine about religion and Darwin's theory of evolution. They talked about the Church's pov on the subject, which was different from what I've been told.

Here's the quote: [quote]Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, a man very close to the Pope, asserting that the supposed acceptance of evolution by John Paul II is mistaken. In fact, he says, the Roman Catholic Church rejects "neo-Darwinism" with the declaration that an "unguided evolutionary process--one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence--simply cannot exist.""[/quote] The whole article can be found [url="http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1088869,00.html"]here[/url]

The main point of the article is that teaching religious beliefs that are not backed up with emperical evidence along with scientific theories that are backed up with evidence underminds both the religious and scientific fields. So I was wondering if Schonborn was just stating a personal opinion or if the Church actually thinks that evolution is incorrect.

(I'd reccommend reading the article because there was a lot said I haven't hit on that was really really interesting.)

[Laudate_Dominum]

The Church's teaching authority does not pertain to scientific theories. Basically the issue is that there are forms or interpretations of evolutionary theory that are incompatible with the Catholic Faith, and these are to be rejected. For example a version of evolutionary theory that excludes the possibility of Divine Providence in the order of creation. We know this is not possible.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, a man very close to the Pope, asserting that the supposed acceptance of evolution by John Paul II is mistaken[/quote]

This is untrue. Cardinal Schonborn specifically notes that evolution, in some form, may in fact be true.

[quote]Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true[/quote]

He simply objects to some forms of the evolutionary theory.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='track2004' date='Aug 4 2005, 06:57 PM']So today I read an article from Time magazine about religion and Darwin's theory of evolution.  They talked about the Church's pov on the subject, which was different from what I've been told. 

Here's the quote:    The whole article can be found [url="http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1088869,00.html"]here[/url]

The main point of the article is that teaching religious beliefs that are not backed up with emperical evidence along with scientific theories that are backed up with evidence underminds both the religious and scientific fields.  So I was wondering if Schonborn was just stating a personal opinion or if the Church actually thinks that evolution is incorrect.

(I'd reccommend reading the article because there was a lot said I haven't hit on that was really really interesting.)
[right][snapback]672441[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i think that it really underminds the religous field...........extremely more than the scientific field. its like being told something all of your life then when there is evidence against it you reject the evidence and stick with what you are most confortable with.......belief.

[track2004]

It underminds both because it compares apples and oranges. One discipline based on observation and evidence and one based on God's Divine Word. Science is based on accumilating knowledge to help us understand our world better where as religion is based on using previous revelations from God to live in a world we aren't 'meant for'. They are TOTALLY different.

A theory is a explication of the way it probably works based on observation. Theories are meant to be picked apart, and if a better theory based on better evidence arises it will be favored, but just stating that God made it so and ignoring all scientific process and evidence undermines both God and science.

[philothea]

The Church really doesn't take any stance, other than we are all actually descended from a specific pair of fallen human beings. Where [i]they[/i] technically came from isn't important.

I have trouble doubting a common ancestry. We share so much genetic material with every other living thing, I can't imagine why such small details would be duplicated if we weren't related.

[marielapin]

I think you may be a bit mistaken on the church's stance on this. The church says that evolution is "believable" only if it is understood that it was guided by God and that at some point God made man in His image, giving him an immortal soul and therefore separating him from the beasts.

I think the whole creation versus evolution is a pretty moot point. To me ,an engineer, it does not matter, because God did it. The mechanics are immaterial to me. But the fact that evolution completely contradicts the second law of thermodynamics (even open systems have the tendancy for randomness) makes it impossible if not guided by God. I personally really like the theory of the big bang and tend to think of the universe as a closed system.

[White Knight]

Well if your a believer in Christ. the Theroy of Evolution is up to you to believe in, but somewhere along the lines, you have to believe in Creation. The Fall of Man Story.


If you study these two topics (Creation & Evolution) very carefully if your compentant you will discover that these two theories combind are impossible. Matter of fact, recent studies show that Science is now more in support of Creation than they were before Darwin's Theory of Evolution. the Theroy of Evolution is a theory that is dying and has very little valid evidence to prove anything. its all based on Theory. Very little Fact.


I'm sure the Catholic Church doesn't take a stand on wheather or not Evolution is true or not. but one thing is true. You Have to believe in the Creation story no matter what its vidale to the Faith. The Fall of Man, The Original Sin, etc.


I still dont see why the Church hasn't taken a firm stand against this theory, Evolution denines intelligence, they dont explain how it came to being, they just say it just happened. Its a crock with proper examination, I'm sure everyone would find the actual flaws in Darwin's theory.


Anyway God Bless.

Edited August 5, 2005 by White Knight

[Aloysius]

[quote name='philothea' date='Aug 4 2005, 11:37 PM']The Church really doesn't take any stance, other than we are all actually descended from a specific pair of fallen human beings.  Where [i]they[/i] technically came from isn't important.

I have trouble doubting a common ancestry.  We share so much genetic material with every other living thing, I can't imagine why such small details would be duplicated if we weren't related.
[right][snapback]672653[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
at the same time considering we share so many details that seems to just be the nature of created life.

currently there are species that share like what, 98% same DNA structure right? well, there's a lot of species that God created that are similar to humans. it is possible some of those are extinct and left behind all those fossils we obsess over and declare to be our ancestors.

anyway, just believe that the first parents were only TWO human beings with rational souls first created sinless but fell from grace by disobeying God. the two can't represent an entire group (the heresy of polygenism) and they obviously cannot be monkeys.

[Brother Adam]

Thank you for being honest and admitting it is a theory. There are many people here who believe you are a bad Catholic if you don't take evolution as the Gospel Truth.

[track2004]

Yeah it's only a theory but gravity is only a theory too.

[Brother Adam]

Actually that is incorrect. We can observe gravity, however, we can not observe the origins of the earth. Basing off of the evidance we do have regarding the origins of the earth and life on earth, Darwinism isn't even taken seriously by athiestic evolutionists anymore. Of that we do have, only a young earth makes sense.

The creationist position is that macro-evolution does not exist (one species doesn't evolve into an entirely new species), but micro-evolution does happen (one species adapts to its environment for survival). The creationist position does not seek to state that '6 days' meant exactly 6, 24 hour periods [color=gray][I just realized I should probably qualify this - we know from Jewish scholars that this period of time could have been as great as one season, though this would have been a stretch.][/color], but through space light speed theory, and other observable data, we know that the earth, as well as the universe, is still very young. It also states that there is absolutely no contradiction between Genesis one and two, and that these are not two separate accounts, but one in the same. To call them two separate accounts is far beyond a stretch of the imagination because they deal with two separate topics.

cheers.

Edited August 5, 2005 by Brother Adam

[track2004]

The article is actually talking about literal Bible translation which contends that the world was created in 144 hours and that every species now in existance was created by God and has been unaltered since. This type of creationism is a falacy.

Darwinism might not be taken seriously by everyone but as of right now it's the best we have. If someone comes up with a better explination maybe my kids will learn about it in high school. I learned about evolution as a selection of favored genetic traits.

[Brother Adam]

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. It is very well possible that the world was created in 144 hours and every species now in existance (except those which are now extinct) was in existance at that time. As a Catholic you are allowed to believe in evolution, and athiests everywhere will applaud you for the violence that must be done to scripture for such a view, or you are allowed to believe that God actually did as He said He did in Divine Revelation. Frankly, any scientific theory that is created to prove there is no need for any belief in a higher power sends up all kinds of red flags. If that is a view you chose to hold to, that is your own free will.

That's right, and just as your children are taught Darwinism in their science classes at public school, they will be taught that Jesus was a myth too, just like Genesis, and that all religions are equal. There is indeed something better than evolution out there and we have it. It's called truth.

[track2004]

I didn't say whether or not I believed in the 144 hour creation or the species thing but the article is teaching that. Personally I know that no human being was alive when the dinosaurs were. There is scientific evidence for that.

[quote] 3. Dinosaurs and “humans” did not coexist. The death of the last dinosaur and the appearance of the first “human” (genus homo) is estimated to be separated by about 64 or 65 million years. [url="http://www.wordsources.info/words-mod-dinosaur-info.html"](found here)[/url][/quote]

And who said my kids are going to go to public school or that I would even for a second let them believe that Jesus was a myth. Science isn't about destroying God it is about learning about the world. And evolution isn't about humans coming from ameobas it is about species adapting to their envronments. Darwin's first idea was about how different animals had different characteristics based on the place they lived. Some duck-like creature had a pointed beak to get the bugs between rocks while it's cousin on the other side of the island had a rounded beak to get food from the water. It's similar to how humans have bred dogs to have the characteristics that best suit their job.