Evolution

[Circle_Master]

I think it depends on how much of the evolutionary theory you choose to believe. If you believe the parts that it makes 'educated guesses' on based on an underlying atheism, then there is a problem. Parts that would fall under that is a 4.5 billion year old earth, the atmosphere of an early earth, and some of the 'evolutionary links'. It is clear that God was the hand in creating, but does evolution happen? Sure it does. It is more a reaction against evolution than any common sense that says evolution [i]can't[/i] happen. Things evolve and change constantly. In Genesis it says God created things after their own kind, now we have a crazy number of breeds of dogs, of cats, of numerous things.

I personally believe in a view similar to Peter Enns of Westminster Seminary on Genesis 1:1-2:4. My view states that the ancient people who compiled that section of Genesis understood the language to be descriptive of events that basically came to one point: God. God was at the beginning. I don't believe it to be a scientific grid, and so because of that, and because of [url="http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/creation_green.html"]great[/url] articles such as the one [url="http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/creation_green.html"]linked[/url] it is reasonable to assume an older age to the earth. Perhaps several million years old, I am not sure. Until Intelligent Design scientists have formed some coherent theories on the age of the earth I'll probably have to keep speculating. I also believe that during that process there was forms of evolution going around - particular devolution. If Adam came from the garden of Eden as a 'perfect' human, I am sure he would be smarter than me, more agile, stronger, better in art, science, math, and everything. He was no cave man but the head of an entire race that began propagating in a fallen world! We are amazed constantly at the intelligence of ancient human beings and at the same time we often associate intelligence with culminated knowledge. Yes we know more today, but it is because we had what they did to work on.

[morostheos]

What does the age of the Earth have to do with whether or not one believes in God?

[peacenluvbaby]

Interesting points....I dont think it is the age of the earth so much as the fact that the Intelligent Design theorists have not offered a compelling opposite to theories of evolution. It might be useful also to look at what Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, has said about evolution - pointing out that there is no moral or theological objection to the principles of evolution as heresy, but that as all science, there must be an acknowledgement that God imparted on those early humans "souls" at some point in the evolutionary chain.

And btw, StThomasMore - I think this is a case of using the saint's name in vain. Have you read his "Utopia" or other essays - they don't smack of the FIRE and BRIMSTONE you seem to love so much. Maybe you should change your name to Jimmy Swaggart - or just refrain from making catholics look like ignorant "you're going to hell" preachers. ok?
Peace to you! Relax.....breathe....deeply....maybe try yoga.

Peace out!

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Jan 16 2006, 08:55 AM']The scientific theory of Darwinian evolution cannot make claims about the existence of a soul, or of God, or the meaning of life.  Scientific theories are always changing, and make no claim to be the Truth.  This is because all of these topics lie outside of the realm of science, which is limited to the physical realm, and is always tentative, based on the evidence available at a certain point in time.

Those who claim any of these points that you have mentioned are not talking about the scientific theory, but about the ideologies many choose to draw from the scientific theory.  These ideologies are not in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church, but have no bearing on the acceptability of a scientific theory.
[right][snapback]857532[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


That comes back to what I said before concerning Cardinal Schonborn's article about evolution. Science doesn't speak about formal or final cause as a matter of principle. God can be known by looking at nature according to [i]final[/i] cause, not efficient or material (i.e. scientific inquiry).

[morostheos]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 16 2006, 01:30 PM']That comes back to what I said before concerning Cardinal Schonborn's article about evolution. Science doesn't speak about formal or final cause as a matter of principle. God can be known by looking at nature according to [i]final[/i] cause, not efficient or material (i.e. scientific inquiry).
[right][snapback]857734[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Cardinal Schonborn is da man! I highly reccommend to anyone interested in this subject to read his catecheses about evolution.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Jan 16 2006, 11:48 AM']

Cardinal Schonborn is da man!    I highly reccommend to anyone interested in this subject to read his catecheses about evolution.
[right][snapback]857742[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

He's a Dominican : : : :

[rkwright]

thanks for the link to the articles myles, I'll read up!

seems like most people are pretty much in agreement, that you can have evolution and still have God 'creating' our souls, breathing life into us at some point.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='KnightofChrist']and there is no meaning to life other than to reproduce.[/quote]

Sorry no, I think you've got darwinism mixed up with catholicism. You know, all that "be fruitful and multiply" and "contraceptives are evil" stuff.

[Church Punk]

I think that if you look at much of the recent evidence found it is pointing toward biblical creationism. But I guess it would be how we interpret it. Some good examples of this are:

- They have found several skeletons of early humans, that is, walking up right like we do and similar size bones, that pre-date all previous "missing link" or supposed original bones found (they probably were gorilla like animals in the first place.

- They have found evidence that the entire earth was at one time covered in water. For instance on the summit of Everest you will find fossils of an ancient coral reef and shell like fossils in the rock. And also on the yellow band there are fish fossils as well.

- There has been evidence of a great flood, destroyed petrified forest found in the Sonoma desert (Arizona) looking like water washed the trees away, the middle east has trace element that a great flood covered much of the area.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Church Punk' date='Jan 19 2006, 09:05 AM'](snip)

- They have found evidence that the entire earth was at one time covered in water. For instance on the summit of Everest you will find fossils of an ancient coral reef and shell like fossils in the rock. And also on the yellow band there are fish fossils as well.

(snip)
[right][snapback]860815[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Marine fossils on Everest do not mean the entire Earth was at one time covered in water. It simply means that the rocks making up Everest were at one time the bottom of an ocean. The Himalayas are one of the newest mountain ranges in the world (hence their being so big). In plate tectonics, when two plates run into each other, one usually goes on top and the other goes underneath, pushing the top one farther and farther up. Things were not always as they appear today.