Do you believe in evolution?

[martin88nyc]

as far as I can tell, hardly contrary to Catholicism and the only way that it could be used to damage Catholicism is if creationism is the foundation of your faith.

Apart from the fact it totally destroys the notion of original sin and therefore the need for Christ's birth, death and resurrection....but yes, apart from that...   

Exactly, aliens have planted a human seed on earth some billion years ago. We are the creation of a higher intelligence i.e aliens. Adam and Eve are just a fairly tale for the dumb masses.

[Maximilian]

One thing I can get out of the way for everyone regardless of what you believe is that the people who push evolution aren't some kind of conspiracy.

Of course it is. Evolution is entirely agenda driven.

It is a theory (and it is just that, a theory)

No, it is a dogma. A dogma of faith. And if you are a heretic to this new faith, you will be persecuted.

I have met many people who are at the cutting edge of paleontology/anthropology and one hundred percent of them currently believe in this theory.

Right. Because you can't get a job otherwise. That is just like saying, "I work in the Soviet dept of paleontology/anthropology and I can assure you that 100% of the people believe in the theory of marxism." Of course they do, since anyone who doesn't cannot get a job in the department.

At the very least I can assure you that it's not an evil conspiracy being used against Christianity or something like that (no one seems to be implying that but I have met several that outright believe this).

I for one believe this 100%. Of course it is an evil conspiracy being used against Christianity. Your assurance otherwise does not convince me in the least.

[martin88nyc]

The same goes for the educational system in US especially when it comes to history. You need to follow the curriculum and teach kids whatever the system has in store for them.

PS: like Bp. Williamson has famously said "you send your children to college and they will lose their faith". I know it doesn't apply to everybody but unfortunately there is a lot of truth in it.

[martin88nyc]

*sorry double post

[martin88nyc]

*again

[ABlaine]

It's impossible to deny that it is used with an agenda ALL the time.

And in most any other case I would totally agree that there are liberal/atheistic beliefs required to get jobs in fields. Especially in the Humanities (which is particularly absurd). And I think that this is one of the most damaging aspects of the Western university system right now.

It is used as a club against Christianity, sure. Especially by idiots like Richard Dawkins in his asinine 'the blind watchmaker.' But the people that are doing the actual research aren't doing it to prove some kind of antichristian point (well, maybe one is). For the most part they are just curious people. What I mean is, it wasn't created to convince people that God is dead or some other Pullman style propaganda.

I also agree that it is generally taught as faith. It's a kind of clericalism almost where teachers say that x smart person says this ergo it is fact. However, the actual concept of evolution itself can be put to the test in any lab with bacteria that reproduce at a good clip and with a constant stimulus that impedes growth, division, whatever. You can literally see evolution in other organism right in front of your eyes if you are so inclined. This is also demonstrated by bacteria and what not all the time insofar as developing resistances to antibacterial medications.

The mountains of evidence would be the skeletons that are constantly found that create a pretty perfect link from an ape to a man. Which scientists then explain using the process of evolution that they can observe in other animals. It is a very well supported theory (however many well supported theories in the past have been disproven, so who knows). DNA sequencing is certainly another major support.

I think you'd be surprised how many of these scientists aren't atheists but rather practicing Christians. Atheists try to use it as a weapon but it is rather ineffective in my opinion. Regardless, it is ridiculously prideful for us to think that we'll ever understand how God made us.

Either way atheists, try as they may, really can't use evolution against Catholicism with any real efficacy. For one thing, you can just force them to keep reducing. Where did the first living thing come from? They'll probably rattled off the current theory of organic substances being created in the oceans when exposed to lightening which then after billions of similar instances created a glob of organic substances that became a primitive cell wall and hence the start of evolution. Then you say "okay genius, so where did all that matter come from.' This tends to be where atheists feel the great cognitive dissonance of their position.

'Oh there was this great cataclysmic event wherein all of a sudden everything that ever was to be or is in the universe came from nothing.' Wonder how that could have happened.

But atheists just retreat into their shell, even Richard Dawkins. Sorry for the editing here.

Anyway, my point is just that it is a theory and the people working on it are by and large just good, curious people that want to learn more about the world in which we live. To be frank I think that studying this kind of thing could even be, and has been for some of my professors, a path to God. Because the more you learn the more you realize you don't know.

Lastly, I think that if we want to take back our colleges from leftists it is important to have Catholics doing this kind of research rather than ignoring it. A Catholic might even be more academically honest as it would be far less tied up in his worldview that it would be for an Atheist.

[Habitual_Ritual]

The mountains of evidence would be the skeletons that are constantly found that create a pretty perfect link from an ape to a man.

This is a complete fabrication. The missing link is still missing, despite the eager contenders paleontologists throw at us every few years. The suggestion that there is a pristine clean link between man and ape in the fossil record is a simple lie.

There are some excellent books that detail the ludicrous and inept interpretation of fossil data on this score. Not to mention the discovery of modern skeletons in strata they are not supposed to be in.

Anyone interested should start with Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow  to see the extent of fabrication and misinterpretation as it relates to human 'ancestors'.

A closer look at the literature shows that hominin fossils generally fall into one of two categories—ape-like species or human-like species (of the genus Homo) —and that there is a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the claims of many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors. In fact, scientists are quite sharply divided over who or what our human ancestors even were. Newly discovered fossils are often initially presented to the public with great enthusiasm and fanfare, but once cooler heads prevail, their status as human evolutionary ancestors is invariably called into question.

http://www.discovery.org/a/21951

[ABlaine]

The same goes for the educational system in US especially when it comes to history. You need to follow the curriculum and teach kids whatever the system has in store for them.

PS: like Bp. Williamson has famously said "you send your children to college and they will lose their faith". I know it doesn't apply to everybody but unfortunately there is a lot of truth in it.

We have the same problem here in France. The way that the Revolution is portrayed is massively different from what it really was. The war in Vendée is made to look at least half the fault of the Catholics there even though that isn't even remotely the case.

As to the last quote, I really, really disagree with it. Education is important, the college system wasn't overrun by liberals until the 60s. There is no problem with college itself, just the people running it today. I firmly believe that a well catechized individual who truly believes in the faith will get through college anywhere in the US without a problem. Well sure they'll be confronted with hostility and well though out rebuttals to our faith but this kind of trial by fire is good for you.

I mean I went to an expensive Northeastern university with famously liberal tendencies, and there was still a thriving catholic community there.

Abandoning academia to liberals and modernists is among the worst things we could do, in my opinion anyway.

[Habitual_Ritual]

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong is another excellent book written by Berkeley Ph.D in Biology,  Jody F. Sjogren

[ABlaine]

The mountains of evidence would be the skeletons that are constantly found that create a pretty perfect link from an ape to a man.

This is a complete fabrication. The missing link is still missing, despite the eager contenders paleontologists throw at us every few years. The suggestion that there is a pristine clean link between man and ape in the fossil record is a simple lie.

There are some excellent books that detail the ludicrous and inept interpretation of fossil data on this score. Not to mention the discovery of modern skeletons in strata they are not supposed to be in.

Anyone interested should start with Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow  to see the extent of fabrication and misinterpretation as it relates to human 'ancestors'.

A closer look at the literature shows that hominin fossils generally fall into one of two categories—ape-like species or human-like species (of the genus Homo) —and that there is a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the claims of many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors. In fact, scientists are quite sharply divided over who or what our human ancestors even were. Newly discovered fossils are often initially presented to the public with great enthusiasm and fanfare, but once cooler heads prevail, their status as human evolutionary ancestors is invariably called into question.

http://www.discovery.org/a/21951

There are lots of connections. It's a pretty long chain. It's a difficult argument from the pro evolution perspective because the concept of evolution would necessitates TONs of connections between man and ape. It's comically summed up in a futurama episode:



While the episode was rather atheistic and antagonistic, the final scene in the episode show the existence of evolution doesn't negate the need of a creator.

[Prayerful]

I would see the great quantity of scientific evidence giving at least circumstantial support, but I would also see no matter of Faith that turns on acceptance or rejection (Humani Generis with its evenhanded view on the topic, supports that statement). I cannot therefore see the point in giving the matter too much thought. We are in the midst of the Great Apostasy, and thinking on this seems a bit frivolous.

[Habitual_Ritual]

There are lots of connections. It's a pretty long chain.

In which case you will have no trouble at all in naming just 5 of them, as an unbroken chronological chain.

[Habitual_Ritual]

We are in the midst of the Great Apostasy, and thinking on this seems a bit frivolous.

Evolution is one of the chief weapons that has been brought to bear in fomenting the great apostasy. It is one of the main repetitive salvos used in the continued deification of man, continuing the work of the French Revolution and the 'Enlightenment' so called

[Habitual_Ritual]

It's comically summed up in a futurama episode:

Your serious, aren't you?

[Hat And Beard]

Evolution is one of the chief weapons that has been brought to bear in fomenting the great apostasy.

I would argue otherwise.

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.