Do the ideas of natural selection and so called "evolution" conflict with God and creation?

[Lux Veritatis]

Just curious. I know that as far as the Catholic Church, they don't see any conflict, as Pope John Paul II points out:

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

I think the two ideas can co-exist in Christianity, if you allow for God to be the origin of the soul regardless of the origin on the physical body.

Thoughts?

 

[afaithfulone4u]

Just curious. I know that as far as the Catholic Church, they don't see any conflict, as Pope John Paul II points out:


I think the two ideas can co-exist in Christianity, if you allow for God to be the origin of the soul regardless of the origin on the physical body.

Thoughts?

What scientists call natural phenominon to prove the earths existence or such things as the PLAGUES that God brings forth His will to be carried out, only proves that all creation and rotatition of everything are all acts of God for He is the Host of armies and uses ALL of HIS creation to do His will, they just don't recognize theMighty Works by THE HAND OF GOD, which is HIS WORD. God is a Creator and like us, He redoes or changes His canvas to created new things.
As for what they like to believe is evolution, it is really adaptability that God created in His creation to be able to adapt to their surroundings and needs to survice in the place that God put them to have dominion.
If evolution was the truth, and we began as apes, then there should be no apes at this time. Do you see any half apes half men in their process? Of course not.
NOW, God may have only apes at one time for their dna is close to mans, but in a new creation IMPROVED on His creation to make a man and as Creator of all things, He has the right! Do we not see in the Bible verses discribing half animal and half human beings around God's throne?
Rev 4:6-9
6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.
7 And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.
8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
KJV


Just as God created the dinosaurs at one time in the beginning of the earths creation but then He created a new thing Man to have dominion of the earth over the smaller animals.
Dinosaurs probably were not on the same continent as God placed man so there was no danger for them or were destroyed before He created man. The flood would have washed the bones to other continents. But before Noah's flood, man did not eat the animals and they did not fear man.
Blessings

 

[Lux Veritatis]

What scientists call natural phenominon to prove the earths existence or such things as the PLAGUES that God brings for His will to be carried out, only proves that all creation and rotatition of everything are all acts of God for He is the Host of armies and uses ALL of HIS creation to do His will, they just don't recognize theMighty Works by THE HAND OF GOD, which is HIS WORD.
As for what they like to believe is evolution, it is really adaptability that God created in His creation to be able to adapt to their surroundings and needs, in the place that God put them to have dominion.
If evolution was the truth, and we began as apes, then there should be no apes at this time. Do you see any half apes half men in their process? Of course not.
Just as God created the dinosaurs at one time in the beginning of the earths creation before Gen.1:2 but then He created a new thing Man to have dominion of the earth over the smaller animals.
Dinosaurs probably were not on the same continent as God placed man so there was no danger for them or were destroyed before He created man. The flood would have washed the bones to other continents. But before Noah's flood, man did not eat the animals and they did not fear man.
Blessings

If God created man from dust (Gen. 2:7) there should be no dust.

The thing is, apes and humans came from a common ancestor—apes did not "turn into" humans. The common ancestor HAS disappeared, meaning only apes and humans exist.

 

[afaithfulone4u]

If God created man from dust (Gen. 2:7) there should be no dust.

I do not claim evolution, but Divine Creation
Everything that we see above the earth came in some shape or form from dust of the earth that is why we call it land MOTHER-Land. All living things are birthed or labored from her and grow from seeds and God's Word is called THE SEED.

But have you ever looked at a box of polished rocks? Do you see what they look like underneath all of the dirt. The City New Jerusalem will be made of these precious stones that God put in the earth. Can you imagine what the earth rocks look like under all that dust from eons of time?

 

[biggandyy]

I am afraid the two worldviews are diametrically opposed and can not co-exist without one having to suspend logic and reasoning.

In a nutshell, the young-earth, special creation worldview has death entering the world after everything is formed (Romans 5:12). Theologically, if death existed before Adam, then death is not the penalty for sin for death, disease, and suffering came into the world as a result of sin.

The old-earth, evolution worldview has death (natural selection) being one of the main components of the eventual rise of homo sapiens sapiens.

Both can simultaneously be wrong, but both can not simultaneously be right. Any attempt at a mixture of the two would demolish one or both of the worldviews being sought to be reconciled.

 

[aspen]

The Creation myth is an inspired story about the human condition, self awareness and our relationship with God.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

LUX

The religious theory of evolution uses three magic formulas
1. Over millions and millions and millions of years
2. Nothing became everything
3. By random chance and natural selection

(The beginning was a lightning bolt in a mud puddle)

...........................................

The religious theory of creation uses one magic formula
1. God created everything in the universe

........................................

Both theories require faith
Both theories require belief
Both theories have adherents
Both cannot be true

.....................................

The theory of creation can withstand scientific scrutiny
The theory of evolution requires setting aside known science.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

LUX

The religious theory of evolution uses three magic formulas
1. Over millions and millions and millions of years
2. Nothing became everything
3. By random chance and natural selection

(The beginning was a lightning bolt in a mud puddle)

...........................................

The religious theory of creation uses one magic formula
1. God created everything in the universe

........................................

Both theories require faith
Both theories require belief
Both theories have adherents
Both cannot be true

.....................................

The theory of creation can withstand scientific scrutiny
The theory of evolution requires setting aside known science.

Wrong on many accounts.

Every living thing is made up of the same building blocks. All these building blocks are of and from the natural world. Yes, over millions of years, life did appear. And over millions more, mutation and survival of the fittest brought us to where we are today.

Creationism cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny because there is no way to falsify it—that is, no matter what arguments you make against it, the believers will always cite something along the lines of God being above our understanding or blah blah blah making it impossible to prove or disprove it which moves it outside the realm of science. Evolution, on the other hand, is scientifically verifiable and doesn't require a jump in logic to the "supernatural" because it can be explained by natural processes.

And yes, both can be true. Being that you weren't at the beginning of time, I don't see how you can say that God doesn't work through the ways science has discovered. You claim science comes from God yet deny what science tells you? As has been pointed out before, God works in mysterious ways.

 

[biggandyy]

At it's very core, macroevolution is just as unobservable as Creation since, by definition, it requires millions of years to accomplish. All the scientist can hope to achieve is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence in support of the theory, but the theory by itself, will forever remain unprovable in the hear and now.

Creation suffers from the same handicap, as you pointed out. All the creation scientist can hope to achieve is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence in support of the claim of Scripture.

I do want to point out at this juncture the only common denominator between both ideas is the evidence. A rock is a rock is a rock. It is silent with respect to both camps. When we factor out the evidence (since it appears on both sides of our verbal equation) all we are left with is competing world views. That is where the battle is waged, not over the rocks and sticks themselves, but how to rightly interpret those rocks and sticks.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Lets quickly dismantle the religious theory of evolution using science and physics

Nothing can evolve by random "chance"
There is not some entity out there called "chance" that manipulates anything , or has influence on anything , or can create anything , or can change anything.

In other words "Chance" does not exist within science or within physics.

We humans often flip a coin and say there is a 50-50 "chance" it will come up as heads or tails ..... but chance has nothing to do with the results ..... it is common physics that determines what side the coin lands on.

If a coin was flipped exactly the same way every time , it would land the same way every time. This can easily be tested by scientific methods.

There is no such entity as "chance" so evolutionary theory collapses whenever the word "chance" is used (and it is used a lot)

............................................

Every paragraph of evolutionist theory has a magical catch phrase in it
Remove that magical catch phrase and the whole theory collapses

The magic formula is .... "millions and millions and billions and billions of years"

That is like saying if you want a handsome prince all you need to do is kiss a frog
And then wait a long time
And by golly .... that frog will turn into a prince .... yes sireee !!!

Do you believe that ?
Is it done by faith ?
It certainly is not science.

.......................................

All of nature has to be in place for it to function
You cannot have bits and pieces of nature evolve over millions of years
It will not work. period.

So why does the evolutionist scoff at the Genesis record of creation that was done over a short 6 day time-span ?
At least all of nature could function that way ..... with evolution it could not.

Why does the evolutionist say that everything is ....... "evolving to higher and better forms" ..... while in the next breath admit that according to the second law of thermodynamics this whole universe is slowing down , and wearing out , and burning out , .... you cant have it both ways.

........................................

The theory of evolution serves one very important purpose and that is why it is so readily accepted and beleived by many people.

It serves to keep the Creator out of the picture and that is what many people want.

Those who do not want anything to do with the Creator will have their wishes granted.

Those who desire to be associated with The Creator will have their wishes granted.

You are the judge of your future

 

[Lux Veritatis]

Lets quickly dismantle the religious theory of evolution using science and physics

Nothing can evolve by random "chance"
There is not some entity out there called "chance" that manipulates anything , or has influence on anything , or can create anything , or can change anything.

In other words "Chance" does not exist within science or within physics.

We humans often flip a coin and say there is a 50-50 "chance" it will come up as heads or tails ..... but chance has nothing to do with the results ..... it is common physics that determines what side the coin lands on.

If a coin was flipped exactly the same way every time , it would land the same way every time. This can easily be tested by scientific methods.

There is no such entity as "chance" so evolutionary theory collapses whenever the word "chance" is used (and it is used a lot)

............................................

Every paragraph of evolutionist theory has a magical catch phrase in it
Remove that magical catch phrase and the whole theory collapses

The magic formula is .... "millions and millions and billions and billions of years"

That is like saying if you want a handsome prince all you need to do is kiss a frog
And then wait a long time
And by golly .... that frog will turn into a prince .... yes sireee !!!

Do you believe that ?
Is it done by faith ?
It certainly is not science.

.......................................

All of nature has to be in place for it to function
You cannot have bits and pieces of nature evolve over millions of years
It will not work. period.

So why does the evolutionist scoff at the Genesis record of creation that was done over a short 6 day time-span ?
At least all of nature could function that way ..... with evolution it could not.

Why does the evolutionist say that everything is ....... "evolving to higher and better forms" ..... while in the next breath admit that according to the second law of thermodynamics this whole universe is slowing down , and wearing out , and burning out , .... you cant have it both ways.

........................................

The theory of evolution serves one very important purpose and that is why it is so readily accepted and beleived by many people.

It serves to keep the Creator out of the picture and that is what many people want.

Those who do not want anything to do with the Creator will have their wishes granted.

Those who desire to be associated with The Creator will have their wishes granted.

You are the judge of your future

May I ask as to what sort of education you have?

At it's very core, macroevolution is just as unobservable as Creation since, by definition, it requires millions of years to accomplish. All the scientist can hope to achieve is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence in support of the theory, but the theory by itself, will forever remain unprovable in the hear and now.

Creation suffers from the same handicap, as you pointed out. All the creation scientist can hope to achieve is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence in support of the claim of Scripture.

I do want to point out at this juncture the only common denominator between both ideas is the evidence. A rock is a rock is a rock. It is silent with respect to both camps. When we factor out the evidence (since it appears on both sides of our verbal equation) all we are left with is competing world views. That is where the battle is waged, not over the rocks and sticks themselves, but how to rightly interpret those rocks and sticks.

So called macroevolution is the culmination of microevolution. The key is the expansive time frame.

 

[biggandyy]

May I ask as to what sort of education you have?


So called macroevolution is the culmination of microevolution. The key is the expansive time frame.

Expansive time is what Creation denies, Special Creation is what Evolution denies.

And I have an MS in Geology from Cal.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

May I ask as to what sort of education you have?

.
I have a complete grade 8 education and a couple of grade 9 credits.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

.
I have a complete grade 8 education and a couple of grade 9 credits.

Well I have a degree in Biological Sciences. Believe me when I tell you, evolution is scientifically sound.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Well I have a degree in Biological Sciences. Believe me when I tell you, evolution is scientifically sound.

.
Well I have an IQ in the top .0634 % of the population and I can tell you that evolution is not scientifically sound

 

[Lux Veritatis]

.
Well I have an IQ in the top .0634 % of the population and I can tell you that evolution is not scientifically sound

Oh do you now? According to whom?

 

[aspen]

really? have you guys really taken the conversation to this level?

mercy......

 

[Lux Veritatis]

really? have you guys really taken the conversation to this level?

mercy......

I didn't try to bring it to this level, I was genuinely curious. I see things differently as a biologist and I wanted to know where he was coming from. I apologize for dragging it down, intelligence is not proof of anything.

 

[aspen]

Lux,
I would like to believe that you are sincere about wanting to understand people of faiths worldview. After reading some of your post I do believe then I read others where you appear to judge and negate faith using a scientific standard and I start questioning your intent.

If I were interested in learning about the worldview and understanding of doctrine of a mormon, for example, I would not use a Catholic standard to measure it because the only answer I would get is 'mormonism is a heresy for the following reasons' which really provides no insight about mormonism at all.

If you continue to use science to understand religious faith you will only discover that it is not science. As a master's level scientist you must understand the importance of validity.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

Lux,
I would like to believe that you are sincere about wanting to understand people of faiths worldview. After reading some of your post I do believe then I read others where you appear to judge and negate faith using a scientific standard and I start questioning your intent.

If I were interested in learning about the worldview and understanding of doctrine of a mormon, for example, I would not use a Catholic standard to measure it because the only answer I would get is 'mormonism is a heresy for the following reasons' which really provides no insight about mormonism at all.

If you continue to use science to understand religious faith you will only discover that it is not science. As a master's level scientist you must understand the importance of validity.

The flip side of that coin is that you are using a Christian standard to judge the logic I am using as a non-believer.

There is a difference between wanting to learn more and rolling over on my own beliefs. I will use my logic as a measure of the things I am learning because I refuse to dump all reason in order to know more about faith.