Are Creation and Evolution Compatible? (Aquinas 101)
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 01. 2022
- ⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Are creation and evolution compatible? Fr. Thomas Davenport, O.P., a physicist and Dominican friar from the Province of St. Joseph, weighs in on the creation and evolution debate.
Are Creation and Evolution Compatible? (Aquinas 101) - Fr. Thomas Davenport, O.P.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
czcams.com/users/TheThomisti...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/sto...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinstitute.org/
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #ScienceAndFaith #ScienceAndReligion
This video was made possible through the support of grant #61944 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
One of the reasons why many people flocked to the new atheism is because they were made to believe that since biological evolution is true, therefore all narratives in the Bible starting from Genesis are false and hence you can drop the whole thing about religion and see the world "as it is". That's one of the reasons too why I became an atheist, after listening to them and reading their books. When I learned about biological evolution and the history of the physical universe, civilizations, I aligned myself with the atheists' thoughts and felt like, "Now I'm free, I know the truths about realities the Church and religious people don't even know about."
But of course, you don't arrive at Nirvana just because you understand evolution, the formation of stars and galaxies, etc. Anything other than God can indeed be made a god, and science is hugely important but you can still make it a god and your life becomes narrow, your vision of life becomes constricted to things you know from scientific discoveries, truth is no longer transcendent and ever present, it's just what you see and what you know in the physical world. Truths degrade and become an addiction of knowing new discoveries, what makes our scientific knowledge more advanced, and the feeling that the more I know scientific knowledge and discoveries, the more I "dismantle" religion.
However, long story short, I began to learn life is not about what I can gain for myself or about my own goals that I want to achieve, it became very hellish when life revolved around the mechanics of random chances and your own self-reliance, it became very lonely and only distractions and new stimulation spurred you on. God's providence brought me back to the Church, especially after a Eucharistic adoration. The Church's way of bringing the grand existence and my little self together, and revealing the transcendent divine truths in the Bible, making me able to read Genesis, Exodus, and the whole Holy Scriptures accordingly, can never be replaced by scientific theories and discoveries. Knowing that a crater in Mars was flooded with salty water hundreds of millions of years ago, or there are frigid lakes of methane on Titan, are satisfying to the curiosity; but knowing that there is the One living Truth who created and sustains all things in divine love, including the laws of nature and logic, and my own existence and self-consciousness, why I became me and not another person, makes the whole picture complete and so satisfying.
This was beautiful. Thank you.
Amazingly put
Very well put John.
The means by which the scientific method might lead us to accept a theory are if we repeatedly perform an experiment the aggregate results of which tell us to reject the null hypothesis that the theory is not explanatory.
What experiments led you to reject the null hypothesis that the Theory of Evolution by natural selection is not true?
What experiments lead you to reject the null hypothesis that Mars never had any more water than it does today?
The widespread acceptance of evolutionary theory based on zero published experimental evidence has destroyed the practice of science as a legitimate truth-seeking endeavor and illustrates that the vast majority of professional scientists are simply mendacious.
@@ChevalierdeJohnstone lol 😆. There's so much published experimental evidence that there are pretty much entire journals devoted to it.
This is the kind of nuanced, balanced conversation that I wish more Christians would have in good faith. Bless y'all.
Thanks for the encouragement. God bless you!
@@ThomisticInstitute czcams.com/video/NetQrus79aM/video.html
If u want to be very honest in life u will know that the churches teachings have always been the best.....people forget that humans are rational beings and must always be inquisitive on everything most times christians want to just bang or exclude many scientific things.....both faith and science go together thanks so much father for the explanation
The whole question, which is ignored, is WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION? This philosophical talk about origins is not "scientific". It's just philosophical talk. If so, why call it "science"?
@@classicalliberalartsThere is scientific evidence for Darwinian Evolution. For one, and I heard this one at the Museum of Science in Boston MA: There is an island somewhere in the Indian Ocean I want to say that has submerged and re-emerged over time. There is a fossil record on this island that shows at one time, birds migrated to this island to eat the local food source. Over time (a long time), the birds that became flightless on this island took over from those who retained flight. This makes scientific sense: if you don’t need to fly after your dinner, bring flightless allows you to run at less energy than flying birds. Effectively, as the theory goes, the flightless birds gained a competitive advantage and thrived on it. However, as sea levels rose long ago, these birds became trapped and died out on the island.
The island since re-emerged, and amazingly, the same thing happened. All good experiments are repeatable, and that is what happened.
Now … for the “other side” of this debate: Where is the scientific proof of “Intelligent Design”?
Always remember: Catholics do not deny science, for nothing in science can contradict the glory that is God. Rather, I think you’ll find a beautiful story of science and religion working together to explain both how the world works and finding our place in it.
The Bible indicates that if you suffer leprosy, the cure is a ritual that involves three pigeons, one o them to be kiIIed so patient can be covered in pigeon blood. Science, on the other hand, indicates that the cure is a course of antibiotics. If you were a Ieprosy patient (unlikely, but regretably not impossible) which cure would you choose? Answer that, and you'll see whether or not the Bible contradicts science.
czcams.com/video/G7XmsRsMmi4/video.html
The reason many ran to the New Atheism is because Americans children aren’t taught Metaphysics and the theology of the Logos. Separating nature from the Logos is an ancient mistake that goes back before Darwin, it led to Darwin.
Always in awe about the consistent quality of the videos on this channel. Thanks a lot for sharing!
Thanks for the comment! God bless.
The topic of evolution, especially as it relates to the human person, is complex and can be difficult to navigate. To better understand a sound Thomistic approach to the question, please visit this page: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/theory-of-evolution
Related Videos:
Creation isn't what you think it is!: czcams.com/video/4o8mGHN9t10/video.html
Yes, there is a Theory of Everything!: czcams.com/video/rnzqm09adgM/video.html
Against Physicalist Reductionism: czcams.com/video/uEA_zf7u6es/video.html
Clearly, It is God’s evolution we study. Science shows us the “how”, but faith shows us The Who.
Exactly
Evolution is not real. czcams.com/video/F21PHso9LB8/video.html
Yupp, atheists try to corner us with this one I reply
"Evolution, yupp, that's how God did it. 😎"
What?
@@Jackal Ikr? So lame.
If evolution actually happened it would've been mentioned in the bible.
I have been reading "The origin" and these videos help me learn. And this guy isn't annoying whatsoever. Thank you. 🧸🐁🐃🐄🐅🐕🐢🐬
God bless you brother
Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you as well!
Amen
what an excellent video!
If creatures have been evolving (via natural selection) for millions of years before Humans, then death (an essential ingredient of evolution-via-natural-selection) must have been built into the fabric of creation long before the Fall -- in other words, it cannot have been a consequence of sin. I think this is the main source of the unease that Evolution causes among Christians (at least this one).
@Simone Yet according to the bible and catechism of the church, the Adam was created esentially immoral (376) as long as he maintained good relation with Yahwe.
This is incompatible with the science.
@@jarikrawczyk isn't it possible in that view that the first human that God imparted a rational soul with was made immortal through that experience and dependence on God? What made Adam immortal wasn't that he was the first human or creature or anything like that, or because no plants or animals had died before him. He was immortal due to his whole dependence on God and aligning his will with God's. You'll notice, we believe he lost this bodily immortality after he no longer aligned his will with God's, seeking his own path. If you look at the surface, then yeah, I can see why you might think it's incompatible. But when you dig just a little deeper, you see it isn't as incompatible as once thought.
@@johnhoelzeman6683 Sure, let's dig deeper.
Hm. So if I understand you correctly, given that the evolution is true, there were creatures/great apes/hominid that were biologically human, but according to God, the church, and possibly you they didn't qualify as humans, and then at some point God arbitrally chosen one male (and another one female), and altered their DNA utilizing a "rational soul" so that their bodies could be immoral, in other words to quote the catechism he "constituted them in an original state of holiness and justice (in which phase of development?). This grace of original holiness was "to share in divine life". By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man's life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die. The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called original justice". Interesting.
So Adam's mom was according to you not yet homo sapiens, or she was homo sapiens? Was first human aware that he was "constituted in an original state of hollines" (ergo immoral)? If yes by what means? Was he aware what he has to do/not do to "remain in the divine intimacy" with Yahwe?
What actually he did that he lost the intimacy and became mortal, in other words made his rational soul to change back his DNA to the one more simmilar to the DNA of his not fully human parents. What was the specific Adam's action that you call the original sin (I presume I can discard the story about eating the actual apple)?
What was the specyfic physical mechanism that physically altered structure of their DNA, so that they could be immoral and then back mortal?
Plants are alive, are they not? But Adam and Eve ate them, and therefore they died.
Furthermore, unless Adam and Eve were very, very, very different from us biologically, their skin cells were continually dying, they had hair that was also made of dead cells, and fingernails too.
"But those are different"
Precisely! There are different senses of the word "death". The truest of deaths is the death of one with a living soul. After all, what was it that made Adam "alive" but the breathing into him of his soul?; "and the man became a living soul".
If you take Adam to be the first biologically human creature to be granted a rational soul, and Eve his mate, then it's perfectly reasonable to think that the death of soulless animals may have preceded him. For, taking the context of the creation story into account, we have far more reason to consider the sense of the word "death" to mean the death of an individual with a soul as a result of their sin than biological death.
Now, on "death" being "built into the fabric of creation long before the Fall", consider the following. Again, unless Adam and Eve were extremely biologically different from us, they most likely had teeth like ours, which are built for grinding and tearing meat. So, if they had such teeth, would not "death" be built into them? And that extends to many other creatures as well; pretty much every carnivore.
On that subject, there is a verse that implies that all creatures ate only plants before the fall, but I think that, while strong "all"/"every" language is used in it, it should be kept in mind that the people to whom the Genesis account was composed had just been in slavery for a few hundred years: I don't think God was going to have Moses write down which animals ate meat and which ones didn't, and there would be no point in him doing so--the message is paramount here, and that distinction wasn't important for the message (I mean, dinosaurs aren't touched on at all either, and they definitely existed; message over science). So, this verse likely only applied to creatures within the bounds of the garden; in other words, there may have only been herbivores in The Garden--it being a place of peace and non-violence (and not every creature was in the garden... no whales, I think it's safe to assume). Therefore, it follows that carnivores may have been relegated to the areas outside of The Garden.
Now that may sound odd, so let's think about The Garden itself for a moment. Why did it exist? Well, it was said to be a paradise where all this life--flora and fauna--flourished. And what about outside The Garden? It was dangerous--harsh--apparently. Something that you wouldn't want to be cast out into, at the very least. So why did The Garden exist? It seems like it was to protect Adam and Eve from the harshness of the outside world, and to act as a meeting-point between the earthly and divine.
And finally, there's this one time that God used death in an extremely profound way to give life to humanity: the Crucifixion. It may not have been the first time.
@Simone If there is the evidence that all humanity can be traced back to 2 people of different sex who new each other, you will have no trouble to present the link to such study, right? I will be waiting impatiently.
As you can see, I do look at the creation story in OT combined with the official and mandatory teaching in the catechism of catholic church critically, because they make no sense. Here you have humans that were not humans before they got souls, their parents were not humans either, these Adam and Eve "were constituted in an 'original state of holiness and justice'. This grace of original holiness was 'to share in. . . divine life'. By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man's life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die."
In other words the receiving the rational soul somehow changed their DNA so that they were immoral as long as they obeyed God, and somehow it was clearly communicated to them what they were not supposed to do (it is absurd). It is interesting what action they actually took (sin) that resulted in their DNA being changed so they have became mortal again, and their offspring as well. Since we are talking abut the compatibility of catholic faith with the science, what was the mechanism of such genetic change ensuring not being able to suffer (including not being able to feel pain) and have the eternal life?
Stories from the Bible are mostly are just stories, many do not correspond to historical reality. Indeed, the studies showing that the Exodus didn't take place, biblical Moses never existed, Jews didn't conquered Canaan, but were originally Canaanites themselves, puts all Abrahamic religions in a pickle, doesn't it?
(The NT is not much better).
CCC 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....
In 1996, Pope John Paul II declared that the theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis."
Pope Francis sees "no conflict between evolution and creation".
"And in process of time it came to pass" (Genesis 4)
“concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them and that they might see that they themselves are beasts" (Ecclesiastes 3)
Please do more videos with Friar Thomas! I think he is one of the better presenters that you have. He speaks with conviction is not monotone.
What in this talk is actually "Thomistic"? We can find the same explanation from any secular academic source. All the modern assumptions are granted. Evidence is mentioned, but never shared. I just can't imagine that St. Thomas would allow all of modern science's assumptions without demonstration and an explanation of the natural world that was never held by a philosopher or doctor of the Church.
Modern "Thomists" are all modernists. They embraced the new religion of Science.
@ More specifically the religion of 'science so-called' though, because true Science cannot contradict the one true Faith, as I'm sure you'll agree.
Exactly! How can any truthseeker be satisfied with such an approach?
St. Thomas actually devised a method similar to the modern scientific method, of questioning and answering and providing proof, though it was all through logic and thought experiments and not through empirical observation. He would definitely question these statements, but in the end he would probably see what is presented here as reasonable, especially as it includes the fact of God in the creation of the universe.
@@swiggitysk8 God created each natural kind, including plants and animals, from nothing. That's St. Thomas position. His philosophy is completely repellent to evolution, and empirical findings in biology do not support macro evolution.
What do you think about aquinas' statement "creatio non est mutatio" and evolution?
The phrase “Creatio non est mutatio” means “creation is not change”, and this is true enough. However, this doesn’t mean that God doesn’t utilize change. Consider how in Genesis 1:27, where it says, “And God created man”. Here the word for create in Hebrew is “bara” a word meaning to create from nothing. However, in Genesis 2:7 it says, “And the Lord God formed man”. This is the Hebrew word “yatzar”, meaning to form one thing from another. So which is it? Was man made from nothing or formed from something? The answer lies in the soul. For it was the soul that was created ex nihilo, but the body which was formed. So with that being said, its more than fine for a thomist to say that God formed the body of man over time, but specially created his soul from nothing.
@@DaltonLPyronAh, the dual stories of Genesis. What an interesting thing to bring up. What I am about to say may be considered not in keeping with the story of the Old Testament, but we should remember that the first five books of the Bible are the Jewish origin and their rules, AS PUT FORWARD BY THE JEWISH RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP IN JUDAH FOLLOWING THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL AT THE HANDS ON THE ASSYRIANS (apologies for the caps, but I want to make the context of this clear).
I believe that Israel and Judah, while both eventually becoming Jewish kingdoms in a sense, were not unified politically. And part of this may well have been their religious texts, with Genesis and the Story of the Patriarchs being primary in Judah, while the Exodus of Moses and the Israelites from Egypt being primary in Israel’s origins (in general at this time, Judah was FAR friendlier with Egypt than Israel was). However, after the fall of Israel, Judah took in a lot of their people. In order to unite the two, the Priests in Judah sought to truly unite the two peoples. And so, their stories were merged, with a split following the reign of King Solomon.
However, this merger left behind relics hinting at the two-ness that existed before. There are a number of pairs of stories that seem odd, and Adam’s creation is one of them.
The CZcams channel Useful Charts made a great video about this topic, and I do recommend it.
Please, traslate this job for other languages, like spanish, portuguese and mandarin, so that it rechaces more people.
I was paying attention but I don't know if I got something right, so at the end in your conclusion are you saying that avulsion is real or not?
Ultimately, the Church itself has not taken a side on this debate. And honestly, being a scientific theory, I’m fine with that, as long as the Church promotes the sciences (through education, funding, etc).
Basically, the Church says this: If you want to believe Genesis Creationism, you can, it’s not against our rules. If you find Darwinian Evolution to be a more satisfactory answer, that is also fine (assuming a few points are adhered to).
@@stevendebettencourt7651 yeah, I don't think evolution is a dumb or un-true theory, I atleast believe in micro-evolution, but it would make sense if God gave us that ability to adapt cause it's not like he's making software updates everytime people migrate
@@jenny6609 The issue is that, according to what we can observe via the scientific method, evolution is a random process and most developments don’t actually help. And even when they do, it can take a lot of time for the changes to take hold.
Now, the Catholic Church says that if you agree with evolution (as I do), it cannot be random. Things happen for a reason, and sometimes God’s reasoning is completely inscrutable to us. Now, I don’t have an issue with this point either. Obviously, the scientific method cannot observe the divine, so it is perfectly reasonable to say that while evolution APPEARS to be random, it truly isn’t, and we know it isn’t.
Actually, perhaps the best examples of evolution to observe are that of dog breeds. Over the last 10,000 years, wolves have been basically focused-evolved into all the breeds we see today through nutation and forced breeding, with humans trying to steer the results in a certain direction. However, it should be noted humans are very heavy-handed in this process compared to God. We are not subtle.
Interestingly, while Darwin was not an overly church-going man (though his father wanted him to eventually enter the clergy of the Anglican Church), it was a Catholic in a monastery who, several years after “On the Origin of Species” showed how the process of trait selection would proceed once said trait presented itself; Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics.
Cool
From a survival/nature perspective, what is the benefit of having the makings of a wing or the makings of an eyeball? What is the advantage to creatures in these transitory phases? How would they be more likely to survive?
There are no transitory stages except in the atheists' immagination
@@mers3481 Precisely. And seeing Thomists defending evolution is sickening. St. Thomas, a creationist who argued incessantly that creation is not change, and that only God can create, is probably sad seeing his disciples defending heresies.
@ Olá (presumível) conterrâneo!
Also, the method of St. Thomas to believe first and then explain rationally is pretty much the opposite of what the Church has been doing for the last few hundred years. People are afraid of what "scientists" say, but that surprises me when these people know that the scientists have very faulty vision (i.e. atheism + irrational philosophy). It makes you wonder what on earth these people are trying to get at...
@ "only God can create" yes of course! Who said otherwise?
Evolution is God's creation. Who creates evolution? "Evolution" is the evolution of created beings. Who makes evolution happen?
@@hugofernandes8545 Who said otherwise...I don't think you actually know what evolution means, do you? A material process can lead to the origin of new natural species. Creating, as St. Thomas clearly tells us, is NOT CHANGE. It is FROM NOTHINGNESS. Accidental change cannot lead to new substantial forms. Evolution is a pantheistic fairy tale. It has no scientific support, and it is a metaphysical absurdity.
If this video had not been made we would have lost nothing
We have to remember that there are two kinds of science too. There is empirical, experimental science, and then there is theoretical science which is more the work of interpretation and guesses, often without any way to verify it absolutely.
czcams.com/video/G7XmsRsMmi4/video.html This series covers known lies that evolution texts use and still teach to this day.
It is fascinating that the talents give us as humans: to sense right and wrong, to think abstractly, to think rationally, and to think abstractly are all really meant for us to use these talents to come to know and love God.
Books on this topic please? I know of a book called "metaphysics of evolution" alone by Fr. Ripperger.
From a philosophical perspective, Fr. Ripperger is the best on the question. The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation has great material from the perspective of the empiriological sciences.
I have never read that book, and so I say in advance because I may have misconceptions about it. But friends have told me some of his ideas, and at least from what I have heard, his scientific understanding of evolution is quite dodgy in the sense that he delineates distinctions between a micro and macro evolution when what he is describing as macro evolution doesn’t really exist and isn’t part of the scientific models of evolution. He then bases metaphysical arguments on the existence of said macro evolution. From what I was told, it seemed to me like he was treating certain facets of evolution taxonomies like they were objective categories rather than category structures invented by human beings in order to classify things in thought and language, and then generally slapping a radically too simple, overly platonic, metaphysical structure on it. So, unless everything I’ve been told about what his thoughts is wrong, I would be wary of that book.
@@nickkraw1
Are you sure your friends, the ones that have purportedly read the book, have not confounded metaphysical and empirio-schematic statements and terminology? The author clearly distinguishes between the two types of methodology, and focuses on the former. If you were told that there is a “radically too simple, overly Platonic, metaphysical structure on it”, I’m afraid those conveying what is in the book haven’t understood much of it. From a traditional Thomistic metaphysical standpoint, the very science of metaphysics has a “descending” movement that is performed on the other disciplines. This is true because all other sciences/disciplines are indirectly subordinated to metaphysics. If a science, empirio-schematic in this case, presents a conclusion that violates a principle or truth of metaphysics, the metaphysician has the duty to point that out to the practitioner of that science. As a result, the scientist has to reformulate his hypothesis/conclusion/thesis. And, of course, this is the case because the truths of metaphysics apply to ALL being. And the truths of the particular sciences are concerned with particular beings, consequently, they presuppose the truths of whole being, which is the proper subject matter of metaphysics. Fr. Ripperger subjects the claims of evolution to metaphysical principles. The end result is that evolution doesn’t meet the criteria of being a rational hypothesis.
To the claim that he fails to understand macro-evolution, or that it doesn’t exist as a model in the actual evolutionary literature, I would respond with the distinction that it doesn’t exist actually the way he presents; I concede. That he doesn’t present it fleshed out in the full implications; I deny. Again, one has to distinguish carefully between the metaphysical and empiriological overtones of the discussion.
Evolving out of Eden by Robert M Price and Edwin A. Suominen
John F. Haught has written a great deal on the topic. He is Catholic but not a Thomist and does not use Aristotelean metaphysics in approaching this topic.
apple trees and dogs are actually interesting examples. while dogs are very homogenous, that is, they are all extremely similar within a breed with the average two dogs of any breed being more generically similar the siblings, apples are on the other end of the spectrum. two apple trees grown from seeds of the same apple can produce fruit completely unlike each other or their parents, because of how the plant expresses its genes.
of course they are all still apples, but this is why most apples are grown from grafted trees. even in our time scale, there is variety to how stable plants and animals are.
dogs used to be wolfs not long ago, dogs are the perfect example to prove Darwin’s theory right
What are you wearing. Is it a flower?
Thanks for this video. However, I’m not sure I really got the point of it. Would somebody be able to condense it in a few sentences? Thanks in advance!
No matter how long or short in time the universe and creation is, God is still apart of the entire process.
@@keithmayhewhammond5357 But only if that God did not reveal exactly how He created the universe, or was entirely incompetent or lying when He did, or did not protect His people from error for thousands of years, and needed openly antibiblical deists and atheists to tell them how it "actually" happened.
@@keithmayhewhammond5357 "Apart of it" ? Are you sure you do not mean "part of it" ?
Give glory to God who has allowed us to understand some bits and pieces of His Natural Creation and give glory to Him when He surprises us with evidence of His supernatural interventions!
I can. Evolution is a fairy tale for atheists who need a Genesis story. There, made a summary for you.
Secular society has been led to believe understanding the functions of a created system negates a designer, when in fact it demonstrates the contrary. If we live in a logical universe we come from something more fundamental & logical than us; & we, assuming we are created in the image of this being, are equipped to understand their language, which is the logos: the word that orchestrates the behavior of the universe. This is the foundation of the scientific method.
Some of the Church Fathers, such as St Gregory of Nyssa, wrote of creation as a highly dynamic process, often with a sense that borders on evolution.
Whereas atheistic evolutionary narratives evoke statistical randomness as a means of variation, there is no rationale why the same case could not be made for the action of God as creator: literally, evolutionary variation as an “act of God” and inherently mysterious.
well said!
Where? Provide a reference.
Lol
boy the comments are going to be fun
I have a question for The Thomistic Institute
At 4:56 you say that it is possible to relate human history without mentioning God and most of it would make sense, implying that we would need God to make sense of all of it.
My question is this: even if God is an explanation for all of human history, why is that better than accepting we cannot explain all of history?
For example: I cannot explain how the first unicellular organisms became alive from non-living matter. I could explain it by mentioning God, but why shouldn't I just accept that I don't know?. There's nothing bad about admitting our ignorance.
And sure, I could keep in mind God is a possible explanation, but I wouldn't take it for granted that God is THE explanation. For starters there are many other explanations, they may be more mundane, but they could still be true, and those explanations could be proven or disproven, while God can't.
Why not just admit our ignorance?.
Ah, my child, you ask for knowledge and understanding. Be careful what you wish for.
God is not necessarily a Judeo/Christian idea. Oh, and the fundamental meaning of God, we all believe it. If we didn't we would not be capable of functioning in reality. God is the mind and will that maintains the laws of nature. It's a way to think of creation from a psychological perspective. Why is this necessary. So you can trust the fact that the sun will rise in morning, you won't suddenly float off into space, or for that matter, creation won't simply cease to be a moment from now. Think of this as the most accurate predictive model that we have come up with thoughout history that allows us to predict what will happen next...
@@TonyChev I hope you one day come accept that other people believe differently from you, and that those beliefs are valid
Good point. Nothing you have said refutes Aquinas’ proofs of the existence of God, and you should study that if you haven’t, but from the proof of God’s existence it doesn’t follow that this necessarily explains all of human history. It’s certainly possible for an all-powerful creator to keep some things a mystery, even His own involvement in them. We could rationally infer from the secure knowledge of God’s existence that He had a hand in all history, but that does not presuppose that we are ever going to discover an explanatory understanding of His involvement.
Hi Fernando! I agree that we cannot explain all of history-- maybe even till the end of the history of our species, we would still not be able to comprehensively explain how things came to be-- from the scale of the fundamental particles till the macro-sized matter. However, this should not mean that we should cease our quest for truth. Because by searching, we can develop the models that we have.
Now, why should we consider God as part of the narrative? Is it even worthwhile to do so given the scarcity of methods to prove the existence of God scientifically?
I think, yes. First, I think we can find reasonable arguments for the existence of God outside of those that can be proven by the Scientific method. Yes, it's not our gold standard for developing our model for truth, but it can take us a step closer to it. There are a lot of things that we cannot prove via the scientific method yet we still hold on them as if they are very fundamental to our being. One analogy I can think of is how does someone know who to or why marry someone. Apparently, Science is limited to answering such question, right? Married people still hold on to the reasons they imagined and believed for themselves and even put much energy out of their existence to their relationships. Or think of the questions regarding our judgements on aesthetics. Those reasons are reasonable, and so are the purpose of believing to such reasons! Why? Because they satisfy our existential hunger. I think it is a worthwhile existential activity to not cease our quest in the subject of God.
Second, we can make the case as to why we still bother to learn 'trivial' but scientifically reasonable things like the atom, quarks and leptons, if we can just admit that we are just too 'ignorant' to know for sure, and that we'll still be just fine living our normal lives without even bothering. I think there's no shame to make a 'leap of faith' re: God even though the science does not confirm it. Afterall, who knows if our current scientific models really encompase the totality of reality, right? We will never know for sure! I think the question next question is: on which course of action would you lose more (existentially), by staying adamantly agnostic or by surrendering to the 'necessary unknown'?
That's it my friend. I hope it would be of some value to you.
@@irldeancobias3196 You argued why we should consider God, a point I was already conceding
My question was, why should we take it for granted?. After all, God is just one of many possibilities that are worth considering, and other possibilities are provable
This videos are more big brain than all of Evangelicalism combined
Great video. God bless.
"Notions of ‘evolutionary creation’ and ‘creative evolution’ tend to muddle definitions
of what we mean by creation and by evolution. The term 'creation', with a small ‘c’,
simply means the process of creating, regardless of what type of agency is involved.
The Creation, with a capital ‘C’, is traditionally taken to mean the creating of the
universe or world as an act of God. In contrast, I agree with science historian Peter J.
Bowler that 'evolution' in a general sense refers to the formation (or creation) of the
living world by natural causes alone (Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1989). Since
we cannot distinguish between natural laws and natural laws ordained by God,
‘evolutionary creation’ follows exactly the same science as atheistic creation i.e. it is
just evolution. Invoking a supreme being as First Cause does not change the purely
mechanical outcome. Evolution cannot dismiss the possibility that natural laws are
sustained by a higher power, but it does dismiss the idea that natural laws are ‘guided’
by a higher power, for that would be to invoke a directing force other than the laws
themselves. By the same definition of terms, Bergson’s ‘creative evolution’, if it
invokes any immaterial or metaphysical causes, is no process of evolution. Those who
posit that any form of purposeful superintelligence guided the development of life, or
adjusted the laws of nature to arrive at the apex of humankind, are still rejecting the
ultimate scientific premise of evolution, which is to account for all origins through
mindless, insentient physical causes alone."
Extract from - Life Without Evolution: A Comprehensive Deconstruction of Darwin's Creation Story (free to read online).
***for me creation and evolution are the same thing, everything start evolve and finish. Everything that starts or born will finish or die.***
STM that one cannot always discern theological realities from the phenomena of the natural world; we believe in Divine Providence, not because the phenomena favour such a belief (they often contradict it) but because our Faith, guided by Divine Revelation, tells us there is such a Providence. So evolution can be random from a natural POV, while being ruled by Providence when studied from the POV of the Faith.
The supreme example of this contrast in POVs, is the Passion of Christ. Our Faith gives us a wider & truer view of supernatural values and realities, that the natural creation and its phenomena cannot. Our senses, famously, predispose us not to believe in the Eucharistic Presence; it is the supernatural grace of Divine Faitn that keeps us from stopping short at what our senses tell us.
Christians are to focus on discreting materialistic evolution. When atheists say they trust evolution, they normally mean materialistic one. But this is easy to turn down: marerialistic evolution is based on randomness: and randomness is a mathematical concept, which cannot be material.
Thomism addresses much better evolution, as ideas are immaterial.
Can you make a video about the impossibility of Noah’s Ark saving all animals
A fine video, with many good points. It is a useful perspective for any person (Christian or Atheist) to somehow make sense of both Bible and Science. However, the video is not so useful when you've considered evolution more thoroughly. The problem for me when it comes to evolution it's not conceptually or even that it is somewhat hard to square with the creation account - I'm way past those issues. The number 1 problem is this: I don't see how random mutations (being the only *creative* element in natural evolution) are able to do other than some "simple" fine-tuning. A random process simply *cannot* build a whole new functionality. No one can demonstrate it in practice. It is unbelievable. I am a system developer and I can testify that no program in its entirety can be built purely by random mutations. "Genetic algorithms" which some may have heard about will only do random mutations in a very carefully selected area of the code, typically to change a number. If suddenly the number became a letter or changed somewhere else in the code, the whole thing would crash. If it was indeed possible to build *anything* through random mutation, we could set one super-computer to the task of building at least *something*, just for fun. Alas, it will not work. Hence no one bothers to do it. At best such a random mutation program could make the simplest "hello world"-program. I don't think most people realize how utterly unbelievable *natural* evolution really is. I won't deny common descent or a long history, but a purely random change over the past 4 billion years must in my opinion be rejected based on simple common sense and math.
You truly understand what is wrong with Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution. Random mutation that is actually observed in nature is greatly biased against increased genetic complexity and coherence. It also does not explain non-random mutations that are observed and it does not explain the deep structural patterns found in living organisms. They also don't explain the origin of life or the origin of information contained in DNA. Neither does Abiogenesis explain this either. There are allot of problems with Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolutions. Also it is inherently materialistic and atheistic, which Catholics can not accept.
Random mutations can only occur on what is alive. Nothing can live unless it is already complete with all of its parts and systems and a complete DNA. Random mutations can only destroy but never never increase information but only lead to disease and death.
Adaptation can only occur two ways. (1) - by the original created pair having heterozygous genes and moduals that can appear in different homozygous combinations or (2) amazing complex epigenetic information that God programmed into the DNA. Never could one Kind (baramin) change into a different kind because each kind has many unique Orphan proteins and Orphan genes (TaxonomicalRestritiveGenes) that do not occur in any other Kind. Also, all microsystems are irrecibly complex. Also, each Kind requires its only unique interactome which cannot be changed. Scientists at John Hopkins University said a small yeast cell's interactome has 10 to the 79th billionth power of incorrect ways that its interactome could be arranged, but only one will work.
These scientific facts prove that God had to create all life complete in the six days of Creation. This is why scientists today are rejecting the STORY of "Evolution" since we now know that the religion of evolution is only quackery.
No.
While this video takes a good balance, it does not really speak to evolution itself.
What would be helpful is, rather than granting that evolution is true and then trying to "baptize" it, so to speak, which it seems so many Catholic academics try to do, why not offer serious critiques of evolution based on Aristotle and Aquinas? Even if we don't condemn evolution as impossible, we ought to be more focused on the problems it creates philosophically and theologically.
Simply saying, "Well, God is present, even if evolution is true" ignores the fact that Scientists teach evolution BECAUSE they don't believe God is present.
You are confusing a scientist's belief in God with science claiming there is no evidence for God. Many scientists believe in God.
Most excellent!!! Love these!!
Cheers, thanks for watching! God bless you!
Viriditas and Ariditas.
I'm happy all the nay-sayers in the comments are in favor of creation, but I think this video is meant for new atheist nay-sayers. They're not saying evolution is a scientific fact. They're just saying that even if the evolution hypothesis were true, it still wouldn't disprove Christianity.
But they're just being naive to the point of irresponsibility. It would disprove the inerrancy of Catholic Scripture and dogmas on Original Sin and the necessity of the Crucifixion, and make a mockery of Catholic tradition. Unbelievers may well ask: if deists and atheists needed to 'correct' the Church of God on these vital issues, _what else_ may need their 'correction'?
@@jaspermay5813 I understand your concern, and I agree that a careless approach to the theory of evolution can give rise to the legitimization of atheistic positions.
We know that God is the efficient cause and the One who establishes the formal and final cause of any new living species, and that is of reason and faith.
However, it is necessary to remember that the Church has never established any dogma of faith on how the evolution of the line of material causality of living beings takes place.
The Church says nothing about the matter that God uses to generate every new species except the human.
What material did God use to form the first bird? From a reptile egg? From clay, like us? Did he create it from no preexisting matter?
These are questions unanswered by doctrine, and they do not change the fact that God made all things and creates every new living species.
Although material continuity can be established between species, as the theory of evolution advocates, this in no way affects the truth (rational and faith) that God is the one who creates each of these species.
On this point the Thomist Institute is not wrong.
@@leonardovieira4445 Even the most 'careful' endorsement of anything approaching the deception of evolution legitimizes the atheistic position that what has been taught to be the actual word of God for more than three thousand years is fundamentally mistaken and basically useless for telling us anything absolutely true or meaningful about the origins and early history of the universe beyond "somehow God did it."
There is no dogma specifically anathematizing those who say e.g. that Saint Matthew didn't exist, or that Saint Paul was a Chinese rabbit, but it is ridiculous to claim that someone can profess to hold these beliefs with no effect on his faith and salvation whatsoever. Likewise, the Bible clearly teaches that Adam lived to the age of 930, Seth to 912, Enos to 905, that a worldwide flood occurred when Noah was 600 years old, etc. etc., and this was unanimously believed by all prominent Catholics throughout history, simply as it is written. You need to give me some extremely good scientific or logical reasons to deny this traditional understanding of Scripture, and frankly I have not met any evolutionist able or willing to provide any.
Also, polygenism was specifically condemned, and all 'respectable' theories of evolution feature it. Also, evolution in general was called the 'principal doctrine of the modernists' and modernism the 'synthesis of all heresies'.
All this should be enough for someone of good will to strive to find a way to harmonize perennial Catholic tradition with true science. Thank God this is not hard to do. Please check out the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation.
@@jaspermay5813 We have to distinguish the wheat from the chaff... The theory that God created each new species using gametes from a previous species is not problematic in itself. Evolution, in this specific sense of a continuous line of material causality between beings, in no way contradicts the Scriptures or the perennial teaching of the Church's Magisterium, except to say that man was not made of clay (yes, I am convinced that this is not an allegory, and God literally shaped Adam out of a few pounds of clay).
It is another thing to say that this is sufficient to explain the emergence of life and species, making the reference to God unnecessary. I believe that is what you are standing up against, and so am I. This statement contradicts the Faith, but it also contradicts reason itself. It is an atheistic and childish theory (pardon the pleonasm).
I believe that we Catholics need to have this clarity, because it destroys, from within, the atheist evolutionist argument.
@@leonardovieira4445 We do... The problem with your stated theory is what it leaves unsaid. If you will explicitly profess that what you're proposing all happened in the two days that all non-human animals were created, around 6000 years ago, then I suppose there could be some room for it, though it is highly unnecessary and novel.
Otherwise any talk of a 'continuous line of material causality' and 'God using gametes from previous species to create new ones' clearly implies some concession to the secularist origins myth including its claim of billions of years. And I just can't see why someone like you, who so explicitly rejects one of the myth's main pillars, namely that humans seamlessly descended from non-humans untold eons ago, would concede any of its other claims or implications.
So when do you think that God literally created Adam from literal clay, and where do you find this date?
Imagine if we evolved how can we even trust our own senses? Everything made there is a maker.
Dr. John Sanford's presentation of Genetic Entropy is yet another glaring contradiction to evolutionary claims, and is actually more consistent with the Church's teaching on Original Sin. In their quest for scientific "cred" and desire for human respect, the Order of Preachers seem to have lost both their apostolic and intellectual ways in the matter of (theistic) evolution.
Will you touch intelligent design? Been seeing a very reasonable version of it recently that rubs hardcore darwinists the wrong way
Jesus loves you! czcams.com/video/F21PHso9LB8/video.html
czcams.com/video/G7XmsRsMmi4/video.html two episodes are free, it's an extremely long series and worth the money. No I'm not involved with the makers or the company.
You should read Fernand Crombette, the Thomas of Aquinas of the real science of the Bible. Mozes is the writer of Genesis, but he spoke copt written in hebrew language, designed by Joseph to write also the copt, with different prononciation of the consonances, the languages being brothers. Now, copt is monosyllabic. So you have a larger palette of ideas, the text is consequently richer... But on a philosophical base the word of God is perfect, without doubt, so when Hé talks of création, he doesn't mean evolution. When he says the sun turns around the earth, this is no mataphore, demonstration: the sun atracts planets but is also a bit attracted, so he also turns in circles, in the Center of the system. But a planet comming in the center of suncirculation will be trapped by it and following the sun it will turn in the center of the suncircle. Now this is so extremely logic. And, it fits perfectly there where the helioscentrisme of Galilee doesn't. Now, if you would wave this away like that, you are not a scientist, nor a good thinker. So please, give it your best.
Micro evolution maybe
that doesn't really work either, based on fossil evidence of half-way points where certain types of animals, or ancestors to modern animals, have traits of two distinct groups. Like how the ancestors of birds and crocodiles/alligators have a good deal in common, as well as genetic connections between species that wouldn't fit in the idea of micro-evolution. micro-evolution exists, but its more of a smaller piece to what is macro-evolution. like, even using the logic of micro-evolution, you would get macro. all birds share a common ancestor that was a bird. good, cool. but micro-evolution requires you to believe adaptation allows for birds to change and become different varieties over multiple generations, evolving new traits that not even their ancestors had. cool. well, given enough time and enough environmental pressures, given this belief, you could get a bird who's feathers have become hardened and smaller, covering the entire body. its head has become larger and its neck smaller. the feathers on its wings have disappeared and what's left are two, stubby, leg-like apendages. and its back legs, which already had scales, have thickened and become more stubby. its tail feathers also have disappeared and the stub of the true tail has extended. viola, you have a lizard.
Obviously, this isn't how evolution has gone with any bird (yet), but you can see it in even modern mammals. you can find primitive forms of what would later become mammary glands in monotremes like echidnas and platypuses (who don't even lay live young, mind you). Even marsupials have a more primitive kind of mammary gland than what we think of as normal mammals. You really can't consider a platypus a true mammal, atleast how we usually think of them. This idea of micro-evolution sounds good on paper, but based on the natural world with its modern and extinct fauna, it doesn't work. There has to be a changing from one kind of animal to another, such as a reptile to a dinosaur to a bird. Birds even still have scales, for crying out loud
Micro/macro evolution aren’t actual scientific terms. There’s just evolution and the many theories which surround it.
@@johnhoelzeman6683 You’re claiming that you can look at bones and tell that one set of bones transformed into another set of bones millions of years later based on accidental characteristics? That’s called “divination”, it’s demonic and a mortal sin.
@@ChevalierdeJohnstone no, you look at bones from ancient, extinct creatures and see what features they have in common with other fossils and modern animals. You dont just 'see' it, you examine and compare and hypothesize and test. That's not divination in any sense of the word
Why can a conservative Christian Church like Roman Catholicism can be so embracing of the realties of scientific discoveries while I had to grow up in a church that believed that if you doubted the universe being under 10,000 years old, then you weren't really saved?
I would argue that God is necessary to explain the progression of life even in the time it has existed. For example, there doesn't seem to have been enough genetic change from the ancient Egyptians to now to explain the genetic differences between humans and our nearest relatives in the animal kingdom, such as Bonobos and chimpanzees. Much less the fact that they have 24 sets of chromasomes, while we have only 23 (apparently due to a chromosomal fusion event). It's almost as if there were some massive period of significant change in hour history that brought about these differences.
You really think ancient Egyptians were the first humans?
@@fruzsimih7214 I'm talking about averages, try to keep up gamma.
God works thru evolution said George Coyne in his interview with Richard Dawkins, andcarl sagan said that earth is apale blue dot so we a can argue either way but if say Science is branch of Metaphysics thae answer is closed Karl Marx spoke about Humanism so that's what God wants us to follow love thy neighbor as thyself, that's humanism and altruism that's the opposite of egoism In pluralistic society it's secular stream of thought word of peace is more powerful than the slice of sword ultimate truth is you can't kill an idea so we may call it positive delusion for survival Nature of man should change that's key for all locks of discomfort.
Great video!
Thank you Fr. Davenport for explaining that God's activity can work through evolution, which is what I learned studying theology in France many years ago. The current spate of YT videos opposing intelligent design to evolution leaves the terms undefined except in irreconcilable ways. I have wondered if God did not place in the DNA of living things a kind of time clock for the emergence of new species. Which scenario has God working by means of evolution. Damn Darwin and his random selection.
czcams.com/video/dxqY1vuD7bY/video.html
Thank you this is an amazing channel and ministry I am loving in the word daily as my life is in shambles after my wife became a prodigal and my family has been destroyed by the devil I’m praying for God to make all things new in Jesus name
Just a question, if evolution and modern biology are true, which I m sure they are, so the thesis of hylomorphism is false. So there is no soul as efficient cause of the body and the human being is not a composite of soul and body, the agent cause of the human form is the DNA. Maybe so, if Aristotle is dead wrong, Plato must be right: the soul habits the body, it lives inside the body. Then, it well possible that the body, as inferior to the soul, could be just an accident for it?
Evolution is a lie from hell. Why on earth do you think it is? Read Genesis. Jesus loves you! czcams.com/video/F21PHso9LB8/video.html All the evidence is AGAINST evolutionism.
@@MichaelAChristian1 Something that's been verified conclusively and that's directly observable, can't be a "lie". Pretending to know things you don't know (because faith is not "knowledge"), while calling others "liars", is very, very dishonest behavior.
@@siim605 You are the one lying against Genesis.
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."- 1 John chapter 2 verses 22 to 23.
You haven't "DIRECTLY OBSERVED" an chimp transforming or reproducing into a human being, You haven't "DIRECTLY OBSERVED" the "oort cloud, or "punctuated equilibrium" or "abiogenesis" or "rna world" or a lizard becoming a chicken or a whale walking around ON LEGS or ANY of the LIES of evolutionism. Wake up!
Evolutionism is a complete BLIND FAITH.
We have the TESTIMONY across thousands of years. They have LESS than nothing. Not one evolutionist on planet earth will ever testify to seeing a chimp transform or reproduce into a human being.
Which have you SEEN?
An ANIMAL TALK or "punctuated equilibrium"? An animal talking is a special event in the bible but you still are given an example in real life arent' you? "punctuated equilibrium" is supposedly a NATURAL event that happened countless times and you will NEVER SEE IT. Which is REALITY and which is your IMAGINATION? Who gave you a BETTER REPORT? Read Genesis. Which have you SEEN? The rainbow ONLY on earth or the imaginary "oort cloud"?? Whales living in water LIKE A FISH or a whale WALKING AROUND ON LEGS? Which have you SEEN and which is IMAGINATION? The bible says they became VAIN IN THEIR IMAGINATIONS. To paraphrase. Which have you SEEN? Each star differing in glory or stars popping into existence "millions" of times a day from a identical process that is impossible and somehow each one vastly different?
Evolutionists LIED for years that one race would be more "ape-like" than others. Genetics showed bible correct again and evolution destroyed again. How did bible know we were all one closely related family before genetics EXISTED? Who gave you a better report? Can you answer or will you LIE to yourself? Jesus Christ is the TRUTH! Jesus loves you! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED!
There are questions that should be asked even before we get to the "Are creation and evolution compatible?" question. Specifically, with what we now know about the age of the universe (from cosmic microwave background radiation studies): "Is there enough time for macro evolution to be possible, let alone probable?" Eric Metaxas does a fine job in his new book of demonstrating that the "fine tuning" that we now know (and Darwin did not know - heck! Carl Sagan did not know) is necessary to produce life is grossly improbable (to the point of impossibility) to have occurred randomly given the known age of the universe. Even Darwin recognized that the "Cambrian explosion" happened too quickly to be explained by macro evolutionary theory as it existed in his day.
I saw a video from a science communicator recently, certainly not a religious source, talking about how weird it is that we exist so "early" in the age of the universe.
the conclusion was basically a take on "we need to be early or we wouldn't' be here so it makes sense" which is a total non answer, but the fact that they felt the need to give _something_ of an explanation says a lot.
@@marvalice3455 This is the tautological argument. It proves nothing by presupposing it's conclusion.
I’m curious what you think. How old is man? Are we over 200K+ years old (evolution) or around 5-6K years old from the Bible?
@@flowstateentertainment8395Well, unless you are a truly hardcore Evangelical (please get out of those circles if you find yourself in them, I beg you), the Young Earth idea is pretty much dead and buried.
Absolutely. People reject science largely for religious reasons, but many religious people are fine with it.
I am Catholic and fine with scientific facts but not their agenda. I see evolution but from a different perspective. Here are my thoughts, which I have a lot. The secret of combining modern scientific knowledge with the teachings of the Bible without any conflict is to place the creation of Adam in its rightful place in Genesis 1, which is the third day of Creation. The theory of evolution would be turned upside down in a revolutionary manner the way the world went from believing in a geocentric model of our world to a heliocentric one. There would be no more need to try to explain away the more obscure verses in the Bible by resorting to making up myths.
Why wouldn’t dedicated seekers of Truth dare combining Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 together? Following the story of Creation to the letter, it puts the creation of Adam and Eve on the third day as described in Genesis 1, shortly after the dry land appeared. The Garden of Eden could have been a domed enclosure with its own source of light where God Created Adam first and then all the specimen of other species by simply manipulating Adam’s DNA slightly. That’s why all living creatures have similar genetic blueprint: corals, plants and all living things, even those that have been long extinct. Now, to create Eve, God could not manipulate Adams DNA the same way he did when creating the lesser beings. God had to take a piece of Adams flesh and make her genetic code the same way as Adam’s. It is intriguing, how man’s genetic code is XY and the woman’s code is XX. Perhaps, Adam’s original code was XX?! The missing biblical Adam’s “RIB” most likely is the missing limb in the Y. It’s a scientific fact that all fetuses have the XX chromosomes and all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female until the sixth week of gestation.
Those who have studied the origins of life in depth proclaim that "all life on Earth, as far as we can tell, originated just once. Or to be more correct, all of the life that we can see around the world today comes from the same origin, and as far as we can tell, so does every fossil we have ever seen. It is remotely possible that life evolved more than once on Earth, but whichever type of life originated first must have had a huge advantage, because it must have been refined by natural selection for a long time before the second kind evolved to even a single living cell. Almost certainly, the life that originated second simply couldn’t compete with the older version, and just died out shortly after it arose.”
My comments: It is rather funny how they say that life form that originated second, had no chance of surviving, yet they want us to believe that evolution happened producing advantages in the newer versions of life form. The prevailing concept in general scientific agenda is that everything evolved from a single cell organism, something like amoeba, or bacteria. The Bible does not support that! If, according to the biblical timeline of Creation, Adam was created at the start of the third day, then the popular belief in humans evolving from monkeys, or bacteria can be turned around and see how things evolve from one living source , as the above article states so strongly, being Adam! Let's say God created Adam as the first living being in the flesh, modeled in His own image, like His own Son in the fullness of perfection! Nothing could be added to make him better. Eternal Almighty God would not bother creating anything less than perfection of his own image.
Believing in the notion that the first source of life must have been refined by natural selection is sadly ridiculous. The article uses interesting words, such as:
“body plan”; left-right symmetric body plan…; isn’t an accident; Cambrian explosion; Hox genes were invented; are derived from that same ancestor; Hox genes are organized into a cluster; the organization of the cluster; organization of the genes, the bilateral body plan was invented.”
All these words imply creation by intelligent design, not just random mutations via evolution. This article fails spectacularly to prove its initial goal of evolution by natural selection.
Reply
@@kostancijadegutyte184 Fair enough. Yes, a lot of religions retcon their holy books to fit what we now know.
@@Ozzyman200
Could you explain, if God creates Man in His image, then how come evolution conclude that humanity's earliest ancestors were fish.
One cannot live on neither faith nor science alone. The two walk side-by-side, hand in hand, united in truth and cause.
Certainly, science and scientific developments are amazing and have been amazing for humanity, but no amount of science will tell you “Why are we here?” or “What is this life for?” Faith is needed, and so necessary for that.
We need to remember that it is not science VS religion, but science AND religion. The beauty of the divine shines through in the natural laws, which are the work of God, even though God can work outside them.
@@stevendebettencourt7651 Sadly historically it is so often science vs religion. Try to keep an open mind.
Remember, that faith may be comforting but it has never yet got us directly to the truth.
"no amount of science will tell you “Why are we here?” or “What is this life for?” Faith is needed, and so necessary for that."
I never said it did, but it gets us far closer than religion can.
SCIENCE- give me one free miracle and I'll explain the rest....Bang!
Evolution and Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian Evolution are separate concepts that should not be conflated. There were earlier concepts of biological evolution prior to Darwin's theory of evolution. There are several scientific problems with Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian Evolution. It doesn't explain the origin of life or how information got encoded into DNA. It doesn't explain deep structural patterns in living organisms, and it doesn't explain the increase in both genetic complexity and genetic coherence given that actual random mutation is greatly biased against both increasing complexity and coherence of genetic information. It doesn't explain non-random mutations. From the stand point of Christianity, which is Catholism, Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian Evolution are inherently materialist and atheistic, which Catholics cannot accept.
The Extended Evolutionary synthesis is not meant to "explain the origin of life" - you're jumping from one completely different field to another here. Abiogenesis is a field of study in biochemistry, not evolutionary biology. As for DNA, it is not "encoded" in the way that you assume it is. No linguistics connections to DNA exist at all. It's a chemical structure, not a code or a language of any sort. The evolutionary model is also not "inherently atheistic". That's just absurdity.
@@siim605 Abiogenesis does not give an explanation of the origin of life as well. It attempts this but fails! Darwin himself asserted that life started in a primordial pool but does not explain how in his book the "The Origin of Species". Neither Abiogenesis, Darwinian, and Neo-Darwinian theories explain the origin of information in living organisms contained in their DNA and RNA.
DNA is in fact encoded information that protein molecules as actuators read and act upon in the performance their functions. That is the purpose and function DNA!
The chemical bases, Cytosine (C), Guanine (G), Adenine (A), and Thymine (T) form the basis of genetic coding providing instructions to proteins. These nucleotides have have positive, negative, and neutral charges, which represents yes, no, and maybe statements in programming instructions given to proteins.
This is acknowledged by both geneticists and computer scientists! DNA represents a highly complex form of programming far more advanced then the binary coding found in computer machine language.
Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution are indeed inherently atheistic which is why atheists like Richard Dawkins so vigorously defend it despite its obvious flaws.
Also, Abiogenesis is related to evolutionary theory because the microevolution of genes and an organism's biochemistry is related to the macroevolution of an organism's physiology and morphology.
@@johnroesch2159 1) Abiogenesis is the label for the process itself, as well as the area of study in biochemistry; and yes, we haven't vindicated any hypothesis yet (god of the abiogenetic gaps?). 2) "Indeed, analysis of many DNA sequences suggests that no linguistics connections to DNA exist and that even though it has structure DNA is not a language" (Journal of Theoretical Biology); "DNA is not a code but a chain of base pairs" (Normative and Pragmatic Dimensions of Genetic Counseling; Springer). Not "encoded", and saying "in fact" doesn't change that. Considering you conflated two different fields of life sciences, I don't think you'd identify what a fact was if it were stapled to your damn forehead. One thing to point out that I find fascinating, is how you pick and choose to deny the evolutionary model, yet seem to accept that the research involving DNA is reliable and sound (except the "it's not a code" part). No, it isn't "acknowledged" by biologists in the sense that you want it to be. Language and code are *analogies* to explain DNA, yet DNA is in neither of those categories. Honestly, it must be nice to have such an elastic, a-la-carte set of positions on the scientific data. Also, no, evolution isn't atheistic just because Dawkins tries to educate people on it (sometimes it's futile - e.g. you). That'd be like saying "science is Catholic because Francis Collins constantly explains and defends the evolutionary model".
@@siim605 Genetic base pairing is coding and this is acknowledged by geneticists. I even asked a geneticist this very question, "Is the four base pairs in DNA with their positive, negative, and neutral charges yes, no, and maybe statements that the protein molecule acts upon as an actuator in the cell? He said "Yes, precisely, that is correct."
So DNA is encoded information, not mere chemical reactions!
What I point out to people, is that Darwin's theory of evolution and Neo-Darwinian evolution are deeply flawed concepts and don't explain evolution. You conflate evolution with Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution. You do this because you are an atheist that hides in anonymity, a coward that does not want to face the truth.
You defend Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism not because they are correct but because they are inherently materialistic and atheistic in nature. They suit your mentality and ideology.
As for modern science being Christian, Catholic in nature, it is because modern science arose from the Catholic Culture of Western Europe. It arose from Catholic natural philosophy. It is historically, culturally, socially and psychologically the product of the Catholic Culture of Western Europe. Western Civilization is the civilization that the Catholic Church created. The foundations of the modern world, of Western Civilization, were laid in the middle ages between the fall of Rome in the west (A.D. 476) and the fall of Constantinople in the east (A.D. 1453). Everything from capitalism, to representative democracy, natural rights of men, and science arose from this foundation.
@@johnroesch2159 Lying isn't going to get you anywhere. "this one guy said X and I interpreted it as Y" isn't evidence of what the experts say or think in terms of consensus. Here's something for you that's *written by* an expert, as well as *reviewed by the peers* of an expert (peer-reviewed). "For some time now, philosophers of science have spoken of *metaphors* as heuristic tools that make possible conceptual and theoretical innovation. By opening up a semantic differential between different phenomenological domains (e.g., the eye is a camera, DNA is a code), metaphorical and analogical processes facilitate the production of concepts or theories that would not otherwise be available. Because they *enable the description of the unknown* in terms of the known, metaphors appear to be particularly useful instruments with which to probe the new or the not yet understood." (the American Journal of Bioethics; "Mapping metaphors and analogies"; JJ López). I would love to see a peer-reviewed citation from any biology journal, or even biology-related journal, where the author *literally says* that DNA is a "code" (or something similar, e.g. a "language", which I already debunked), or that it is "encoded" with the implication that an agent is responsible in some way, as opposed to it being a natural, organic structure. Out of curiosity, I tried finding a source on that myself, but it doesn't exist, because it *isn't what biologists say or think, nor what the evidence shows* in any sense. For the record, nobody uses the term "Darwinian evolution" in academia for a long time now, and it's much more popular with creationists than it is with actual experts (including the word "evolutionist", which, by adding the suffix "-ist", is an attempt at psychological projection, and an attempt to pretend as if an evidence-based model is a faith-based belief like creationism). It's called either the modern synthesis, or the extended (or integrated) synthesis. Also, I'm not anonymous, nor a coward. Go soak your head, crackpot. My skin is thick, my back is broad, and this isn't the only platform I engage on, or shit on creationist tin-foil-hattery. Dragging it to personal level doesn't surprise me, because engaging on an evidence-based level isn't going to get you anywhere, since creationism has *not one molecule* of evidence for its babyish claims. The model has nothing to do with atheism (which isn't an ideology, since an ideology needs *required* beliefs and *prohibited* beliefs). Whereas ~40% of Americans are creationists, ~30% of Americans are religious and accept evolution, and they're doing just fine. There are so many more issues with your comment, but my response is going to be way too long for your marble-sized, intellectually defective mind to comprehend.
I’m surprised the Aquinas institute has chosen the deep time paradigm.
Nothing should surprise you in this great Apostasy.
@Richard Fox And tautology is tautology. You have to prove that what you call 'evidence' is, in fact, incontrovertible evidence against the traditional Catholic understanding of the book of Genesis. The 'Aquinas Institute' certainly has never bothered to do this.
@Richard Fox I guess you're not even pretending to be Catholic. As Orestes Brownson wrote, "The onus probandi is on him [Darwin] who arraigns the faith and convictions of the Christian world, which are the faith and convictions of enlightened and living mankind. He must prove his theory not only may be, but is, true, and prove it with scientific or apodictic certainty, for only by so doing can he oust the Christian doctrine from its possession, or overcome the presumption in its favor; and till he has ousted and made away with that doctrine, his theory cannot be legally or logically entertained even as a probable hypothesis."
The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis, and the effects of hydrologic sorting. If you claim that you can measure the age of the Earth then *prove* it. There are many many lines of evidence that contradict the secularist 'narrative' and support the Genesis account, if you would only care about the truth. But the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
@Richard Fox Then please explain how to calculate the age of the Earth, and *prove* it. As I've asked many atheists and modernists: what measurements do I need to take, and what calculations do I need to perform on these measurements, under what assumptions, in order to arrive at your mythical alleged age of '4.5 billion years'? You can't seriously expect any truly curious and scientifically-minded truth-seeker to be satisfied with a mere mention of the term 'radiometric dating', as if you've never studied your opponents' arguments. Search for the Kolbe Center.
@Richard Fox Then answer the question. You didn't answer it at all, but merely repeated some popular pseudo-scientific hand-waving. What exactly did they measure and why? What is the exact calculation that results in these alleged 4 or 4.4 billion years? What are the assumptions underlying these dating methods? Why did they pick one over the other in these cases?
It is very irrational to think that most people who are allowed to call themselves 'scientists' in these last days (who are in favour of legalized abortion and all kinds of evil) would allow themselves to consider seriously evidence that would point towards the truth of the Catholic Bible, and therefore eternal heaven and hell.
You obviously haven't read any creationist literature whatsoever if you think that objections to _secularist interpretations of_ RMD 'revolve around some dacite samples from Mt St Helens'. Search for the Kolbe Center. But again, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
Pope Francis, accepted evolution. A form of Theistic Evolution.
Why do you even entertain evolution? Jesus didn’t. He confirmed the teachings in the OT when he spoke to his disciples. It’s a shame you cast doubt on Genesis.
Because evidence and facts should always be entertained, and faith-based belief should never be entertained.
@@siim605 czcams.com/video/G7XmsRsMmi4/video.html
The existence of the fact that some representatives of science invent different "theories" that reject the word of God, clearly indicates only that for 2000 years there has been no Church of Christ and, accordingly, mankind does not see those miracles that should accompany the Church of Christ, as it is stated in the books of the New Testament.
If in the name of Christ the dead were raised from the dead, the blind were given back their sight, the armless and legless were restored to their limbs, the terminally ill were freed from disease, I do not think that scientists would dare to persist in promoting various hypotheses denying the existence of God.
The reason for the unbelief of most people is that they do not see the miracles that should accompany the Church of Christ as the books of the New Testament state, but they see in abundance the Churches that claim to be the Church of Christ but have no power to perform miracles, and this confuses many people.
These 2000 years was a period of unbelief and despite the efforts of the defenders of the Christian faith they failed because they tried to prove the truth of Christ's teachings by human efforts.
God will not prove the truth of Christ's teachings through philosophical speculation, the discovery of ancient manuscripts, or archaeological findings. Not at all. That is not God's handwriting.
We know from the Bible how God works, God is a living God, and He will live testify to the truth of Christ's teachings. In the first century this is exactly what was happening. Miracles were the chief weapon of Christ's preachers to convince the skeptic of the truth of Christianity.
The following fragment is a good example of this: *"And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.*
*But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord."* (Acts 13:6-12).
In our time we don't see this anymore, because the so-called Christians don't have such power, they are all fake.
In the end I want to say that God will be revealed to mankind as He was revealed in the first century, through the Church of Christ. So that there will be no shadow of doubt about the truth of Christ's Teachings. And then all religions and false Christian churches will be disgraced before the risen Church of Christ, through which the same miracles will be performed that we read about in the books of the New Testament.
Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years?
The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20).
Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform.
If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist.
Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on CZcams. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
Even in science they upheld and recognized the validity of the Creation in the Book of Genesis written around 5000 BC. Gods first Word is let there be light and science upheld that the first step of the Creation of the subsequent the Heavens all the stars and the moons and galaxies is The Big Bang Theory and then the Earth and all the living creatures on it and plants in five days and in sixth day He created man n woman in His own image and likeness and on the Seventh Day Sunday Sabbath Day he rested! Clearly it is God’s evolution; science describes it how; while our Faith or Religion describes the Who! K
I'd be curious to see which - if any - of the religion/science books "for kids" might earn TTI's endorsement. 8-10 year old range, specifically :)
Creation evolved from God including our recognition that God exists.
Nothing is as interesting to me as thinking how the world could have been before the Flood...
Ikr
If you are talking right before the flood, that would have been during the last major glaciation, you would have had a far drier atmosphere with little to no rain, the megafauna would still be around (mastodons, mammoths, smilodon, dire wolves, wooly rhinos, etc.), and the temperature would have been vastly colder than today with two mile thick ice sheets covering most of the Northern Continents. Also vast parts of our planet currently underwater would have been dry land so the Black Sea would have had a larger coastline, England would have been connected to mainland Europe, and Florida would have had a lot more dry land to walk on.
A big problem with the theory of evolution is that the fossil record should have demonstrated it clearly by now. It has not. Not even close. And, Darwin thought that the inside of a cell was a gelatinous mass. He had no idea of the universe that is inside each cell. Ironically, had Darwin been born today, his own "Theory of Evolution" never would have occurred to him. That's kinda funny isn't it?
I mean, it's pretty clear. but I understand wanting more evidence when people use the idea to push very high stakes agendas
@@marvalice3455 by more evidence you mean A evidence, right? Since there is no evidence whatsoever that one kind can produce another kind
@ of course. a kind cannot become another kind. but a kind can become more specific.
so a dog can never become a cat. but a wild dog can become a fox, wolf or jackel.
they are still "kind: wild dog" but they become more derived.
this is also how macro evolution works. even in 10 million years, a wild dog will still never be a cat. *but*, a proto carnivore can become a cat like carnivore, or a dog like carnivore. domestic dogs are not a different kind from 10 million years ago, they just have more descriptions added on, and whenever enough is added om, then there isn't any going back anymore.
they are still "kind: proto carnivore" but they are "kind: dog like carnivore" "kind: wild dog" "kind: wolf" and "kind: domestic dog" as well. all thise other kinds conflict to one extent or another with the kind tags a cat has.
so it's not so much tgat an kind becomes a totally new one, as old kinds become more specific. if a kind gets *too* specific it goes extinct
@@marvalice3455 then we are in agreement. Using Thomistic terminology, all these differences within kinds you mentioned are accidental. Foxes, wolves and dogs have the same "dogness". They have the same substantial form.
@ indeed.
when I say I believe in theistic evolution, the theistic part is definitely the most important bit.
Garden of Eden is real, it was Egypt and it was also Atlantis this whole time. There are facts in history. Evolution is a fact.
Thank you Thomistic Institute for your videos, and to Father Davenport for bringing up the subject of creation/evolution. St. Paul taught that death entered the world because of Original Sin. Adam and Eve spiritually died, and an animal physically died in order to give them skins for clothing. Before the Fall, no creature had yet died. Evolution theory teaches that many creatures lived and died before primates evolved into modern humans. Either the Bible is right or our high school science textbook. They are both books for separate belief systems. God bless this channel, and those who watch your videos!
How about my take on both, the high school textbook and the Bible interprtations. The secret of combining modern scientific knowledge with the teachings of the Bible without any conflict is to place the creation of Adam in its rightful place in Genesis 1, which is the third day of Creation. The theory of evolution would be turned upside down in a revolutionary manner the way the world went from believing in a geocentric model of our world to a heliocentric one. There would be no more need to try to explain away the more obscure verses in the Bible by resorting to making up myths.
Why wouldn’t dedicated seekers of Truth dare combining Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 together? Following the story of Creation to the letter, it puts the creation of Adam and Eve on the third day as described in Genesis 1, shortly after the dry land appeared. The Garden of Eden could have been a domed enclosure with its own source of light where God Created Adam first and then all the specimen of other species by simply manipulating Adam’s DNA slightly. That’s why all living creatures have similar genetic blueprint: corals, plants and all living things, even those that have been long extinct. Now, to create Eve, God could not manipulate Adams DNA the same way he did when creating the lesser beings. God had to take a piece of Adams flesh and make her genetic code the same way as Adam’s. It is intriguing, how man’s genetic code is XY and the woman’s code is XX. Perhaps, Adam’s original code was XX?! The missing biblical Adam’s “RIB” most likely is the missing limb in the Y. It’s a scientific fact that all fetuses have the XX chromosomes and all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female until the sixth week of gestation.
Those who have studied the origins of life in depth proclaim that "all life on Earth, as far as we can tell, originated just once. Or to be more correct, all of the life that we can see around the world today comes from the same origin, and as far as we can tell, so does every fossil we have ever seen. It is remotely possible that life evolved more than once on Earth, but whichever type of life originated first must have had a huge advantage, because it must have been refined by natural selection for a long time before the second kind evolved to even a single living cell. Almost certainly, the life that originated second simply couldn’t compete with the older version, and just died out shortly after it arose.”
My comments: It is rather funny how they say that life form that originated second, had no chance of surviving, yet they want us to believe that evolution happened producing advantages in the newer versions of life form. The prevailing concept in general scientific agenda is that everything evolved from a single cell organism, something like amoeba, or bacteria. The Bible does not support that! If, according to the biblical timeline of Creation, Adam was created at the start of the third day, then the popular belief in humans evolving from monkeys, or bacteria can be turned around and see how things evolve from one living source , as the above article states so strongly, being Adam! God created Adam as the first living being in the flesh, modeled in His own image, like His own Son in the fullness of perfection! Nothing could be added to make him better. Eternal Almighty God would not bother creating anything less than perfection of his own image.
Believing in the notion that the first source of life must have been refined by natural selection is sadly ridiculous. The article uses interesting words, such as:
“body plan”; left-right symmetric body plan…; isn’t an accident; Cambrian explosion; Hox genes were invented; are derived from that same ancestor; Hox genes are organized into a cluster; the organization of the cluster; organization of the genes, the bilateral body plan was invented.”
All these words imply creation by intelligent design, not just random mutations via evolution. This article fails spectacularly to prove its initial goal of evolution by natural selection.
I also find it intriguing that humans are not on any predator's diet so to speak. Whenever a crocodile, a shark, a bear, a wolf etc... attack people, nature conservationist reiterate that it was a fluke accident, that it's extremely rare that animals would eat people. Basically, it’s like people’s own fault that they were in the wrong place and at the wrong time. However, there have been saints who animals wouldn’t harm. Is it because they were in the state of the original holiness and innocence of Adam? May be animals somehow detect their holy ancestor in the Saints?
Reply
evolution if proven is the process which all creation develop. nothing incompatible in our part only the atheist think there is.
Iron age middle eastern mythology...
Womp-womp
Well that was a bunch of word salad that didn't answer the original question. Either the events laid out in Genesis 1 and the rest of the Bible are what happened or they are not. So yes, Creation and the Theory of Evolution are diametrically opposed. One explains the origins of man, the universe, etc. with God, and one does not. To try to fit the two together is effectively looking at a fallen world through fallen eyes, interpreting it with a fallen mind, and then turning around and trying to tell God what He means. It just doesn't work.
We evolved through natural selection, a process ultimately arising from the natural laws God put in place which govern the universe. At some point, our ancestors, who were childlike in their state of mind due to their brains still not being as developed as modern man's brain, came aware of morality and good and evil. Our ancestors passed the genetic traits that allowed their brains to sense morality down to us, hence we can also sin because we can commit an action that we know to be wrong.
An animal isn't sent to hell for mauling someone to death because it has no understanding that it's wrong to do that, therefore it does not commit a sin. We can understand why killing someone is wrong. This isn't being wrought on us as a some ongoing punishment for what our ancestors did, or because they ate a forbidden fruit. It's just a result of natural law resulting from our brains being equipped with a level of awareness no other creature has. It's no different from the laws of physics or geometry. Even ignoring this, Adam and Eve could be interpreted more as a metaphor for how each of us individually falls into sin, starting at birth.
The focus on the Bible is on the nature of the human experience first and foremost. It is not a scientific textbook.
No god had anything to do with evolution; there never was an Adam or Eve; sin is an invention of religion only. The focus of the bible is to sell ridiculous tales to the ignorant like you.
:D
One element that space, dinosaurs and mysteries in our reality amount for is human curiosity and the search for truth. And in God's great providence, there is often humor and irony seen and also incomprehensible
No... but evolution is a fact based on the preponderance of evidence in all relevant science fields... so sucks to suck for creation belief
"....based on the preponderance of evidence in all relevant science fields...." I think there'd be a good number of experts in the field, who'd raise both eyebrows at that statement!
Theistic Darwinism, and the Faith as Understood by the Apostles of Jesus Christ are as different as the night is from the day. Ask yourself but one simple question. What would a Theistic Darwinist Jesus look like? Would he perform miracles? Would he believe Moses like he said he did? If Genesis is an allegory in this Theistic Darwinist theology then it stands to reason that everything would have occurred in many many iterations. Then what shall that allegory have been in reality? Millions of Adams and Eves, Millions of Snakes, Millions of wrong choices leading to estrangement from God millions of different times? Finally leading to millions of Noah types and millions of disasters that Noah types who had Faith escaped from? That is why I submit to you what every Doctor of the Church concluded. This notion of incremental progress towards some sort of salvation was the main tenant of Gnosticism. It was understood then and condemned to be a lie. It removes the Creator who creates with Love and purpose, and replaces him with a Creator that works in untold millions of processes that aren't always clear and then instead of telling us the Truth about what he did, which could easily be communicated as Mr. Hugh Owens demonstrated with the walking evolving ape to human picture that was in Science books for years... instead of revealing to us the Truth, he hands us down a confusing and doubtful allegory? Surely that does not sound like the God of Abraham, Isaac, and the God that Jesus was with at the beginning of time.
Another reason that It is vastly confusing is because it makes no logical sense. It contradicts the supposed story of natural history. The story of terrestrial organisms emerging from natural processes to rise up and become higher and higher beings eventually leading to Transcendence of human biology itself and to conquer the stars. Yet that is missing from the Theistic Darwinists Biblical allegory, and instead we find a very different story about Humans, written in a narrative form by the way, about a male and a female that rebelled against the Loving Creator who had made them, and because of this horrible schism, we were cursed to live within a once perfect world that was now flawed and decaying, moving further down as the creatures groaned for the return of their Creator. Jesus believed in the True one, the one about the Humans falling in the Garden, because he was there. He was with God. The other one, about majestic slime rising through the ages, that one is more in line with the fantastical thinking of the worst of human conmen. That narrative was something the Gnostics loved, people like Simon Magus who wanted to shakedown the Apostles and buy the Holy Spirit with cash. He refused to serve the Lord. In his mind he was going to get that wisdom, that knowledge, and find Salvation. Same old lie. It's no different today. We want that knowledge, that technology that will make us evolve, such foolish vanity. I pray that the people of God come to their senses and cast this modern Gnosticism to the ash heap of History as the Apostles and Doctors of the Church did.
Couldn’t have expressed this better. 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
I generally appreciate very much your work, but this video is a huge minus. I find it dishonest and unscientific to argue in favor of evolution under the title of Aquinas' teachings. Your words are irreconcilable with doctrine of st. Thomas!
Thanks for taking the time to post a comment. Based on what Fr. Thomas said, what are the main things with which you take issue?
@@ThomisticInstitute
The hypothesis of evolution can be considered from many vantage points (from the empiriological sciences whether empiroio-schematic or empirio-metric, or those sciences that are ontological). I think the comment probably refers to Thomistic metaphysics, consequently, the perspective would be ontological. So-called macro-evolution is metaphysically impossible.
This is so because accidents are that through which a thing acts. Now when we act, we act through our faculties (accidents). Our senses, intellect and other faculties are all accidents. If our natures acted of themselves, every time we acted, our natures would change. Example: every time I knew a tree my nature or essence would change to be a tree. All things that are created act through accidents. Accidents are lower in the order of being than essences are. This means that: the accidents in one species are incapable of causing the essence (which is higher in the ontological order) of a higher order. This is all based upon the principle of sufficient reason. An accident cannot cause another species by its very nature. Micro-evolution is simply the evolution of accidents. This can occur within the confines of that particular essence or species can sustain. Each nature determines the kind of accidents it has. The essences never change but the accidents do change.
In the end, substance can only beget substance. Only a being that can act through its substance is capable of causing another substance. Only being that can do that is God. God is the only cause of any essence or substance.
NOTE: Theistic evolution violates the principle of economy. Evolution multiples causes unnecessarily. Theistic evolution multiples God’s causality without a reason.
@@reginald4776 what are you even trying to get at? you diving between evolution and God is pointless...
@@Tzimiskes3506
What is it about my comment you don’t understand?
@@reginald4776 the fact that you yourself couldn't...
Evolution proves creation. Do you know how many rocks are capable of having life and yet none ? Ironically If life is there god could have put it there and never said anything. SO WHAT IF HE did 😭
How does one square evolution with the Doctrine of Original Sin? If our bodies came from pre-existing matter and god gave us a soul when evolution reached a point where rational knowledge of good and evil was possible… then what sin did this cave dwellers commit?
Regardless of the implications, evolution does not have a lot of evidence especially if you mean macroevolution and common descent…
@Richard Fox Darwinian evolution ie gradual speciation from random mutations through natural selection has been refuted by punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium means there is not nearly enough time for new complex species to form from “random” mutations and create such stable new life at that.
@Richard Fox What are undirected mutations? Not random?
I really don't care what a majority of scientists believe. They're also not Catholic nor are they open to the possibility of the metaphysical (see: biased). A majority of scientists have lied to and misled the public on a whole host of issues. "Science" will remove grant funding, block article publications, withhold permission to run studies etc. if the conclusions may be politically damaging... So, an argument from authority means nothing to me.
Share with me the study on new species.
No, punctuated equilibrium IS surprising because mutations are FAR more likely to produce negative outcomes than they are to produce a more fit organism. Meaning, the intuition would be that speciation would occur gradually over a very long period of time. Shortening the amount of time for said evolution to occur means there must be a guiding process that has not yet been proposed.
@Richard Fox Scientists only agree on everything that isn’t of any epistemological significance or political relevance. To disagree is to have your head in the sand.
Nice try. Catholics believe in a theistic God. Meaning a God that is omnipresent and constantly involved in the sustained contingency of all creation. He can interact as much as He wishes. He is not a deistic God who set dominos into play.
Using genetics to prove gradual macroevolution also has glaring holes depending on which genes “science” uses.
Natural selection fits only micro evolution, ie intra-species adaptations, but cannot explain speciation. I’m still waiting for the study on new species.
@Richard Fox That video was 100% about homology. Here’s why that’s BS: czcams.com/video/lk1gDk1wGhQ/video.html
Hahaha... How to mix paganism ("science"=catholicism=mystey babylon religion) with the Truth (The Bible).
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.” (1Timothy 6: 20-21 KJV)
Right, and the protestant bible is just a modified catholic bible....truth indeed.
This presentation is rather vague and uninteresting. It misses the mark. It does not at all answer the question: where is the "theism" in "theistic evolution?" Where and how does God fit in with natural processes? I never get a clear picture from theistic evolutionists how God uses evolution as his mechanism for creating things, while God remains God, and evolution remains evolution. If God guides evolution, then how is it evolution any longer? If evolution remains unguided, then where is God? In what sense is ther still this thing called creation?
I find the evidence for evolution wanting. The evidence more strongly indicates ancient universe intelligent design theory. Moreover, any discussion of this topic MUST tackle the problem of natural evil pre-existing the Fall. This is not just a matter of physics and metaphysics; it is also a matter of morality.
andom mutations can only occur on what is alive. Nothing can live unless it is already complete with all of its parts and systems and a complete DNA. Random mutations can only destroy but never never increase information but only lead to disease and death.
Adaptation can only occur two ways. (1) - by the original created pair having heterozygous genes and moduals that can appear in different homozygous combinations or (2) amazing complex epigenetic information that God programmed into the DNA. Never could one Kind (baramin) change into a different kind because each kind has many unique Orphan proteins and Orphan genes (TaxonomicalRestritiveGenes) that do not occur in any other Kind. Also, all microsystems are irrecibly complex. Also, each Kind requires its only unique interactome which cannot be changed. Scientists at John Hopkins University said a small yeast cell's interactome has 10 to the 79th billionth power of incorrect ways that its interactome could be arranged, but only one will work.
These scientific facts prove that God had to create all life complete in the six days of Creation. This is why scientists today are rejecting the STORY of "Evolution" since we now know that the religion of evolution is only quackery.
Shame on the Thomistic Institute for using the good name of St Thomas to commit this condemned heresy of Modernism. True science affirms what Aquinas taught about creation.
They just say what the Church already teaches about evolution, you probably don't even understand what modernism even is if you point the finger this way. Stop spreading seeds of division among your brothers bro, you don't have the authority to call someone a heretic just for an opinion you disagree with. Change your tone, there's no need for that
Gateway, most dominicans these days are modernists. St Thomas would be extremely sad to see the state of his order today.
Evolution is both unbiblical and unscientific 😂
Prove it. Creationism is objectively false.
I thought microbiology thoroughly debunked Darwinism. What are we still doing here?
lol. How?
@@joshg1420 A book came out 25 years ago called Darwin’s Black Box.
@@johnmacrae2006 Genesis destroyed this lie before it came out! Read Romans 1. Read 2 Peter 3. The false so called science that denies the worldwide flood and tries to lessen man made in image of God to a beast. What does it sound like?
Ex nihilo is incoherent for a theist
Belief in creation is prohibited, even biblically prohibited, as Acts clearly makes clear: literal reading of the bible is forbidden. Evolution really doesn't make sense; as the question remains "How'd the earliest microbes come to be alive?" remains an obstacle; but Intelligent Design does make perfect sense... or with evolutionary principles that've been confirmed by the paleontological record: Intelligent Redesign to be more specific.
What are you talking about? You have to be more specific. Read 2 Peter 3. You were warned IN ADVANCE about scoffers denying the worldwide flood! Jesus loves you!
@@MichaelAChristian1 A world-wide flood is impossible, look at the fossil record, that cannot lie, but the bible is filled to the brim with lies.
@@chissstardestroyer The bible tells you that all the mountains were underwater. They didn't have to go see Whales in ANDES mountains and Chile and CA mountains that YOU CAN SEE. How did desert people KNOW the mountains across the world were underwater? The verses are OBJECTIVELY TRUE.
The bible tells you the rainbow is ONLY ON EARTH. How did bible KNOW before astronomy existed that rainbow only on earth? The verses are OBJECTIVELY TRUE.
The bible tells you all humans are from ONE FAMILY off Ark. This wasn't always known. Evolution was SUPPOSED to explain all the "human races" remember? Evolutionists lied for years that one race would be more "ape-like" than others. Genetics showed bible correct again and evolution destroyed again. Humans across the world are more closely related than animals living in same area! How did bible know that before genetics existed when evolution predicted against it??? The verses are OBJECTIVELY TRUE. How did bible know about PATHS OF SEA? Man only discovered that because of bible as well. How did bible know about the paths of sea when sailors were going longer way and didn't know for years.
"Have you ever wondered how scientists discovered the ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream Current? Who first figured out there were even currents to map out? The answer to those questions would be Matthew Fontaine Maury: oceanographer, astronomer, historian, cartographer, meteorologist and geologist.
Maury was struck by the words in Psalm 8:8 - “The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.” He had this verse read to him over and over as he pondered the idea of “the paths of the seas.” At last he said, “If God says there are paths to the sea I am going to find them if I get our of this bed.” -www.hhhistory.com/2017/09/matthew-maury-pathfinder-of-seas.html
And so on forever.
Choose life. Jesus loves you!
"For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."- Luke chapter 9 verse 56.
If you can't believe in a six-day creation, how on earth can you believe in a virgin birth or a 3-day resurrection?
Six days is a metaphor. God as Subsistent Existence is eternal, omnipotent, incorporal and immaterial.
@@pauljordan4452 and that means literally everything else can be called a metaphor.
This is exactly how the world became the mess it is.
Aquinas says no
Finally a priest that understands Evolution.
andom mutations can only occur on what is alive. Nothing can live unless it is already complete with all of its parts and systems and a complete DNA. Random mutations can only destroy but never never increase information but only lead to disease and death.
Adaptation can only occur two ways. (1) - by the original created pair having heterozygous genes and moduals that can appear in different homozygous combinations or (2) amazing complex epigenetic information that God programmed into the DNA. Never could one Kind (baramin) change into a different kind because each kind has many unique Orphan proteins and Orphan genes (TaxonomicalRestritiveGenes) that do not occur in any other Kind. Also, all microsystems are irrecibly complex. Also, each Kind requires its only unique interactome which cannot be changed. Scientists at John Hopkins University said a small yeast cell's interactome has 10 to the 79th billionth power of incorrect ways that its interactome could be arranged, but only one will work.
These scientific facts prove that God had to create all life complete in the six days of Creation. This is why scientists today are rejecting the STORY of "Evolution" since we now know that the religion of evolution is only quackery.
No. There, answered for you.
Elaborate.
@@averagezoomer evolution in a pantheistic notion that has its roots in ancient greece with empedocles and cia.
There is no compelling evidence of macro-evolution from biology. In fact, all we know about the current state of affairs and the fossil record is anti-darwinian. Moreover, the IV Lateran Council and the I Vatican Council clearly state that God created everything from nothing and in all their substance. Plus, the bible is very clear that God creates kinds of things and that they reproduce according to their kind. I know many and many catholics who dropped the faith or became heretics (including domenicans) when they embraced evolution. It is a nasty naturalistic doctrina that has no place in catholicism, expect in books against heresy. God bless.
After all this is a " Darwin's Theory " Not " Darwin's Law"
Anyway The number of alterations in genetic code needed for an ape to evolve into a man amounts to 3xl0520 changes, which is a number so inexpressibly large that even after taking the fourth power of the total number of particles in the universe, we still could not begin to approach it.
scientific theory is not the same semantically as the common use of the word theory.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge."
Theory is a proven and accepted conlusion that answers "why" such as why is there speciation, why does gravity suck, etc. scientific law answers the question "what" will happen given a specific circumstance and defined parameters. for evolution, there simply isn't a specific 'formula' to know what will happen to a species when put in certain environmental constraints, like something more straightforward like newton's laws where you know "what" force will happen when given on objects mass and acceleration. Gravity is also a theory, after all. Gravity and evolution are on the same level of undeniability.
The gravity is also a theory… you are mistaking theories with hypotesis
They are complete opposites, night vs day.
The flood + lies = ThE gEoLoGiC CoLuMn
You know that allowing commentaries in videos such as this one is dangeroua for the faith of many. I've seen here people defending plygenism here based on feelings while making fun of the Faith. Take commentaries down, this is a liberal error.
If you dislike comments so much, you'll love the Answers in Genesis channel...
@@thstroyur do you mean that you should take your statement literally?
@@Tzimiskes3506 Does you mean that Engrish helps not communication with?
@@thstroyur no lol i wasnt trying to insult you, my comment was a sarcasm of AIG because they take everything literally!
@@Tzimiskes3506 Point taken; I have a more charitable view of AiG, but I'm not apologizing for them here - I was just making fun of the Yodaesque way you replied 😆
We observe a stable universe, as was said in the video. If evolution were true, should we not observe transitional lifeforms (not microevolution, i.e. minor changes within one species) around us all the time? Why did all the major transitions and developments happen millions of years ago? And why are fossils of transitional life forms so exceedingly rare (if they even exist) even though Darwin expected them to be abundant? Put differently, drawing lines on a piece of paper, or pointing to an "artistic rendering," is very different from proving that species A evolved into species B.