Vatican accepts evolution as fact

Fatima Perspectives ^ | August 24th 2004 | Chris Ferrara

[Stubborn]

Sorry for the stereotyping, that was not my intention at all.

The implications of my reply were not thought out and I should have done a better job at explaining that the teaching of the Saint, who happens to be a Doctor of the Church, has more authority than the implication that a scientist is automatically "all knowing" - when IMO, many of them are "not knowing" when it comes to this theory of the big bang.

[little jeremiah]

Not having read any of Darwin's books, I cannot speak with authority about the inventor or original promulgator of evolution. Although I have read several times that he either started out an atheist or became one later in his life.

But my assertion still stands, as the modern propounders of evolution have as their foundation that (a) living beings evolved from inert matter, and (b) there is no soul, and therefore (c) there is no God in control, and the whole evolutionary progressive march is accidental, and therefore without transcendent meaning or purpose.

There may a believer in evolution here or there who differs with these basics, but in general - and as taught to the masses - these (a, b and c) are taught as the absolute truth. "Educated" people believe this as though there were eyewitnesses and notaries present during the transition of inert matter to life.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I am forever grateful to scientists like yourself who recognize the authorship of God in all His creation.

Darwin was part and parcel of his times -- a product of the eugenicists, Fabians and assorted occultists who hoped to control men by denying God. Same as it ever was.

From Pastor Colin Maxwell of the Cork Free Presbyterian Church, Cork, Ireland...

THE HUMAN EYE:

AN UNANSWERABLE TESTIMONY FOR CREATION AND AGAINST EVOLUTION:

The human eye is an awesome piece of machinery. It is more wonderful than the most intricate man made device. Although the human eyeball measures only about 1" (25 mm) in diameter, yet it can see objects as far away as a star and as small as a grain of sand. It can quickly adjust its focus between a distant point and a near one and can be accurately directed toward an object even while the head is moving.

The eye is made up of a number of different parts, each in turn causing us to wonder. The eyelid serves to protect the eye, often by reflex action when danger is sensed. The eyelash on the lid screens out some of the dust and other particles which could enter and damage the eye. The conjunctiva is the membrane which lines the inside of the eyelid and extends over the white part of the eye. Part of its job is to keep the keep the eyeball lubricated (think of the number of times you blink each day) and also produces some tears which help keep the eye clean. The retina makes up the innermost layer of the wall of the eyeball. Although as fragile as a piece of wet tissue paper, it has light sensitive cells which absorb light rays and changes them into electrical signals. There are 2 types of these light sensitive cells - rods and cones, so named after their shapes. The eye has about 120 million rods and around 6 million cones. These enable us to see shades of grey and in dim light and also to distinguish more than 200 colours. Nerve fibres attached to the rods and cones join at the centre of the retina and form the optic nerve. This nerve has around 1 million fibres and it serves as a flexible cable that connects the eyeball to the brain. In fact the optic nerve and the retina are actually extensions of the brain. The optic nerve carries the electrical signals produced in the retina to the brain, which interprets them as visual images. Every second, one billion electrical impulses are thus transmitted to the brain.

Although the above details are only really a fraction of what could be said about the human eye, it must be admitted that it is a truly wonderful contraption indeed! For the purposes of this article, it will do two things:

1) IT SHOWS THE SHAM OF EVOLUTION WHICH TEACHES US THAT THE EYE EVOLVED FROM A VERY SIMPLE BASIS TO WHAT IT IS TODAY:

Some who hold to evolutionist faith tell us that the whole human body evolved through what they call mutations i.e. slight changes from one generation to another. Here they have two main problems because first of all, the vast majority of mutations are either lethal, harmful or just plain useless. But some evolutionists claim that every so often (once in a million years! Has been suggested) there is a positive mutation (i.e. is beneficial) and this increases the generally usefulness of the organism. We might ask, what about the other mutations which are either lethal or harmful? What about the net result? A football team which manages to score a goal now and again but concedes goals by the dozen every game will hardly succeed. This is evidently a non starter. Secondly, with all the details listed above, even if we were to forget about the bad mutations (which could well undo any previous advances), how long do we need to produce all those rods and cones and nerve fibres? These evolutionist tells us that all this took place over billions of years, but even with all this vast expanse, he simply runs out of time. Not only must these mutations actually take place, but to be of any use they must co-ordinate together. To go back to our football illustration again, what is the use having a brilliant winger who can pass brilliant balls into the opponent’s penalty box, if there is no one there to convert them into goals? One failure will effectively destroy the whole. An animal with half developed eyesight is effectively blind and therefore unlikely to survive in the evolutionists survival of the fittest scenario.

DARWIN’S STARTLING CONFESSION

Is it any wonder that Darwin, the apostle of evolutionary thinking, in his book Origin of the Species wrote the following: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." In a letter in February 1860 to his evolutionary friend, Asa Gray, Darwin lamented: "To this day the eye makes me shudder." This is because it completely smashes his notion to smithereens. However, Darwin foolishly pushed on with his doctrine of evolution.

2) IT SHOWS THE WONDERFUL POWER OF OUR CREATOR GOD:

In Proverbs 20:12, we read: "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made even both of them." It is more rational to believe that a Designer designed the eye than to believe that it came about by blind random chance. Truly, each of us can say, like David: "I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvellous are thy works: and that my soul knoweth right well." (Psalm 139:14) We cannot run away from the thought of a Creator God. Our own bodies bare testimony to His existence and power. One day we must meet Him. His is the hand that graciously feeds us. "He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye shall he not see?"(Psalm 94:9)

THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST:

Best of all this great Creator God has provided for us a wonderful and eternal salvation from sin. God loves His creation (John 3:16) He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) He would have all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4) He has made salvation to be a free gift (Romans 6:23) - without money and without price (Isaiah 55:1) - and also without works of any kind (Ephesians 2:8-9) Evolution can offer nothing like this! It's message panders to man's lowest instincts - encouraging men to pursue sin - but God says: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus…for He shall save from their sins" (Matthew 1:21)

[sharktrager]

Not even on a tortilla?

[sharktrager]

Actually, a hot-house state would not produce more rings, just wider rings.

Each ring is from a growth season, with a generally accepted one season per year.

[Dominick]

But my assertion still stands, as the modern propounders of evolution have as their foundation that (a) living beings evolved from inert matter, and (b) there is no soul, and therefore (c) there is no God in control, and the whole evolutionary progressive march is accidental, and therefore without transcendent meaning or purpose.

The case assumption is not quite (a). Evolution presumes that living beings evolve from other beings. The life-form zero origination isn't a matter anyone can address. There just are not any viral fossil records.

The Theory itself is silent on (b) and (c) for or against. They don't deal with the Soul. My opinion is that God guides history and the whole universe, and sets things in motion, and explained it to mankind in general terms and gross details.

There may a believer in evolution here or there who differs with these basics, but in general - and as taught to the masses - these (a, b and c) are taught as the absolute truth.

This is not a correct assertation, and I have an university degree in Anthropology, and advanced Engneering degrees. The issue is not inert matter at all. The theory supposes that life changes over time from other life forms.

"Educated" people believe this as though there were eyewitnesses and notaries present during the transition of inert matter to life

This isn't the case, for example, Antropology showed that the fertile crescent, which includes the Holy Land, has more species of native grass than anyplace else, and always has. We know this because of fossilized materials in that area, and no notary was used or needed.

If God provided a fossil record, should we not understand the meaning of those things He left behind?

[Modernman]

Not having read any of Darwin's books, I cannot speak with authority about the inventor or original promulgator of evolution. Although I have read several times that he either started out an atheist or became one later in his life.

Darwin died a believing Catholic, IIRC.

But my assertion still stands, as the modern propounders of evolution have as their foundation that (a) living beings evolved from inert matter

No, the theory of evolution does not speak to the origins of life.

(b) there is no soul, and therefore

No scientific theory attempts to cover a metaphysical concept such as the soul.

(c) there is no God in control

No scientific theory speaks to the existence or non-existence of God.

There may a believer in evolution here or there who differs with these basics, but in general - and as taught to the masses - these (a, b and c) are taught as the absolute truth.

Not true.

[Mockingbird For Short]

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)

"All things were made by him, and without Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (John 1:3)

"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on the earth...all things have been created by Him and for Him. And he is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16,17)

What more needs to be said? God said it, that settles it.

[RadioAstronomer]

Good luck.

[Dimensio]

But my assertion still stands, as the modern propounders of evolution have as their foundation that (a) living beings evolved from inert matter

This is not at all a part of the theory of evolution.

(b) there is no soul,

The theory of evolution states no such thing, and the existence of people who believe in the existence of a soul and who accept evolution stand as a direct contradiction of this claim, making your claim completely false.

there is no God in control, and the whole evolutionary progressive march is accidental, and therefore without transcendent meaning or purpose.

Again not in any way a part of the theory of evolution.

but in general - and as taught to the masses - these (a, b and c) are taught as the absolute truth.

No, it isn't. You admit that you've not even read one of Darwin's books, yet you proclaim yourself an expert as to how evolution is taught. Something tells me that your alleged expertise is not quite what you claim it to be.

[Dimensio]

Is it any wonder that Darwin, the apostle of evolutionary thinking, in his book Origin of the Species wrote the following: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

It's so nice to see that quote-mining -- stripping this particular quote from Darwin out of context to completely lie about his intended statement -- is still alive and well.

[verity]

I am glad I noticed the ;)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If it's good enough for the Fabian Darwin, it's good enough for me.

[gbcdoj]

It's so nice to see that quote-mining -- stripping this particular quote from Darwin out of context to completely lie about his intended statement -- is still alive and well.

Here is the whole statement, for any interested.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. (The Origin of Species, ch. 6)

[Dimensio]

If it's good enough for the Fabian Darwin, it's good enough for me.

Except that it wasn't good enough for Darwin. Darwin said more than what you quoted, but you didn't quote the entire piece. You quoted an out-of-context segement, effectively lying about his original intended meaning.

Why should I take you seriously when you're clearly willing to lie about Darwin's intent to prove a point?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

See 154.

If only you had waited...

[Dimensio]

Waited? I saw that full quote. It clearly shows that Darwin's intended statement was not what you presented.

[HairOfTheDog]

No, it wouldn't mean that at all. It would just mean that until God got His receptacles ready, He didn't endow them with souls?

You ~know~ this?

[PetroniusMaximus]

***generally accepted one season per year.***

Maybe things occured differently in a radically different state.

Please see post #111 and following

[sharktrager]

In that case, perhaps a "day" was the equivalent of 10,000,000 years, with the earth not rotating at all on it's axis and orbiting the sun much more slowly.