So I am listening to the radio today and the show "the inner life" comes on the Catholic radio. The guest priest is asked to talk about suffering. He proceeds to say that suffering began when man first sinned. He then talked about how all creation is affected by that sin too. As an example, he gave natural disasters, but also mentioned animals attacking man, and.... mosquitoes. So if god made mosquitoes before the fall of man, did they suck on fruit? If not, did they drink animal blood only? Were they created after the fall? Did they "evolve" the ability to suck blood as a result of the fall?
Update: I am trying to keep an open mind, but finding the "evidence" fro evolution of any kind seriously lacking. More and more, it looks as if Christians that believe evolution are either just believing what they were taught and (admirably) making it fit the bible, or worse, they are embarrassed to not believe the majority view on origins. The theory just makes no sense! Sure your allowed to believe it, and your allowed to wear shorts to mass with a beer-bong on your head. That does not mean you SHOULD do so however.
So far I have heard that I SHOULD believe evolution followed mainly by reasons why as a Catholic I CAN believe evolution... not why I should. If I were a Catholic biology teacher, I can see how these arguments might persuade me. Having your job on the line might make you willing to swallow all sorts of weird theories. Take panspermia for instance. The theory that life came from outer space on an asteroid! The discoverer of DNA liked that theory. I am not kidding you, this theory is spoken of with a straight face by modern scientists. A STRAIGHT FACE! Noah's ark is crazy, but panspermia is science... yeeaaahhh.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Theistic Evolution or Materialistic Evolution Part 2
So I am listening to the radio today and the show "the inner life" comes on the Catholic radio. The guest priest is asked to talk about suffering. He proceeds to say that suffering began when man first sinned. He then talked about how all creation is affected by that sin too. As an example, he gave natural disasters, but also mentioned animals attacking man, and.... mosquitoes. So if god made mosquitoes before the fall of man, did they suck on fruit? If not, did they drink animal blood only? Were they created after the fall? Did they "evolve" the ability to suck blood as a result of the fall?
Update: I am trying to keep an open mind, but finding the "evidence" fro evolution of any kind seriously lacking. More and more, it looks as if Christians that believe evolution are either just believing what they were taught and (admirably) making it fit the bible, or worse, they are embarrassed to not believe the majority view on origins. The theory just makes no sense! Sure your allowed to believe it, and your allowed to wear shorts to mass with a beer-bong on your head. That does not mean you SHOULD do so however.
So far I have heard that I SHOULD believe evolution followed mainly by reasons why as a Catholic I CAN believe evolution... not why I should. If I were a Catholic biology teacher, I can see how these arguments might persuade me. Having your job on the line might make you willing to swallow all sorts of weird theories. Take panspermia for instance. The theory that life came from outer space on an asteroid! The discoverer of DNA liked that theory. I am not kidding you, this theory is spoken of with a straight face by modern scientists. A STRAIGHT FACE! Noah's ark is crazy, but panspermia is science... yeeaaahhh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
David,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the hair brain evolutionary theories that prescribe to know the cause of life are just that: hair brain. Why? Because they are trying to get to metaphysics from physics? Physics cannot answer what comes before there was not time/space/matter. It (natural science) is a science of time/space/matter. However, I think that a science teacher is compelled to look at scientific evidence when teaching geology, biology, physics, etc. As such, evolution as a scientific explanation for the natural evidence of the development of species, geological formations, etc; I think is something totally different from aliens dropping off the first life cells to earth (think Dawkins). If by Panspermia we mean that asteroids brought water to earth as God's agents of his masterful plan of forming earth as we know it that is fine. If Panspermia means that we can now conjecture that life is everywhere and that asteroids are the random alien ships that delivery the primordial goop, than no that is false. The former is theology informed by science, whereas the later is science pretending to be theology. However, since by its nature natural science is tentative, theology will always withhold full dogmatic approval of a given theory (evolution) since that theory will by definition change as we encounter more phenomena. That doesn't mean though that theology has to be combative to it, but can try to be salutary in a way that seeks to unify truth in the broadest of terms.
God bless,
Brent