You may also like. Even God got bored with the binary Alice Camille. Add comment. Share This! Religion Did Jesus have brothers and sisters? Meghan Murphy-Gill. Religion What is in the Bible? Joel Schorn. Religion What is the relationship between the Old and New Testaments? By a rigorous examination of all of the manuscripts available to him, Venerable Bede concluded that the chronology derived from the Hebrew manuscripts that St.
Jerome used for the Vulgate was more reliable than the chronology derived from the Septuagint genealogies, even though this chronology had been accepted by most of the theologians of his time. In his work De Temporibus Bede set the beginning of the sixth age of the world at 3, years from Creation instead of 5, In , when he was thirty-five and an established writer, he was told that he had been cited as an heretic on this subject before the aged bishop Wilfrid of York.
In De Temporum Ratione he had challenged the calculation of the last age of the world by the recalculation of the years belonging to each age, while saying, as did St. The charge of heresy distressed Bede profoundly; he wrote to a friend:. How could I, denying Christ, be a priest of the church of Christ and with what logic could I, believing in the gospels and the epistles, disbelieve that he had become incarnate in the sixth age? Thanks in part to the work of Venerable Bede, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church eventually embraced his reasoning, and in the post-Tridentine era the greatest Doctors of the Roman Church, like St.
In light of the evidence we have presented here, which is but a brief sample of the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers on the recent creation of the world, and before leaving this topic, we would like to ask the theistic evolutionists of our day to please show us a single statement from a Church Father who taught that God used long periods of time in the creation of the material universe or that it does not matter if one believes in these mythical long ages, as did most of the pagan philosophers of the patristic era.
When the testimony of the Church Fathers and Doctors is taken seriously, it becomes apparent that the fiat creation of all things at the beginning of time is absolutely integral to the true Catholic doctrine of creation and that the insertion of long ages of time into the creation period involves a denial of the goodness of God and of the goodness of the first created world before the Original Sin and calls into question the inerrancy of the chronological information contained in the sacred history of Genesis.
The Ecumenical Councils of Trent and Vatican I defined that when all of the Church Fathers agree on any interpretation of Scripture that pertains to a doctrine of faith or morals that is the truth and we must believe it. Unfortunately, theistic evolutionists have forgotten or overlooked one of the fundamental tenets of the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation which was believed and taught by all of the Church Fathers in their interpretation of Genesis Indeed, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church held that the natural order in which we live and which the Fathers and Doctors sometimes refer to as the order of Providence only began to operate with relative autonomy after the work of creation was finished on the sixth day of creation.
Hence, summing up the teaching of all of the Church Fathers, St. John Chrysostom writes:. With their distinction between the supernatural work of creation and the natural order of providence, the Fathers and Doctors expose the principal error of the theistic evolutionists—their mixing of the order of the supernatural work of creation and the natural order of providence which are always distinguished in the writings of the Fathers and Doctors.
This error flows in turn from the uniformitarian error that St. Peter warned us would enter the Church in the last days cf. Peter prophesied:. For this they are willfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God emphasis added 2 Peter With this in mind, we will now examine the rise of the uniformitarian scoffers during the so-called Enlightenment to see how the revolution against the true Catholic doctrine of creation began outside of the household of the faith before eventually infiltrating the highest levels of the Church in the form of theistic evolution.
Thomas Aquinas defined the relationship between the work of creation and the operation of the natural order which only began after its completion as follows:. The completion of the universe as to the completeness of its parts belongs to the sixth day, but its completion as regards their operation, to the seventh. In other words, the origin of the different kinds of creatures—stars, plants, animals and men—cannot be explained in terms of the activity of created things—that is, in terms of the same material processes that are going on now.
Thus, according to all of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Council Fathers, who addressed this question in their authoritative teaching, it is impossible to extrapolate from the present order of nature and from the material processes that are going on now to explain how these things originally came to be.
This framework was not based on human reasoning or experience. From this starting point, they recognized that the work of creation was the proper realm of the theologian. The natural order—which began AFTER the work of creation was finished—was the proper realm of the natural scientist. Those who defend atheistic or theistic evolution do not accept this premise from Divine Revelation. Remarkably, when St. And this is, indeed, the fundamental error of all evolutionists, theistic or atheistic.
No one exposed the folly of a uniformitarian approach to the origins and antiquity of man and the universe better than St. This [the creation of Eve] He did as God…some people use the standards of their own daily experience to measure the power and wisdom of God, by which he has the knowledge and the ability to make seeds even without seeds.
In this passage St. Augustine lays bare the error that St. But it is certain, and it is an opinion commonly received by the theologians, that the action by which He now preserves is just the same as that by which He at first created it. In this way…. Rightly understood, this common opinion held that God created and sustained the universe by His divine omnipotent power, but it distinguished on the side of the effect between the exercise of that power to create the corporeal and spiritual creatures ex nihilo and the maintenance of the universe after it was finished and complete.
Was he really so much smarter than St. Augustine, St. Thomas and all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church? Hence, Pascal wrote in Pensees :. I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy he did his best to dispense with God. But he could not avoid making Him set the world in motion with a flip of His thumb; after that he had no more use for God.
St Thomas followed Aristotle in teaching that a small error in the beginning becomes a huge error later on. And this explains why highly intelligent and virtuous people can be completely wrong in their conclusions about origins—because in regard to the origins of man and the universe they have accepted the false premise of Descartes and unwittingly rejected the premise that was held by ALL of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Council Fathers in their authoritative teaching.
Indeed, a man could be the smartest person in the world—and virtuous and well-intentioned to boot—yet if he starts from a false premise, he will always reason perhaps even sincerely and brilliantly to a false conclusion—as all evolutionists do.
God…creator of all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal who by his own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal namely angelic and mundane and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.
This could be reconciled with the six days of creation the view of the overwhelming majority of the Fathers or with the instantaneous creation envisioned by St. Augustine—but it could not be reconciled with a longer creation period. Among the commentators who taught that Lateran IV had defined the relative simultaneity of the creation of all things, perhaps the most authoritative was St. Lawrence of Brindisi , Doctor of the Church. In his commentary on Genesis, St. Lawrence wrote:.
He spoke and they were made: He commanded and they were created. It states:. The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them.
That the waters should not inundate the earth, He set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth.
He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plant and flower, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of living creatures Catechism of Trent. Note that God created all of these creatures by His word, instantly and immediately. There was no long interval of time. There was no evolution. The Council Fathers reiterated the constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors, and Popes, that God created the first man, Adam, by an act of special creation.
They wrote:. Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so created and constituted in body as to be immortal and impassible, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God. He then added the admirable gift of original righteousness, and next gave him dominion over all other animals. By referring to the sacred history of Genesis the pastor will easily make himself familiar with these things for the instruction of the faithful Catechism of the Council of Trent.
Indeed, the Catechism of Trent underscored the teaching of all of the Fathers and Doctors that creation was complete with the creation of Adam and Eve—and that God ceased creating new kinds of creatures after creating the first human beings:.
We now come to the meaning of the word sabbath. Sabbath is a Hebrew word which signifies cessation. To keep the Sabbath, therefore, means to cease from labor and to rest. In this sense the seventh day was called the Sabbath, because God, having finished the creation of the world , rested on that day from all the work which He had done.
Here we see that pastors throughout the world were instructed to teach the faithful that God finished the creation of the whole world and all of the different kinds of creatures specifically on the sixth day of a seven-day week. As we have seen above, St. Thomas Aquinas had summed up the teaching of all the Church Fathers on the two perfections of the universe:.
The teaching of St. Thomas makes clear that the reason why God created the entire universe and everything in it was to show forth His glory and so that men made in the image of His Son could share one life with Him. He also reaffirms the teaching of all of the Church Fathers who held that the original creation was perfect, complete and harmonious in all of its parts. In contrast, theistic evolution holds that all kinds of creatures evolved and became extinct long before man evolved, that there never was a perfectly complete and harmonious creation in the beginning, and that God ordained that hundreds of millions of years of death, deformity, negative mutations, and disease should exist on earth before the first human beings evolved from sub-human primates.
On the one hand, the Catholic theistic evolutionist professes to believe in miracles—most especially the ones connected with the Life, Passion and Resurrection of Our Lord.
But when he is asked why he believes in these things, he can only say that he believes the testimony of the truthful witnesses appointed by God to attest to them in the Word of God, as that testimony has been understood in the Church from the beginning. Thus, the theistic evolutionist must hold that the fearfully and wonderfully made human body of Lazarus with all of its organs and physiological systems was instantaneously raised to life from a mess of lifeless disorganized chemicals at the Word of the Lord.
Not only is this kind of teaching incoherent; it overturns the right hierarchy of knowledge, removing theology from her place as the queen of the sciences and exalting fallible human conjectures to give a natural explanation for that which we simultaneously explain supernaturally with regard to the miracles of Jesus.
In regard to creation, the Word of God as understood in His Church from the beginning is subordinated to the word of man. No wonder our young people are leaving the Church in droves! The teaching of the Catechism of Trent on creation summarized above was upheld by the Magisterium well in to the twentieth century and has never been abrogated to this day.
The Popes who reigned during the decades after Vatican I all mandated that the Catechism of Trent be used to teach priests and faithful the true doctrine of creation. Moreover, every magisterial teaching that touched on the interpretation of Genesis upheld the literal historical truth of Genesis What is the true origin of marriage?
That, Venerable Brethren, is a matter of common knowledge. In bringing this about, God, in His supreme Providence, willed that this spousal couple should be the natural origin of all men: in other words, that from this pair the human race should be propagated and preserved in every age by a succession of procreative acts which would never be interrupted.
And so that this union of man and woman might correspond more aptly to the most wise counsels of God, it has manifested from that time onward, deeply impressed or engraved, as it were, within itself, two preeminent and most noble properties: unity and perpetuity emphasis added. Pius X, was equally aware of the tendency of contemporary intellectuals to see evolution at work in theology and morality as well as in nature—and he deplored this tendency.
In Lamentabili St. In , in the encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII gave permission to Catholic scholars to evaluate the pros and cons of human evolution. But this permission in no way abrogated the authoritative teachings cited above.
Permission to investigate an alternative view is not tantamount to approval! On the contrary, it is often a means to expose an error root and branch. Does he not see that the prevailing tendency to submit everything, even truth — even divine truth! Truth is not truth if it is ever changing. However, in the passage quoted above Dr. The theistic evolutionist will argue against our thesis that theology has matured and makes use of tools, like the historical-critical method and the latest findings of the natural sciences, that were not available to the Fathers of the Church or to the great theologians of the past.
According to this way of thinking, the Fathers and great theologians of the past can be appreciated for their wisdom but should not be considered reliable authorities in the realm of history or natural science. But this objection obscures the fact that the constant teaching of the Church—as defined at the First Vatican Council and reaffirmed in Dei Verbum in the Second Vatican Council—has been, is, and always shall be that every word in the Holy Scriptures is true, whether it speaks of faith and morals, history, geography or any other subject; and that, as a consequence, all fruitful theological reflection begins from this starting point.
Theistic evolutionists like to point out that the Magisterium has never defined the literal historical truth of the historical propositions in Genesis But this approach to determining the truth of historical statements in Holy Scripture would have been anathema to the Fathers and Doctors. Indeed, the Angelic Doctor summed up the mind of the Fathers when he wrote that:.
A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that divine Scripture would be false.
Again and again, theistic evolutionists accuse the defenders of the literal historical truth of Genesis of exalting their private opinions above the Magisterium of the Church.
But this is a calumny. We are simply maintaining the reverence for the historical books of the Bible that all of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Council Fathers maintained in their authoritative teaching. The Angelic Doctor reminds us that:. It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ [36] emphasis added.
For St. No reference to a Church Council or papal document was necessary. This approach stands in direct opposition to the methodology of most contemporary Catholic theologians. Proof that the plain sense of Scripture had sufficient authority for the Fathers and Doctors to define doctrine can be found, for example, in the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica on transubstantiation.
Since the Fourth Lateran Council had just defined the dogma of transubstantiation for the first time, one might expect St. Thomas to cite the teaching of the Council in his treatment of the topic. But he does not. It is sufficient for him to cite the text of Scripture and to comment on it with the help of the Church Fathers. Even in recent times, fruitful theological reflection has continued to result from this methodology, as when St.
Maximilian Kolbe, in the last theological work of his life before being taken to Auschwitz, gave this profound explanation for the words of Our Lady of Lourdes to St. Not God, of course, because he has no beginning. Not an angel, created directly out of nothing. Not Adam, formed out of the dust of the earth Gen. They are conceptions stained by original sin; whereas you are the unique, Immaculate Conception emphasis added.
Nowadays it is widely asserted that defenders of the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation only accept Magisterial teachings that agree with their own views and reject more recent pronouncements that contradict earlier teachings.
Since this accusation goes to the heart of the creation-evolution debate within the Catholic community, it is worth taking the time to examine it closely. What is really at issue here is whether an ambiguous or non-authoritative teaching of a Pope or Council on a matter of faith or morals trumps a more authoritative prior Magisterial teaching on the same matter. Theologian Fr. Traditional Catholicism. Ripperger observes that:. While the current Magisterium can change a teaching that falls under non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching, nevertheless, when the Magisterium makes a judgment in these cases, it has an obligation due to the requirements of the moral virtue of prudence to show how the previous teaching was wrong or is now to be understood differently by discussing the two different teachings.
However, this is not what has happened. The Magisterium since Vatican II often ignores previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching, leaving the faithful to figure out how the two are compatible, such as in the cases of Mortalium Animos and Ut Unum Sint. This leads to confusion and infighting within the Church as well as the appearance of contradicting previous Church teaching without explanation or reasoned justification.
Moreover, the problem is not just with respect to the Magisterium prior to Vatican II but even with the Magisterium since the Council. For an example of the problem that Fr. He wrote:. The submission of the wife neither ignores nor suppresses the liberty to which her dignity as a human person and her noble functions as wife, mother and companion give her the full right. It does not oblige her to yield indiscriminately to all the desires of her husband, which may be unreasonable or incompatible with her wifely dignity.
Nor does it mean that she is on a level with persons who in law are called minors and who are ordinarily denied the unrestricted exercise of their rights on the ground of their immature judgment and inexperience. But it does forbid such abuse of freedom as would neglect the welfare of the family; it refuses, in this body which is the family, to allow the heart to be separated from the head, with great detriment to the body itself and even with risk of disaster.
If the husband is the head of the domestic body, then the wife is its heart; and as the first holds the primacy of authority, so the second can and ought to claim the primacy of love. In spite of the fact that this has been the constant authoritative teaching of the Church from the time of the Apostles until now, it is nowhere to be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Moreover, when Pope St. Absolutely not! On the contrary, the Church has always operated on the principle that her authoritative teaching on a doctrine of faith or morals must be upheld, unless and until a new definition of that doctrine is proclaimed at the same—or a higher—level of authority. Since no authoritative Magisterial teaching has ever abrogated the constant teaching of the Church on the God-given roles of husband and wife in the family, Catholics are obliged to uphold the traditional doctrine.
It is actually not difficult to reconcile Pope St. One way to reconcile the two is to recognize that a Catholic husband and father must submit himself to the spiritual and material needs —not wants! On the other hand, the treatment of family relationships contained in the new Catechism leaves out an essential element of the subject that has been taught since the time of the Apostles and summarized in Casti connubii.
When faced with a contradiction of this kind, should the faithful follow the more recent teaching because it necessarily reflects the guidance of the Holy Spirit? If so, does this mean that Catholic fathers are no longer the spiritual heads of their families? Throughout her history, the Church has always held that an authoritative Magisterial teaching must take precedence over a less authoritative teaching on the same topic, especially when the latter teaching is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradicts the prior teaching.
There are many examples of this in Church history. Defenders of the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation do not challenge the legitimacy of Vatican II or of the Catechism. Nor do we deny that Pope St. We simply maintain that an ambiguous, incomplete, tentative or non-authoritative teaching of a Pope, Bishop, or Council cannot supersede a clear, unambiguous teaching that has been handed down from the Apostles.
Any such tentative or ambiguous teachings on matters of faith and morals must be understood in light of previous clear and authoritative magisterial teachings on those matters, if any have been handed down.
In regard to creation and evolution, we have demonstrated that a great number of highly authoritative magisterial teachings have upheld special creation and the literal historical truth of Genesis And it is true that Pope St. But the Pope never cited any evidence that their opinion was true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, Pope St. For example, in one Wednesday audience he stated:. It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man, in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. It must, however, be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. Furthermore, in his famous speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in , the Holy Father admitted:.
It must then be rethought. These statements demonstrate that Pope St. Nevertheless, theistic evolutionists continually cite the statements of recent Popes expressing their belief that the natural science evidence favors some kind of molecules-to-man evolution as if these statements abrogated the mountain of authoritative teaching in favor of the traditional doctrine of creation.
Indeed, there are two important points that theistic evolutionists usually overlook in regard to these recent papal statements. In the first place, all of the statements by Pope St. John Paul II and other recent Popes favorable to some kind of microbe-to-man evolution have been made as private opinions in regard to evolution as a hypothesis in natural science.
Needless to say, no modern Pope has found microbe-to-man evolution in the Deposit of Faith handed down from the Apostles! In the second place, and more importantly, when Pope St.
John Paul II did teach in the realm of faith and morals he directed the Bishops and theologians of the Church to do certain things which — if they obeyed him — would lead inevitably to the complete rejection of molecules-to-man evolution in its theistic and atheistic forms. Specifically, in Fides et Ratio , Pope St. John Paul II repeated the call of Pope Pius XII in Humani generis to maintain the metaphysical principles of traditional Catholic philosophy and to bring them to bear on the examination of controversial ideas, like human evolution.
However, one theologian and philosopher who has done so is Fr. Chad Ripperger, formerly professor of dogmatic theology at the Fraternity of St. Indeed, when Pope St. As Mr. Hichborn observed, in the evolutionary system, non-living matter produces a living organism; but that is only the beginning of the story. The one-celled organism must then produce the multi-celled. The multi-celled non-swimmer must produce the swimmer; the swimmer must produce the walker; the walker must produce the flyer—and so on until the sub-human primate gives birth to the body of the first human being.
The ability of some bacteria to metabolize non-living matter is irrelevant to this scenario, because it does not change the fact that non-living matter cannot produce a living organism without violating this fundamental principle. Indeed, from the beginning to the end of this mythical evolutionary process, the effect is greater than the cause, so that molecules-to-man evolution constitutes a continuous stream of violations of a metaphysical principle which Pope St.
Confronted with Fr. But theologians who take that position wittingly or unwittingly abandon the pretense that molecules-to-man evolution is an hypothesis in natural science. Perhaps this is why Dr. In reality, however, the Teilhardian version of theistic evolution violates another metaphysical principle of traditional Catholic philosophy which Fr.
Chad Ripperger has highlighted in a more recent publication entitled The Principle of the Integral Good. In his new work, Fr. Ripperger shows how the metaphysical principle of the integral good—the goodness of God and the integrity of His handiwork in the first-created world—is incompatible with the hypothesis of molecules-to-man evolution in both its theistic and atheistic forms.
This idea has no precedent in the writings of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church, but it has become so widespread that it is even taught in the deeply-flawed YOUCAT, or Youth Catechism which ought more properly to be called a Youth Cataclysm because of the harm that it has done to faith of so many young Catholics! God created the world to be good, but it is not yet complete. In violent upheavals and painful processes it is being shaped and moved toward its final perfection.
That may be a better way to classify what the Church calls physical evil , for example, a birth defect, or a natural catastrophe. Moral evils, in contrast, come about through the misuse of freedom in the world. On the contrary, the unanimous teaching of all of the Fathers and Doctors is that God created all of the different kinds of creatures perfect according to their natures, in a state of harmony with man, and that all deformity and disease was a consequence of the Original Sin.
Theistic evolutionists try to find some precedent for their notion of continuous creation in the writings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, especially in the statements cited by Dr. It is therefore, causally that Scripture has said that earth brought forth the crops and trees, in the sense that it received the power of bringing them forth. In the earth from the beginning, in what I might call the roots of time, God created what was to be in times to come.
Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move towards a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship. Rightly understood, however, neither of these statements contradicts the traditional Creation-Providence distinction. They uphold it.
While St. Augustine only speaks of the generation of identical offspring from already created biological species, St. Thomas is speaking of the natural laws which were created alongside the physical bodies and which govern their movements, like the movements of stars or the course of a chemical reaction.
In both cases, the Doctors are saying that any development that takes place in the order of nature or Providence is an unfolding of the essential structure of each kind of creature which God created in the beginning. It cannot be the development of any new kind of creature that reproduces itself, since these creatures—which St. Thomas and all of the Fathers and Doctors, descended from prototypes which God created at the beginning of time.
Hence, St. Thomas teaches in the Summa:. Like all of the Fathers and Doctors before him, St. Thomas also taught that only Divine Power, being infinite, can produce things of the same species out of any matter, such as a man from the slime of the earth, and a woman from out of man. It states—perhaps for the first time with such clarity—that there are magisterial decisions intended to be the last word on the matter as such, but are a substantial anchorage in the problem and are first and foremost an expression of pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional disposition.
Their core remains valid, but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification. In this regard one can refer to the statements of the Popes during the last century on religious freedom as well as the anti-modernistic decisions at the beginning of this century, especially the decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time. As a warning cry against hasty and superficial adaptations they remain fully justified; a person of the stature of Johann Baptist Metz has said, for example, that the antimodernist decisions of the Church rendered a great service in keeping her from sinking into the liberal-bourgeois world.
But the details of the determinations of their contents were later superceded once they had carried out their pastoral duty at a particular moment. It is strange for Chaberek to be seemingly unaware of this statement by Ratzinger, since he quotes him elsewhere on the topic. The author has likely succeeded in amassing as many potential and real obstacles to evolution as can be found in the Catholic tradition, and then some.
But as I believe the example of the PBC demonstrates, his views on just how insuperable these obstacles are need to be taken with a large measure of salt. Chaberek wants badly to be able to say that biological macroevolution is heretical, but in the end he cannot. That they can even say this, which no faithful Catholic could say for example about a theory which purported to disprove the resurrection of Jesus, shows that even they do not view the direct creation of man from the dust of the earth as immutable Catholic doctrine.
Once they have admitted even a theoretical possibility that the evolution of man could be confirmed, they have given up any possible claim that it contradicts an infallible teaching of the Church. Thomas V. Mirus is a pianist living in New York City. He is Director of Podcasts for CatholicCulture.
See full bio. All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work , and Sound Off!
Evolution is an hypothesis more than a theory. The scientific method proposes hypotheses and then tests them null hypotheses sufficiently to elevate an hypothesis to a theory.
Because evolution is historical science and not empirical science, it is not possible to test it with traditional scientific methodology. That is the reason why many non-evolutionists consider evolutionism a philosophy or world view rather than a testable, empirical science. Well written commentary with one exception. Evolution is a scientific theory. When you say "believe" in evolution it is like fingernails on a chalkboard. That being said, the notion that atheists 'believe' in evolution is readily confirmed.
Belief according to Webster does not require facts. Most believe, in that they do not comprehend what the components giving rise to the theory are. Chaberek's case is too black-and-white--because Genesis is not allegory nor legend does not mean it is to be interpreted literally. Adam was made from the dust of the earth insofar that scientists theorize first life on earth required energy lightning and a substrate like clay.
0コメント