jump to navigation

Atheistic Evolution’s and False Religion November 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Christendom, error, General Catholic, religious, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
trackback

I thought this was a very insightful bit of reading from the great Catholic Illustrated newspaper put out by the Transalpine Redemptorists.  This little review Clothing (5)of history demonstrates that Darwin did not arrive at his famous theory on the origin of species at random.  He wasn’t just out there gathering data in the Galapagos and had a “Eureka!” moment that informed him that species “evolved” one to the other.  No, he was a man on a mission, interested in obliterating the Christian religion and seeking a theory he thought could go a long way to doing that. As such, he was simply continuing a line of rationalist thought dating almost back to the protestant revolution, wherein men who hated and denigrated God and especially His Church, sought means to eradicate love for both from the hearts of men.

Lots of good info below for your consideration. especially concerning grave weaknesses in the theory of evolution. I continue to be a bit surprised by the degree to which well meaning souls in the Church are entranced by it and unable to shake themselves – even to a position of questioning or agnosticism – from its grip.  Check out the Kolbe Center for much more along the lines below:

Charles Darwin did not invent the theory of evolution just by observing nature and thinking.  The basic idea predated him.  Before the publication of the Origin of Species, several rich men of the Midlands Enlightenment, including his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, had talked over the idea of a gradual progression of life from a common ancestor (microorganisms) to civilized society. [The thinking of atheists has long been, if they could disprove the Creation account of Scripture, they could greatly undermine the claims of the Church.  This thinking has always been overblown, but it has led to a certain wounding of the Church in the past 150 years, as weakly formed souls have fallen under the influence of atheism through its more public face, sciencism]  Charles Darwin knew this, and he was familiar with Sir George Lyell’s ideas on geology.  Lyell saw himself as “the spiritual savior of geology, freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses.”

Charles Darwin added to the speculation about what happened, his idea of how it happened: the idea of mutations plus natural selection.  Mutation is supposed to cause change, and natural selection makes the changes into “improvements.”

Modern theorists complicate matters by interweaving into the theory mutation, migration, genetic drift, and selection.  None of these things create new forms or functions, such as hands, wings, or sight, and all of them are indifferent to what helps or hurts.  As an atheistic replacement for the miracles of the six days of Creation, this is fanciful. [Fanciful is a nice way of saying BS]  Natural selection does not make anything, it just weeds out failures.  If a frog becomes a prince, we call it a fairy tale. Do the same thing in a  billion years and we call it evolution.

Evolution is telling us that chemicals, which are not alive, became the first life form that can feed and reproduce, without God doing any miracle to make this happen.  Then, that last universal ancestor, over a few billion  years, became everything that is now alive.  All this is supposed to have happened for one simple reason: because natural forces, which are indifferent to helps or hurts, have provided changes that gave a survival advantage.

Darwin didn’t know, as we now do, that the “simplest” living creatures, bacteria, are comparable in complexity to the entire worldwide telecommunications network [I’d say they’re much more complex, since the telecom network cannot reproduce itself on its own]. Hypothetical ancestors of bacteria are nothing but imagination, on a philosophical level with Kipling’s “Just So Stories.” Speculation isn’t science. [Great point]

Consider the microscopic level of the cell – DNA, RNA, amino acids, proteins, etc., around 30% of the necessary equipment for an eye, does not give us 30% vision, it gives us a blind animal.  The same goes for blood circulation, respiration, nervous system, digestion, reproduction, and so on.  Evolution asks us to believe that all living things arose from countless tiny gradual changes, and each of all of those tiny gradual steps must have provided a real survival advantage. [There are two general theses of macroevolution – one is gradual change that results in the slow appearance of a new and different species, the other is the sudden change theory, like suddenly a frog turns into a dinosaur, or whatever.  The problem with the latter, is that the likelihood of it happening, with all those hundreds of millions of genetic bits changing simultaneously, is so low that you have to postulate literally an infinite number of alternate universes for it to become even possible. The problem with very slow change is, when does a slight growth of bone or a new protuberance of cartilidge become a new species?  And even this change has never been seen by science, and leading evolutionists admit finding proof of change of species is basically impossible]

The fact that plants and animals can breed, specialize and adapt (“micro-evolution”) does not prove that the first hand, eye, wing, etc.., morphed into their present forms from simpler ancestors over a long time.  Micro-evolution happens within a few generations, not millenia, and it doesn’t make new organs or forms.  Transitional forms between species are very few and hotly debated.  The world accepts evolution as much as the fact of gravity, or that 1+1=2, despite the fact that its champions, such as Richard Dawkins, commonly have furious debates with fellow evolutionists about exactly how selection works at the all-important genetic level. 

This is not trivial, and it impacts our Faith.  Evolution is an attempt to explain everything. Religion is part of everything, and if everything evolved without Divine intervention, then so did religion. If dogma evolved, then it wasn’t revealed.  Evolution applied to religion is what Pope St. Pius X called modernism, “the synthesis of all heresies.” [Or what we might call, Synod 2015, which revealed, for all the world to see, how a narrow, self-interested cabal could attempt to change doctrine while pretending not to do so]

There are many critics of the theory of evolution. They come from a variety of religious backgrounds, and many of them have advanced degrees in the relevant sciences.

———–End Quote———–

It’s all of a piece – evolution is just one tool in the overall leftist/progressive/modernist program against the Church. However, it’s one of the key ones, and in spite of recent unfortunate statements from the past two pontiffs, the Church has never formally endorsed evolution as correct, even if the former opposition has seriously eroded over the past 60 years or so.  I chalk that up much more to the overall weakness of Church leadership, than any particular new insights validating this theory.  Opinions may vary, I don’t hold my opinions against evolution dogmatically, so to say, but I do ask people who seem to have a need to believe in evolution how that belief helps them get to Heaven?

Haven’t gotten much of an answer, yet.

Clothing (13)

Comments

1. tg - November 3, 2015

This is out of topic but what do you know about the Passionist’s order. Are they orthodox or traditional?

Tantumblogo - November 3, 2015

Like all orders, its down to the individual convent/monastery now. There is an orthodox (but not traditional – no TLM, they use the post-conciliar Breviary, etc) order of Passionist nuns in Kentucky. I know some young women with reputations for holiness who wen there. I think there are some good scattered Passionist convents around. Not sure about the men’s side.

tg - November 3, 2015

I was just wondering because a Passionist priest gave a mission at our church. He seemed very jovial – kind of reminded me of Cardinal Dolan. He spoke of course of “mercy”. He used the word “amnesty” will be given during the year of Mercy. That didn’t sit too well with me. I didn’t go to the mission after hearing the homily. I like tough priests like the Fathers of Mercy. One Fathers of Mercy priest did a mission a few years ago – tough young priest – and he has not been asked back. I wonder why. (I like Father William Casey.)

Tantumblogo - November 3, 2015

Well if the modernists including the Holy Father – intend a general amnesty, or general absolution for sin, such a thing has been hold to be doctrinally impossible, inadmissible, and invalid for centuries. General absolution only applies in times of grave emergency, like a sinking ship or crashing airplane. You simply cannot wave a magic wand – even as pope – and pretend not in life and death emergencies can have the kind of contrition required for absolution of sin. Especially when that “amnesty” carries with it the implication that many unacceptable sins are now somehow acceptable.

I don’t know, I pray it doesn’t come to pass, it would be a disaster of the highest order, even greater, to my mind, than the new rules on annulments and the threat of the Synod.

tg - November 4, 2015

This priest also said something about getting back those in irregular marriages back to the church. So many people shook their heads to agree. I was shocked but not surprised. Apparently, there’s a survey that 62% of Catholics think Holy Communion should be given to these people. It’s because many are in such a situation or have family members.

2. Barbara Hvilivitzky - November 3, 2015

Any opening to evolution, even considering it as plausible is dangerous. As Catholics we are to believe in Adam and Eve as real parents for the human race. Anything that causes doubt in this area leads to sad things: like Cardinal Pell in his ‘debate’ with Richard Dawkins. Dawkins manoeuvred Pell into admitting that he did not believe in an actual set of parents – Adam and Eve, for the human race, created from the earth by Almighty God. Dawkins jumped all over poor Pell and asked him where Original Sin came from then.
It was ugly and sad. Pell looked like the modernist he is. In some ways he is orthodox, but he’s shaky.

Tantumblogo - November 3, 2015

They’re almost all shaky. Even those I respect the most, like Bishop Schneider, have weak points. Probably all of us do. We’ve been swimming in a modernist, progressive sewer our whole lives. It is the very rare person who doesn’t have some of that stick.

Observer - November 4, 2015

I didn’t feel a bit sorry for Cardinal Pell, he asked for it. He is a lightweight, and the fact that his fellow cardinals regard him as an intellectual should give us concern. Cardinal Pell should have said something like; original sin is present precisely because we are products of ‘evolution’, or ‘nature’, and nature is, well, ‘red in tooth and claw’.

3. skeinster - November 3, 2015

Thanks for the reminder to resubscribe. I love their calendar, and it’s always a great day when the magazine arrives.
We’ve been in the last two issues- that’s always encouraging.

Tantumblogo - November 4, 2015

Yes little M looked beautiful. She’s a doll, I really like her.

4. Dorothy Amorella - November 4, 2015

Your link to Fr. Simon’s page is listed as “Fr. Roger Simon.” His name is actually “Richard.”

Tantumblogo - November 4, 2015

Eh, I need to really change my blogroll anyways. I haven’t read him in years.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: