The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity

a kullervo

Chicken
Greetings,

Free will is, like "evolution", a weak human concept, a half-baked attempt at easing the feeble human ego of its woes concerning the problem of evil.

Fear not: human salvation or damnation are God's prerogative, radical acceptance the sole faith/destiny.
 

Mancipium Mariae

Sparrow
Woman
Greetings,

Free will is, like "evolution", a weak human concept, a half-baked attempt at easing the feeble human ego of its woes concerning the problem of evil.

Fear not: human salvation or damnation are God's prerogative, radical acceptance the sole faith/destiny.
God made man in His own image. Our immortal soul is stamped with the three faculties of
1. Intellect
2. Memory
3. Will
These three faculties reflect the three Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. Free will is what makes us distinct from animals, it makes us human. That is not negotiable, it is reality.
Forced love is not love, so God gave us free will because a moral universe is the greatest possible thing. God is infinitely good, and that is why He created the greatest possible universe, a moral one where humans and angels have free will to choose to love Him, because love is in the will. You cannot be a Christian without believing in free will. I can't understand what you're saying.
 
Last edited:

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Kingfisher
Gold Member
It would be more accurate to say they're "devolving."

437af44dede270e3dc770ec767826bf1.jpg
 

Toggle

Chicken
I can understand the argument that God created the possibilty for evil and good to give the possibility of free will. For all the "potential" humans have we are in no way equal to God, Atleast in this form and this life. God is by definition perfect.

So i wonder why would he create something inferior in relation to himself. Maybe for the joy of creating, just because he can? Why not create something more on par with himself? Humans have dogs, Still the bond between dogs and humans can never truly measure up to a strong bond that exists between humans.

If a person was never exposed to christianity or religion in general, are they at fault for their souls condemnation? All people are prone to being influenced by external circumstances?

On an emotional/intuitive level God feels like the answer to me.

On a logical level i sometimes think that we exist simply because everything in this world can either be defined as something or nothing. You cannot have something without nothing and vice versa, their definitions depend on each other.
 

Mancipium Mariae

Sparrow
Woman
1. I can understand the argument that God created the possibilty for evil and good to give the possibility of free will. For all the "potential" humans have we are in no way equal to God, Atleast in this form and this life. God is by definition perfect.

2. So i wonder why would he create something inferior in relation to himself. Maybe for the joy of creating, just because he can? Why not create something more on par with himself? Humans have dogs, Still the bond between dogs and humans can never truly measure up to a strong bond that exists between humans.

3. If a person was never exposed to christianity or religion in general, are they at fault for their souls condemnation? All people are prone to being influenced by external circumstances?

4. On an emotional/intuitive level God feels like the answer to me.

5. On a logical level i sometimes think that we exist simply because everything in this world can either be defined as something or nothing. You cannot have something without nothing and vice versa, their definitions depend on each other.
1. Yes God is infinitely good and perfect and all-powerful, and humans are mere nothings compared to Him strictly speaking. But humans are made in His image, and our immortal souls reflect the Immortality of God, and the faculties of our souls reflect the Divine Trinity. Of course I say reflect, because in His perfection, He made us in His image, but we are not like God of course, as St. Michael the Archangel says (and his very name means) "who is like God?" This is the great mystery of creation. But think of the dignity of humans as well, that God would choose to dwell with us, and choose the Holy Theotokos as His own Mother, and choose to humble Himself to become human? That is the great mystery of the Incarnation. Lots to think about.

2. All of creation is inferior to God because God is the Supreme Being above all things, by Whom all things were made. He Who said "I Am Who Am" is far above everything. He created the world "and saw that it was good" because He can do no wrong, for He is Almighty God. He created man because it was His perfect will, and if it is His perfect will, we need not question why. Surely we are all happy to be alive, immortal souls in a body where God wishes to dwell- what is more beautiful than that? Even the Angels, (the good Angels of course) if they could envy, the saints say they would envy us for the fact that we are corporeal and can receive the Risen Lord Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. So God created us, infinitely inferior to Himself, because it was good. And of course this great mystery prompts the prophet to ask similar questions to the one you ask,
"What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?
Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour:
And hast set him over the works of thy hands." (Psalm 8:5-7)

I suppose the answer to your question can be found in our purpose as children of God: to know, love, and serve Him in this world and be happy with Him forever in the next. Why does God love us, so little and worthless compared to Him? Why did God desire to create us as He did, so inferior to Himself? It was His Divine will, and therefore, it is the best possible thing. Rejoice, for you are "fearfully and wonderfully made."

3.
God is perfectly just. He is merciful and just. To whom much is given, much is expected. You will not be condemned unless you condemn yourself through mortal sin, that is, sin which is gravely evil, you know it is gravely evil, and you commit it with full consent of your will. Objectively speaking, there is no salvation outside the one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. But the Catholic Church has long since taught baptism of desire, and long since lauded the infinite mercies of God. Individually, we cannot make a determination of who is and is not saved among the ignorant and pagans, God alone knows the heart of the individual and is perfectly just to all. But we know that the objective truth is that the Church is the ark of salvation which God wills all men to find and enter. You are not responsible for what you could never have known, but you are responsible for the natural law which is written on every heart, pagan or Christian, from all time. We know right and wrong and we were made for God. The Church is there for our salvation, but those who never had a missionary to tell them, we don't know their fate ultimately, but we know that God is merciful and just, and cannot be unjust.

4. God is the answer. The Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, Crucified for our salvation, and His Holy Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary, mediatrix of all graces.

5. That is correct.
 
Last edited:

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
The evolution theory of Darwin is tied to his "survival fo the fittest" mantra people say without thinking about it. The funny thing about Darwin - and yet another thing I learned from E. Michael Jones - is that he was promoted by the British during the peak of their power.

This was a way to spread the idea that since life was all about the "survival of the fittest," you need not spend any time feeling bad when the mighty Empire subjugates weaker peoples and nations. It was all just natural, you see? Small wonder it later became an excuse for atheism too.

That nowadays you usually see Darwin-walking-fish stickers on cars driven by leftists - it is as hilarious as it is Ironic. You can be sure none of them have any idea they are parading around with a symbol representing a man used as a lame excuse for the morality of empire building.
 
Here's another quote on the subject by E. Michael Jones, this being from Monsters From The Id, pg. 142. I can't recommend his work enough, but you all know that already.

From the morning after Christmas 1859, when T. H. Huxley launched Darwin's career by reviewing The Origin of Species in the Times, the success of Darwin's revolutionary biology depended upon the persona of Darwin as the Anglified version of the scientific revolutionary, the disinterested observer, in the mode of Newton, just explaining how things were and, almost as an afterthought, kicking out the supports from underneath the notion of God as creator and nature as embodying a sense of purpose.


Darwin failed in the latter project as much as the former. He was never able to give one instance of a species evolving, nor was he able to banish purpose from the world of biology without postulating miracles that demanded even more credulity than what he thought was demanded by the Christian religion, but the legend persisted. Tyndale declared in 1870 that a "mind like that of Darwin can never sin wittingly against either fact or law." John Dewey, representing the American branch of the Darwinian establishment, declared that "the Origin of Species foreswears inquiry about absolute origins and absolute finalities," without seeing that he contradicted himself by making that statement.


The French caught the ideological spin of Darwinism well when the authors of the fifth volume of the Encyclopedie française, after consulting that nation's leading biologists, concluded that the theory of evolution was "impossible." "Evolution," they continued in a memorable phrase, "is a kind of dogma in which its priests no longer believe but which they keep presenting to their people".


The insult is especially galling coming from the descendants of the Encyclopedists in the land the bequeathed the term revolution to the modern world. France would continue its revolutionary ways throughout the nineteenth century and into the next all the way up to 1968. The English, however, had chosen for themselves a different course, one emphasizing science as epitomized by Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and the claque of journalistic enthusiasts who spread the religion to the masses, who accepted it with a credulity that made the faith of the Middle Ages seem tepid by comparison.
 

KantPost

Sparrow
Here's another quote on the subject by E. Michael Jones, this being from Monsters From The Id, pg. 142. I can't recommend his work enough, but you all know that already.
E Michael Jones is excellent. His books are worth every penny.

Getting back to Roosh's article, what made me question the theory of evolution is how improbable it is. We are expected to believe that one highly improbable mutation happens, and then on top of this mutation another highly improbable mutation has to happen, and so on in sequence. I mean it's so unlikely that it's preposterous.

The famous mathematician Fred Hoyle had this quote where he said it's like a tornado ripping through a junkyard and assembling a 747 from the pieces in moments. The whole thing is an absurd proposition, it's impossible.

It only makes sense when viewed through the religious lens: evolution is their story of creation, Darwin a prophet, entrepreneurs are missionaries, scientists are their priests, abortion is the sacrificial sacrament, getting injected is their baptism, sodomy is their highest virtue, therapy is confession, oligarchs are their cardinals, music festivals are pilgrimages, criminal gentle giants/joggers/fentanyl overdosers their martyrs, etc
 
Last edited:

nagareboshi

Woodpecker

It may be right to see Huxley's life and work as contributing to the secularisation of British society which gradually occurred over the following century. Ernst Mayr said "It can hardly be doubted that [biology] has helped to undermine traditional beliefs and value systems"[118]—and Huxley more than anyone else was responsible for this trend in Britain. Some modern Christian apologists consider Huxley the father of antitheism, though he himself maintained that he was an agnostic, not an atheist. He was, however, a lifelong and determined opponent of almost all organised religion throughout his life, especially the "Roman Church... carefully calculated for the destruction of all that is highest in the moral nature, in the intellectual freedom, and in the political freedom of mankind".[117][119] In the same line of thought, in an article in Popular Science, Huxley used the expression "the so-called Christianity of Catholicism," explaining: "I say 'so-called' not by way of offense, but as a protest against the monstruous assumption that Catholic Christianity is explicitly or implicitly contained in any trust-worthy record of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth."[120]

One of the first and most important naturalists to be convinced by Origin of the reality of evolution was the British anatomist Thomas Henry Huxley. Huxley recognized that unlike the earlier transmutational ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Darwin's theory provided a mechanism for evolution without supernatural involvement, even if Huxley himself was not completely convinced that natural selection was the key evolutionary mechanism. Huxley would make advocacy of evolution a cornerstone of the program of the X Club to reform and professionalise science by displacing natural theology with naturalism and to end the domination of British natural science by the clergy. By the early 1870s in English-speaking countries, thanks partly to these efforts, evolution had become the mainstream scientific explanation for the origin of species.
 

Captain Gh

Ostrich
Gold Member
push for tyrannical control of the entire economy.

"The humanism religion teaches that humans are our own gods and we determine our own destiny. This is the religion that is taught in the public schools today, which has replaced Christianity in 1963 in the America, when the Bible was removed from public schools.

Of course no one admits that humanism is taught in the public schools today, because the bible was removed in order to claim that public tax money cannot be used to teach religions. Yet, creationism was replaced with the teaching of evolution, which is one of the foundation values of the humanistic religion.

Humanism is the belief that we are self justification, there are no absolute truths, and right and wrong are determined by each individual’s personal values.
In part 1 I listed the 7 causes of tyranny that are gaining support."
Damn I didn't know that! Up until 1993 in Quebec we were still reading the Bible in Class! Yeah Francophone Quebec is a different breed... but that's still a 30 Year Gap
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
I personally have no issues believing in evolution while still being a Christian.

It's an unnecessary belief though. Occam's razor (abbreviated): minimize the number of assumptions you need to live in the world. If you already believe in an all-powerful God who can create the entire universe, there's no reason to have an additional belief in evolution. You may just leave it up as a divine mystery unexamined. The reason naturalists cling onto evolution is because they have no other hope in explaining the world.
 

Johnnyvee

Ostrich
It's an unnecessary belief though. Occam's razor (abbreviated): minimize the number of assumptions you need to live in the world. If you already believe in an all-powerful God who can create the entire universe, there's no reason to have an additional belief in evolution. You may just leave it up as a divine mystery unexamined. The reason naturalists cling onto evolution is because they have no other hope in explaining the world.

The argument that might be used is that the "God hypothesis" complicates the problem rather than simplifying it. Meaning that you explain something that is very complex, (biological life) with something even more complex. (God) Then a Christian might reply that God has always existed, and then...well, there is no end to this line of argumentation. But referring to Occam`s razor is not really valid here.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
The argument that might be used is that the "God hypothesis" complicates the problem rather that simplifying it. Meaning that you explain something that is very complex, (biological life) with something even more complex. (God) Then a Christian might reply that God has always existed, and then...well, there is no end to this line of argumentation. But referring to Occam`s razor is not really valid here.

Belief in God is pretty simple. Also Occam's razor was historically literally a defense of God, not a reddit scientism.
 

Johnnyvee

Ostrich
Belief in God is pretty simple. Also Occam's razor was historically literally a defense of God, not a reddit scientism.

Some might say that evolution is rather simple also. Literally just an extension of the parameters and forces of the universe. Pockets of organized matter that arise from the original low entropy of the moment of "creation." Galaxies, solar systems, molecules that dissipate entropy into it`s surroundings, with the entropy always increasing. The one`s that are a bit more effective at that, have an advantage over the one`s that are not. From there you have the spur of selection, and all events throughout are of a random nature, creating all the variation that you see in the biological world. It`s almost beautiful when you get a grasp of it.

None of this excludes God, but I don`t see a need to deny evolution at this stage. It has nothing to do with Darwin as a person, but the evidence is a problem. They are so damn convincing if you really have studied the field. It`s a problem, I agree with that, to marry the two. But I`m not sure that they are mutually exclusive really.
 

KantPost

Sparrow
The argument that might be used is that the "God hypothesis" complicates the problem rather that simplifying it. Meaning that you explain something that is very complex, (biological life) with something even more complex. (God) Then a Christian might reply that God has always existed, and then...well, there is no end to this line of argumentation. But referring to Occam`s razor is not really valid here.
But it might really be that simple. Something cannot come from nothing, so creation had to come from a first mover. This is what we call God. From this point we can learn about Him and deduce many things by working forward through time via the prophets, then through to Jesus, then the Catholic Church He established through Peter, and so on.
Getting back to the theory of evolution, E Michael Jones in Logos Rising raises even more important points regarding mankind. We could not have formed by accidental random mutation. Think of language and communication. It had to have formed instantaneously between two separate people living in immediate proximity. Hearing had to take place along with speaking, and brain behaviour to coordinate the hearing and speaking. It is impossible that it could have formed randomly, simply preposterous. Sciencismists have not even invented a number estimating the probability of this, and there is no possibility of the quadrillions of years of random mutations having ever had the possibility of allowing for this. It is purely absurd.
Jones also draws our attention in Degenerate Moderns to the importance of the life stories and habits of the Sciencismists. If we look at Richard Dawkins for example, he was molested by a priest as a boy and he has clearly developed a complex over this. In the same way that father deprivation causes homosexuality, father deprivation also causes atheism, which is a psychological disorder.
In Libido Dominandi Jones describes how the American Psychological Association for example was taken over by Jewish activists in the 1960s and 70s, and more or less overnight threw out decades of proven research showing the true causes of homosexuality. It went from being a disorder that could be cured in some men, to a lifestyle change in the most typical transvaluation of values manner. Joseph Nicolosi demonstrated convincingly that homosexuality can be cured in 33% of men, reduced to a manageable non-active state in another third of men, and unchangeable in the other 33%. The key factor was religious outlook which influenced the level of determination in these men.

The Theory of Evolution is no more than LGTB for the late 19th and most of the 20th centuries. It's a cover, a facade, for a naked destruction of the metaphysical structure underlying Christian nations.
 
Top