At the beginning of the talk, the presenter misstated pope Benedict's statement: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution." The word is 'casual' not 'causal' as the presenter said. Which makes a very different argument - it is not longer either/or evolution or creationism but lands squarely on the side of purposeful creation.
Science has a lot of faith. Theology is the queen of the sciences from which the other disciplines came from. Modern day scientism is a new religion with many dogmas
As a Catholic, I'm not sure how to reconcile evolution and creation. Mainly, if man did come from an evolutionary process, at what point does the soul enter man? If anyone has an insight on this I'd love to hear
You will not get answers in this video. Kuebler fails to mention the aspects of Humani Generis that would call into question his own version of evolution and that of the D.C. Dominicans who he seems aligned with. Kuebler and the D.C. Domincans promote the idea that man's consciousness emerged initially as a kind of proto-sentience which slowly evolved over several generations until there was full consciousness. This is utter nonsense and it does not square with the nature of the soul as the immaterial principle of being of any living animal. Kuebler's version of evolution is just a modified form of polygenism (which is condemned by name in Humani Generis), cloaked in ambiguity.
@@MatthewN07 The soul is not a communist entity. The soul is the form of a "particular" being. Every "particular" human being has an utterly unique soul that is created by God. Your point about Adam is true, but that does not dispel the ambiguity that I mentioned before, in light of what I just stated about the "particular" nature of the soul.
It almost sounds like he’s describing a deist (or a set and forget) conception of God, or did I miss the part where he explains what active role God plays in the evolutionary process?
I think you have missed the point because of the notion that God is beyond time and that creation or more specifically the cosmos is sustained and enabled constantly. Whitout God (the primary cause of being itself) the cosmos would vanish instantly.
@@piushalg5041 I don't have an issue with God upholding the natural order from which chance operates, I'm just not clear whether he's saying God modifies biological lifeforms along the way when required or whether He always leaves it to chance? Or does he mean chance is actually just God's will at work too?
I actually agree with you. A deist could have made this same presentation and added in the Bible verse at the end. Maybe he wasn’t concerned with the Christian aspect (maybe that was reserved for another session) for this particular session. Would’ve been nice to have some more on how Christianity fits this.
A personal God that seeks to reveal himself through relationships with humans, doesn't necessarily have to interfere with natural processes to create us through evolution.
Yes. You are 100% spot on. It is alarmingly deist and there were several very important topics he glossed over or completely ignored in order to support this worldview. His lecture is not in alignment with the evidence. Reality and all living things require direct intervention and a creative mind in order to have been arranged like this. Neo-Darwinian dogma does not explain what we see, especially as we learn more about life.
The biggest problem for evolution is not how i start perceiving others or my take on life, meaning and purpose, but to produce some valid scientific evidence supporting the claim
@@sonu8034 The good example of insects evolving is the London Underground mosquito. They started life as ordinary mosquitoes but got seperated from the rest when they went underground. A few generations later they were distinct from the mosquitoes outside. They had adapted to life underground. Eventually they were no longer able to breed with the mosquitoes from outside the underground system. It is easy to find in Wikipedia. It is quite a nice story. Bacteria were introduced to antibiotics and most of them died but the ones that lived stayed immune for the antibiotics. Slowly they developed diffeent chacteristics from the original bacteria. This was done in the lab but it happens in hospitals too. That is where we get the multi resistant forms of bacteria that no antibiotics can kill. If you get one of those in a wound you can easily lose an arm or a leg or even your life. Sorry if I haven't explained it so well, I am not a teacher but I am at work and things are starting to get busy here. Cheers.
For a better explanation than I’m capable of, everyone should listen to Father Ripperger’s lectures on evolution and theistic evolution. I think you’re misunderstanding the claim of evolution, which posits a change of nature within a thing. For example, the idea that a man came from an ape declares a fundamental change in nature, which is why evolution is impossible to accept for skeptics. Without knowing the details, the mosquito story still presents a coherent situation. The mosquito began as a mosquito and ended the story as a mosquito. It’s nature is still the same and it hasn’t lost any of its “mosquito-ness”. A dog isn’t suddenly a non-dog because two particular breeds cannot copulate and reproduce. Beats may have different accidents (brown bears have brown fur, polar bears have white fur) but that doesn’t mean that the “bear-ness” is lost. Similarly, just because a brown bear has brown fur and I have brown hair doesn’t mean we are now related. These are different philosophical scenarios that demonstrate the bad *arguments* of evolutionists. At the end of the day, the mosquito story does not present an example of evolution as the theory is presented (long term, one species changing into another, complexity being given from more simple creatures, etc.). It’s rather another case of someone backloading the evidence to fit the claim as opposed to seeing if the claim fits with the evidence. God bless you all.
@@colejoseph8072 Couple of things: People did not come from apes, people are apes.Bearness is not a word. If you want to talk science, use terms that mean something. The London Underground mosquito is an example of evolution, ie a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Changing the meaning of evolution only shows you do not know what you are talking about. This is AIG standard nonsense that has been explained many times before. You can live in ignorance to protect your indefensible beliefs or you could go read a book. It is your life.
It’s worth noting that the Bible itself speaks of chance (or “at random”) but we all know God is sovereign and nothing falls outside of His providence. It is definitely a matter of perspective and the language one uses to describe events. I.e., the sun “rising”
Curious! Not sure what he means that "Genesis does not tell us "HOW humans came to be" yet this scripture passage IS clear on the HOW:- Gen 2:20 ...."then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being". Just as Gen 1:27 indeed tells us "WHAT we ARE" as humans as the speaker indicated ...."God created mankind in his image;.....". So why not ACCEPT the same Genesis that tells us HOW he did it?
@javiermariscal5712 I believe what the Catholic Church teaches. I.e :- 1) GOD among other great things is omnipresent & omnipotent. Hence in my view he did not have to come down to create unless He wanted to as He chose to incarnate & come down on earth to save & redeem us & show us how to live a Holy life & to fulfill the scriptures in their entirety. 2) The CCC teaches GOD created by his WORD. Gen 1 repeatedly proclaims the same. 3) Throughout Scripture & every year on Ash Wednesday the Church REMINDS us that we " are dust & to dust we shall return". We all know from experience that every human being except Jesus Christ & certain saints at death starts to degenerate into dust over time. 4) The same Bible & CCC often refers to the Holy Spirit as the "Breath" of GOD among other glorious names. 5) We also know GOD is pure Spirit. But man is a composite of both body & spirit. When we die our bodies return to dust & our spirit lives on either in heaven or hell based on the choices a person made here on earth. From the above I see no contradiction with the scripture that GOD formed man from the dust & breathed into Him so that man would be a living being. As Jesus himself says in the gospels it is the spirit that gives life & not the body The CCC is also clear that the faithful are free to believe in theistic & not Darwinian evolution as Fr. Alar informs us in his talk on evolution, so long as it does not contradict any element of faith as an evolutionary process per se does not innately of itself contradict the faith. Personally, I do NOT believe the non-scientific proposition forced by scientists that humans originated from some monkey/ ape. They have no proof of this at all. But more importantly, for me, there was no necessity for GOD to make a beast into a human in his image & likeness. A beast is a beast & a human is a human & the difference is NOT the same. Even Charles Darwin was looking for a transition being from ape to human, but none has ever been found. Yet Darwin was of the firm opinion that this transition creature was the ONLY thing that could prove the hypothesis that man & ape have one & the same ancestory. So now you tell me what do you think the passage symbolises?
You should. He is lying. Theistic evolutionists like him will try to deceive you. Biblical scholars all agree Genesis is a narrative (a retelling of historical events). It's a summary of what happened. Each phrase should be taken in the literal unless reason demands otherwise. Because it is a narrative (no poetic language used), take it at face value.
It would’ve been interesting to see some discussion of the theological implications of evolution. One reason evolution is problematic from that perspective is because it requires the death and suffering of many (presumably sentient) creatures before the Fall. That’s my understanding anyway. I would be curious to see how prof Kuebler resolves that tension.
From Catholic Answers: “…When the Bible speaks of death entering the world through sin (as in Romans 5), it’s talking about human death… Paul’s focus here is on death spreading to men. He’s not talking about the death of animals or plants. Before we look at each of those, let’s take a look at why Adam and Eve were originally intended to be immortal in the first place.” I agree on what Catholic Answers said, for we can infer from logic that plant and animal death would have already existed. For even if we assume that all animals were previously herbivores, then there would still be plant death (including the death of fruits). Second, the St. Thomas Aquinas himself says that it is unreasonable to think that all animals were once herbivores then became wild carnivores, because the nature of animals are not changed by man’s sin. Third, the death of animals and plants is not “evil”. In philosophy, “evil” is a lack of a good in something that ought to have the good by nature. For example, a rock’s inability to see is not an evil, because sight is not a good that belongs to the nature of rocks. Unlike humans, immortality does not belong to the nature of animals and other non-rational things. God never created them to be immortal. Therefore, their mortality is not an “evil.” Even the ability to feel pain is not an evil in itself. Because pain serves a vital role in an animal’s survival. Hence, it is a “good” that belongs to the nature of animals. But of course, as stewards of creation, we humans must take care of animals and plants in such a way that we do not cause them any unreasonable suffering. If we kill animals for food, we must do so in a reasonable and humane manner.
@@JoePips07 Adam would’ve been born of a mother who raised him and took care of him. His mother would not be an unrecognizable animal compared to him. That’s not how evolution works. She was only one generation removed. She would have been like him in every way. He might’ve had aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers, sisters, etc. too. What would his relationship have been like with them? Once he lost his immortality, what’s the big deal? He basically just went back to the same state as everyone he ever knew.
@@thescoobymike You are mistaken. Immortality is not the sole difference between Adam and his theoretical immediate ancestors. The main difference is Adam’s possession of a *rational nature* and this makes him a moral creature. So even if Adam were to lose his immortality, he would still retain his rational nature, which differentiates him from his lesser-evolved non-rational parents. Even if we assume that his immediate lesser-evolved descendants were to look very similar to him, their non-rational nature makes the difference. Thus, Adam would “not go back the same state as everyone he knew.” For even if he went from immortality to mortality, he does not go from rationality to non-rationality. Now, since Adam’s theoretical parents are only one generation before him, and Adam is the first to have a rational nature, then we can say that his parents have a nature that is *almost* rational, but still non-rational.
@@JoePips07 evolution is about much more than looks. Intelligence and rationality were gained thru evolution. We can see this by looking at the intelligence of dolphins vs goldfish for example. And the fall was ultimately still a net benefit for Adam because he gained rationality that no one else around him had. He still won. Adam could’ve witnessed his cousin kill his other cousin over a dispute just a generation before Cain and Abel.
This lecture was recent? Good gosh! The theology's fine but why spend all this time trying to create a welcoming space for Evolution? Is the lecturer simply the very last person to hear about the demolition of Neo-Darwinian theory that's been underway for some time? And by scientists and mathematicians, not by theologians.
The Evolution of Materiality is in unison with the Evolution of The God-Given consious. If what Thomas Aquinas says that the reason for purpose in all living, is to know GOD, then I would just imagine that Souls need materialiality to understand everything about what living is all about and at every step, we get closer to God. Just a thought.
I am inclined to think that God willed personal life out of the universe but He did not necessarily demand that it should be made of something specific, like be carbon-based or primates or mammals. The universe began to bend towards His will via a path of chance to reach this _telos._ We could have as well emerged as, for example, silicon-based 'birds' as long as we would have been capable of love, knowledge, mind, imagination, memory, intelligence, and will. God laid out the plan to have personhood, but the material execution was left to the forces of the universe. Or I don't know? Something like that.
God sustains everything at every moment!! this happens to be taken for granted , thank you for this great video Einstein could not believe that God takes chances :)
His talk on the chemistry of protein folding is not giving the whole story and is very misleading to those who may not know. It is not anywhere near as simplistic as he makes it out to be. Proteins require enzymes to fold properly. I am shocked he glossed over this though it makes sense if he wants to present Darwinian evolution as « easy peazie ». I encourage anyone reading this to study the extremely complex nature of protein folding and how it must be done very specifically to allow life to exist.
@@goodquestion7915 no it's not, it's just ridiculous to say something like this about God who literally can stop your heart at any moment, yes he wanted to prevent Adam to eat from the tree of life but not because He was "afraid"
Well, it surely is NOT in the theory of evolution! Please go to The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Awesome, orthodox Catholic perspective on all of the concerns re science and evolution theory.
Aquinas copied Aristotle's atheistic ideas and painted over them a thin layer of faithfully poetic and hyperbolic ideas. Daniel Kuebler does the same with Evolution in his rant about Aquinas and his "allowances".
I am no Catholic theologian, just a working stiff trying to know my Catholic Faith from 31 years of reading, listening, and praying/worshipping especially via The Sacraments. I've never heard anyone in The Church speak of Aquina's work in such a degrading manner - except Aquinas himself, after he had a mystical encounter with God Himself. A "thin layer of faithfully poetic and hyperbolic ideas"?! How sadly ignorant (and/or arrogant) of you. Lord have Mercy.
@williamgibson2760 Can you cite any original Aquinas text to support your "learned" opinion? Any solid philosophical ideas (christian dogma is not such) that he didn't copy from Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates? Anything referring to God that uses normal adjectives instead of hyperbole?
@@williamgibson2760 normal adjectives like: real, communiative, available, responsive, effective, etc. Instead of the hyperbolic ones like: all-knowing, all-loving, eternal, mysterious, unfathomable, uncaused-cause, etc.
I think this is a confusion of evolutionism and evolution. To make it short, where is the Flood in their stories? Now, the Flood is confirmed by Jesus Himself and by the first Pope Saint Peter. Matth. 24.38 and 2 Peter 2.5 and 3.6 Serious scientist recognise it in nature.
And if you do not already know this resource - Please go to The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Awesome, orthodox Catholic perspective on all of the concerns re science and evolution theory.
@@williamgibson2760 thanks! But l'm not impressed by authority alone, and i happen to know some mistakes of the Vatican. The Enlightment has introduced many mistakes and perversion over time!!! On the matter the Scripture seems catagoric, and...logic also...
@@michaelbergfeld8751 “authority alone”? God, thru the Jewish & Christian Sacred Scriptures, thru the Incarnation/Life/Death/Resurrection of Jesus Christ, thru Creation, has Revealed Himself and His Authority. The orthodox Teaching of the Catholic Church - which Jesus established - has preserved God’s Revelation to us, despite the MANY flaws from MANY deceived sinners who have held positions of Christ’s Authority but have chosen to step OUTSIDE that Authority in teaching fallacies. Kolbe Center does a great service by working only from the Sacred Deposit of Faith and Revelation, and full use of the precepts of Faith & Reason.
@@williamgibson2760 i don't know what you're aming at but i will consult the site to see what i can say. In any case l'm not in conflict with Church Doctrin. I was in no way surching for a perfect formula. I don't ses and real conflict between Revelation, Church Doctrin, science and philosophy.
AMEN! Please go to The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Awesome, orthodox Catholic perspective on all of the concerns re science and evolution theory.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 360: (…)"from one ancestor (God) made all nations to inhabit the whole earth"(…) This one ancestor is called Adam. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin Mary is the daughter of Adam. Jesus Christ is the son of Mary. He is therefore the son of Adam, the son of Man. Hence, anyone who says that Man is the son of a “hominoid”, also says that our Lord is the son of an… I will not complete this sentence, it would be blasphemy.
I believe that God created the heavens and the Earth in six 24 hour days as the Bible states! Pastor John MacArthur gives a great talk about this Creation He’s on RUclips.
And, for MUCH stronger and deeper than John MacArthur - Please go to The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Awesome, orthodox Catholic perspective on all of the concerns re science and evolution theory.
You can’t have religion and science together. Religion is Faith while Science is evidence based. Science must be free of religion otherwise it’s just biased and just another religion.
Yes and No. and science independent of the Queen of Sciences, Theology, is irrational and without foundational principles. Please go to The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Awesome, orthodox Catholic perspective on all of the concerns re science and evolution theory.
![GEEK TIMË [OFFICIAL AUDIO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ry-6RvkH880/mqdefault.jpg)
![Who Wrote a Short Story That Seriously Disturbed a Teacher? | Dirty Laundry x Smosh [Full Episode]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bvHAy_rKoEI/mqdefault.jpg)
Just can’t get enough of these talks . THANK YOU, WOF .
This is great, thank you. Looking forward to hearing more
At the beginning of the talk, the presenter misstated pope Benedict's statement: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution."
The word is 'casual' not 'causal' as the presenter said. Which makes a very different argument - it is not longer either/or evolution or creationism but lands squarely on the side of purposeful creation.
Yea, I think he just misspoke.
Good job
Science has a lot of faith. Theology is the queen of the sciences from which the other disciplines came from. Modern day scientism is a new religion with many dogmas
It certainly is. Science is supposedly open to revision, until the scientism starts to assert "settled science"
Humans like dogma because it makes things easy. Science is no different from this.
AMEN!
Finally the WOF has already made such a discussion on the Genesis story vs. Evolution from a Catholic perspective.
Great lecture
As a Catholic, I'm not sure how to reconcile evolution and creation. Mainly, if man did come from an evolutionary process, at what point does the soul enter man? If anyone has an insight on this I'd love to hear
You will not get answers in this video. Kuebler fails to mention the aspects of Humani Generis that would call into question his own version of evolution and that of the D.C. Dominicans who he seems aligned with. Kuebler and the D.C. Domincans promote the idea that man's consciousness emerged initially as a kind of proto-sentience which slowly evolved over several generations until there was full consciousness. This is utter nonsense and it does not square with the nature of the soul as the immaterial principle of being of any living animal. Kuebler's version of evolution is just a modified form of polygenism (which is condemned by name in Humani Generis), cloaked in ambiguity.
Didn't God breath life into Adam? Surely that's when.
@@MatthewN07 The soul is not a communist entity. The soul is the form of a "particular" being. Every "particular" human being has an utterly unique soul that is created by God. Your point about Adam is true, but that does not dispel the ambiguity that I mentioned before, in light of what I just stated about the "particular" nature of the soul.
Right when the species Homo sapiens sapiens came into existence about 300,000 to 200,000 years ago.
I think it all comes down to the cognitive revolution. The time when humans started to become conscious of their surroundings.
It almost sounds like he’s describing a deist (or a set and forget) conception of God, or did I miss the part where he explains what active role God plays in the evolutionary process?
I think you have missed the point because of the notion that God is beyond time and that creation or more specifically the cosmos is sustained and enabled constantly. Whitout God (the primary cause of being itself) the cosmos would vanish instantly.
@@piushalg5041 I don't have an issue with God upholding the natural order from which chance operates, I'm just not clear whether he's saying God modifies biological lifeforms along the way when required or whether He always leaves it to chance? Or does he mean chance is actually just God's will at work too?
I actually agree with you. A deist could have made this same presentation and added in the Bible verse at the end. Maybe he wasn’t concerned with the Christian aspect (maybe that was reserved for another session) for this particular session. Would’ve been nice to have some more on how Christianity fits this.
A personal God that seeks to reveal himself through relationships with humans, doesn't necessarily have to interfere with natural processes to create us through evolution.
Yes. You are 100% spot on. It is alarmingly deist and there were several very important topics he glossed over or completely ignored in order to support this worldview. His lecture is not in alignment with the evidence. Reality and all living things require direct intervention and a creative mind in order to have been arranged like this. Neo-Darwinian dogma does not explain what we see, especially as we learn more about life.
The biggest problem for evolution is not how i start perceiving others or my take on life, meaning and purpose, but to produce some valid scientific evidence supporting the claim
Evolution can be observed in insects and bacteria.
@@kevinkelly2162 sorry but cud u explain
@@sonu8034 The good example of insects evolving is the London Underground mosquito. They started life as ordinary mosquitoes but got seperated from the rest when they went underground. A few generations later they were distinct from the mosquitoes outside. They had adapted to life underground. Eventually they were no longer able to breed with the mosquitoes from outside the underground system. It is easy to find in Wikipedia. It is quite a nice story. Bacteria were introduced to antibiotics and most of them died but the ones that lived stayed immune for the antibiotics. Slowly they developed diffeent chacteristics from the original bacteria. This was done in the lab but it happens in hospitals too. That is where we get the multi resistant forms of bacteria that no antibiotics can kill. If you get one of those in a wound you can easily lose an arm or a leg or even your life. Sorry if I haven't explained it so well, I am not a teacher but I am at work and things are starting to get busy here. Cheers.
For a better explanation than I’m capable of, everyone should listen to Father Ripperger’s lectures on evolution and theistic evolution.
I think you’re misunderstanding the claim of evolution, which posits a change of nature within a thing. For example, the idea that a man came from an ape declares a fundamental change in nature, which is why evolution is impossible to accept for skeptics.
Without knowing the details, the mosquito story still presents a coherent situation. The mosquito began as a mosquito and ended the story as a mosquito. It’s nature is still the same and it hasn’t lost any of its “mosquito-ness”. A dog isn’t suddenly a non-dog because two particular breeds cannot copulate and reproduce. Beats may have different accidents (brown bears have brown fur, polar bears have white fur) but that doesn’t mean that the “bear-ness” is lost. Similarly, just because a brown bear has brown fur and I have brown hair doesn’t mean we are now related. These are different philosophical scenarios that demonstrate the bad *arguments* of evolutionists.
At the end of the day, the mosquito story does not present an example of evolution as the theory is presented (long term, one species changing into another, complexity being given from more simple creatures, etc.). It’s rather another case of someone backloading the evidence to fit the claim as opposed to seeing if the claim fits with the evidence.
God bless you all.
@@colejoseph8072 Couple of things: People did not come from apes, people are apes.Bearness is not a word. If you want to talk science, use terms that mean something. The London Underground mosquito is an example of evolution, ie a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Changing the meaning of evolution only shows you do not know what you are talking about. This is AIG standard nonsense that has been explained many times before. You can live in ignorance to protect your indefensible beliefs or you could go read a book. It is your life.
Great content
It’s worth noting that the Bible itself speaks of chance (or “at random”) but we all know God is sovereign and nothing falls outside of His providence. It is definitely a matter of perspective and the language one uses to describe events. I.e., the sun “rising”
Curious! Not sure what he means that "Genesis does not tell us "HOW humans came to be" yet this scripture passage IS clear on the HOW:-
Gen 2:20 ...."then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being".
Just as Gen 1:27 indeed tells us "WHAT we ARE" as humans as the speaker indicated ...."God created mankind in his image;.....".
So why not ACCEPT the same Genesis that tells us HOW he did it?
Exactly! I had to replay that part to make sure I heard him correctly. It literally says in Genesis how humans came to be. I'm confused.
When you crave approval from others, you say crazy things
So in your view did God come down in human form and literally blow air into Adam’s nostrils? This seems clearly symbolic to me
@javiermariscal5712 I believe what the Catholic Church teaches. I.e :-
1) GOD among other great things is omnipresent & omnipotent. Hence in my view he did not have to come down to create unless He wanted to as He chose to incarnate & come down on earth to save & redeem us & show us how to live a Holy life & to fulfill the scriptures in their entirety.
2) The CCC teaches GOD created by his WORD. Gen 1 repeatedly proclaims the same.
3) Throughout Scripture & every year on Ash Wednesday the Church REMINDS us that we " are dust & to dust we shall return".
We all know from experience that every human being except Jesus Christ & certain saints at death starts to degenerate into dust over time.
4) The same Bible & CCC often refers to the Holy Spirit as the "Breath" of GOD among other glorious names.
5) We also know GOD is pure Spirit. But man is a composite of both body & spirit. When we die our bodies return to dust & our spirit lives on either in heaven or hell based on the choices a person made here on earth.
From the above I see no contradiction with the scripture that GOD formed man from the dust & breathed into Him so that man would be a living being. As Jesus himself says in the gospels it is the spirit that gives life & not the body
The CCC is also clear that the faithful are free to believe in theistic & not Darwinian evolution as Fr. Alar informs us in his talk on evolution, so long as it does not contradict any element of faith as an evolutionary process per se does not innately of itself contradict the faith.
Personally, I do NOT believe the non-scientific proposition forced by scientists that humans originated from some monkey/ ape. They have no proof of this at all.
But more importantly, for me, there was no necessity for GOD to make a beast into a human in his image & likeness. A beast is a beast & a human is a human & the difference is NOT the same.
Even Charles Darwin was looking for a transition being from ape to human, but none has ever been found.
Yet Darwin was of the firm opinion that this transition creature was the ONLY thing that could prove the hypothesis that man & ape have one & the same ancestory.
So now you tell me what do you think the passage symbolises?
You should. He is lying. Theistic evolutionists like him will try to deceive you. Biblical scholars all agree Genesis is a narrative (a retelling of historical events). It's a summary of what happened. Each phrase should be taken in the literal unless reason demands otherwise. Because it is a narrative (no poetic language used), take it at face value.
It would’ve been interesting to see some discussion of the theological implications of evolution. One reason evolution is problematic from that perspective is because it requires the death and suffering of many (presumably sentient) creatures before the Fall. That’s my understanding anyway. I would be curious to see how prof Kuebler resolves that tension.
Thank you for acknowledging this
From Catholic Answers:
“…When the Bible speaks of death entering the world through sin (as in Romans 5), it’s talking about human death… Paul’s focus here is on death spreading to men. He’s not talking about the death of animals or plants. Before we look at each of those, let’s take a look at why Adam and Eve were originally intended to be immortal in the first place.”
I agree on what Catholic Answers said, for we can infer from logic that plant and animal death would have already existed. For even if we assume that all animals were previously herbivores, then there would still be plant death (including the death of fruits).
Second, the St. Thomas Aquinas himself says that it is unreasonable to think that all animals were once herbivores then became wild carnivores, because the nature of animals are not changed by man’s sin.
Third, the death of animals and plants is not “evil”. In philosophy, “evil” is a lack of a good in something that ought to have the good by nature. For example, a rock’s inability to see is not an evil, because sight is not a good that belongs to the nature of rocks.
Unlike humans, immortality does not belong to the nature of animals and other non-rational things. God never created them to be immortal. Therefore, their mortality is not an “evil.”
Even the ability to feel pain is not an evil in itself. Because pain serves a vital role in an animal’s survival. Hence, it is a “good” that belongs to the nature of animals.
But of course, as stewards of creation, we humans must take care of animals and plants in such a way that we do not cause them any unreasonable suffering. If we kill animals for food, we must do so in a reasonable and humane manner.
@@JoePips07 Adam would’ve been born of a mother who raised him and took care of him. His mother would not be an unrecognizable animal compared to him. That’s not how evolution works. She was only one generation removed. She would have been like him in every way. He might’ve had aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers, sisters, etc. too. What would his relationship have been like with them? Once he lost his immortality, what’s the big deal? He basically just went back to the same state as everyone he ever knew.
@@thescoobymike You are mistaken.
Immortality is not the sole difference between Adam and his theoretical immediate ancestors. The main difference is Adam’s possession of a *rational nature* and this makes him a moral creature.
So even if Adam were to lose his immortality, he would still retain his rational nature, which differentiates him from his lesser-evolved non-rational parents. Even if we assume that his immediate lesser-evolved descendants were to look very similar to him, their non-rational nature makes the difference.
Thus, Adam would “not go back the same state as everyone he knew.” For even if he went from immortality to mortality, he does not go from rationality to non-rationality.
Now, since Adam’s theoretical parents are only one generation before him, and Adam is the first to have a rational nature, then we can say that his parents have a nature that is *almost* rational, but still non-rational.
@@JoePips07 evolution is about much more than looks. Intelligence and rationality were gained thru evolution. We can see this by looking at the intelligence of dolphins vs goldfish for example. And the fall was ultimately still a net benefit for Adam because he gained rationality that no one else around him had. He still won. Adam could’ve witnessed his cousin kill his other cousin over a dispute just a generation before Cain and Abel.
*0:44* the answer to the question asked here is “both”
Chance and Contingency are not the same. Avicenna uses contingency effectively in his postulate for God.
I wondered about this and will look it up for study further. Thank you for bringing this to light.
The sooner scientists reject evolution the better for science.
AMEN!
This lecture was recent? Good gosh! The theology's fine but why spend all this time trying to create a welcoming space for Evolution? Is the lecturer simply the very last person to hear about the demolition of Neo-Darwinian theory that's been underway for some time? And by scientists and mathematicians, not by theologians.
The Evolution of Materiality is in unison with the Evolution of The God-Given consious. If what Thomas Aquinas says that the reason for purpose in all living, is to know GOD, then I would just imagine that Souls need materialiality to understand everything about what living is all about and at every step, we get closer to God. Just a thought.
Seems the recent understanding of DNA destroys the theory of evolution yet we see people talk about evolution as if it were fact.
Not just fact but dogma... even when we have to make assumptions not itself supported by evidence
Please elaborate, I'm interested. Thanks!
What are you referring to sounds interesting
AMEN!
I am inclined to think that God willed personal life out of the universe but He did not necessarily demand that it should be made of something specific, like be carbon-based or primates or mammals. The universe began to bend towards His will via a path of chance to reach this _telos._ We could have as well emerged as, for example, silicon-based 'birds' as long as we would have been capable of love, knowledge, mind, imagination, memory, intelligence, and will. God laid out the plan to have personhood, but the material execution was left to the forces of the universe.
Or I don't know? Something like that.
God sustains everything at every moment!! this happens to be taken for granted , thank you for this great video Einstein could not believe that God takes chances :)
His talk on the chemistry of protein folding is not giving the whole story and is very misleading to those who may not know. It is not anywhere near as simplistic as he makes it out to be. Proteins require enzymes to fold properly. I am shocked he glossed over this though it makes sense if he wants to present Darwinian evolution as « easy peazie ». I encourage anyone reading this to study the extremely complex nature of protein folding and how it must be done very specifically to allow life to exist.
3:54 Doesn't it say in Genesis how humans came to be? Or am i reading Genesis wrong? I'm confused
It also says in Genesis 3:22 that Yahweh was afraid of Adam and Eve, and that's why they were expelled.
It does. Theistic evolutionists make things up to fit their belief in evolution.
@@goodquestion7915 It says nowhere that He was afraid, it would makes no sense
@aperson2368 did you read it?
He wanted to act swiftly to prevent Adam from taking from the Tree of Life.
That is a "shaking in the knees" reaction.
@@goodquestion7915 no it's not, it's just ridiculous to say something like this about God who literally can stop your heart at any moment, yes he wanted to prevent Adam to eat from the tree of life but not because He was "afraid"
Not just here but why does everybody make such long videos with so much repetition ?
If god is outside of time, he knows who is going to hell. So where is free will in it?
Foreknowledge does not interfere with free will. Whether someone knows of something or not does not mean that they directly caused it to happen.
Well, it surely is NOT in the theory of evolution! Please go to The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Awesome, orthodox Catholic perspective on all of the concerns re science and evolution theory.
Aquinas copied Aristotle's atheistic ideas and painted over them a thin layer of faithfully poetic and hyperbolic ideas. Daniel Kuebler does the same with Evolution in his rant about Aquinas and his "allowances".
I am no Catholic theologian, just a working stiff trying to know my Catholic Faith from 31 years of reading, listening, and praying/worshipping especially via The Sacraments. I've never heard anyone in The Church speak of Aquina's work in such a degrading manner - except Aquinas himself, after he had a mystical encounter with God Himself. A "thin layer of faithfully poetic and hyperbolic ideas"?! How sadly ignorant (and/or arrogant) of you. Lord have Mercy.
@williamgibson2760 Can you cite any original Aquinas text to support your "learned" opinion? Any solid philosophical ideas (christian dogma is not such) that he didn't copy from Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates? Anything referring to God that uses normal adjectives instead of hyperbole?
@@goodquestion7915 “normal adjectives” such as……?
@@williamgibson2760 normal adjectives like: real, communiative, available, responsive, effective, etc.
Instead of the hyperbolic ones like: all-knowing, all-loving, eternal, mysterious, unfathomable, uncaused-cause, etc.
I think this is a confusion of evolutionism and evolution. To make it short, where is the Flood in their stories? Now, the Flood is confirmed by Jesus Himself and by the first Pope Saint Peter. Matth. 24.38 and 2 Peter 2.5 and 3.6 Serious scientist recognise it in nature.
And if you do not already know this resource - Please go to The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Awesome, orthodox Catholic perspective on all of the concerns re science and evolution theory.
@@williamgibson2760 thanks! But l'm not impressed by authority alone, and i happen to know some mistakes of the Vatican. The Enlightment has introduced many mistakes and perversion over time!!! On the matter the Scripture seems catagoric, and...logic also...
@@michaelbergfeld8751 “authority alone”? God, thru the Jewish & Christian Sacred Scriptures, thru the Incarnation/Life/Death/Resurrection of Jesus Christ, thru Creation, has Revealed Himself and His Authority. The orthodox Teaching of the Catholic Church - which Jesus established - has preserved God’s Revelation to us, despite the MANY flaws from MANY deceived sinners who have held positions of Christ’s Authority but have chosen to step OUTSIDE that Authority in teaching fallacies. Kolbe Center does a great service by working only from the Sacred Deposit of Faith and Revelation, and full use of the precepts of Faith & Reason.
@@williamgibson2760 i don't know what you're aming at but i will consult the site to see what i can say. In any case l'm not in conflict with Church Doctrin. I was in no way surching for a perfect formula. I don't ses and real conflict between Revelation, Church Doctrin, science and philosophy.
So that's an intersting site. The most outstanding- but very hard to believe for most scientist -is Fernand Crombette, Ceshe.
What a silly and explanation. Why is Genesis not regarded…. !!!
AMEN! Please go to The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Awesome, orthodox Catholic perspective on all of the concerns re science and evolution theory.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 360: (…)"from one ancestor (God) made all nations to inhabit the whole earth"(…)
This one ancestor is called Adam. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin Mary is the daughter of Adam.
Jesus Christ is the son of Mary. He is therefore the son of Adam, the son of Man.
Hence, anyone who says that Man is the son of a “hominoid”, also says that our Lord is the son of an…
I will not complete this sentence, it would be blasphemy.
I believe that God created the heavens and the Earth in six 24 hour days as the Bible states!
Pastor John MacArthur gives a great talk about this Creation He’s on RUclips.
He’s a Protestant and misrepresents Catholicism. Also a Calvinist.
And, for MUCH stronger and deeper than John MacArthur - Please go to The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Awesome, orthodox Catholic perspective on all of the concerns re science and evolution theory.
Nonsensical
You can’t have religion and science together. Religion is Faith while Science is evidence based. Science must be free of religion otherwise it’s just biased and just another religion.
Science isn't biased without it? How often do we not see outside the cave?
You can have both.
Yes and No. and science independent of the Queen of Sciences, Theology, is irrational and without foundational principles. Please go to The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Awesome, orthodox Catholic perspective on all of the concerns re science and evolution theory.
@word-on-fire