The Theory of Evolution: How To Be An Atheist (Part 2) - Apologetics Series - Episode 3

[@edgarcia4521]

I'm an SSPX parishioner from Mexico. Our little chapel (a couple hundred faithful) is actually a mission, so we've had excellent SSPX priests from all over the world: France, Colombia, Philippines, Belgium, United Kingdom, Guatemala, and of course our own Mexican priests, and all of them have taught us the literal interpretation of Genesis and thus the young age of our Earth. God bless our traditional priests! ¡Viva Cristo Rey!

[@flaviofreire7449]

This priest has done a remarkable job and the themes in which he has participated have exposed crucial themes that demonstrate the degradation of society without the true and traditional principles of Catholicism, thank you very much Father Robinson...

[@Felatay]

You guys really need to do sound checks before recording these. This is brutal. An idea as a back up-- have Father record in his phone (just sitting beside him) during the conversation and if your audio is crap like this, you have a backup recording.

[@Felatay]

I cannot do this for an hour... Think I'll just reread this section in Reality Guide

[@narragarrathunder-rider8146]

One of my all time favorite films is entitled, "Inherit The Wind." It's still as relevant today as it was all those years ago!

[@juliawinston9270]

One of my least favorites, a movie that distorts the real story and goes out of its way to make the creationist look like a fool.

[@ladyindira]

Thank Fr.Paul the exploration of this Topic that is much needed! And also for providing other links and materials for us to look at. Can't wait for the next episode. 🙏🏽

[@denise-kc6lk]

Traced is a wonderful book as well as utube videos on recent’ discoveries on man and origin worth watching

[@greyhoundmama2062]

Awesome talk! I have been trying figure out how to get to an SSPX center, there is not one close to me. I am so so so tired of the worldview of fellow Catholics in the Novus Ordo. They all believe in evolution like a religion. It's like they don't think things through. If man "evolved" from apes, then there is no Adam and Eve, no fall from grace, no original sin, no need for a Savior. These are not atheists, but they subscribe to a belief that is at core, Anti-Christ.

[@williammcenaney1331]

Some apostolates insist that Lateran IV requires Catholics to believe young-earth creationism. But read pages 93-95 in "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" will tell you that Catholic doctrine is compatible with theistic evolution. Dr. Ludwig Ott, that book's author, believes thinks the story about six days in Genesis 1-3 is a literary device. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer convinced me that Darwin's theory is false. But I'm willing to study any theory that may replace it.

[@RodrigoVCotta]

Just a friendly warning that this video is in the wrong order on the playlist. Thank you for your work.

[@karlthomas2429]

If there were a variety of finches of different sized beaks existing in the same moment, then how could changes have occurred over time to produce these different types. Were there four or more severe environmental issues occurring at the same time and each species chose to alter their beak lengths to survive those issues? This seems extremely improbable if not impossible.

[@thehowlingjoker]

No, rather the populations adapted to different purposes, likely driven by competition. If they diversify in a ways as to reduce their competition for food (by being able to eat foods otherwise not accessible) then that diversity is likely to cement itself in the population.

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

Sigh Evolution presupposes variation in order to work in the first place. Not all variation is the result of natural selection. Natural selection actually funnels more variation into less, thus giving a direction to the development of life. Variation is never entirely eliminated; it is just pushed into different directions by the environment. I have a massive bias towards creationism now since it would be much more convenient, so I wish people on my side would come up with better arguments.

[@joseaguilarv8706]

How old is the earth? Millions of years or thousands of years?

[@JMJMeshel]

Did Fr. Say, "The church has never been opposed to the theory of evolution." ? Is that true? I thought the church had clear teaching that the world was created in 6, 24-hour days.

[@PadraigTomas]

The Baltimore Catechism states that Catholic doctrine "requires belief in the immediate creation of Adam's soul, in the image of God." Though that document is critical of evolution it allows that if it were acknowledged to be valid it would be a process that is present due to the well ordered nature of the universe which owes its nature to the act of an intelligent creator. Such is my understanding. Regarding the understanding of the days of creation I can confidently say that your notion of Catholic opinion on the question is simply wrong. Saint Augustine, over fifteen hundred years ago, asserted that "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" See page 350 of the Modern Library edition of that work.

[@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh]

This comment is admittedly not germane to the actual content of the video, but recently i have become confused about how and why human souls come into existence if their conception occurs during acts of sexual sin. It seems almost as if the sinful act forces God's hand, as it were, which is of course an absolutely absurd notion.

[@katolikkreacija3828]

Literally all the Catholic Fathers of the Church, except St. Augustine, wrote that it was about the literal 24-hour days of Creation. ​

[@plotinus393]

@@katolikkreacija3828 they also believed in geocentrism

[@automotivated5934]

Is it fear, hatred for any Patriarchal mapping of life or inability to comprehend an omnipotent being that leads atheists to place humanity at the pinnacle? You don’t need God? I don’t have proof that can be presented to a non believer if they’re unwilling to delve into it with me. But the hubris one must have to claim they don’t need God is astounding. What do you need exactly? Do we really know what we need, or want for that matter?

[@Ripplenator]

I've always referred to the variations on a physiological theme as the "economy of design".

[@narragarrathunder-rider8146]

Fr. Paul kept referring to "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" The multiple fields of scientific research have discovered verifiable evolutionary processes which allows for exponential advancements since the publication of "The Origin of Species."

[@CharlesEllis-u7s]

Fr. makes a very interesting argument regarding God refining aspects of his creation (e.g., Chimpanzees and Humans). I wonder if he would use the same argument for the difference between Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and Homo Sapiens, for example.

[@karlthomas2429]

Also, understand that very nearly all life must have another form of life to feed upon to survive. Some species will only feed on one specific species or use only one specific species to reproduce. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of micro machines in every living cell. All of this points to an intelligent creator.

[@JMJMeshel]

That's true, and if there was nothing to feed upon, then it would consume itself and cease to exist.

[@johnhammond6423]

Do you think almost without exception all of the worlds evolutionarily scientists today are all lying to you?

[@thehowlingjoker]

The idea of irreducible complexity was proven false in a court of law and is rarely used even today outside of the influence of Behe.

[@benjaminasbury5346]

I believe you're forgetting that lots of life feeds on the sun

[@robertcross9047]

I would say a better way to tackle evolution would not be at the order of material analysis, since the assembly of complex systems with interaction with other systems could in theory happen even if they are insanely complex, rather one approaches the question of teleology and its implication in reason itself. Such that epistemology exists, therefore teleology is necessitated by this truth. The objection being that epistemology is convention, to which you can simply answer "if logic, reason are merely convention and we cannot know we know, then you cannot assert that you cannot know you know as that is a knowledge claim." Wherein their claims of evolution necessitate epistemology, which necessitates teleology. Therefore we can conclude God is the author of the created order because epistemology, teleology requires further justification other than in itself, so we transcendentally appeal to God. Or alternatively we may use the Thomist method then to state the explanation of act from potency and the only ontological explanation for that would be God as classically understood in Theism, wherein act and potency also assume telos, epistemology. In sciences as far as I understand, there exist complex systems which "evolve" subject to some statistical process of change. This is somewhat the premise of machine learning. Therefore to note the complexity of the organism is not going to defeat the evolutionist argument, rather to note the necessary teleology deriving from their assumed epistemological coherence to assert x is y (evolution is true) leads to an absolutely simple essence with specific ontology asserted by the church. The reason teleology is necessary from this is that there is no way to justify epistemology without self contradiction or reductio ad absurdum without assuming God's ontology. Furthermore, we can also assert that potency in itself necessitates telos, as what is not actualized is not instantiated, but the being of the universe if it was utterly random would not have matter in potency to be actualized, rather there would be an absurdist proposition wherein there is no chain of potency to act but merely act, hence why we see atheists often assert "well the universe just is". To that we can simply say that which is asserted without reason can be rejected without reason, and following this therefore epistemology is real and telos must be as well. One last point I'd add is criticizing Darwin when going after evolution is not really addressing the modern claims of the evolutionist. In that the proposed theory of darwin has been very much modified in the modern times. Really what one ought to look at here is the corresponding random mutation probability and how they derive it for various species, or amalgamate it in averages across speciation boundary, and how they can assert this without first assuming laws of logic which underlie mathematical structure which they use to analyze material systems. At least that's how I tackle the material science aspect of it. The metaphysical approach is still imo vastly superior because it doesn't require one to really learn any evolutionary biology, merely shows the implications of creation and their relation to any process.

[@Stabu]

I was hoping for a discussion on how the theory of evolution doesn't contradict the existence of god seen through the catholic lens. Instead this discussion went into weird discussions about Darwin and how he was incorrect on certain items. Look, if you look at Newton or Einstein and start analyzing their work you'll find many things that are erroneous in our current scientific understanding. There's very little point looking at the work of someone (like Darwin) who died 150 years ago, and seek faults in it according to our current understanding of things.

[@marceloribeirosimoes8959]

A catholic can acomodate idols, worship to a woman an call it no idolatry. Why would a catholic feel to be wrong believing in evolution theory...?

[@westtex3675]

Yea, I saw some of Michael Behe’s youtube videos about the concept of the mousetrap, which was interesting. I think Douglas Axe mentions similar things in his book ‘Undeniable’. He is a molecular biologist who wasn’t motivated by anything with religion, but was reaching similar conclusions about the fatal flaws in Darwin’s theories, and how large changes were impossible.

[@debrasaints3809]

With Pope Francis claiming that the book of Genesis is a “myth” and wasn’t really the “first” book of the Bible. (One of his most recent statements) If that’s not bad enough, he has repeatedly stated that the Ten Commandments are not God’s laws, but, merely “suggestions” for us to follow. Those statements open the “wide” door to perdition. The Genesis statement can be found on Kennedy Hall’s Kennedy Reports. He reads the actual interview of the Pope, which is in Spanish, then perfectly translates it.

[@sagalahbarakyam1512]

Correction: Nehemiah & Ezra didn't teach together as found in the book of Nehemiah 8th chapter that was quoted. These books reinforce and overlap one another in the exile and reconstruction of the temple and restoration of Israel.

[@JMJMeshel]

At minute 125, Father states that "animal breeders can produce a new species of dogs". Does he mean new breeds? Wouldn't a new species be a mix from one species, like canine to another like feline?

[@narragarrathunder-rider8146]

I have a problem with many things The Good Father stated!

[@conniesad7]

We're in a place in history we're the elites have convinced us that carbon is bad and electric everything is better than wood heat, forgetting where electricity comes from . We have lost all critical thought

[@brookecrissman9586]

Hello! I know it may be difficult to get around to all the questions people comment, but I thought I’d throw this one out there in the hopes it’d get answered by father. You discuss the almost non-existent chance that the innate succession of nature would produce proteins and therefore life, but let’s say there’s an odd chance it did happen by chance. Would it be wrong to still say that it is possible for God to orient the universe in such a way to produce that innate succession? So, it would still be possible for God to set forth the dominos necessary for nature to produce proteins. It seems that this would also be a sort of “checkmate” against atheists, but I am not sure if this goes against catholic theology in some way. Thanks!

[@SSPX]

Hi, Brooke, basically what I am saying is that our knowledge of the complexity of all forms of life and what would be necessary for nature to build life randomly shows us that there is no chance of it happening. We try to express things in mathematical proportions to show how preposterous it is. What those proportions are saying is that this cannot happen in nature by an unguided process. Even the proportions that we come up with are hopelessly optimistic because they always reduce in some way the complexity of the problem. This is why I tell Andrew that there is no chance when he asks about this very question at minute 31:00. -Fr. Robinson

[@brookecrissman9586]

@@SSPX thank you! I appreciate your response!

[@lollmaowtf]

@@SSPX You would have to know the probability of the individual steps required for the development of life, as well as the number of places where they could occur in the universe. Since nobody knows either of these numbers it's meaningless to talk about odds.

[@brookecrissman9586]

⁠@@SSPXhello again! I have another question that I’m curious about if fr. or anyone has the time to answer! I have an undergraduate degree in biology with a minor in chemistry, and I have recently begun to devote myself to traditional Catholicism due to its logical nature. Because of my educational background, this aspect of Christianity is especially of interest to me. While the gaps in Darwin’s and neo-darwinists’ theory make sense to me, I seemed to have gotten lost on the perspective that Catholics should take on evolution as a whole. In my mind, the “nature-based” theory of evolution appears to present issues that nature alone could not overcome, but there are still abundant signs of micro evolution left and right. Is it wrong to have a sort of “God-based” theory of evolution, or is this also something the church doesn’t support. Basically, if god were there to perfectly orchestrate the entirety of evolution (again, not relying just on nature) could this be a stance I could ethically take as a catholic. Thank you!

[@narragarrathunder-rider8146]

@@SSPX Are you aware that over 90% of all life forms that existed on Earth are now extinct? Are you aware that some Homo Sapiens sapiens share DNA with Neanderthals?

[@39knights]

Not only are ONLY left-handed amino acids necessary for life; but if you create a pool of left-handed amino acids outside of a cell; a number of them will suddenly flip to become right-handed in their orientation until the mix becomes 50/50. Apparently the best that has been acheived is 20% pure left-handed bonds and could not get them to remain left-handed. So in Nature it would be impossible to get a pure left-handed mix to be able to create a viable cell.

[@talkingwhateverwednesday]

Wow. That's a misleading title.

[@joan5856]

The Pope is denying the 10 Commandments. Is the Pope the Pastor of the Church or not! ?

[@arthurdevain754]

Evolutionists depend totally upon a circular mode of thinking that goes: If "Evolution" is true then God doesn't need to exist, and if there is no God, then "Evolution" MUST be true! You can make an Evolutionist very uncomfortable by asking about the "Cambrian Explosion!"

[@johnhammond6423]

_'You can make an Evolutionist very uncomfortable by asking about the "Cambrian Explosion!'_ No you can't. The Cambrian Explosion was not a literal explosion. It was a relatively short amount of time in evolutionarily terms [about 30 million years] when many life forms evolved from simple multi-cell life forms into the diversity of life we see today.

[@jacobwilbers9852]

Na, you just live in a echo chamber when you watch channels like this they delete all comments that disagree. God is circular reasoning based the argument you just gave. If God is true, then evolution does not need to exist.

[@thehowlingjoker]

The Cambrian explosion doesn't make me uncomfortable, there is plenty of literature released to peer-review discussing the punctuated proliferation of diversity. Also no. Evolution isn't a circular argument for atheism, it doesn't even make claims on religion or Gods. It simply explains biodiversity by population mechanics. The uncomfortable truth is that the majority of people in the west accept evolution, and this includes even the religious. The majority of Christians accept evolution, and many pf the leading experts in the field are themselves Christian. Evolution is not a position that argues against God, at most it argues against a literal interpretation of scripture, which is an increasingly dwindling minority.

[@lmoelleb]

If evolution is false, a god might not exist. If evolution is true, there might be one or more gods. Why do you think one follows from the other?

[@westtex3675]

& even if the mechanism had the capability, the odds of the necessary things coincidentally happening by accident are so astronomically low in the limited time period that the atheist scientists have taking to theorizing about millions of alternate universes, just to make the odds look less infinitesimally small.

[@fernandosascomanrique2834]

This video is not in the Apologetics playlist, just thought you should know 👍🏼

[@judica8873]

NO, don't read CS Lewis' essays.

[@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh]

Could you explain WHY one should not read his essays? I for one found "The Problem of Pain" very helpful...

[@keithnicholas]

This guy obviously doesn't know any of the modern science. Not to mention he says things that aren't even claimed by science. The reality is, there are a number of ways we can see that could lead "non life" to become "life". The first thing to remember is "non life" isn't static or stagnant, everything is dynamic all the time, constantly changing and forming and reforming structures. We won't ever be able to say how it happened on earth as there isn't a record or any way that one could've been preserved. But we can reproduce in a lab how RNA can come from organic molecules. Then once you get self-replicating molecules, they have a curious behavior, they get more and more complex, complexity just keeps increasing and finding equilibriums.

[@swmathus8176]

You said "But we can reproduce in a lab how RNA can come from organic molecules". Do you know what organic means? I'll save you some time. Organic means "of, relating to, or derived from living organisms." quoted from merrian-webster. What you are describing is exactly what was said in the video.

[@top8305]

@about the 30 minute mark, you under-emphasize and poorly/inaccurately explain the significance of the necessity of the simultaneous existence of DNA and RNA. The “chicken and the egg” analogy is a horrid and incongruent one, as RNA could not exist without DNA and vice versa - they both have to exist in order for either to exist, a necessary/requisite symbiosis which disproves evolutionary random generation ballyhoo. “D-“

[@stoned_]

The argument’s to fallacy this guy proposes are out the wazzoo. Clickbait title. Intellectual dishonesty. I can’t dig it.

[@edukaeshn]

People who ask for proof of God and believe in evolution are both hilarious and horrifying.