A Few Questions (About Evolution)

[SpiritMeadow]

Catholics live in both the physical, science-can-study-it world AND in spiritual communion with God. What part of that don’t you get?

**Now you are getting rude. All people live in a physical and spiritual world. What is your point? I cook meals and pray at the same time. Every individual in one fashion or another is ever blending the two, some more consciously than others. **

Anyone who says that science is over there while religion is over here is missing the entire point. We are physical science-can-study-it human beings and spiritual beings, in one. Got it?

Yes, can you get it that we don’t blend them in study? I don’t study cooking and God’s blessings of plant life in my cookbook. My cookbook has recipes in it and sticks to cooking. Cooks aren’t necessarily smart about God. Theologians mostly can’t teach me to cook. But I can be both cook and amateur theologian, yet I don’t use one to inform the other. Got it?

Both come together in one place. We worship God but we do not worship science.

**They come together in the Church where they are supposed to. **

Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Everyone should ask themselves what the primary driving force of atheism is. Nothing? Or evolution?
**I’m afraid you have an erroneous idea that atheism started with darwin. You most assuredly are wrong in this assumption. **
I contend that anyone who works for a major organization who makes any claims about human origins is rightly regarded as speaking for the entire organization. Professor Dawkins is not speaking in a vacuum, especially in the United States where the “popular” media presents mostly immoral fare and the Christian is the primary target of individuals wrongly referred to as ‘comedians.’
**Now that’s absurd on its face. A house page works for Congress, does the page speak for Congress? does a teacher speak for the school system? a doctor for her hospital? See Ed, you get all upset and now its about the nasty tv shows and bad comedians…you’ve slipped off to a rant about your unfavorite things again. I find Dawkins remarks silly and beneath bothering with, however he does have a right to speak as any individual does subject to very narrow limits. Would you have it otherwise Ed? **

My view of evolution related science is that it has been corrupted and is being used as an ideological tool. Its value as science is also highly questionable.

**Yes we know, except of course that you have said 8 times that some form of evolution might have indeed happened. Would you impose some lock on science so it could only be done/used by those you deem theologically correct? **

Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

Everyone should ask themselves what the primary driving force of atheism is. Nothing? Or evolution?

I contend that anyone who works for a major organization who makes any claims about human origins is rightly regarded as speaking for the entire organization. Professor Dawkins is not speaking in a vacuum, especially in the United States where the “popular” media presents mostly immoral fare and the Christian is the primary target of individuals wrongly referred to as ‘comedians.’

My view of evolution related science is that it has been corrupted and is being used as an ideological tool. Its value as science is also highly questionable.

God bless,
Ed

Ed ed ed, you are singing a-tisket a-tasket afraid you are going to loose your basket of pretty yellow flowers. I’ve said this before, two of my best lady friends that are Catholics married Catholic men who don’t believe in God. This doesn’t stop the men from loving their wives nor their kids and vice versa. They aren’t monsters or evil men because they don’t believe in God.! As far as Dawkins goes, he recently claimed that he is a cultural Christian and said to a BBC reporter on December 10, 2007 :

*"I’m not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.

"This is historically a Christian country. I’m a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.

"So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I’m not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

“If there’s any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists.” *

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm

He sings XMas carols. “*Silent night, holy night, all is calm…”*That is good news!

As far as your comment Ed, “My view of evolution related science is that it has been corrupted and is being used as an ideological tool. Its value as science is also highly questionable.” Ed, you need to read the topic THANK GOD FOR EVOLUTION!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199764&page=42
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199764&page=42

 

[edwest2]

“cultural Christian”? He puts God on the same level as Santa Claus? And denies God? And the “Christian” part would be what?

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

If one accepts this limitation to knowing, the conclusion we come to on the origins of existence and human life is that it was all an accident.

Well, not an accident, since natural selection isn’t random. But I get your point. Fortunately, methodological naturalism does not and cannot make such a claim to exclusivity. So scientists can be unscientific and avail themselves of other means of knowing. And there’s nothing at all wrong with that. The error some make is in assuming that the methodological naturalism of science is also ontologically naturalistic.

While we can observe nothing, not a single thing, in the entire universe that is without cause,

Even virtual particles require the quantum vacuum, although they are entirely random.

(on skeptics)

Biological evolution affirms his delusion.

As did physics or the existence of evil, or any of thousands of other things. If one is so inclined. I am willing to allow that there might be things that are true, that we should hide, but I see no evidence that this is one of them.

Having studied and taught at various schools over a long time, I can tell you that there is this problem; when people raised to believe a literal interpretation of Genesis is a Christian doctrine, learn that it can’t possibly be true, they often go through a crisis of faith, from which not all of them emerge as believers.

That said, what can the study of evolution gain you?

It has greatly enriched my faith, as I am constantly amazed at a Creator who could produce such complicated and beautiful things with such simple rules.

Oh, and it has applications in agronomy, animal husbandry, antibiotic protocols, and other areas. Science isn’t supposed to be practical, but evolutionary theory often has surprising applications.

 

[edwest2]

“Science isn’t supposed to be practical…”? Science is about solving problems, usually for consumers and the military.

Evolution is a stumbling block to those with no faith, some faith or a lot of faith. If some form of evolution occurred, and Pope Benedict states there is evidence for this, only by divine providence could it have gotten anywhere. The evolution taught in school textbooks - mutation, genetic drift and natural selection - is inadequate and incomplete. But it is presented as complete and purely naturalistic.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

“Science isn’t supposed to be practical…”? Science is about solving problems, usually for consumers and the military.
Ed

No it’s not. Science is the ONLY efficacious way we have to discover how the natural world works. Science is about discovering truth about nature. Of course there are practical applications of science (that is called technology), but that is not the basic motivation for doing science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Truthinator]

TO THE CREATIONISTS IN THIS THREAT, THE OP ASKED US ABOUT THEISTIC EVOLUTION, SO WERE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS TE THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF TE, NOT EVOLUTION VS WHATEVER. DO NOT HIGHJACK THIS TREAD.

Thanks for your gallant attempt…

I like your ideas concerning the advantageous position of a particular Adam/Eve couple eventually coming to replace the gene pool. It seems highly plausible.

While I admit, I know very little, it occurs to me the level of connection that a man and woman in today’s society have to have before being ready for a life-long commitment. When pondering this, I couldn’t help but wonder if the Adam and Eve’s children simply could not bring themselves to “mate” with a soulless humanoid. For me personally, there has to be a certain connection on an intellectual and spiritual level, and I can’t help but feel that this is generally the case when searching for a spouse, or, in this case more properly, a partner.

Thanks a lot. I want very badly answers. But God is slowly showing me that he’s enough.

His instruments (for this is truly what I believe evolution to be) put me in awe. His craftsmanship amazes me. I once had a former teacher, a devout Christian and memeber of the Church of Christ demon, tell me, “You simply can’t convince me that all this came from some primordial slime!” I at the time had no real opinion on Darwin (except what my peers, mostly Baptists, had to say). But I have since thought, “Perhaps this arising from something as repulsive in our finite minds as ‘primordial slime’ is one of the greatest miracles of all… Perhaps it’s just God being God, and taking little and making a lot, taking the chaos and giving it order, taking the shapeless and barren world and turning it into an Eden of sorts…”

 

[wildleafblower]

“cultural Christian”? He puts God on the same level as Santa Claus? And denies God? And the “Christian” part would be what?

God bless,
Ed
wildleafblower;3083035:

Ed ed ed, you are singing a-tisket a-tasket afraid you are going to loose your basket of pretty yellow flowers. I’ve said this before, two of my best lady friends that are Catholics married Catholic men who don’t believe in God. This doesn’t stop the men from loving their wives nor their kids and vice versa. They aren’t monsters or evil men because they don’t believe in God.! As far as Dawkins goes, he recently claimed that he is a cultural Christian and said to a BBC reporter on December 10, 2007 :

*"I’m not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.

"This is historically a Christian country. I’m a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.

"So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I’m not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

“If there’s any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists.” *

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

He sings XMas carols. “*Silent night, holy night, all is calm…”*That is good news!

As far as your comment Ed, “My view of evolution related science is that it has been corrupted and is being used as an ideological tool. Its value as science is also highly questionable.” Ed, you need to read the topic THANK GOD FOR EVOLUTION!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199764&page=42
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199764&page=42

Ed, you ask silly questions. Dawkins doesn’t believe in God but does believe in Jesus.

 

[edwest2]

And who would he say Jesus is?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Sideline]

Everyone should ask themselves what the primary driving force of atheism is. Nothing? Or evolution?

Are you actually saying that atheism is less than 150 years old? Wake up and smell the coffee.

I contend that anyone who works for a major organization who makes any claims about human origins is rightly regarded as speaking for the entire organization.

So I, as a baptized Catholic, am rightly regarded as speaking for the entire Catholic Church? Excellent! Masturbation, artificial birth control, and female priests are all fine now!

I’m Catholic so it counts! Or do I have to actually be paid by the Catholic Church? Does that mean that any citizen of a country speaks for the entire country?

Professor Dawkins is not speaking in a vacuum, especially in the United States where the “popular” media presents mostly immoral fare and the Christian is the primary target of individuals wrongly referred to as ‘comedians.’

An Oxford University professor is responsible for the poor quality of media in the U.S.? So what if he isn’t speaking in a vacuum.

My view of evolution related science is that it has been corrupted and is being used as an ideological tool. Its value as science is also highly questionable.

Actually, the only people who question it’s value as science are the ones so blinded by their own ideology that they won’t actually study it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

“Science isn’t supposed to be practical…”? Science is about solving problems, usually for consumers and the military.

**No, science desires to know how the physical world operates. Those who fund science sometimes demand that science provide practical usages of its discoveries. But science is not about being practical at all. Much of science has no particular practicality at this time. **

Evolution is a stumbling block to those with no faith, some faith or a lot of faith.

**I submit it is a stumbling block to those of some faith. That is clearly not the fault of science per se. Those of a lot of faith are not afraid of science and see no conflict. Those of no faith have no stumbling block at all. **
If some form of evolution occurred, and Pope Benedict states there is evidence for this, only by divine providence could it have gotten anywhere.

**At that makes it 11 times now you have agreed that evolution in some manner is correct. **

The evolution taught in school textbooks - mutation, genetic drift and natural selection - is inadequate and incomplete. But it is presented as complete and purely naturalistic.

Yawn. Can you ever come up with a real argument ? So what?

Ed

 

[Filius99993]

Evolution + Catholic Church =

But don’t pay any attention to Richard Dawkins. He’s just an poor, angry man without grounding.

 

[The_Barbarian]

“Science isn’t supposed to be practical…”?

That’s right. The point of science is knowledge, not application. It’s wonderful that it has useful applications, but that isn’t why we do it. You might be surprised that mathematics isn’t supposed to be practical either.

Science is about solving problems, usually for consumers and the military.

No, that’s engineering, the application of science to practical problems. Engineers, God bless 'em, take scientific discoveries and find useful applications for them.

Evolution is a stumbling block to those with no faith, some faith or a lot of faith.

I know you’d like us to believe this, but the evidence demonstrates otherwise. In fact, YE creationism is a very efficient atheist-maker.

If some form of evolution occurred, and Pope Benedict states there is evidence for this,

In fact, he says that common descent of all living things is “virtually certain.”

The evolution taught in school textbooks - mutation, genetic drift and natural selection - is inadequate and incomplete.

If you mean it’s not an adequate replacement for the Bible and faith, you’re right. But it isn’t meant to be.

[quoteBut it is presented as complete and purely naturalistic.
[/quote]

So is physics, and all of science. It’s only about the natural world. Do you have a point?

 

[edwest2]

No it’s not. Science is the ONLY efficacious way we have to discover how the natural world works. Science is about discovering truth about nature. Of course there are practical applications of science (that is called technology), but that is not the basic motivation for doing science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I stongly disagree. As someone who studies the history of scientific invention, the military and industry are the primary beneficiaries of any science. It is false to believe that science is done by unpaid individuals. Money has to be made in any enterprise or it stops.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

That’s right. The point of science is knowledge, not application. It’s wonderful that it has useful applications, but that isn’t why we do it. You might be surprised that mathematics isn’t supposed to be practical either.

No, that’s engineering, the application of science to practical problems. Engineers, God bless 'em, take scientific discoveries and find useful applications for them.

I know you’d like us to believe this, but the evidence demonstrates otherwise. In fact, YE creationism is a very efficient atheist-maker.

In fact, he says that common descent of all living things is “virtually certain.”

If you mean it’s not an adequate replacement for the Bible and faith, you’re right. But it isn’t meant to be.

[quoteBut it is presented as complete and purely naturalistic.

So is physics, and all of science. It’s only about the natural world. Do you have a point?
[/quote]

Your nonsensical statement about YE Creationism, whatever that is, is saying that a strict following of God’s word is wrong. The secular world has no say regarding divine revelation.

I am uninterested in how physics has any impact on the study of human origins. My point is, evolution as taught is anti-God and naturalistic by nature. It is suitable for a Marxist mindset but not for a Christian one.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Jerry-Jet]

There are theistic evolutionists but there are Godless Evolutionists, too–why can’t some people understand that both kinds of Evolutionists do indeed exist?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I stongly disagree. As someone who studies the history of scientific invention, the military and industry are the primary beneficiaries of any science. It is false to believe that science is done by unpaid individuals. Money has to be made in any enterprise or it stops.

**Why are you getting so confused. Science does not operate from a practical basis. This does not mean that corporations cannot hire scientists to conduct specific investigations with a purpose in mind. At the University level most science is not goal oriented, yet they are funded. . Private scientific groups are normally not goal oriented, and they are funded by endowments or trust funds. (the Howard Hughes facility for instance… Saying that many, I would say all scientists are paid means nothing. All theologians are paid as well. What you are arguing is that some science is goal driven and others not. Pure science is essential and one hopes always funded. When you are talking about a corporation I would agree, they don’t continue to do research that is not promising them some return. **

Ed

So is physics, and all of science. It’s only about the natural world. Do you have a point?

Your nonsensical statement about YE Creationism, whatever that is, is saying that a strict following of God’s word is wrong. The secular world has no say regarding divine revelation.

**YE Creationism means Young Earth. Yes he is saying its harmful to the faith in the end, because irrational assertions of YEC or no evolution appear so incredibly idiotic to most rational people that they can easily assume that any religion that would teach that is not one they could ever believe in as having any intelligent grasp on God. **

I am uninterested in how physics has any impact on the study of human origins. My point is, evolution as taught is anti-God and naturalistic by nature. It is suitable for a Marxist mindset but not for a Christian one.

**We have been through this assertion numerous times. For the now 4th time, explain what you want written in the science book and how you propose to square that with what proddies, jews, muslims, native americans, buddhists, hindus, sikhs, shintoites, etc would want to include. **
Ed

Gosh Ed we made so much progress on the other thread and now we are back to …12 times you’ve admitted evolution with God is where its at. and now 4 times asserting that school books must contain your imprimatur.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I am uninterested in how physics has any impact on the study of human origins.

Or anything else, for that matter.

My point is, evolution as taught is anti-God and naturalistic by nature.

Sounds like a testable claim. Show us.

It is suitable for a Marxist mindset but not for a Christian one.

Got bad news for ya, Ed. Stalin was with you on this one.

He didn’t care for Darwin, either. Latter-day Marxism is incompatible with evolutionary theory.

 

[rossum]

Everyone should ask themselves what the primary driving force of atheism is. Nothing? Or evolution?

Well it certainly is not evolution since atheism existed long before 1859 when Darwin published “Origin”.

I contend that anyone who works for a major organization who makes any claims about human origins is rightly regarded as speaking for the entire organization.

So Archbishop Lefebvre spoke for the entire Catholic Church up until the time they excommunicated him? Didn’t Arius (he of the Arian heresy) also work for the church? I suggest that you do not go down that route.

Professor Dawkins is not speaking in a vacuum, especially in the United States where the “popular” media presents mostly immoral fare and the Christian is the primary target of individuals wrongly referred to as ‘comedians.’

If he was speajking in a vacuum then a) he would be dead and b) you would not be able to hear him - “In space no one can hear you scream.”

My view of evolution related science is that it has been corrupted and is being used as an ideological tool.

The misuse of a tool does not invalidate the tool. I can use a hammer to kill someone, that does not mean that we should make hammers illegal.

Its value as science is also highly questionable.

So next time you are ill you will ask for an antibiotic that was used many years ago because the bacteria will not have evolved immunity to it?

rossum