Against the Ropes with Darwin: The Imminent End of Evolution Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter dts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
dts:
The atheists don’t need to change the public school system. They already control it.
In a nation where, in many locations, it would be impossible for an openly atheistic person to be elected dogcatcher? :eek: I doubt it.

How many atheists do you think there are and where do they have their secret meetings?😉
40.png
dts:
But of course, if they said there was no evidence for the supernatural that would violate Scripture.
Code:
     Well, sez you
The guy down the street has a different interpretation of those scriptures and the guy around the corner has a different set of scriptures altogether
Who’s right?
Code:
  It is not the government’s or science’s place to make those determinations.   Those are private personal matters
40.png
dts:
It would be an atheistic presupposition about the nature of reality.
No, not necessarily. Perhaps if you mean atheistic as in “without God” rather than its more popular common definition as “anti-God”

At worst science can be called agnostic in that it can’t speak to the existence of God one way or another.

Just because someone doesn’t affirm what you believe doesn’t necessarily mean that they are against you.

The only presupposition science makes is that it can only comment on the measurable and the falsifiable. That is quite conservative actually and hardly overstepping any proper bounds.
 
40.png
dts:
Faith can be supported by the evidence of the natural world though it is not necessarily dependent on it…
if there is evidence then how is it faith?:confused:
40.png
dts:
… Sciences such as logic can clearly support ID.
Ah here’s the problem

While logic may be a great tool, it is not a science.

With logic you can make and support many types of arguments including those that you don’t discard because simply because you can’t find evidence against them.

Science is far more conservative than that. You can’t assert something until you have evidence for it.
 
Steve Andersen:
yeah but there are no evil atheistic scientists holding our children’s future ransome by trying to change the school system

it is the ID proponents who are trying to change the system…they are the ones stepping out of bounds
You are correct. The scientific community has set the rules to “exclude” intelligent design. By limting the parameters sort of goes against the meaning of science - don’t you think?
 
Steve Andersen:
In a nation where, in many locations, it would be impossible for an openly atheistic person to be elected dogcatcher? :eek: I doubt it.

How many atheists do you think there are and where do they have their secret meetings?😉
No, doubt there are many more theists than atheists in the U.S… But, atheism has been mandated by law for public schools (ie. they must assume that God either does not exist or at the least is irrelevant). Either way, it is a functional equivalent of atheism.
Steve Andersen:
Code:
    Well, sez you
The guy down the street has a different interpretation of those scriptures and the guy around the corner has a different set of scriptures altogether
Who’s right?
Code:
  It is not the government’s or science’s place to make those determinations.   Those are private personal matters
You are correct. The guy down the street need not care about Scripture or he may be free to interpret in any fashion he likes. Presumably, most Catholics don’t believe this way.
Steve Andersen:
Code:
The only presupposition science makes is that it can only comment on the measurable and the falsifiable. That is quite conservative actually and hardly overstepping any proper bounds.
See my earlier posts on the nature of science and its relationship to philosophy. Even if you are correct about the real nature of science, in practice it has not limited itself in this fashion. Scientists frequently overstep the proper bounds of science in the name of science. That is the problem.
 
Steve Andersen:
if there is evidence then how is it faith?:confused:

Ah here’s the problem

While logic may be a great tool, it is not a science.

With logic you can make and support many types of arguments including those that you don’t discard because simply because you can’t find evidence against them.

Science is far more conservative than that. You can’t assert something until you have evidence for it.
You assume that faith must be irrational. I don’t think that faith must be irrational. See Pope Benedict’s book on “The Nature and Mission of Theology” He discusses the relationship between theology and philosophy.

The practice of logic is a liberal art that is true. But aspects of logic as a body of thought are scientific in nature. Logic is also integrally related to math which is also a tool of science. Either way, both math and science are dependent on logic.

Scientists do assert things that they don’t have evidence for. It is a product of their inferences and derived from their faith based presuppositions. This may not be natural science, but it does occur on a practical level. It is one of the problems we currently encounter. Atheists tout their points of view in the name of science.
 
40.png
dts:
Scientists do assert things that they don’t have evidence for. It is a product of their inferences and derived from their faith based presuppositions. This may not be natural science, but it does occur on a practical level. It is one of the problems we currently faith. Atheists tout their points of view in the name of science.
And so the the Id theorists - design inference. But they cannot be part of the debate. :hmmm:Now really what is the difference? What are atheists afraid of?
 
Steve Andersen:
The only presupposition science makes is that it can only comment on the measurable and the falsifiable. That is quite conservative actually and hardly overstepping any proper bounds.
this is a presupposition certain people make, following karl popper. and it is itself not a piece of science, but of philosophy. “science” makes no assumptions at all.

others, like weinberg, feyerabend, and kuhn, reject the principle, at least in some of its standard applications.
 
If one believes in millions of years, then this world has always been a deadly place. The question that we naturally ask is ‘Who caused the cancer, disease and violence represented in the fossil record?’ Christians who believe in millions of years of history have a serious problem. The Bible plainly says that God is the Creator, and He called everything that He had made—before, leading up to, and including Adam and Eve, but before their Fall—‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31).

As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering and disease before Adam’s sin (which they automatically must if they believe in millions of years), then they’ve raised a serious question about their Gospel message. What, then, has sin done to the world? According to Christian teaching, death is the penalty for sin (Romans 6:23)—and this fact is the foundation of the Gospel! Moreover, how can all things be ‘restored’ to a state with no death, pain or tears in the future (Revelation 21:4) if there never was a time free of death and suffering? The whole message of the Gospel falls apart if you have this view of history. It also would mean that God is to blame for death.

This phrase sums up the true history of death, as recorded in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. God originally created a perfect world, described by God as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31). People and animals ate plants, not other animals (Genesis 1:29–30). There was no violence or pain in this ‘very good’ world.

But this sinless world was marred by the rebellion of the first man, Adam. His sin brought an intruder into the world—death. God had to judge sin with death, as He warned Adam He would (Genesis 2:17, cf. 3:19).

As Romans 8:22 says, ‘the whole creation groans and labors with birth pains’—because God Himself subjected the creation to processes of decay (v. 20).

How can we find a God of love amidst the groaning of this world? By understanding the Genesis account of the Fall, we know that we are looking at a fallen, cursed world. From the Bible’s perspective of history, death is an enemy, not an ally. In 1 Corinthians 15:26, the Apostle Paul describes death as the ‘last enemy.’ Death was not a part of God’s original creation, which truly was ‘very good.’ Based on a straightforward reading of the Genesis account, history can be represented by the following diagram:

Death and suffering is the penalty for sin. When Adam rebelled against God, in effect he was saying that he wanted life without God. He wanted to decide truth for himself, independent of God. Now the Bible tells us that Adam was the head of the human race, representing each one of us, who are his descendants. Paul says in Romans 5:12–19 that we sin ‘in Adam,’ after the likeness of Adam. In other words, we have the same problem Adam had. When Adam rebelled against God, all human beings, represented by Adam, effectively said that they wanted life without God.

Adam’s sin left mankind in a terrible predicament. Even though our bodies die, we are made in the image of God, and thus we have souls that are immortal. Our conscious being is going to live forever. Unless God intervened, Adam’s sin meant that we would spend an eternity of suffering and separation from Him.

The solution was God’s plan to send His Son, the Second Person of the triune Godhead, the Lord Jesus Christ, to become a man—a perfect man—to be a sacrifice for sin. In the person of Jesus Christ, our Creator God stepped into history (John 1:1–14) to become a physical descendant of Adam, called ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45), born of a virgin. Because the Holy Spirit overshadowed His mother (Luke 1:35), He was a perfect man, one without sin—despite having been tempted in every way that we are (Hebrews 4:15)—who thus could shed His blood on a cross for our sin.

Because mankind’s first representative head—Adam—was responsible for bringing sin and death into the world, the human race can now have a new representative—the ‘last Adam’—who paid the penalty for sin.

In regards to mutations in genes, all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information) that might help a bug to survive—say by not being able to bind the drug as effectively. But you never see any new information arising in a cell. Sometimes a bacterium can “inject” information into another one, so it’s “new” to that bacterium—but that information had to arise somewhere, and we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.’

Natural selection as a result of competition for food, and having to cope with different environments, but not evolution. If there was no original sin then why did Christ come to die for it?

God bless

Gman
 
40.png
Gman21:
The Bible plainly says that God is the Creator, and He called everything that He had made—before, leading up to, and including Adam and Eve, but before their Fall—‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31). As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering and disease before Adam’s sin (which they automatically must if they believe in millions of years), then they’ve raised a serious question about their Gospel message.
Animals and people are two different categories. While animals, like all creation, were good and pleasing, they were not made in the image and likeness of God. Animals do not have souls. Adam and Eve did not suffer or die before their fall. Animals could have died in a normal life cycle before, during, and after the fall. It was not with animals that God made a covenant, but man. It was man who sinned and man who was punished. The serpent did not receive the same punishment (death) but a disntinctly different one.
40.png
Gman21:
Moreover, how can all things be ‘restored’ to a state with no death, pain or tears in the future (Revelation 21:4) if there never was a time free of death and suffering?
The time from Adam and Eve’s creation to the time of their fall was without sin or death.
40.png
Gman21:
The whole message of the Gospel falls apart if you have this view of history. It also would mean that God is to blame for death.
Quite the opposite is true. The gospel stands up to this in full light. Man was created in God’s image. Man sinned through free will. Jesus made ammends for man’s sin. Man’s free will is the sole reason death entered the world, and man is therefore to blame.

Further, while we as Catholics are completely free to speculate over the whole young earth/old earth and 6 day/millenia concepts, we cannot say that one of them jeopardizes the basic doctrines of Christianity. If that were the case, we would specifically be told that the belief in 6 day creationism or the belief in many millenia evolution is in direct conflict with our faith. As it turns out, the church has been very clear that we are strong in our salvation and our doctrine no matter which road you decide to take. Thus, the ability for us to have this entire discussion in the first place!
40.png
Gman21:
God originally created a perfect world, described by God as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31). People and animals ate plants, not other animals (Genesis 1:29–30). There was no violence or pain in this ‘very good’ world.
This is a stance that the Catholic Church has clearly spoken against. As a vegetarian myself, we have no moral obligation or Biblical mandate to abstain from the hunting or consumption of meat. The slaughter of animals was extremely common in the OT, both for religious purposes and dietary ones. As a matter of fact, the various parts of the killed animals’ bodies were used in religious practices mandated by God that modern day vegetarians would become ill just thinking about. Take for instance Passover in which God commanded the faithful to slaughter an animal and smear its blood on their doors so that the spirit of death knew to pass over them–as if he couldn’t have saved them without this outward sign that could easily be seen as wasteful and the needless taking of hundreds if not thousands of animals lives.

I have no problem with the arguments of 6 day creationsism or of evolution, and do not have a solid position myself. I prefer to watch the debate, but find it all really a moot point. We know where {WHO} we came from and all the other pertinant details, so what does this really matter?

As I said before, ZENIT (a Catholic news source) recently did an article series on this topic that you might like to read as well.

Evolution in the Eyes of the Church (Part 1)
Evolution in the Eyes of the Church (Part 2)
 
john doran:
this is a presupposition certain people make, following karl popper. and it is itself not a piece of science, but of philosophy. “science” makes no assumptions at all.
not sure who or what a popper is
but of course science makes assumptions
regarding statisitcs, methods, the prponderance of evidance, and such. as well as building upon previous work

Once science proves a theory or a principal it uses it as the basis for further work and moves on
Philosophy has been mudling around with the same questions of exisitance for 2,500 years

I’m not quite clear on why you keep trying to bring philosphy into the discussion
What does it have to say about say the development of primative peptides or more importantly what is taught in a science classes?

I know very little of philosphy. too much “how do we know what we see is real” or “the idea of the thing rather than the thing itself” for my tastes
john doran:
others, like weinberg, feyerabend, and kuhn, reject the principle, at least in some of its standard applications.
I’m not familiar with the works of those people
I searched on Kuhn and read a paragraph or two (which is probably worse than not knowing anything) but nothing seemed too earth shattering.
 
No, doubt there are many more theists than atheists in the U.S… But, atheism has been mandated by law for public schools (ie. they must assume that God either does not exist or at the least is irrelevant). Either way, it is a functional equivalent of atheism.
I have to agree that atheists are a tiny minority of the population. But Atheism is not “mandated” for public schools, an absense of something is not the same as a disbelief of something. If I am fishing, I am not practicing medicine, does this mean I don’t believe in medicine? Of course not. The two activities are unrelated.
You want a religious explaination for a major question in science class…the same science class that preaches the scientific method…you want to use a mystical god that you have never seen as an explaination to some children that might be atheist. Their parents pay taxes too, and they would call that a misuse of public funds. If someone wants a religious education go to a religious school. As for the general public, they have made their preference clear.
 
Steve Andersen:
not sure who or what a popper is
but of course science makes assumptions
regarding statisitcs, methods, the prponderance of evidance, and such. as well as building upon previous work
no. it really doesn’t. only people can make assumptions. and people often don’t make the same assumptions. which is why there is no such thing as a monolithic body of unanimously agreed-upon knowledge called “science”. there are just scientists, muddling through like everyone else.
Steve Andersen:
I’m not quite clear on why you keep trying to bring philosphy into the discussion
What does it have to say about say the development of primative peptides or more importantly what is taught in a science classes?
i keep bringing it in because you can’t do any real, productive learning about science - or anything, for that matter - until you understand the foundational presuppositions upon which the conclusions and methodologies that one is learning in the classroom, are based. and it so happens that those assumptions, for science, lie within the purview of the philosophy of science. for example, why is simplicity an indicator of truth? how does one tell when it isn’t? what is the relative importance of ontological parsimony, mathematical parsimony, and conceptual parsimony? why? when are ad hoc revisions to a theory legitimate, and when not? how does one demarcate science from non-science? what role does elegance play in model-choosing, and why? how important is it that one theory fit easily together with another relevant and explanatorily successful theory?

and so on.

if you neither examine nor justify your beliefs about these things, then it’s going to be almost impossible for you to have any kind of productive exchanges with anyone with whom you are ultimately in disagreement about some or all of these things.
Steve Andersen:
I know very little of philosphy. too much “how do we know what we see is real” or “the idea of the thing rather than the thing itself” for my tastes
fair enough. but that’s about as big a part of philosophy as, i don’t know, newton’s second law of motion is a part of all of physics.
Steve Andersen:
I’m not familiar with the works of those people
I searched on Kuhn and read a paragraph or two (which is probably worse than not knowing anything) but nothing seemed too earth shattering.
whether or not it’s “earth-shattering” depends on what your personal earth is like. if you think that scientific theories are approximations to a truth toward which science inexorably proceeds, then kuhn’s structure of scientific revolutions is pretty earth-shattering, since it says, ultimately, that truth has got nothing to do with it.
 
40.png
Wormwood:
I have to agree that atheists are a tiny minority of the population. But Atheism is not “mandated” for public schools, an absense of something is not the same as a disbelief of something. If I am fishing, I am not practicing medicine, does this mean I don’t believe in medicine? Of course not. The two activities are unrelated.
You want a religious explaination for a major question in science class…the same science class that preaches the scientific method…you want to use a mystical god that you have never seen as an explaination to some children that might be atheist. Their parents pay taxes too, and they would call that a misuse of public funds. If someone wants a religious education go to a religious school. As for the general public, they have made their preference clear.
The absence of God is in effect practical atheism even if folks would not profess to be atheists on a dogmatic level. When you tell kids God is irrelevant to particular areas of knowledge you are in effect forcing practical atheism upon them even though this presupposition may be unstated.

All areas of knowledge are related. They have an ultimate unity in God. No Catholic can deny this and be orthodox. This whole debate about the relationship between science, religion, and philosophy necessarily arises, because our schools have created an artificial environment that attempts to bifurcate truth or it says that only one method can attain truth.

The present environment says pursue truth, but if it gets beyond what WE categorize as science then you must stop. If you go into the realm of philosophy or religion then that is something different than the real truth which only science can express. Of course, this kind of thinking is ridiculous. It is contrary to what education and knowledge is all about. Furthermore, what is often categorized as “science” is in fact atheistic philosophy or religion.

If the general public prefers public education, it is probably because it is “free” or at least payment is coerced through taxation. Put in a truly free system of education and then see what people choose. We have a badly distorted marketplace at the moment. Why do you think the NEA fights school choice with all its might? It fears freedom in education…
 
nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?pagewanted=print

August 23, 2005
Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science
NY Times, By CORNELIA DEAN

At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: “Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?”

Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. “No!” declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.

Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, “this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race.”

But disdain for religion is far from universal among scientists. And today, as religious groups challenge scientists in arenas as various as evolution in the classroom, AIDS prevention and stem cell research, scientists who embrace religion are beginning to speak out about their faith.

“It should not be a taboo subject, but frankly it often is in scientific circles,” said Francis S. Collins, who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and who speaks freely about his Christian faith.

Although they embrace religious faith, these scientists also embrace science as it has been defined for centuries. That is, they look to the natural world for explanations of what happens in the natural world and they recognize that scientific ideas must be provisional - capable of being overturned by evidence from experimentation and observation. This belief in science sets them apart from those who endorse creationism or its doctrinal cousin, intelligent design, both of which depend on the existence of a supernatural force.

Their belief in God challenges scientists who regard religious belief as little more than magical thinking, as some do. Their faith also challenges believers who denounce science as a godless enterprise and scientists as secular elitists contemptuous of God-fearing people.

[continued] **. . . **
 
40.png
Gman21:
As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering and disease before Adam’s sin, then they’ve raised a serious question about their Gospel message. What, then, has sin done to the world? According to Christian teaching, death is the penalty for sin (Romans 6:23)—and this fact is the foundation of the Gospel! Moreover, how can all things be ‘restored’ to a state with no death, pain or tears in the future (Revelation 21:4) if there never was a time free of death and suffering? The whole message of the Gospel falls apart if you have this view of history. It also would mean that God is to blame for death.
Right on, Gman!!

Peace
 
God and Matter: The Evolution of the Evolution Debate
National Catholic Register

August 14-20, 2005
COMMENTARY & OPINION
by BENJAMIN WIKER

ncregister.com/current/0814lead2.htm

**. . . **

Enough is enough. Neither John Paul II nor the Catholic Church ever gave unambiguous assent to the entire doctrine of neo-Darwinism precisely because, even while it has uncovered some important truths, its fundamental assumptions are in direct contradiction to the fundamental assumptions of faith. Witness Cardinal Schönborn’s wise words:

“The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things. Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection — is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

Now witness John Paul II’s other words, words conveniently left unquoted by proponents of neo-Darwinism: “It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”

At its heart, neo-Darwinism is materialistic, and affirms evolution guided only by mere chance and necessity. God is entirely unnecessary. That is why Richard Dawkins, chief spokesman of today’s evolutionists, states smugly that “although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

The Cardinal had become increasingly angry because evolutionists, including Dawkins, argued that evolution proves that God doesn’t exist, and no one should fear teaching evolution as a fact because the Roman Catholic Church affirms it as “more than a hypothesis.”

[continued at the link] **. . . **
 
The absence of God is in effect practical atheism
There are so many faults with this view I don’t know where to begin. What is your definition for “practical” atheism? Also, what god would you teach created the universe? Indra? Yahweh? bel? Anu? The great eagle? There are a lot of interpretations of the term “god”. After you narrow that down (by of course suggesting the god of christianity, more specifically catholicism) So do you teach that god created the world in 6 days? That conflicts with other religions accounts, as well as modern science. And there is an endless list…where does it stop? Couldn’t every answer on their science test just be “because god made it that way”? This is a very ethnocentric view and it really has no place in a public educational system. If the parents can’t afford catholic school, they can get their priest to answer how god fits into what they learned at school, on their own time. Education should be founded on accurate data, not hopeful misinformation and guilded truths.
When you tell kids God is irrelevant to particular areas of knowledge you are in effect forcing practical atheism upon them even though this presupposition may be unstated.
First of all, no one said you have to tell them ANYTHING about God, actually the opposite is kind of the point. I can’t think of one time in my microbiology or neuroanatomy classes where God would have any bearing on the facts. Even in the most basic physics, which is really what we are talking about, God just simply isn’t a factor. By that I mean that whatever the cause, a series of observable and testable phenomenon occured and THAT is what the class is oriented around. You can not deny that our solar system did indeed form, because we can observe and test those results. So the material stays centered more around the physical processes, hence the name physics. 🙂 What motivated those forces to act is more the subject for metaphysics or philosophy.
All areas of knowledge are related. They have an ultimate unity in God.
This sort of reasoning would cause you much failure at my school…where’s your proof of this very presumtuous statement?
This whole debate about the relationship between science, religion, and philosophy necessarily arises, because our schools have created an artificial environment that attempts to bifurcate truth or it says that only one method can attain truth.
Are you saying that only one of these three can attain truth in your scenario? I don’t think that the schools created the environment, artificial or otherwise. I think that these are three distinct areas that are totally unrelated. Science is based on truth of evidence, observable, repeatable results that can be expanded upon furthering the validity of their “truth”. Religion is based on the truth of faith. True of faith requires no evidence but is highly regionalized and factioned. Religion can only pressume their truth is correct. Philosophy requires truth of reason. A sound argument that is not fundamentally flawed in inductive or deductive reasoning is correct and therefore true. Philosophy also can only speculate if they are correct or not. See the three are unrelated and quite contradictory.
what is often categorized as “science” is in fact atheistic philosophy or religion.
Often huh? Name three instances.
The Cardinal had become increasingly angry because evolutionists, including Dawkins, argued that evolution proves that God doesn’t exist,
Impossible. The three diciplines can not overlap. A proof in philosophy or religion hardly counts as “scientific” proof. In the same way, you could never use logic or data to prove that god does not exist. You can’t even PROOVE that santa doesn’t exist 🙂
 
  1. evolution
  2. evolution
  3. evolution
I am sure you think this is funny, but you are really just stressing my point that the statement is question was made without forthought. Also it is not indicative that evelution is atheistic. Even if you try to prop up the pitiful argument that by contradicting “the bible” that it is somehow atheistic, you have to prove that doctrine of evelution specifically discounts God. What about religions that don’t have strict traditions of creationism, or what if their religion believed in evelution? Is it still considered “atheistic” for them? You can not call something that conflicts with your religion “atheistic” based soley on those grounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top