Evolution describes thje evolution of the species. It does not talk about the origin of life, or about whether there was ultimately a divine author to creation.
The test of a scientific theory is whether or not it is true, not whether or not it is inconvenient for Catholic dogma. Trying to reject something just because it causes red faces in the Vatican is one sure route to another Gallileo.
Good old Galileo. I was wondering when he would show up. You should read Humani Generis. It will also do you no good to come to a Catholic forum, declare the very shaky and provisional “truth,” and then go on to rubbish the Vatican.
You can mention them in the same sentence if you like, just so long as you keep in mind that they are two very different things. Evolution is established beyond reasonable doubt. Abiogenesis is at best still at the stage of very shaky speculation.
What’s the rush? It is 150 years since Darwin published his book, and ever since evidence has been piling up to support his conclusions; which is why evolution is now scientific orthodoxy. And in case you hadn’t noticed, with the odd wobble or two the Catholic Church has accepted evolution.
It does seem strange. Why come on a Catholic site to insult our religion? Perhaps it’s some kind of thrill-seeking.
The only thing I am insulting is obscurantism.
It’s very important to those who hold The Ridiculous Theory of Evolution close their hearts, that they seperate it as far as scientifically possible from The Completely Ridiculous Theory of Abiogenesis.
Hahahaha… your signature image is classic:
I mean, how could I possibly take anything you say seriously with such an image and phrase? I might as well have an image about Jesus being a rabbit that lays eggs just to compare to the level of strawman and absurdity you’ve presented.
Which completely ridiculous theory of abiogenesis would that be? So far as I know, nobody has yet got a clue how life originated.
You Make it out like atheists have decided not to believe in a god and are not open to evidence. This assumption is utterly absurd. If there was real evidence for god we WOULD NOT BE atheists.
Atheists are cool dispassionate seekers after truth? Pull the other one. Richard Dawkins sounds exactly like his opposite numbers in the creationist camp.
I more or less guessed what that article was going to say before I read it. So now I will tell you why the fine tuning argument isn’t absurd. If gravity were only slightly weaker, there would be no stars, and therefore no heavier elements - just a universe full of hydrogen and helium. If the strong nuclear force were only slightly stronger, we wouldn’t even have that, because there would be no protons (and therfore no atoms). On the other hand, if gravitation was only slightly stronger, there wouldn’t be a universe at all, because it would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang.
Well life either arose naturally or supernaturally. Do we have any other senario?
Irrespective of whether or not you believe God to be the ultimately responsible for the emergence of life, I see no reason to suppose that there might not one day be a theory which describes the physical processes involved. The only alternative is, as I said, to have a hand coming down out of the sky to plant the first life forms on earth.
“accepted evolution”? Not that I can recall. Not the textbook variety.
It seems that science is provisional. And I’ve been told on a few occasions that evolution could go away. But the key word always used is “accept.” Universal acceptance is the goal. Honestly, I see the current media-wide effort to support atheism tied directly to getting as many as possible just to accept, even though it’s all provisional.
The slogans on the British buses used the word “probably”. Unfortunately the atheists don’t have enough faith in their own atheism.
Genesis already sanctions abiogenesis: “let tne earth bring forth…”
John Paul II
What is noticable in the above is the way “evolutionism” is put in quotes (a creationist would leave it out of quotes) and the word theory is left out of quotes (a creationist would put it in quotes).
Yes, he does get defensive and condescending at times… But lets look at why with a quick analogy. I’m a computer engineer, lets say that there was a large group of people with no background in my field that claimed that computers ACTUALLY worked because of magic smoke or due to alien technology or something else silly. I would probably be irritated and probably go off on them too. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. He’s essentially devoted his life to this field, and there are people that regularly claim that it’s all nonsense and we were created 6000 years ago in a poof of smoke. How do you think that makes him feel? I’m surprised he’s as calm as he is honestly.
We’re realistic about what can be proven as 100% factual. Can you say the same? It’s interesting that you mention we don’t have enough faith in atheism… you apparently don’t even understand the basics of what atheism is. Atheism is a faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby.