The evolution vs. special creation debate doesn’t concern “who” – it concerns how. In other words, the answer to, “Who made man?” is going to remain, “God,” to any theist no matter what. The question the evolution vs. special creation debate seeks to answer is, “How did God make man?”I suggest you get a copy of Chance or Purpose by Cardinal Schoenborn. Many books about evolution do not provide the very necessary Catholic dimension which clearly infringes on the scientific realm. You were not brought into being by a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind.
Of course it concerns who. Look at the journal Evolutionary Psychology. Everything that is you comes from your genes, along with some adaptive behaviors that also comes from your genes, which include a few maladaptive behaviors.The evolution vs. special creation debate doesn’t concern “who” – it concerns how. In other words, the answer to, “Who made man?” is going to remain, “God,” to any theist no matter what. The question the evolution vs. special creation debate seeks to answer is, “How did God make man?”
–Mike
Ed, naturally a science journal will only carry science. I’ll bet a mathematics journal will only offer articles based on mathematics, rather than articles on how integral calculus works because God oversees it every day. Of course, God did create number, but it is humans who have discovered how number works, just as it is humans who have discovered how biology works.Of course it concerns who. Look at the journal Evolutionary Psychology. Everything that is you comes from your genes, along with some adaptive behaviors that also comes from your genes, which include a few maladaptive behaviors. Get with the program. Science is telling you that nothing nothing made you - just a bunch of random mutations that got naturally selected. The Catholic Church does not believe that by the way.Peace,Ed
There are some good things in Chance or Purpose? Just watch out for the passages where Cardinal Shoenborn bears false witness against paleontologists (page 42, I believe).I suggest you get a copy of Chance or Purpose by Cardinal Schoenborn. Many books about evolution do not provide the very necessary Catholic dimension which clearly infringes on the scientific realm. You were not brought into being by a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind.Peace,Ed
Just because the Cardinal makes a statement you disagree with does not mean it is untrue. Fully functioning organisms had to exist at all times. A close up photo of an insect trapped in amber showed it had legs and wings and was, no doubt, fully functional. I think the Cardinal knows and understands what he is writing about.There are some good things in Chance or Purpose? Just watch out for the passages where Cardinal Shoenborn bears false witness against paleontologists (page 42, I believe).
Why don’t you listen to the Pope? And why do you ignore the fact that a secular-humanist fiction has convinced too many that they are merely animals with no one to answer to? If you don’t understand that what you call science does not infringe, daily, on what God has told man, you are ignoring the big picture. Evolution is being promoted to convince people that a lot of immoral behaviors are OK. Don’t you get that?Ed, naturally a science journal will only carry science. I’ll bet a mathematics journal will only offer articles based on mathematics, rather than articles on how integral calculus works because God oversees it every day. Of course, God did create number, but it is humans who have discovered how number works, just as it is humans who have discovered how biology works.
For theological anthropology, don’t look to the Evolutionary Psychology. Look rather to theologies of the human person.
StAnastasia
(1) I do listen to the pope, and he has said that “it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” (Communion and Stewardship, Paragraph 63).Why don’t you listen to the Pope? And why do you ignore the fact that a secular-humanist fiction has convinced too many that they are merely animals with no one to answer to? If you don’t understand that what you call science does not infringe, daily, on what God has told man, you are ignoring the big picture. Evolution is being promoted to convince people that a lot of immoral behaviors are OK. Don’t you get that?
Science will take away your sins – all of your sins. In fact, there are no sins. Time for you to realize what the secular media is saying constantly and daily, including some on this forum.
Peace,Ed
Cardinal Schoenborn makes the false statement that no transitional fossils have ever yet been found. Should I assume (1) that the cardinal is ignorant of paleontology, which has indeed found countless such fossils, or (2) that the cardinal is deliberately promulgating a falsehood when he says this, as well as bearing false witness against paleontologists, including Catholic priests working in this field?Just because the Cardinal makes a statement you disagree with does not mean it is untrue. Fully functioning organisms had to exist at all times. A close up photo of an insect trapped in amber showed it had legs and wings and was, no doubt, fully functional. I think the Cardinal knows and understands what he is writing about. Peace,Ed
You should know that your beloved science is being used to justify sin.(1) I do listen to the pope, and he has said that “it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” (Communion and Stewardship, Paragraph 63).
(2) I’m sorry you think that “evolution is being promoted to convince people that a lot of immoral behaviors are OK.” Electricity likewise is being used to transmit pornography on the Internet, but that does not make electricity or the scientific theory on which it is based bad. Yes, we have a big fight on our hands against immorality, but we don’t need to antagonize modern science by making it one of the enemies we fight.
StAnastasia
What is wrong with that statement? Are there fossils with five legs? You are saying the Cardinal is wrong or lying. Why would he do that? Why don’t you ask him for a clarification?Cardinal Schoenborn makes the false statement that no transitional fossils have ever yet been found. Should I assume (1) that the cardinal is ignorant of paleontology, which has indeed found countless such fossils, or (2) that the cardinal is deliberately promulgating a falsehood when he says this, as well as bearing false witness against paleontologists, including Catholic priests working in this field?
I think we can assume that you like to exaggerate in order to cover-up the truth. The number of fossils found is far from “countless”. As far as “transitional fossils” go – none have ever been found because fossils do not transition. They remain fixed in place. The “transition” is entirely a human interpretation of fossil evidence. If two bodies were buried in the same grave and then exhumed 500 years later, it would not be evident that either were transitional skeletons and one was an ancestor of the other.Should I assume (1) that the cardinal is ignorant of paleontology, which has indeed found countless such fossils …
Politics is used to justify sin, but we don’t jettison political discourse. Sports are being used to justify sin in the form of illegal betting, but we don’t condemn sports. Religion is used to justify sin, in the form of ethnic cleansings the world over, but we don’t reject religion. The film industry is used to justify sin, but we don’t ban films. Food is used to justify the sin of obesity, but we don’t condemn food. Alcohol is used to justify sin, and yet we rejected prohibition.You should know that your beloved science is being used to justify sin. Peace,Ed
I don’t know why the cardinal would lie; my presumption is that he is not lying but that he (or the person who advised him on the contents of that chapter) is simply ignorant of what paleontologist know and how they work. You make a good suggestion, however: I will write to Cardinal Schoenborn on Monday, and ask him what he meant in that passage. Whether he will reply to a lowly member of the faithful is another matter.What is wrong with that statement? Are there fossils with five legs? You are saying the Cardinal is wrong or lying. Why would he do that? Why don’t you ask him for a clarification? Peace,Ed
I’m not in favour of evil. What has this to do with science?Get a copy of The Marketing of Evil:
amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1581824599/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Read about the ‘scientific’ methods being used to poison the Body of Christ on earth.
Peace,Ed
OK, back to the cave, where there was no sin.Whenever I read about attempts to legalize evil, science is used to justify sin. Science is the friend of the sinner. The great explanation maker and expert witness. And sometimes, science is bent for gain…Time to take off the rose colored science glasses, because like other human enterprises, it’s been corrupted.Peace,Ed
(1) Evolution is such a good explanation of biological diversity that virtually all working biologists accept it.And defenders of Evolution insist that it is science. …
What bothers me more is religionists, particularly those calling themselves Catholic who accept Evolution and try to meld with with Christian dogma. To accept Evolution is to reject Divine Revelation. The Bible is not a book of science. We have all heard this, and it is true. But at the same time, the origin of life is not a subject that science can do justice to. Especially when science’s best idea is based on a preconceived notion - the spontaneous generation of life.How something that has never been observed, can not be duplicated in the laboratory, and cannot be falsified, can be considered science is stretching it a bit.
You are showing your lack of knowledge of the development of insects here ed. The ancestors of insects had more than six legs, not less; think of onchyophora or centipedes. You would also do well to study the bilateria and the developmental mechanisms which make them bilaterally symmetric. Pretty much everything with legs has them in pairs.Are there fossils with five legs?
Given that the “no transitionals” canard has been current in creationist circles for a very long time, I suspect that the Cardinal was misinformed by one of the creationists or IDists he talked to.You are saying the Cardinal is wrong or lying.