Creation or Evolution

[Bruno_Schulz]

I’m going to pipe up and counter that nonsense. Honesty matters.

Good so Tonyl, but let us ask all of us: Do we do so always and everywhere? :ehh:
Never mind where we are and who is our counterpart? For instance our boss, or some friends in our clubs, or some stranger we never saw before in our life?

Honestly I can say - I do. In my clubs, if it’s sauna or rod and gun, or wherever. I did so, even when I was a very young guy of say 25. I remember, in the factory I worked, they asked me DONT TELL US YOU BELIEVE THAT RUBBISH?! I answered very firmly YES AND IT’S THE CONTENT OF MY LIFE! I don’t just believe, but I KNOW, for if a real good friend of yours tells you something you’ve never seen, you won’t just believe, but know ant take it for granted.

Here, in a anonymous forum, it’s easy to say “I’m going to pipe up and counter that nonsense. Honesty matters”. Yes, that’s absolutely right and true; but can we all honestly say we do so? Everywhere, any time?
I do a lot of evangelizing on e-mail. I hardly ever know the people I’m mailing with, but never mind if I mail or speak eye to eye to someone about Christian believe, I always fight for it with one exception: When we notice, that because of our Christian word we might lead this person into temptation to swear against God and the Holy Spirit, we should fast and easily change subject, for e can’t afford to be guilty on this persons unforgivable sin of swearing against the Holy Spirit (Mat 12:31)

 

[reggieM]

we are not to make a picture of God neither in our minds nor in art.

I disagree here, Bruno. But that’s a topic for a different thread.

 

[reggieM]

I think beeliner asked about the exaggerated importance given to evolution – or questioned if that happened.

Evolutionist Daniel Dennett claims that Darwinian theory is “the single best idea anyone has ever had”. *Darwin’s Dangerous Idea *page 21.

from a reviewer of that book: “Dennett argues that Darwin’s algorithm is ultimately responsible for all instances of design we find in the universe, from self-replicating crystals to biological lifeforms to human artifacts, culture, and ideas (including Darwin’s “dangerous” idea itself, if you like recursive tangles).”

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

Some wrote here same ting, we all say so very often referring to our next:

He still owes me apologies for, um, untruths he wrote about me in another thread<

We all keep making this very same mistake Jesus warned us of in Matth 18:21: Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”
And Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
It’s only then when we are entitled to pray Math 6:12: Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

 

[buffalo]

No! No one will go to hell for his misinterpretation. There’s a very simple explanation for that statement: We all misinterpret God, as we will never understand God and secondly, because we are not to mace a picture of God neither in our minds nor in art. I myself being a sculptor, refused orders for sculptures of the Holy Trinity (copies of Michelangelo).

Yes, it’s not “God (or) evolution“ but all the same we must be aware of the harsh temptation of refusing creation. It means more, that just not understanding this “little” point and therefore covering and replacing it with evolution. Don’t we trust God to be able to create us as we are. Indeed we are not so much more than humanoids, but the incredible difference is not at all the volume of our brain, but the ownership of the god-given soul (Genesis 2:7) – the knowing of God. Gods own Adam (we) are the only one to know about God and know Him through Jesus Christ (Joh 14:9).

Through all dissimilarity (I looked up that word and hope it’s right) of conviction we must (not should but must) remember that God requires love from us. Without love to our next, we are not allowed to love God. So, we are not entitled to say, he or she doesn’t believe in God which the gospel underlines in Math 5:22
We are asked to evangelize and testify our firm believe in God, but do so in honest love.

Bingo! We can trust God to create the universe, but not man supernaturally, not a flood, etc…

Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is looking thorugh a restricted tube. Its field of vision is tiny.

That is what is so curious to me. Why scientists who are curious by nature restrict themselves so? They are self limiting.

I am beginning to believe science needs to reevaluate its definition.

 

[Orogeny]

Some wrote here same ting, we all say so very often referring to our next:

He still owes me apologies for, um, untruths he wrote about me in another thread<

You are assuming that I haven’t forgiven him. Please don’t make assumptions about me. You might want to talk to Ed, though. I have tried and he goes into ignore mode and, at some point, will do the same thing again.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Maybe for you, but for me it’s about dishonest attacks on both science and scientists; and people who insist that I replace science with their interpretation of my religion.

If you don’t want to accept evolution, I really don’t care. However, when people make outright dishonest claims (those made by Wells, for example) or slander us with claims that we’re motivated by some desire to crush religion, I’m going to pipe up and counter that nonsense. Honesty matters.

How many biologists did not go to work today because of what was written here? How many? This “defense of science” nonsense is nonsense. This is about spreading propaganda. There is no other reason.

If someone makes a dishonest claim, why not contact them or their publisher? And what about scientists like Sam Harris who write about “the alien hiss of religion” and slam his fellow scientists who consider the words of the Pope as “pod people” who “looked like scientists, had published as scientists and would soon be returning to their labs nevertheless gave voice to the alien hiss of religious lunacy at the slightest prodding.”

secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=harris_27_2

And Pope Benedict is concerned about the “many” scientists who say evolution denies to God any causal role in the development of life. In direct contradiction of Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tonyl]

I think PZ Myers made it clear in his interview in Expelled that he is hoping that science will destroy religion. There are many who use Darwinian theory for that purpose.

That’s not an accurate re-statement of what he said. He said that he hoped religion would eventually become akin to a hobby, like knitting. He never said that science would, or could, destroy it.

However, the fact that some evolution supporters dislike religion in no way supports the often repeated claims that evolution supporters, in general, want to destroy religion. It’s dishonest to focus on a vocal minority and claim it represents all of those who support the science or defend it against attacks.

Wouldn’t you agree that supporters of Darwinian evolution can make false claims?

That can be said about both sides of any debate. However, in the 15 or so years I’ve been following this debate, the vast majority of the dishonest attacks I’ve seen have come from the other side.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

Why scientists who are curious by nature restrict themselves so? They are self limiting.

Precisely! Anyone who doesn’t believe in God is limiting himself, and trapped like a blind hollow-fish in his dark hollow far under the earth. He, nor a fish in the deep sea never believes there’s a sun, but both of them wouldn’t exist without that sun.
Why on earth do those who believe in science rather than the gospel, commit such suicide to their free mind – no - to their roots which lay (originate) in God?!

 

[tonyl]

How many biologists did not go to work today because of what was written here? How many? This “defense of science” nonsense is nonsense. This is about spreading propaganda. There is no other reason.

Huh? What are you talking about? Read what I write, not what you want me to say. Defense of science means defending scientific claims against dishonest attacks. You may want to look into the mirror when you talk about spreading propaganda.

If someone makes a dishonest claim, why not contact them or their publisher?

Well, when you make the dishonest claim that we scientists are out to destroy religion, or that the only reason I respond to your attacks on evolution is because I want to spread propaganda, I respond directly.

And what about scientists like Sam Harris who write about “the alien hiss of religion” and slam his fellow scientists who consider the words of the Pope as “pod people” who “looked like scientists, had published as scientists.”

What about him? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? His personal opinions are not science, nor do any evolution supporters claim they are? So what is your point in bringing it up? How does it relate in any way to the scientific evidence supporting evolution?

And Pope Benedict is concerned about the “many” scientists who say evolution denies to God any causal role in the development of life. In direct contradiction of Church teaching.

As many of us are, but that has no bearing on the science of evolution. Likewise, I’m concerned about the “many” Christians who say evolution denies to God any causal role in the development of life. But, again, that has no bearing on the science of evolution

 

[edwest2]

The Catholic Church is the only authority I trust about this issue. I view science as corrupted on this issue. At best, it is a pawn, and at worst, it is participating in the creation of an atheist Technocracy in this country in concert with groups like the ACLU.

The only answer acceptable to Catholics is that evolution is not possible without divine providence (see Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69). And as Pope Benedict stated: “Evolution cannot be proven.”

Science is not the center of my life, God is.

Peace,
Ed

 

[beeliner]

1. I fully support that species show minor changes over time as they adaptat to their environment. If that’s what you mean by “evolution” then I think you have won the argument. Although, I don’t think it was much of an argument in the first place because I haven’t seen anyone opposing that idea either.
2. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word “evolution” in their titles.
3. What do you mean by a system of folklore and superstition in the context of this discussion. Are you talking about Catholicism?

Well, this discussion is obviously going nowhere so I am about finished with it. The newcomers will, I’m sure, come to the same conclusion ere long. Arguing with fools is like chasing the wind. Just to wind up, however…

1. Right, and I fully support that a right-handed batter can be taught to switch hit. You are fully aware that that is not what we’re talking about.

We’re talking about all of life forms evolving from the simplest one-celled organisms to primates, including humans, over a period of billions of years, due to natural selection and other biological mechanisms, a process which continues today. Many generations of study have confirmed that to the extent that it may reasonably be considered fact.

1. LOL! Now you are really grasping at straws! Only a few papers had the word ‘evolution’ in the title, therefore evolution must not exist! How typical of ‘creationist’ logic!
2. Well, reg, first you misquote and mischaracterize my posts, then when I complain you apologize, than you keep right on doing it.

I have wrapped my entire contribution to this thread around the Catholic Church being in the forefront of science education at all levels. I am an old man. My high school graduating class from Spalding Institute in Peoria, Illinois, Fulton Sheen’s alma mater, just had its fiftieth anniversary class reunion. I studied biology, chemistry and physics there, all taught by priests and religious. We began not only every day but every class with a prayer. Everything there revolved around faith in God and preparation for a life in His service. But religion was taught as religion, not as science. No one there would have even considered denying the facts of science, lying to students like the fundamentalist Protestants do.

Now, I am issuing you a formal challenge: Give me the name of ONE Catholic grade school or high school, ANYWHERE in North America, chartered by its diocese, OR the name of ONE Catholic institution of higher learning, which, as part of its curriculum, denies that life evolved from the simplest organisms to its present state. Give the name and address of any such institution and it should be easy to verify with a simple phone call.

If you can’t do that, then you are being grossly dishonest by attempting to imply, as you and some other posters have been doing throughout this thread, that the Catholic Church denies evolution and claims that two contradictory Biblical creation tales are scientific fact as the fundamentalist Protestants do.

 

[beeliner]

And as Pope Benedict stated: “Evolution cannot be proven.”

I’m not entirely certain, but didn’t I ask you for the source of that quote earlier in the thread, and weren’t you unable to provide it?

If so, why do you keep repeating it? I’m not denying that he said that, but I’m highly suspicious. Source, please. Reliable source.

Misquoting the pope for one’s own purposes isn’t nice.

 

[edwest2]

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/04/pope_benedict_x.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

I’m not entirely certain, but didn’t I ask you for the source of that quote earlier in the thread, and weren’t you unable to provide it?

If so, why do you keep repeating it? I’m not denying that he said that, but I’m highly suspicious. Source, please. Reliable source.

Misquoting the pope for one’s own purposes isn’t nice.

Unfortunately, you will find that Ed is not real big on supporting his “quotes”.

Peace

Tim

edit: Well surprise, surprise, surprise!!! Ed actually gave a source!!

 

[Orogeny]

And as Pope Benedict stated: “Evolution cannot be proven.”

And he is absolutely correct. Just like the theory of gravity, germ theory, plate tectonics, relativity or any other scientific theory. Does that make it untrue?

Peace

Tim

 

[anthony022071]

[beeliner]

This is science:

Quote:
< Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes.

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes.

The phenotype’s genetic basis, genotype associated with the favorable phenotype, will increase in frequency over the following generations.

Over time, this process may result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. >

Anybody see anything about ‘a process of thought’ in nature there?

Anybody see anything about “selection” in that definition? Where does the selecting come in? And who or what is doing the selecting? If the “process” is just a matter of randomness or necessity,than it cannot be rightfully be called selection.

If the frequency of elephants without tusks being born is going up,on account of the fact that hunters mainly go after the elephants with tusks,there are scientists who will stupidly claim that to be an example of natural selection.

And yet,the only selecting that is going on is with the hunters,who prefer to shoot the elephants with tusks.

 

[edwest2]

To beeliner:

Why are you bothering Catholics on a Catholic forum about fundamentalist Protestants? Have you been to any fundamentalist Protestant forums and brought up your concerns to them?

On the subject of evolution, I went through the Catholic school system and I was told the connection between science and God. This connection is ommitted in the public schools. They can only hear about one part of the answer, but without the other part, you might as well talk about cutting a car in half and try to drive it.

In your worry (?) or outrage (?) over fundamentalist Protestants, you seem to be missing clear Church teaching. I recommend you read Humani Generis. I also refer you to part 69 of Human Persons Created in the Image of God, where it states:

“An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

simply cannot exist – Got that? The atheists here are promoting science, and the unguided formulation of chemicals in a pitiless, uncaring universe as your origin story. You are an animal at best or at worst, a bag of chemicals programmed by your genes, whose only purpose is to successfully reproduce. You respond to outside stimuli but you are nothing and go to nothing when you die. I was never taught that in Catholic school.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Brian_Millar]

And he is absolutely correct. Just like the theory of gravity, germ theory, plate tectonics, relativity or any other scientific theory. Does that make it untrue?

Peace

Tim

I think the dissention here is the word Theory:

Theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For treatment of theories as expressed in formal language as studied in mathematical logic, see Theory (mathematical logic).
For other uses, see Theory (disambiguation).

The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, “theory” is not in any way an antonym of “fact”. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

 

[anthony022071]

[Orogeny]

And he is absolutely correct. Just like the theory of gravity, germ theory, plate tectonics, relativity or any other scientific theory. Does that make it untrue?

It isn’t wise to believe any theory to be true that can’t at least be shown to be reasonable or logical.

reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1015081120070411?pageNumber=1
“Both popular and scientific texts about evolution often say that ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ has done this or that,” Benedict said in the book which included lectures from theologian Schoenborn, two philosophers and a chemistry professor.

“Just who is this ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ as (an active) subject? It doesn’t exist at all!” the Pope said.

Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain.

“The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability,” he said.

“This … inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science … where did this rationality come from?” he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the “creative reason” of God.