Right. Ed and others seem to use the second or common definition of the term. But the discussion of the theory of evolution involves the scientific meaning of theory, not the common usage.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.
Right. No problem with evolution.[Orogeny]
It isn’t wise to believe any theory to be true that can’t at least be shown to be reasonable or logical.
I agree 100% with him.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.
There’s a big problem with the theory of evolution. Nature does not actually select,so there is no actual natural selection,which the theory depends upon. And there is only empirical evidence for changes within a species,not above-species evolution or macro-evolution.Right. No problem with evolution. I agree 100% with him.
Here is the quote from the Times site:
Firstly, that is not what you claimed that he said. Does anyone see the word ‘cannot’ there? By using quotes, you falsely indicate that those were his exact words."But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
edwest2 said:1. 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?
“An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…”
- 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:
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…rdship_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.
Nature is not an entity, so you are correct when you say nature does not actually select. Natural selection is in reference to reporductive advantages in the environment. A mutation that gives a population a reproductive edge over it’s competition will have a survival edge.[Orogeny]
There’s a big problem with the theory of evolution. Nature does not actually select,so there is no actual natural selection,which the theory depends upon.
Wrong.And there is only empirical evidence for changes within a species,not above-species evolution or macro-evolution.
A car engine is not a living organism so your comparison is not valid. You also seem to insist that a new organ must appear in it’s final form and with it’s final function, when that is not necessary.Although there is evidence that animals that existed long ago have died out, the ability to add information to DNA is questionable. A new organ needs “wiring” to all relevant support structures in the body, including the brain. One does not add a new part to a car engine while it is running, and this new part must be connected in such a way that it works together with all of the other parts. It must be the right size, the right shape and in the correct location to function.
Peace,
Ed
The proteins encoded by the DNA plus basic chemistry and physics. light sensitive organs have developed multiple times with different detection mechanisms.Even a simple light sensing organ is not apparently possible. Who or what decides on the cells that are light sensitive?
This is determined by when it develops. For example, there is a species of star fish who’s light sensitive organ is simply nerve endings that are located behind bulges in the calcite exoskeleton. These are distributed across it’s entire body. Similar related species of starfish lack this light sensitivity, simply because their skeletons lack these lens like bulges. Chordates, on the other hand, developed light sensitive structures well before they diverged into fish, amphibians, birds, mamals, etc., resulting in a different developmental path.Who or what places them on a ‘good’ portion of the organism as opposed to the belly or bottom of the feet? Who or what creates the line that connects this with the brain? How does the brain interpret this new (name removed by moderator)ut?
But nobody claims that evolution proceeds in such a strange fashion. The ability of mutations to add information to DNA has been demonstrated repeatedly, as has the formation of novel structures through the modification of previous structures or the gradual build up of new pathways.Although there is evidence that animals that existed long ago have died out, the ability to add information to DNA is questionable. A new organ needs “wiring” to all relevant support structures in the body, including the brain. One does not add a new part to a car engine while it is running, and this new part must be connected in such a way that it works together with all of the other parts. It must be the right size, the right shape and in the correct location to function.
Really? Are you sure of that? How are you reading these messages? I am using my eyes. You know, the LIGHT SENSING ORGANS that you don’t believe are possible.Even a simple light sensing organ is not apparently possible.
You might want to study basic biology for your answers.Who or what decides on the cells that are light sensitive? Who or what places them on a ‘good’ portion of the organism as opposed to the belly or bottom of the feet? Who or what creates the line that connects this with the brain? How does the brain interpret this new (name removed by moderator)ut?
No Catholic is required to believe in the theory of evolution.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.
Huh? The proteins are encoded by the DNA. DNA replication is imperfect, leading to changes from generation to generation. The modified DNA produces different proteins. The proteins don’t “invent themselves”, they are the result of chemical reactions. The same way that meteors don’t decide to crash into the earth, they do so because of gravity.What? The proteins invented themselves? I don’t buy this. I have read about light sensitive organs and the current theories have a “what if” character. A “it must have happened like this” sense. The probabilities against are immense.
How does having something happen naturally conflict with it being the result of divine providence? Everything that happens naturally, is a result of divine providence. I don’t see how chemistry falls outside the domain of God’s will.I am informed by the Church that divine providence was involved, and this is where the disconnect occurs. It is necessary for anything like evolution to happen at all. If you don’t believe that then you are just another salt crystal. The Church tells me I am not that. The ‘first cause’ is a goal, a direction, a plan, a “rational mind.” I am rightly prohibited from believing all this happened “naturally,” without God.
Wow, Ed. You really don’t mince words, do you. Salt crystal, huh.I am informed by the Church that divine providence was involved, and this is where the disconnect occurs. It is necessary for anything like evolution to happen at all. If you don’t believe that then you are just another salt crystal.
kolbecenter.org/forward.htm
- No Catholic is required to believe in the theory of evolution.
- All Catholics are required to reject and oppose “several theories of evolution” which the Magisterium of the Church has stated are “incompatible with Cathoilcism”.
- Perhaps you imagine that I’m familiar with all of the science curricula of all of the Catholic schools in the U.S. (and the world?).
- I can just extrapolate from current statistics which show that 18% of high school biology teachers teach creationism in public schools. Therefore, some percent must do the same in Catholic schools.
- I can point you to Most Rev. Robert Francis Vasa, Bishop of Baker, Oregon.
- Certainly, it’s not much to expect that the Catholic schools in his diocese will reject Darwinian theory.
Eyes aren’t perfect. Ever hear of glasses? Astigmatism? Blindness? 20/90 vision?So imperfect codes produce perfect results?
The earth is an entity. Creatures are entities. Genetic strands are entities. They are all nature.Nature is not an entity, so you are correct when you say nature does not actually select.
So then just call it a process or a factor which favors survival.Natural selection is in reference to reporductive advantages in the environment.
No selecting on the part of nature involved. Just a factor that arises which favors survival. And it need not involve genetic mutation.A mutation that gives a population a reproductive edge over it’s competition will have a survival edge.
Well,then what examples of speciation are evidence for macro-evolution? Let’s analyze them.Wrong.