Creation or Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian_Millar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nice attempt at word twisting. I quoted the passage that states: “All scripture is inspired by God.” The Church teaches that there are events that actually happened on earth in real time. There are passages that contain symbolism but that reveal spiritual truths.

Scroll down to Adam and Eve: Real People

catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

This is what I was taught in Catholic school. This is what I will always believe.

Peace,
Ed
No word twisting needed. Do you now reject what you wrote earlier in this thread? Do you now accept that allegorical writing can be inspired by God?

Peace

Tim
 
Edwest2 and all who contribute here,

I am very grateful to be allowed to participate in this discussion.

Edwest2 wrote:
Science and logic have their place, but as mentioned on Catholic Radio today, the more educated tend to dismiss God very easily
.

This is hugely significant. It is not ad rem here, but merits a discussion on its own.

Is the Catholic Church only for uneducated peasants - a simple faith for simple people?

The success of the Church was helped by scholars of the calibre of Justin Martyr, Aquinqas etc.
 
This is hugely significant. It is not ad rem here, but merits a discussion on its own.

Is the Catholic Church only for uneducated peasants - a simple faith for simple people?

The success of the Church was helped by scholars of the calibre of Justin Martyr, Aquinqas etc.
Martyr, Aquinas, Augustine et al, illuminate aspects of “The Truth;” The Christ; The Maker of Heaven and Earth. Education, in all its forms, science / philosophy / history etc. does the same for other aspects of “The Truth” for He made it all.

The Catholic Church is like The Bible!

It was given as inspired, so that even the ‘uneducated peasant’ can understand it. Some can just read it from cover to cover and “get it” even though they may not understand it all. Yet, multitudes are so engrossed in examining this passage and that phrase; this snippet and that quotation, that they sometimes get lost in its pages for decades or a lifetime, trying to make sense of it all.

:cool:
 
Ed said:
Then science and logic, manipulated by human beings for selfish ends, is what is being promoted. That is the problem.
To which Orogeny responded:
Really? Who would that be, Ed?
I’m not sure if Ed is speaking about anyone particular on this forum, or more about society in general. With regard to the latter…Here’s one example that I just read recently. You can read the whole article in Nature, but it boils down to…since Science has determined that man is no better than chimpanzees, or plants for that matter, there is no such thing as “human dignity”, and in fact, plants and chimpanzees have as much “dignity” as humans. So we must stop experimenting on chimpanzees, but it’s OK to experiment on embryonic humans. Horray for Science.

How sad. How scary.
 
No, I didn’t. I don’t reject the idea that there was an original couple. In fact, I don’t doubt it.

Ed claimed that allegorical language cannot be inspired by God. Do you agree with him?

Peace

Tim
There’s a difference between saying that Genesis is allegory and saying that it uses figurative language. Figurative language and perhaps allegorical language can be used to express actual events,but allegory itself uses symbolic characters and events to express a moral. Some of the parables of Jesus may be considered allegories,but Genesis is not allegory.
Genesis records persons that actually existed and events which actually happened. That is how the Jews have always understood it,and that is how the Catholic Church understands it. The tree of life and death,the tree of knowledge and the snake may be figures,but the Church doesn’t doubt that the realities that they express. As for Adam and Eve,they are not figures.
 
There’s a difference between saying that Genesis is allegory and saying that it uses figurative language. Figurative language and perhaps allegorical language can be used to express actual events,but allegory itself uses symbolic characters and events to express a moral. Some of the parables of Jesus may be considered allegories,but Genesis is not allegory.
Ed said that inspired scripture cannot be allegory. Do you agree with him?

Peace

Tim
 
Ed said:
Originally Posted by edwest2
No, that is not what I was responding to. I was responding to this claim:
Originally Posted by edwest2 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Too many **here **look at science and logic and say, “There’s no proof or evidence for God so there is no God.”
So I am interested who here has said that. Ed is real good at putting words (literally since he uses quotation marks) in people’s mouths to make his point that those of us who accept the science are atheists in Christian clothing. If anyone here said that, they are wrong. If no one here said that (and I need either a link to the post or an admission by the guilty party to believe it), Ed should apologize for his slander. He won’t do that, though. That’s not his style.

Peace

Tim
 
So you would agree that inspired scripute can be allegory? At least in some cases? If so, you disagree, as do I, with Ed.

Peace

Tim
Right. The only scriptural passages that I can think of off-hand that might be considered allegory are some of the parables. But the issue is the Creation story,which is not allegory.
 
But the issue is the Creation story,which is not allegory.
Why not just say ‘I don’t believe it is allegory, but I haven’t a shred of evidence to support or substantiate such a belief.’? That would at least be honest.

Two chapters of Genesis - two different stories - from two different sources, using two different names for God, both adaptations of centuries-older pagan myths. In the first, creation divided into six days, followed by a day of rest. Animals, then humans created on the very last (sixth) creation day, and both created male and female together.

Second chapter, beginning in the middle of verse 4: No mention of days. The heavens and earth created, then a single male human, mateless and homeless. Then the garden, as a home for the already created male human. Then animals, so that the man would have companionship. Then, when none of the animals proved a suitable companion, a female human created from the man’s rib!

(I have actually had Protestant fundamentalists ask me, when I question the literal truth of the creation stories, how I explain the ‘fact’ that male humans have one fewer rib than female humans!)

Anthony, which of these stories is not allegory, and what about the other? And what about the fact that indisputably human artifacts, going back tens or even hundreds of thousands of years before the timeframe of Genesis, are found all over the world, on every continent except possibly Antarctica? And what about the billions of years of animal life, culminating in several million years of pre-human species?

And what about the fact that the Catholic Church leaves its members free to decide for themselves whether either or both of the tales are allegory?

I’ve asked all of these questions before, why do you not address them? Why post to a discussion board if you are unwilling to discuss?
 
You can use this link (found by searching “Stylus” on the same site):

plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002246;jsessionid=7F06FEF082DDB2D7F24554E81A12F92B

Again, a peer-reviewed scientific paper on a new program developed by an Intelligent Design organization.

Apparently, your contention is that Intelligent Design contributes nothing to science, is not involved in science, has had no peer-reviewed work and creates nothing new.

That’s the standard Darwinist rhetoric.
I couldn’t let Reggie’s claim for this paper pass without comment. Axe et al are representatives of the Biologic Institute, affiliated to the (ID) Design Institute, set up with the clear intention of undertaking scientific research from an ID perspective. Have they succeeded?
  1. The paper is published at the open access publisher PLosOne where papers are reviewed for methodological consistency, but not for importance or novelty, and where the authors have to pay a publication fee. While there is no reason, in principle, why an excellent paper cannot be published there, PLosOne is hardly Nature, Science, The Journal of Protein Chemistry, or the Journal of Structural Biology.
  2. In spite of its title, the paper reports neither experimental results in biology nor a theoretical biological framework. It describes the design of and initial output from a computer model for the random mutation of Chinese Han characters with the intention that that might, by analogy with proteins, throw some light on the evolution of proteins
  3. The analogy appears to suffer from some fundamental flaws that prevent it from illuminating any aspect of biology. For example, the authors:
  • confuse objective enzymatic or catalytic function with subjective symbolic meaning
  • fail to allow for the fact that proteins have both functional and non-functional domains
  • populate structure space with an unrealistically sparse set of functional islands
  • fail to allow for the emergence of new functional islands – their functional set is limited to the set of existing Han characters
  • fail to allow for the extremely complex relationship between gene and protein structure – in their model, a genetic sub-unit defines a unique vector structure - as opposed to the biological world where a genetic sequence does not uniquely define structure. The prediction of protein conformation from genetic sequence is a problem that lacks a general and in many cases a specific solution
  • describe a model which, at least in this paper, is based on a population of one and fails to allow for the effect of purifying selection
  • exclude the exaptation of a functional motif for a separate purpose
  • do not allow for the co-option of non-functional genetic sequence to form a novel functional domain
  • promote the fallacy that proteins should either occupy a single broad domain of structural space (which they don’t) or radiate across wide gaps of non-function from a single archetype
  1. The paper does not appear in any way to be inspired by nor support the Intelligent Design hypothesis. It could be a precursor to arguments against the probability of the evolution by mutation and selection of the full range of natural proteins, but given the flaws in the analogy, that project is already doomed to failure.
Incidentally, although their model results in cases where what they call proficiency is increased by mutation (ie beneficial mutations), they steadfastly refer to this zone as neutral while quite freely discussing reductions in proficiency.

So if their objective was to publish a paper sponsored by the ID Biologic Institute in any “peer reviewed” journal that would accept them, so that people like Reggie could claim that ID contributes to science, then they have succeeded. If their objective was to do work that added to the sum of our biological knowledge based on insights uniquely arising from ID then they have failed. (Note that Axe and a few other ID proponents do have papers published in the scientific press – this is nothing new. What ID supporters have failed to do, and continue to fail to do in this case, is to make any contribution to science that shows that methodological naturalism is inadequate to explain what is observed and to proffer a scientifically more insightful hypothesis - ie, to do scientifically valuable work that depends on the ID hypothesis. There is nothing in this paper to make us modify the conclusion that Intelligent Design is scientifically worthless).

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
There however is the MISSING LINK remember.
Quite apart from your irritating and profligate use of bold fonts and caps in your posts that makes you appear to be bellowing at us, no-one seems to have asked you about the missing link that you keep talking about. Would you be kind enough to give us some more information about the MISSING LINK. Things that would be helpful include just what the “link” is supposed to link from and to, and precisely how that represents a fundamental problem for evolutionary biology. References to respectable scientific sources would be immensely helpful.

You seem to think that there is an easy refutation of the evolution of humans from something that you call a missing link - now is your chance to support that idea.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
The Bible speaks very clearly about the spread of the Word of God in the early days of the Church. Men regarded as great by the world and the well educated were less likely to believe it.

Corinthians 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

As regards this question, it is clear that most here who write about it add God as a kind of footnote, without consideration to the truths held by the Church that are given directly by God. When the Catholic Church tells its followers Adam and Eve were our first parents, that is the end of it. This divinely revealed truth is just as real as scientific truth.

That is what needs to be emphazised.

God bless,
Ed
 
So if their objective was to publish a paper sponsored by the ID Biologic Institute in any “peer reviewed” journal that would accept them, so that people like Reggie could claim that ID contributes to science, then they have succeeded. If their objective was to do work that added to the sum of our biological knowledge based on insights uniquely arising from ID then they have failed. (Note that Axe and a few other ID proponents do have papers published in the scientific press – this is nothing new. What ID supporters have failed to do, and continue to fail to do in this case, is to make any contribution to science that shows that methodological naturalism is inadequate to explain what is observed and to proffer a scientifically more insightful hypothesis - ie, to do scientifically valuable work that depends on the ID hypothesis. There is nothing in this paper to make us modify the conclusion that Intelligent Design is scientifically worthless).
evolutionpages.com
I disagree and I think you’re overstating your point (which appears to show a Darwinist bias, as I view it).

First, this proves that “ID proponents” are doing theoretical science and their work is published in the scientific press. Claiming that this is “worthless” is more of a statement about the “scientific press” than about the Biologic Institute’s work.

This is one of those cases where you’re changing the goal posts. Two claims are refuted here, at least – one, ID has no peer reviewed papers, and that ID is “not doing science”.

As for the contribution that Stylus makes towards science, you appear to be saying that only successful scientific projects really contribute any knowledge.

The unique insights arising from ID are first, a critique of current Darwinian theory – as in the use of Avida as a software model that attempts to show how complexity can arise from random mutation. As I understand it, Stylus was built (in part) as an improvement on that software model.

ID therefore serves as a critique to mainstream evolutionary thought and this project is an output of that critique.

As for bias in your reply – I notice 9 points you’ve listed in critique of Stylus. This gives the impression that the current evolutionary modeling software in use, Avida, does not have any flaws worth mentioning.

Interestingly also, Stylus is open-source software. It seems you’re saying that there is no chance that this program can show any improvements in the future.

That sounds more like wishful thinking than an objective view to me.
 
Here’s one example that I just read recently. You can read the whole article in Nature, but it boils down to…since Science has determined that man is no better than chimpanzees, or plants for that matter, there is no such thing as “human dignity”, and in fact, plants and chimpanzees have as much “dignity” as humans. So we must stop experimenting on chimpanzees, but it’s OK to experiment on embryonic humans. Horray for Science.

How sad. How scary.
That’s a remarkable example of how science is used to attack the value of human beings – denying that humans actually have dignity.

It is shocking and frightening to see that argued in a prominent scientific journal. But it shouldn’t be surprising really, because those conclusions flow logically from the premise that human beings are not significantly different than plants or any organic matter – and therefore do not deserve to be regarded as having “dignity” at all.

As I see it, that’s the clear implication of Darwinian theory. Human beings do not have intrinsic value beyond what is accorded to plants or bacteria.
 
40.png
ricmat:
You can read the whole article in Nature, but it boils down to…since Science has determined that man is no better than chimpanzees, or plants for that matter, there is no such thing as “human dignity”, and in fact, plants and chimpanzees have as much “dignity” as humans. So we must stop experimenting on chimpanzees, but it’s OK to experiment on embryonic humans. Horray for Science.

How sad. How scary.
That’s a remarkable example of how science is used to attack the value of human beings – denying that humans actually have dignity.

It is shocking and frightening to see that argued in a prominent scientific journal. But it shouldn’t be surprising really, because those conclusions flow logically from the premise that human beings are not significantly different than plants or any organic matter – and therefore do not deserve to be regarded as having “dignity” at all.

As I see it, that’s the clear implication of Darwinian theory. Human beings do not have intrinsic value beyond what is accorded to plants or bacteria.
Appalling misrepresentation on the part of ricmat, followed by blind acquiescence on the part of Reggie. Nature was not arguing against the dignity or the rights of humans but the nonsensical idea that plants and animals should have the same rights as humans - exactly the opposite case to that which ricmat has presented and reggie has blindly accepted. How typical. Here is the actual text fro Nature:
The law introduced by Switzerland in 2004 to protect the dignity of animals, plants and other life forms is now in conflict with the country’s research agenda. Two top Swiss universities have been forced to appeal to the supreme court in a bid to secure the right to perform perfectly reasonable experiments that have been banned because they are said to offend the dignity of the non-human primates involved. The problem in this instance lies in an interpretation of the law that flies in the face of research reality.
The Swiss law is at odds not only with beneficial research but also with good sense. Even plant scientists potentially face restrictions on the kinds of genetic engineering they are allowed to do, and debates have arisen about the abuse of dignity in decapitating wild flowers.
Although pondering the dignity of dandelions is downright silly, the underlying problem with the Swiss law is that it allows rules to be built on the foundation of a notoriously subjective concept. In March, the US President’s Council on Bioethics produced a collection of 28 essays on the dignity of human life and proved unable to come to a consensus. The essays offer statements on the concept that are often contradictory: dignity is earned, but it is also shared by all in full measure. Dignity cannot be taken away — yet it can and has been in cases of slavery. Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote a powerful critique of the panel’s efforts in the 28 May issue of The New Republic, arguing that ‘dignity’ has been widely misused to mean whatever conservative bioethicists want it to mean.
Dignity as a concept cannot be a director of moral judgement. After all, when the Swiss government assigned dignity to plants, it was in essence assigning autonomy, as if a plant sways in the breeze because it has decided to do so. A strict interpretation of such a framework would prohibit agriculture. But even where such rules are not absurd, laws should not be based on such a slippery concept.
The least ricmat and reggie should do is to retract and apologise for misrepresentinhg Nature and the community of scientists.

Will they?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
If we accept that we all only evolved through chance (mutation) and necessity (natural selection) then we will continue on a path toward death both physical and spiritual. Evil exists and it would be foolish to deny it. Even if all of the most evil could be herded into one spot and destroyed, it would still not stop the evil in each of us.

But, if we accept the full answer of our creation: that God willed each one of us in love, then we will see this utilitarian science for what it is: genocide of the human embryo, the aged and those in vegetative states. When man exalts his expertise and seizes for himself the power of life and death in these circumstances, he becomes less human.

Adult stem cells are producing treatments and cures now, but the conflict is in the heart, not the head. The desire to abandon God to have full control over a short life has become paramount for some. “And what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”

Or to quote a billboard I saw: “Life is short, eternity isn’t.”

God bless,
Ed
 
Nature was not arguing against the dignity or the rights of humans
That’s not how I interpreted the text.

Nature says that “rules” about the dignity of human life are …
built on the foundation of a notoriously subjective concept
.

They attempt to prove this by citing an article:
In March, the US President’s Council on Bioethics produced a collection of 28 essays on the dignity of human life and proved unable to come to a consensus.
So, human dignity cannot be defined accordingly. It has no meaning, as was stated.

The essay goes on to say that the concept of human dignity is supported by statements which are “contradictory”.

Nature concludes:
Dignity as a concept cannot be a director of moral judgement.
Nature supports this notion because the Swiss goverment “assigned dignity to plants” (and the concept of human dignity is equally as meaningless and ambiguous).

Finally, Nature claims that
laws should not be based on such a slippery concept.
That is the “slippery concept” of human dignity. It therefore follows that “human dignity” cannot be defined and cannot be used as the basis of granting rights (as has been done with the U.S. Bill of Rights – built on the self-evident truth that rights are granted by our Creator).

I don’t think you need to apologize for making a mistake in interpretation of this essay. I just think you misread it.
 
The least ricmat and reggie should do is to retract and apologise for misrepresentinhg Nature and the
I find it interesting also that you make no mention of the “scientific” work that went into a statement like this from Nature magazine:

"Dignity as a concept cannot be a director of moral judgement."

Perhaps you’d like to point out the hard-science that went into that conclusion. We then will hear how Intelligent Design is “not science”.

So here again, we have scientists dictating moral philosophy to people. It’s a very good example of the problem that was mentioned – scientists misusing their academic discipline to manipulate people and society.

They go on to tell us how to create laws and that laws cannot be based on such a slippery concept as human dignity.

That’s the arrogance of the scientific community in about as clear a picture as one can present.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top