Creation or Evolution

[ricmat]

Of course you don’t think that the government should impose religion. I was misled by your statement about the primacy of absolute morality and the unchanging moral law. I am not sure that we, in UK and USA, do live by laws that are primarily “Judeo-Christian” but rather by the Anglo-Saxon conception of individual rights (as enshrined in Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right, and the Enlightenment values of Paine’s Rights of Man) - very few of these, are at bottom, supported by Judeo-Christian theology. Anglo-Saxon and, eg, Italian, jurisprudence are fundamentally different.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

The book I mentioned above (How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization) has chapters covering Science, The Origins of International Law, Western Law, and Western Morality (and a bunch more). According to this book (an easy quick read), our values do come from our Judeo-Christian heritage.

And another book “50 Questions about the Natural Law” really gets deep into Natural Law (which I don’t believe came from the enlightenment) and how our current laws are reflected in Natural Law. IMO that book is NOT an easy read, but it might be easier for you than for me. I didn’t realize that you had an interest in this subject, but since you do, you might want to read both books so you know what your opponents are thinking

Natural Law is the unchangeable moral law that comes from God. I’m curious to know what you might find “wrong” about the Natural Law. Perhaps you’ve addressed this previously, but my memory is at capacity so if I try to remember everything you said, something else will fall out [My daughter, for all her Physics abilities, just doesn’t get it when I tell her that “50 First Dates” (a touching movie about short term memory loss) is a really great movie that she should watch. And then I tell her that again. And again…]

 

[hecd2]

If one does not accept God of course human endeavors are most important. It comes as no surprise that you wouldn’t care. So??? If you do not believe why spend the energy trying to convince others?

Why not?

Science (a subset of reason) is a wonderful way to discover the world around us and unlock mysteries.

It is not the only way.

It is the only reliable way that we can all agree on that uncovers truth about the universe in which we live. Some of us do not agree that there is any reason to consider a reality beyond the universe.

Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. We are limited by the dimensions we live in, and our senses.

Science is the *only *way we can say anything at all with confidence about the universe. Since our senses are all we have to work with, let’s use them rationally.

All these rights come from above. We would have no rights without a creator.

That is your personal opinion and that of your fellow religionists. Others, like me, reject that view.

When you die you will be either right or wrong. If you are obstinately convinced there is no God you won’t spend eternity with Him. If you have faith (opening one’s mind and heart to God) then you have a much better chance at bliss.

The fallacy of Pascal’s wager and the argumentum ad baculum noted and rejected.

At the time of reckoning you just might wish you were born at a time where you were not completely seduced by science and your own arrogance.

I am constantly amazed by the irony that those in thrall to the illusion of absolute truth and righteousness characterises those of us who are open to questioning and modification of our beliefs as arrogant.

If arrogance is defined as weighing the evidence and thinking for oneself, and the rejection of authoritarianism, then I am arrogant and delighted to be so.

Alec
[evolutionpages.com](http://www.evolut(name removed by moderator)ages.com)

 

[Ghoti]

I have recently seen this discussion.

Is one of the key points the age of the universe?

Did it begin about 13.7 billion years ago with a big bang or, as the Irish archbishop Ussher deduced, was the first day of Creation at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC?

If anyone believes that the latter is more accurate our education systems may be wanting.

Is that Julian or Gregorian calendar?

 

[buffalo]

Why not?

It is the only reliable way that we can all agree on that uncovers truth about the universe in which we live. Some of us do not agree that there is any reason to consider a reality beyond the universe.
Science is the *only *way we can say anything at all with confidence about the universe. Since our senses are all we have to work with, let’s use them rationally.

That is your personal opinion and that of your fellow religionists. Others, like me, reject that view.
The fallacy of Pascal’s wager and the argumentum ad baculum noted and rejected.
I am constantly amazed by the irony that those in thrall to the illusion of absolute truth and righteousness characterises those of us who are open to questioning and modification of our beliefs as arrogant.

If arrogance is defined as weighing the evidence and thinking for oneself, and the rejection of authoritarianism, then I am arrogant and delighted to be so.

Alec
[evolutionpages.com](http://www.evolut(name removed by moderator)ages.com)

I think for myself. I weigh the evidence. I am humble enough to understand my past arrogance. Arrogance is thinking that you are smart enough to know there is no God. Weighing the evidence and thinking for oneself is the Catholic way. This arrogance is limiting yourself to scientific knowledge only.

We agree we can only know so much about the universe.

And how does our increasing knowledge of the workings of the universe actually get us to heaven? Plenty of people in the past got there without science.

Why not? Because it’s a waste of time trying to convince those that can experience God and desire Him.

 

[reggieM]

The points I made were not irrelevant and they certainly don’t support your position.

There are two classes of claim that you made. The first is that ID proponents (or cdesign proponentsists as they are more popularly known) publish research in peer reviewed journals. That is the point that is not in question and that I fully agree with.

As I said, the point was, indeed, in question when you jumped into the conversation I was trying to have with beeliner. He denied that ID proponents publish in peer reviewed journals. I pointed to the paper on Stylus as an example of work coming from an ID organization. I didn’t claim much beyond that. I said before that I don’t know how the software works. I could take your word for it but it seems that you’re just posting some anti-ID commentary you found. If that’s not true, then that’s good – but I’m pointing out the way it seemed.

I’d say that a discussion about the nature and flaws in the Stylus model is irrelevant to this point I was trying to make about publications – a point which you agree with.

As a trivial aside – perhaps the term “cdesign proponentsists” is a term “more popularly” used in your circles, but I have never heard of it. I’d question your scientific processes (at least in analyzing statistics) if you really meant that the term is “more popular” in the world of human beings (outside of the anti-ID camp.

Google search:
“ID proponents” 1,770,000 hits
“cdesign proponentsists” 69,200 hits

I’m sure I must be misinterpreting those numbers because it doesn’t seem like the term “cdesign proponentsists” has really captured the popular consciousness quite yet.

ID does no scientific work, adds nothing to the store of scientific knowledge and publishes no papers. This Stylus paper cannot change that conclusion because it does not have any ID content. ID proponents can publish in the peer reviewed press. What they cannot do, because they do not do any science that is based on an ID framework, is publish ID papers in the peer reviewed press.

I note your opinion – it strikes me as extreme and reactionary, but perhaps it’s just the tone you use in your writing. There are a number of scientists who disagree with your opinion on this.

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design
discovery.org/a/2640

Nonsense. You have made much stronger claims for it than this. I note your disengagement from the technical discussion.

I made stronger claims based on limited knowledge. You may be quite right about the flaws in the program. But again, your relentless attack (which seems very much like it was taken from the anti-ID press) on this seemingly benign software program strikes me as a very defensive posture - as if Stylus is some kind of threat. It’s an over-reaction and it betrays a lack of calm objectivity, as I see it.

Here’s a response to the news item on Stylus from an ardent evolutionist, fierce anti-ID contributor to CAF:

It’s intriguing, the use of Han characters to compare with protein folds, but there is a reason why they are consistent with the idea of conserved folds. Most Han characters are actually compounds of two or more simpler characters. Most often, there is a component with an idea, and then a second component which gives a hint about pronounciation. Some are quite complex. The symbol for “short” is composed of “arrow” (shorter than spear) “woman” (shorter than man) and “grain” (shorter than tree).

Logical, but not entirely mappable on protein sequences as a folding guide.

So, I note a somewhat calm evaluation. Some of the more positive points are observed. At the same time, this individual believes that Stylus is not an expression of ID theory at all – agreeing with you. But in contrast, some positive aspects were mentioned – as opposed to your absolute condemnation of the program. It gives me reason to wonder.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t know and don’t care whether Vatican II can be reconciled with the Syllabus of Errors.That is a matter for the Church. If the Church feels compelled to attempt to reconcile the Syllabus of Errors with modern Church teaching in the face of what is, according to a plain reading of the documents, unreconcilable, then who am I to challenge that?

I’ll suggest that your “plain reading of the documents” comes with a loaded pre-disposition. I could go through the Syllabus point by point to show this, but I think that’s defintely outside the scope of this thread.

I appreciate the theological sleight of hand needed to do so.

Well, that’s coming from one who assumes all of the universe and all of human reality is a function of material processes. From my perspective, you’re forced to place a number of supernatural (or even preternatural) events in the “slight of hand” category. The same will be true of an analysis of subtle theological points. Your desire for a “plain reading” of a document apparently dismisses the need to study aspects like context, historical influences, intent, translation issues, degree of authority, nature of the audience and literary style.

I was pointing out that the Syllabus of Errors is in direct opposition to the philosophy of the Founding fathers of the USA as documented in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the voice of the people in Parliament and Congress on both sides of the Atlantic and the democratisation of Europeans and Americans. These things have their foundation in Enlightenment values, not in Catholic theology.

I think you’re reducing “Catholic theology” to what is found in the Syllabus of Errors alone. The social teaching of the Church is disciplinary in nature and has changed from the apostolic era to the present.

Catholicism, at least as established in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries fought against the rights of individuals. That denial culminated in the astonishingly conservative Syllabus of Errors.

If you want to take a more comprehensive view of Catholic social teaching you really should look beyond that 300 year period of time and beyond a single Papal document.

Had American Catholics taken Pius IX seriously they would have campaigned against the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights. That, unfortunately, is a historical fact.

You’re arguing a different point than the one I raised. I was referrring to the text in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence (I corrected that later):

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This passage is based on traditional Catholic theology. Mankind is dependent on God, and God has created all men equal with the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Going back in this argument, I was pointing out that Nature Magazine’s editorial started from a de facto materialist position that gave no place for this kind of theological consideration that is part of our nation’s founding documents.

Again, it was a fairly simple point. Mankind is endowed by their Creator with rights. It’s an extension of the idea that since human beings were created in the image and likeness of God, they have dignity.

 

[anthony022071]

From post 333.

1. No,I’m saying that scientists,when telling the story of evolution,have to simplify and compress things,and fill in the gaps of knowledge to such an extent that they create a myth for the “laity”. Any history of life on earth which deals with the ages prior to the civilization of Sumer,prior to written documents,takes on the character of myth.

1. That is much too ridiculous to merit a reply. One wonders if you’re serious.

When scientists and anthropologists write about the history of humanity before the earliest civilizations,before written documents,they are working with scanty,fragmentary,obscure evidence. And so they have to piece it all together like a patchwork quilt,fabricating connections and filling in the blanks to make a summary narrative. They have to make a compact story out of the murky past – just like myth-makers.

1. I don’t know which ones are indisputably human.

1. Gee, I guess all of those stone tools and cave paintings dating back 50,000 to 100,000 years must have been produced by musk oxen or sumpin’.

The scientists and anthropologists are always contradicting each other and changing their opinions. In any case,the stone tools and cave paintings suggest that they were made by humans,who have rationality,not a pre-human species.

1. I don’t believe that macro-evolution happened. There’s no evidence that above-species evolution is happening now,so there’s no reason to believe that it happened in the past.

1. See 6. And yet every biologist in the world believes it and every encyclopedia in the world affirms it, and every shred of research in the field supports it, and there is not an iota of evidence to the contrary.

Now tell us, in one or two coherent sentences, or even a short paragraph, why all of them are wrong and you are right.

If you can’t do so, why continue making ridiculous assertions?

So biologists believe in above-species evolution even though there is no evidence that it is happening? So it is just a false assumption.

The natural sciences are all based upon the false assumption of naturalism,which leads scientists to further false assuptions.

1. The Church doesn’t say that [its members are free to decide for themselves whether either or both of the Biblical creation tales are allegory].

1. Of course it does! Didn’t you read the excerpt from Humani Generis I posted above? The Church teaches only that the human soul is infused by God.

You’re reading into that document a permissiveness of interpretation that it doesn’t mention. The Church teaches the things recorded in Genesis as real events,and Adam and Eve as real persons.

It makes no doctrinal statement regarding the biological evolution of humans from lower forms.

Since I know of no scientist who claims that the human soul is physical or the product of evolution, where is the conflict, except in the minds of cranks?

It doesn’t matter that scientists don’t make that claim. They do claim that the human body is a product of evolution.
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the human body is the product of evolution,but that God created man in his own image.

 

[reggieM]

Going back in this argument, I was pointing out that Nature Magazine’s editorial started from a de facto materialist position that gave no place for this kind of theological consideration that is part of our nation’s founding documents.

That should have been a priori materialist position or perhaps materialist position by default … I mixed up my Latinisms there.

The point again was that the editorial writer looked only to materialist origins of human dignity.

 

[hecd2]

The book I mentioned above (How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization) has chapters covering Science, The Origins of International Law, Western Law, and Western Morality (and a bunch more). According to this book (an easy quick read), our values do come from our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Well, it’s an interesting question. In one sense, all of these things must, I agree, be influenced by our Judeo-Christian heritage, embedded as they are in societies that have been Christian for many centuries. So one can obviously make that case. But there is another sense in which our modern values do not derive from that tradition, but from the thinking of the Enlightenment - particularly with regard to the rights of individuals, which has been the sub-topic that we have been engaged in. Take Magna Carta, the founding document of the project to establish individual rights in the Anglo-Saxon world. The rights of individuals enshrined in the laws of the UK, US, Australia, Canada, even India have roots in this document, which was the first limitation set to the power of the monarch which was supposed to be legitimised by God. In a sense, that struggle continued in the West to establish and extend individual rights to all citizens, culminating in the American and French revolutions. Arguments from Christian theology were more often used to impede that progress in those centuries than to lubricate it.

And another book “50 Questions about the Natural Law” really gets deep into Natural Law (which I don’t believe came from the enlightenment) and how our current laws are reflected in Natural Law. IMO that book is NOT an easy read, but it might be easier for you than for me. I didn’t realize that you had an interest in this subject, but since you do, you might want to read both books so you know what your opponents are thinking

Well I might well do. The problem with Natural Law, in my opinion, is that, if it does exist, it is impossible to discern perfectly. There are many Natural Law theories with incompatible content. Our moral perception has changed hugely over the millenia - making many things which were permissible, say, in 500BC quite outrageous today, and vice versa. The concept of Natural Law did not, of course, come from the Enlightenment, but key Enlightenment figures used the concept as a premise in their argument for universal rights, and those rights are given legitimacy by a particular conception of Natural Law. However the Church totally for its first 1000 years and almost totally for the next 900 did not recognise that understanding of Natural Law which is today so deeply embedded in our values, that we forget how dearly it was won.

However, I am uncertain and uncomfortable about the question of whether there is such a thing as Nartural Law (I should like there to be, and I often speak as if there were), and if so, what is its origin and how we discern it. (I know what answers you will make to that, but they won’t suffice for me). These of course are huge questions that I have not thought about nearly enough.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I pointed to the paper on Stylus as an example of work coming from an ID organization. I didn’t claim much beyond that. I said before that I don’t know how the software works. I could take your word for it but it seems that you’re just posting some anti-ID commentary you found. If that’s not true, then that’s good – but I’m pointing out the way it seemed.

Why would you even hint that “I’m just posting some anti-ID commentary I found”. That’s not my style. Have you read the paper? I have. What I posted was my assessment of the work and the reasons for that assessment. I note your slightly veiled accusation of plagiarism.

I note your opinion – it strikes me as extreme and reactionary, but perhaps it’s just the tone you use in your writing. There are a number of scientists who disagree with your opinion on this.

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design
discovery.org/a/2640

Well what on earth would you expect from the website of the DI? They are turkeys voting for the abolition of Christmas. They are being disingenuous when they post this list by the way, as many items on it have not been subject to peer review or do not contain any ID concepts. You might find my opinion about ID extreme, but it echoes the view by scientific bodies and academies the world over, so it can’t be that extreme.

You may be quite right about the flaws in the program. But again, your relentless attack (which seems very much like it was taken from the anti-ID press) on this seemingly benign software program strikes me as a very defensive posture - as if Stylus is some kind of threat. It’s an over-reaction and it betrays a lack of calm objectivity, as I see it.

There you go again, accusing me of plagiarising the views of others. One threat from Stylus is its misuse by people like you to mischaracterise the achievements of ID propositions and the ID community.

I also think it’s based on a fundamentally poor analogy and it cannot therefore achieve its aim of iluminating our understanding of biology, for reasons that I have taken pains to lay out in some detail. At least I have reasons for holding the opinion that I do.

As for your quote from another scientist whose opinion you claim is more moderate than mine, why didn’t give a reference or a link so that we can read the full thing in context? Why post an unreferenced out of context quote?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

So biologists believe in above-species evolution even though there is no evidence that it is happening?

There is abundant evidence that it is happening. Indeed, many creationists admit that new species, genera, and even families can evolve. (Institute for Creation Research, Noah’s Ark; a Feasibility Study

So it is just a false assumption.

Someone’s had a little fun with your trust in them on that one.

The natural sciences are all based upon the false assumption of naturalism,which leads scientists to further false assuptions.

No. Natural sciences are based on the assumption of Uniformitarianism, which says that the rules by which this universe works, have always been the same. Every time we test that notion, it has been confirmed.

The Church doesn’t say that [its members are free to decide for themselves whether either or both of the Biblical creation tales are allegory].

Actually, it does. If you want to read Genesis as strictly literalist stories, you can. But you may also take it as Catholic Doctors of the Church like St. Augustine took it, as being allegorical.

It doesn’t matter that scientists don’t make that claim. They do claim that the human body is a product of evolution.

So does Pope Benedict XVI. That’s consistent with Catholic doctrine.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the human body is the product of evolution

Let’s take a look…

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in the report of the International Theological Commission.

Since the Church teaches that God does not have a physical body, the “image” is not in physical likeness, but in our minds and souls.

 

[NoelFitz]

Alec
you wrote:

Catholicism, at least as established in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries fought against the rights of individuals. That denial culminated in the astonishingly conservative Syllabus of Errors. Had American Catholics taken Pius IX seriously they would have campaigned against the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights

Does this have anything, even remotely, to do with* Creation or Evolution*?

 

[anthony022071]

There is abundant evidence that it is happening. Indeed, many creationists admit that new species, genera, and even families can evolve. (Institute for Creation Research, Noah’s Ark; a Feasibility Study

If there’s evidence,show it. Let’s analyze it to see if there is anything to suggest that a distinct species,totally incapable of breeding with any other species,and self-sustaining,can evolve.

No. Natural sciences are based on the assumption of Uniformitarianism, which says that the rules by which this universe works, have always been the same. Every time we test that notion, it has been confirmed.

The natural sciences are based on naturalism – the belief that all natural phenomena can be accounted for by scientific laws.

As for uniformitarianism,that can’t be shown to be true either,because the laws of nature thousands of years ago can’t be tested. But if the laws of nature have always been the same,then scientists should not believe in macro-evolution,because speciation has never been observed to go beyond the level of species.

Actually, it does. If you want to read Genesis as strictly literalist stories, you can. But you may also take it as Catholic Doctors of the Church like St. Augustine took it, as being allegorical.

Augustine didn’t take it as being allegorical.

So does Pope Benedict XVI. That’s consistent with Catholic doctrine.

No,he doesn’t. He says God created man from his creative reason. He doesn’t believe in natural selection.

Let’s take a look…

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in the report of the International Theological Commission.

It doesn’t seem that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that paragraph.
It isn’t found here.
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

Since the Church teaches that God does not have a physical body, the “image” is not in physical likeness, but in our minds and souls.

< 9. Two themes converge to shape the biblical perspective. In the first place, the whole of man is seen as created in the image of God. This perspective excludes interpretations which locate the imago Dei in one or another aspect of human nature (for example, his upright stature or his intellect) or in one of his qualities or functions (for example, his sexual nature or his domination of the earth). Avoiding both monism and dualism, the Bible presents a vision of the human being in which the spiritual is understood to be a dimension together with the physical, social and historical dimensions of man.

1. The central dogmas of the Christian faith imply that the body is an intrinsic part of the human person and thus participates in his being created in the image of God. The Christian doctrine of creation utterly excludes a metaphysical or cosmic dualism since it teaches that everything in the universe, spiritual and material, was created by God and thus stems from the perfect Good. Within the framework of the doctrine of the incarnation, the body also appears as an intrinsic part of the person. The Gospel of John affirms that “the Word became flesh (sarx),” in order to stress, against Docetism, that Jesus had a real physical body and not a phantom-body. Furthermore, Jesus redeems us through every act he performs in his body. His Body which is given up for us and His Blood which is poured out for us mean the gift of his Person for our salvation. Christ’s work of redemption is carried on in the Church, his mystical body, and is made visible and tangible through the sacraments. The effects of the sacraments, though in themselves primarily spiritual, are accomplished by means of perceptible material signs, which can only be received in and through the body. This shows that not only man’s mind but also his body is redeemed. The body becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit. Finally, that the body belongs essentially to the human person is inherent to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body at the end of time, which implies that man exists in eternity as a complete physical and spiritual person. >

 

[edwest2]

“evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory” Pope Benedict

ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070411/pope_evolution_070411/20070411?hub=SciTech

“Both popular and scientific texts about evolution say that ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ has done this or that.”

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

news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21548399-663,00.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Why would you even hint that “I’m just posting some anti-ID commentary I found”.

Because it seemed so one-sided that I didn’t think you evaluated it personally. I also said that if it was your work then that was good – I was merely giving my impression.

Well what on earth would you expect from the website of the DI?

I noticed that they were scientists. For you, they’re not the right kind of scientists, but as I see it, they had peer-reviewed work published on ID and they made that known.

They are turkeys voting for the abolition of Christmas.

That sounds bad. There are atheistic scientists who promote the abolition of religion, also. That sounds very bad.

As for your quote from another scientist whose opinion you claim is more moderate than mine, why didn’t give a reference or a link so that we can read the full thing in context? Why post an unreferenced out of context quote?

Why do you think I did that?

 

[reggieM]

On the contrary I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it’s parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it’s composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with it’s distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in it’s course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro’ all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe.

Thomas Jefferson
Letter To John Adams Monticello, April 11, 1823
let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl271.htm

 

[NoelFitz]

Here in this thread it seems that evolutionists are scientists, smart, non-believers and bad guys, while creationists are non-scientists, believers, dumb and bad guys.

Fr Gregor Mendel was a scientist, clever, a believer and a good guy.

The importance of Charles Darwin has been stressed in this thread, but not the relevance of Mendel.

Could it be argued that Fr Gregor Mendel OSA also contributed very much to our understanding of science, with his insights into heredity? His patient experimental work and insights led to the science of genetics and many advances in modern science such as the genome projects.

Would it be true to say that he disagreed with Darwin and in the 1940s a synthesis of the work of both Darwin and Mendel developed.

At the turn of the century, after Mendel’s laws were re-discovered, two groups with differing views on evolution emerged: 1) the mutationalists, who believed that Darwin was wrong and Mendel was correct (i.e. evolution occurred rapidly through macromutation), 2) the biometricians, who believed Mendel was wrong and Darwin was right (i.e. evolution occurred slowly and gradually via natural selection). As it turns out, both Darwin’s and Mendel’s theories could be incorporated into one. The Modern Synthesis of evolution was developed around 1920 - 1947, unifying the principles from both Darwin and Mendel. geocities.com/we_evolve/Evolution/darwin.html.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Let’s try to predict what we will say about this endless pros and cons, when we arrive in heaven.
Could it be, that we (and might even be both sides) in highest astonishment evoke:

“YES, OF COURSE, HOW STUPID OF ME”.

So; since both sides are ever so convinced of their theory, therefore quite naturally an end never will be found, why not reach hands and wait in brotherliness until we see
**

 

[rossum]

If there’s evidence,show it. Let’s analyze it to see if there is anything to suggest that a distinct species,totally incapable of breeding with any other species,and self-sustaining,can evolve.

Evidence for creationist acceptance of the evolution of species:* Brisk Biters

• Speedy Species Surprise
• Fast Mice

to quote from the second link:It may surprise uninformed evolutionists, but rapid diversification is an implicit prediction of the biblical Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model. This is because the kinds on board the Ark had to diversify, even speciate, fairly quickly afterwards (dog kind into wolves, dingoes, coyotes, etc.; another kind into horses, zebras, asses, and so forth…). Therefore, the faster such ‘downhill rearrangements’ can be seen to take place, the more neatly it fits the biblical model.
For evidence of the evolution of new species see:

• Observed Instances of Speciation
• Some More Observed Speciation Events

The natural sciences are based on naturalism – the belief that all natural phenomena can be accounted for by scientific laws.

The natural sciences are based on Methodological Naturalism - the belief that scientific explanations can only be based on natural events. Methodological naturalism says nothing about non-scientific explanations, such as theological or philosophical explanations.

As for uniformitarianism,that can’t be shown to be true either,because the laws of nature thousands of years ago can’t be tested.

False. Every time you look at the moon you are seeing it as it was a few seconds ago. The Sun you are seeing as it was a few minutes ago. If we want to see further into the past then we just look at more distant astronomical objects. Many things can be checked far into the past by observing the universe. We have tested the constancy of the Fine Structure Constant for billions of years into the past - it has been constant for at least 10 billon years.

Augustine didn’t take it as being allegorical.

Augustine did not interpret the “days” of Genesis as literal 24-hour days, he thought creation was instantaneous. That is a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

No,he doesn’t. He says God created man from his creative reason. He doesn’t believe in natural selection.

The Pope has said that he accepts the evolution of man’s physical body; he does not accept the evolution of man’s soul.

It doesn’t seem that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that paragraph.
It isn’t found here.
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

But is is found at vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html on the Vatican website. See paragraph #63.

rossum

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**How very true and everything finally settling is this word:

The Pope has said that he accepts the evolution of man’s physical body; he does not accept the evolution of man’s soul.<

Here lays the evidence that human being ADAM did not evolute, for mankind had not been human, before it (he) had a soul**