Creation or Evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Why are you bringing up Protestants on a Catholic forum? I was raised Catholic and have had no contact, along with my Catholic friends, with any Protestant teaching, yet you have brought it up here on more than one occasion. What is the problem?

If it has feathers and quacks, people will probably conclude it’s a duck.

 

[Namesake]

The scientific method has no way to check the supernatural. But since the Church already has tools to do that, why would you want to? It’s O.K. to be unscientific, when that’s appropriate.

How do you show evidence of absence? You can only show that God cannot be found by inductive investigation. That hardly means He doesn’t exist.

Plumbing can work just fine without invoking God, too. But plumbing doesn’t disprove God.

Lets subject God to scientific analysis and see what happens. If we can’t find evidence then we get rid of the concept of God. I mean, if God is real then we ought to be able to detect that reality, no? If we cannot detect that as real then scrap the whole idea because we wouldn’t want to believe in something that isn’t real, right? Just plain rationality.

 

[edwest2]

(Barbarian notes that the Pope and scientists agree that any theory that denies divine providence is outside the effective bounds of science)

A lot of people don’t realize this. For a time, you didn’t.

Neither are evolutionists. There are dozens of journals dedicated to working on problems in evolution, just as there are dozens of journals dedicated to working on problems in Chemistry.

Lots of work yet to do. If you (or Shoenborn) mean that he doesn’t think evolution is a fact, that would contradict his statement that it’s virtually certain, and that there is a huge body of evidence to support it.

My guess is that it’s you, not the Cardinal who has it wrong.

Still stuck on that “common descent is virtually certain” phrase? What does it matter what the Church thinks on this? Your primary goal has always been promoting science and associated ideology.

It’s interesting when others say the Church is only about faith and morals, but, when it comes to science, which only means evolution here, the world cannot wait for the Church to say something about science. Further evidence that science is not being promoted here but an ideology that tells human beings that “nature” is some sort of active force when, in fact, it doesn’t exist as an active force.

And please, don’t get vague about evolution. I’ve seen the statement “Evolution is a fact!” more than once here. Which is puzzling since, as I’ve been told, science doesn’t prove or disprove.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Lets subject God to scientific analysis and see what happens. If we can’t find evidence then we get rid of the concept of God. I mean, if God is real then we ought to be able to detect that reality, no? If we cannot detect that as real then scrap the whole idea because we wouldn’t want to believe in something that isn’t real, right? Just plain rationality.

Yes, it’s just the same old: “Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in him.” I heard that 30 years ago and obviously, nothing’s changed, except for a few rephrasings. Nothing’s changed.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

If it has feathers and quacks, people will probably conclude it’s a duck.

So how many people do you speak for here? Just this one or are there others?

Are you a political activist on this forum? A lobbyist for a political/ideological viewpoint designed to change votes?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Still stuck on that “common descent is virtually certain” phrase? What does it matter what the Church thinks on this? Your primary goal has always been promoting science and associated ideology.

It’s interesting when others say the Church is only about faith and morals, but, when it comes to science, which only means evolution here, the world cannot wait for the Church to say something about science. Further evidence that science is not being promoted here but an ideology that tells human beings that “nature” is some sort of active force when, in fact, it doesn’t exist as an active force.

And please, don’t get vague about evolution. I’ve seen the statement “Evolution is a fact!” more than once here. Which is puzzling since, as I’ve been told, science doesn’t prove or disprove.

Peace,
Ed

Evolution theory is the basis of almost all our biological science. Nearly all scientists in the world agree with evolutionary theory. Betcha don’t want to get rid of our biology, do you?

 

[Namesake]

Yes, it’s just the same old: “Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in him.” I heard that 30 years ago and obviously, nothing’s changed, except for a few rephrasings. Nothing’s changed.

God bless,
Ed

I didn’t say I might believe in Him. I said that if we can’t demonstrate God maybe we should just chuck the idea. Then we could spend time more productively dealing with reality instead of spending so much time and money in false pursuit.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution theory is the basis of almost all our biological science. Nearly all scientists in the world agree with evolutionary theory. Betcha don’t want to get rid of our biology, do you?

I have been told on this forum that many scientists do not believe in God based on evolutionary theory. I think this concern is appropriate to present on a Catholic forum

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I didn’t say I might believe in Him. I said that if we can’t demonstrate God maybe we should just chuck the idea. Then we could spend time more productively dealing with reality instead of spending so much time and money in false pursuit.

This certainty of false pursuit does not address the issue of dealing with the fault that lies within each person on earth. I recommend you consider a Technocracy - a society ruled by science. It is safe to assume based on history, that the men in charge will tweak certain results to suit selfish ends. The good of the individual will be subverted by tainted results and outright falsehoods proclaimed by a scientific ruling class.

The rulers will rule as all rulers have in the past. Your best interest will not be high on their list. History bears that out.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

So how many people do you speak for here? Just this one or are there others?

Just observing that if it has feathers and quacks, people are going to think “duck.”

Are you a political activist on this forum?

I think you let politics overrule your faith too much, Ed. Far as I can see, this has nothing to do with politics.

A lobbyist for a political/ideological viewpoint designed to change votes?

I doubt if anyone would pay for someone to annoy you on a message board. I’m a libertarian; if you want to PM as to why, I’d be pleased to do that, but I don’t think they like that kind of thing on the board.

 

[edwest2]

This isn’t about me. Are you familiar with the term astroturf as it applies to promoting ideas on the internet? People do get paid to pretend (not saying you) that they are the real grass roots.

Working in the media as I do, I’ve gotten tired of the whole “viral” marketing concept. I’m also a little tired of glib.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Still stuck on that “common descent is virtually certain” phrase?

Since it’s the Pope’s opinion on evolution, it’s likely to turn up when someone wants to talk about the Pope’s opinion of evolution.

What does it matter what the Church thinks on this?

Maybe it doesn’t matter to you. I can’t say.

Your primary goal has always been promoting science and associated ideology.

My primary concern, as you know, is that YE creationism is a highly effective atheist-maker.

It’s interesting when others say the Church is only about faith and morals, but, when it comes to science, which only means evolution here, the world cannot wait for the Church to say something about science. Further evidence that science is not being promoted here but an ideology that tells human beings that “nature” is some sort of active force when, in fact, it doesn’t exist as an active force.

Nature just means the physical universe; the matter and energy ant the interactions therein.

And please, don’t get vague about evolution.

It has a very precise definition: “A change in population allele frequency over time.”

I’ve seen the statement “Evolution is a fact!” more than once here. Which is puzzling since, as I’ve been told, science doesn’t prove or disprove.

Inductive reasoning is like that. If I’ve failed to walk through walls in the past, I’m going to consider it a fact that I can’t walk through walls.

Might be wrong, but the evidence indicates that I’m not. A reasonable person would consider it a fact, although I can’t prove it might not happen sometime.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This isn’t about me.

You seem overly preoccupied with politics, ed.

Are you familiar with the term astroturf as it applies to promoting ideas on the internet? People do get paid to pretend (not saying you) that they are the real grass roots.

All the examples I know about are commercial ventures.

Working in the media as I do, I’ve gotten tired of the whole “viral” marketing concept. I’m also a little tired of glib.

“Glib” gleb n. Anyone who is more articulate than you are.

 

[edwest2]

Opinion. What a pointless word when talking about creation. The Pope does not have opinions. He has the deposit of faith. He has divine revelation. He has the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No opinions. And that’s why people get upset when the Pope, speaking for the Catholic Church, says something against evolution. These people worry that Catholics, like me, will believe him. And why shouldn’t we?

Those pushing the “Second Enlightenment” have to devise all sorts of dodges and strategems to make it appear that the Church does not believe in God’s direct involvement in the creation of life. And not a drop kick into existence involvement, but a direct, intimate involvement. That’s why people who claim to be interested in science play amateur theologian and try to dismantle Genesis, or Noah or even the life of Jesus Christ. Everything that goes against convincing Christians that something called evolution happened is called allegory or myth or why not just discard God all together and just deal with reality (that was written on this forum tonight). The end goal is clear. That’s why a group called Rally for Reason had to stage a protest outside of a creation museum. The cause of atheism has to be defended.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

You seem overly preoccupied with politics, ed.

All the examples I know about are commercial ventures.

“Glib” gleb n. Anyone who is more articulate than you are.

Yep, stand-up is your forte.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

I already responded to this argument much further back in the thread . . . I think it got lost in the shuffle. Basically, the verse where it says God created all the birds of the air in Genesis 2 does not have to be read as taking place chronologically after Adam was made. It says that God did not want man to be alone, “So the Lord God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air . . .”

And I replied that I do not find your interpretation convincing. Genesis 2:18 has "Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Emphasis added) The future tense (“I will make”) implies that we are looking at a sequence of events that is not yet completed. The connective “So” at the start of the next verse implies a logical cause and effect connection between the two verses. Hence these two verses are in a time sequence because the cause must come before the effect. These two things lead me to think that you are mistaken to take Genesis 2:18-19 as not being chronological.

You are entitled to your own personal interpretation, but please do not expect me to accept it as the only possible interpretation of these two verses.

(Note, the word is not “all” but “various”- “all” is only referred to in verse 20, when man named all the animals, including the birds, but not necessarily when they were made)

You would do well not to rely too much on the exact words of a particular English translation. The RSV has Genesis 2:18 as “So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.” (Emphases added)
Douay-Rheims has “And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.” (Emphases added)

rossum

 

[beeliner]

1. Why are you bringing up Protestants on a Catholic forum?
2. I was raised Catholic and have had no contact, along with my Catholic friends, with any Protestant teaching, yet you have brought it up here on more than one occasion.
3. What is the problem?

1. You’re losing it, Eddy. It was poster buffalo who linked to the Fundamentalist Protestant website.

Of course, they have a right to BELIEVE any thing they wish, but when they post…

Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.

Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earth’s features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (i.e., the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis 6-8).

…they have crossed the line, because there is NO scientific evidence to support either of those claims; on the contrary, science totally debunks both, and they are fully aware of it. That is not faith, that is false witness, a direct violation of a commandment. How can a religion that puts forth a list of ‘beliefs’ based on lies have any validity?

1. You are also a few centuries behind on CATHOLIC teaching.
2. See 2.

 

[The_Barbarian]

No opinions. And that’s why people get upset when the Pope, speaking for the Catholic Church, says something against evolution.

Most of the anger I’ve seen here has occurred because the Pope said something supporting evolution. I don’t know of anyone here who objects when the Pope says that any theory that denies divine providence is objectionable. Scientists say the same thing, noting that science can’t decide things like that.

These people worry that Catholics, like me, will believe him.

Ed, all your difficulties would be over, if you just accepted what he says about evolution.

And why shouldn’t we?

Indeed. Why don’t you?

Those pushing the “Second Enlightenment” have to devise all sorts of dodges and strategems to make it appear that the Church does not believe in God’s direct involvement in the creation of life.

Evolution is not about the creation of life, Ed. God says that the earth and waters brought forth life, as He commanded. That is abiogenesis, not evolution.

And not a drop kick into existence involvement, but a direct, intimate involvement.

Ed, God has a direct, intimate involvement with everything in nature. It would not exist, but for that involvement.

That’s why people who claim to be interested in science play amateur theologian and try to dismantle Genesis, or Noah or even the life of Jesus Christ.

Then why am I advocating Scripture, and you are denying it?

Everything that goes against convincing Christians that something called evolution happened is called allegory or myth or why not just discard God all together and just deal with reality (that was written on this forum tonight).

Since the Pope has called common descent of all living things, “virtually certain,” it seems that he thinks evolution is consistent with our faith. He’s not the first Pope to say so, you know.

The end goal is clear. That’s why a group called Rally for Reason had to stage a protest outside of a creation museum. The cause of atheism has to be defended.

Creationism is not Christianity, Ed. And as the Pope observed, admitting the way God created things, is not atheism. Let it go, and let God be God.

 

[edwest2]

1. You’re losing it, Eddy. It was poster buffalo who linked to the Fundamentalist Protestant website.

Of course, they have a right to BELIEVE any thing they wish, but when they post…they have crossed the line, because there is NO scientific evidence to support either of those claims; on the contrary, science totally debunks both, and they are fully aware of it. That is not faith, that is false witness, a direct violation of a commandment. How can a religion that puts forth a list of ‘beliefs’ based on lies have any validity?

1. You are also a few centuries behind on CATHOLIC teaching.
2. See 2.

What are you going to do about it? Lies? If you can prove it, what are you going to do about it?

In the meantime, there is evidence that definitely does not fit in with the geologic time scale, but you are too busy yelling lies. That’s why a creation museum was built. That’s why people experienced conversions to the faith there. And that’s why a predominantly atheist supported organization called Rally for Reason had to protest there. The great overriding fear is that people might go into the museum and believe what they see. It might erode the secular-atheist theory of evolution.

I know Church teaching. Evolution without God is impossible.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Most of the anger I’ve seen here has occurred because the Pope said something supporting evolution. I don’t know of anyone here who objects when the Pope says that any theory that denies divine providence is objectionable. Scientists say the same thing, noting that science can’t decide things like that.

Ed, all your difficulties would be over, if you just accepted what he says about evolution.

Indeed. Why don’t you?

Evolution is not about the creation of life, Ed. God says that the earth and waters brought forth life, as He commanded. That is abiogenesis, not evolution.

Ed, God has a direct, intimate involvement with everything in nature. It would not exist, but for that involvement.

Then why am I advocating Scripture, and you are denying it?

Since the Pope has called common descent of all living things, “virtually certain,” it seems that he thinks evolution is consistent with our faith. He’s not the first Pope to say so, you know.

Creationism is not Christianity, Ed. And as the Pope observed, admitting the way God created things, is not atheism. Let it go, and let God be God.

Your political concerns involve so-called YECs. This is not an appropriate concern for people of faith. When Pope Benedict states that “evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory” I believe him. Why don’t you?

When he says that popular and scientific texts mention ‘nature’ and ‘evolution’ doing this or that, he then asks: What is this ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ as (an active) force? It doesn’t exist at all!

Why don’t you believe him?

Peace,
Ed