Creation or Evolution

[Orogeny]

Wow - you are a fast reader - or maybe you didn’t read any of it.

Just the part that you included in your post.

Peace

Tim

 

[coleraine]

i just want to say something. ive thought about creation and evolution alot. and after so long of debating and arguing, i dont even care anymore. here are the 100% facts: we have souls, no matter how exactly our physical attributes came about, we have souls, jesus is the son of god, the catholic church is christ on earth, and god loves us. and thats it. thats all that matters.

 

[edwest2]

Then just tell us who these scientists are who say that evolutionary theory denies divine providence. If you can’t think of any, just say so. It’s not so bad. I can’t think of any, either.

Even Stephen Gould said that there was nothing in evolutionary theory to rule out God and His role in creation. Indeed, Gould (although an agnostic) even speculated that God saw to it that man evolved, because He wanted to share it with someone.

And if no major scientist argues that it does, how much of a problem is it?

Maybe not. No one I ask knows anything about it. And my guess is that I know a lot more scientists than the Pope does.

Of course, he says “Neo-Darwinists”, not “scientists”, and there could, I suppose, be people who call themselves “Darwinists” who aren’t scientists. That might explain why they would think that science denies divine providence.

You guess you know more scientists than the Pope does? Did the Pope forget about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences?

And here’s Cardinal Schoenborn again in an article relating to his New York Times Op-Ed from 2005. I found the last two paragraphs to be the most relevant. An excerpt:

“What frequently passes for modern science - with its heavy accretion of materialism and positivism - is simply wrong about nature in fundamental ways. Modern science is often, in the words of my essay, ‘ideology, not science.’”

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=71

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

And here’s Cardinal Schoenborn again in an article relating to his New York Times Op-Ed from 2005. I found the last two paragraphs to be the most relevant. An excerpt:

“What frequently passes for modern science - with its heavy accretion of materialism and positivism - is simply wrong about nature in fundamental ways. Modern science is often, in the words of my essay, ‘ideology, not science.’”

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=71

The problem with the First Things article is that Schoenborn got in way over his head - his lack of knowledge of biology and the meaning of randomness in science in particular negated pretty much everything he had to say there. Schoenborn was bamboozled by the ID crowd to play an Intelligent Design card. That was a big mistake and he has been back pedalling furiously ever since. For my complete demolition of the First Things article go here:
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

Alec

 

[edwest2]

I read and reread the First Things article and agree with Cardinal Schoenborn. He was careful to define what he meant all through the article.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

I read and reread the First Things article and agree with Cardinal Schoenborn. He was careful to define what he meant all through the article.

Your approbation doesn’t make him right. He was wrong in many respects which are clearly laid out here:
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

I do understand that you are unable or unwilling to engage in a detailed discussion of this, but the fact is that Schoenborn was egregiously wrong in many important respects.

Alec

 

[edwest2]

May I ask why do you think I am unable or unwilling? What would cause my inability? I hope we can remove any wall of preconception that separates us as people.

I have read your critique and it makes certain assumptions. You criticize Schoenborn but you do not address the quotes from Pope John Paul II. Schoenborn uses the word design, but that word is taboo today for its political implications. But that does not rule out the idea that design does exist in nature.

The guiding principle is that knowledge given by God is actual knowledge. You give the Steven Weinburg quote about the utility of science for making it possible for people not to be religious. Apparently, as scientists do science, all of their brain is engaged. So it is not just analysis, examination and recording results. It has an affect on them that is philosophical or metaphysical. You mention this worldview as having the “same validity as anyone else.” To the individual, it may be valid, but for anyone who has spent any time on internet forums knows, all worldviews or opinions are not equal; some don’t even make any sense.

You mention that mutations have “no knowledge of the consequences for the organism.” The Catholic Church will tell you that God is the first cause and the cause of causes. You quote from a Church document regarding evolution but did not quote a statement from that same document that was meant to be final word regarding the evolutionary process: “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…” I realize most scientists would simply laugh at this scientifically not provable assumption, but the Cardinal makes it clear that evolution combined with religious knowledge would meet the requirement of being acceptable to the faith. But… and this is very important… he correctly criticizes scientists who, for whatever reason, step out of their lab coats and go around promoting atheism because evolution proves you don’t need a god, any god. This would, of course, prevent them from seeing an alternative; one that can be arrived at without faith.

Working in the media, I see how ideas are spread. Peer pressure does not end in high school or even old age. Everyone a person comes in contact with, especially in higher education and professional job settings, exudes, knowingly and unknowingly, an aura of authority and a certain mindset. Criticizing the prevailing mindset of an institution where you may spend the rest of your life is generally resisted.

On the theory of evolution itself, it is not neutral. If it were so, results would be published and life would continue. However, it has found utility, first, inside of science which broadens basic biology as regards history and physical systems to evolutionary psychology, religion as an evolutionary survival mechanism, and evolution as a road to atheism or indifference. As one individual wrote: “Even if science gave me a biological reason for why I loved my wife that wouldn’t change anything.” Conversely, when evolutionary theory excludes what the Chrch teaches as knowledge that can be gained without religious involvement and substitutes it with a process that is purely mechanical and deterministic, and thereby concludes there are no causes, it strays into ideological territory.

I think he gives a good explanation of randomness and the term uncorrelated.

It is necessary then to examine preconceptions held by all parties, and the effects, intended or unintended, of what they do. For scientists, the formula seems to be: the more you know and learn, the less likely you are to believe, or you just stop caring one way or the other. For Cardinal Schoenborn, he observes from a position of faith, scientists doing their work and then making anti-God statements based on that same work. He then properly warns Catholics regarding this.

If people were simply robots that responded to outside stimuli, ate, excreted and reproduced, we would not be having this discussion. The earth is covered by people who are motivated by many things and there is a purposeful struggle going on for beliefs. Some are false, some are true.

It amuses me when scientists put a fruit fly in a jar and stimulate it with a light or by holding an object near it. Reading their report on this experiment, it is clear that the scientists fully expect the fruit fly to behave like an automotan with predictable reactions to certain outside stimuli - the same thing over and over. And why shouldn’t they think that? The fruit fly has a brain that’s what? Smaller than the head of a pin? But then the fruit fly does something “unpredictable…”

Peace,
Ed

 

[beeliner]

i just want to say something. ive thought about creation and evolution alot. and after so long of debating and arguing, i dont even care anymore. here are the 100% facts: we have souls, no matter how exactly our physical attributes came about, we have souls, jesus is the son of god, the catholic church is christ on earth, and god loves us. and thats it. thats all that matters.

As a Christian and a Catholic, I agree with all those things, but those are matters of religious faith - they are not ‘100% facts’ in the sense that 2+2=4 is a fact or that the laws of the universe are facts. Facts can be proven, the things you named are accepted by those of faith without proof.

By the way, if you look closely, you’ll notice two wide buttons, one to left of “Z” and the other to the right of “?” marked ‘Shift’.

Ever wondered what they were for?

 

[The_Barbarian]

You guess you know more scientists than the Pope does?

I’d have to say so, yes.

Did the Pope forget about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences?

A few dozen, maybe. Not nearly as many as I’ve known.

And here’s Cardinal Schoenborn again in an article relating to his New York Times Op-Ed from 2005. I found the last two paragraphs to be the most relevant. An excerpt:

"What frequently passes for modern science - with its heavy accretion of materialism and positivism - is simply wrong about nature in fundamental ways. Modern science is often, in the words of my essay, ‘ideology, not science.’"

Too bad the Cardinal didn’t think of supporting it with some examples. As you see, the “many scientists think evolution rules out God” idea was wrong. Perhaps Schoenborn doesn’t know many scientists. He certainly hasn’t read much of the literature.

But, as others have documented here, Schoenborn has been doing a lot of backpedalling lately.

 

[ricmat]

As a Christian and a Catholic, I agree with all those things, but those are matters of religious faith - they are not ‘100% facts’ in the sense that 2+2=4 is a fact or that the laws of the universe are facts. Facts can be proven, the things you named are accepted by those of faith without proof.

The only sure fact is that God exists. The universe is held in existence by God, and there is actually no guarantee that the laws will be the same tomorrow, or that there will even be a tomorrow. We can all be sure of God’s existence (and the fact that we have souls) much more than we can even be sure that the others on the board actually exist, for that matter.

By the way, if you look closely, you’ll notice two wide buttons, one to left of “Z” and the other to the right of “?” marked ‘Shift’.

Ever wondered what they were for?

What a nice way to greet a newcomer beeliner.

Another one of those beeliner is better/smarter/more logical/etc. comments that you’ve been throwing around. You’re proud because you think you have things all figured out. Yesterday’s daily mass reading was Mt 11:25. You should read it.

And Coleraine is right. In the end, there is no “what are the facts about evolution” test to get into heaven. There is a pride test, however.

 

[beeliner]

The only sure fact is that God exists. The universe is held in existence by God, and there is actually no guarantee that the laws will be the same tomorrow, or that there will even be a tomorrow. We can all be sure of God’s existence (and the fact that we have souls) much more than we can even be sure that the others on the board actually exist, for that matter.

What a nice way to greet a newcomer beeliner.

Another one of those beeliner is better/smarter/more logical/etc. comments that you’ve been throwing around. You’re proud because you think you have things all figured out. Yesterday’s daily mass reading was Mt 11:25. You should read it.

And Coleraine is right. In the end, there is no “what are the facts about evolution” test to get into heaven. There is a pride test, however.

Gosh, ric, I guess there’s them as has a sense of humor and then there’s them as hasn’t.

Of course, the things you mention in your first paragraph are also matters of religious faith, a faith which I share. That you refer to them as facts in an attempt to characterize the level or strength of your faith is understandable.

Facts are provable. If you think you can prove that either of us has a soul, feel free.

 

[peary]

Two books:

Chance or Purpose? by Cardinal Schonborn (Ignatius, 2007)

Creation and Evolution by Pope Benedict XVI “student circle” (Ignatius, 2008)

The creation-evolution threads go on because we have Catholics denying the science, which requires many posts of correction by folks who know the science, or other folks pitting Catholic dogma against the science, which requires more posts of correction or explanation.

Catholics denying science goes against Church teaching, and against using the brains God gave us to understand the world.

What you find in both books above: the science for evolution is strong but has limits. None of the theologians, philosophers, or churchmen in the above books contests the science, but the science doesn’t answer questions of meaning and purpose. The real debate is a philosophical one.

Phil P

Agreed!

 

[ricmat]

Gosh, ric, I guess there’s them as has a sense of humor and then there’s them as hasn’t.

I notice that your grammar and language skills deteriorate significantly when you are talking down to people.

And you complain about somebody not using capital letters?

 

[edwest2]

I’d have to say so, yes.

A few dozen, maybe. Not nearly as many as I’ve known.

"What frequently passes for modern science - with its heavy accretion of materialism and positivism - is simply wrong about nature in fundamental ways. Modern science is often, in the words of my essay, ‘ideology, not science.’"

Too bad the Cardinal didn’t think of supporting it with some examples. As you see, the “many scientists think evolution rules out God” idea was wrong. Perhaps Schoenborn doesn’t know many scientists. He certainly hasn’t read much of the literature.

But, as others have documented here, Schoenborn has been doing a lot of backpedalling lately.

I have seen no evidence of backpedalling. This seems to be an unfulfilled wish voiced by a few.

Your nonsensical statement about many scientists is not borne out by the article I cited. Both the Pope and the Cardinal are responding appropriately to Godless propaganda.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But, as others have documented here, Schoenborn has been doing a lot of backpedalling lately.

I have seen no evidence of backpedalling. This seems to be an unfulfilled wish voiced by a few.

**Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, considered a contender in the recent papal race, has apparently distanced himself from remarks he made in the New York Times in July when he said that an “unguided, unplanned process of natural selection” was not “true”.

His remarks were widely interpreted as a signal that the Vatican no longer accepted that the theory of evolution could co-exist with a belief in the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

In 1996, Pope John Paul II issued a formal statement on the compatibility of science and religion. Schoenborn is considered something of an expert on church doctrine, so Schoenborn’s apparently revisionist reading of that statement came as something of a surprise.

However, in a lecture given at St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna on Sunday, Schoenborn said that it was possible he had not expressed himself clearly.

“Such misunderstandings can be cleared up,” he said, according to a Reuters report.

The 60-year-old cardinal now says that there need not be an inherent conflict between divine creation and evolution. He says that one is a matter for religion, the other for science, and that the two disciplines are complementary.

Schoenborn said: “Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history. I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition - that the limits of a scientific theory are respected.”

He explained that in his view, those limits would be overstepped if scientists claimed that evolution proves that there could be no creator. Since science has never made any such claim on evolution’s behalf*, it looks like it’s still OK by the Vatican.
**
theregister.co.uk/2005/10/05/creation_evolution/

Much better. The Cardinal is quite right; a lot of people misunderstood him, the first time. He seems to be entirely in line with Catholic doctrine, after all.

Your nonsensical statement about many scientists is not borne out by the article I cited.

But no one can name even one scientist like that. As I said, the Pope didn’t say “scientists.” Apparently, you’ve now realized that it’s going to be extremely hard to find even one scientist like that, um?

 

[edwest2]

So sad that you continue to shade the truth. The Cardinal reiterates the same condition he mentions in the First Things article. The limit needs to be respected but it hasn’t been.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

So sad that you continue to shade the truth. The Cardinal reiterates the same condition he mentions in the First Things article.

Ed, those are the Cardinal’s own words. I just copied and pasted them.

And if you recall, we were telling you that science has limits, and you weren’t willing to accept it.

Am I to assume since you again declined to name any scientist who says evolutionary theory denies God’s providence, that you realize there are none?

 

[beeliner]

I notice that your grammar and language skills deteriorate significantly when you are talking down to people.

1. Lighten up, ric. It was just a little joke.
2. It’s not possible to talk to creationists in any other direction.
3. How about the soul proof?

 

[edwest2]

Ed, those are the Cardinal’s own words. I just copied and pasted them.

And if you recall, we were telling you that science has limits, and you weren’t willing to accept it.

Am I to assume since you again declined to name any scientist who says evolutionary theory denies God’s providence, that you realize there are none?

More truth shading. You ignore the clear connection between science and the ideology Cardinal Schoemborn writes about. You ignore the fact that he wrote most science today is ideology, not science. That is the point.

Anyone who thinks evolutionary science is neutral is fooling themselves. It is a Godless-materialist ideology. As hecd2 quoted Steven Weinburg in another post who talked about the utility of science that allows people not to be religious. And that is apparently a good thing according to him. Or don’t you get that?

Evolutionary science has become thoroughly polluted by ideology, and this science ignores things that can be found out about nature that don’t require religious belief.

You apparently think science occurs in a clean, sterile environment where only pure and unsullied scientific thoughts pass through the minds of the participants. Wrong. They walk into the lab with all of their biases, preconceptions and ideas about how things should be. Combine that with the prejudices of those they work with, and before you know it, scientists are convinced they know a lot more than the raw data in front of them. You should know evolutionary biology is not limited to the study of gross anatomical features. It has been expanded to include evolutionary psychology where things get really messy.

For individuals like hecd2, the connection between all this “science” and their strong desire to disbelieve in any god, just like Dawkins, is the way things should be. The “science has limits” idea is right out the window. These results now become enshrined as human reason, which justifies atheist supported groups like Rally for Reason to run out and protest the recently opened creation museum. And why are they afraid of what some internet denizens call cretards? Huh? They’re afraid people, of their own free will, will walk into the creation museum and believe what they see. If evolution is all about facts and biologists use it everyday, creation museums should be on the same level as hippie communes, but they are not. Why? Because the ideology included in evolutionary psychology must be maintained. Man is his genes and environment, nothing more. Get it?

Science has limits? Humans are swayed by peer pressure, by institutionalized prejudices and by people like Professor Richard Dawkins being asked on television: “Didn’t god form man from the dust of the earth and breathe life into his nostrils?” To which Professor Dawkins replied, “No.”

Professor Dawkins is also of the cold, pitiless universe school. The average person adds Professor Dawkin’s comments to whatever they may know about evolution and religion for that matter. His is a voice of authority, right? He should know what he’s talking about, right?

You, like hecd2, ignore Pope Pius XII. Adam and Eve could not have been our first parents-- evolution-deals-with-population-not-individuals. Blah, blah, blah.

So, I believe what Cardinal Schoenborn wrote since the poll by Nature shows most scientists disbelieving in God. The quote from Steven Weinburg about how science helps that process, and the quote from Professor Richard Dawkins about denying a supernatural creation.

To be blunt: evolutionary science is polluted and prejudiced and scientists are affected by it, go beyond scientific limits and spread their ideology among the people. Cardinal Schoenborn was right to warn Catholics.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

1. Lighten up, ric. It was just a little joke.
2. It’s not possible to talk to creationists in any other direction.
3. How about the soul proof?

1. Your “little jokes” devalue the humanity of the people they are directed at.
2. Your #2 above says more about you than creationists.
3. There are some good books to read about proof of the soul. I recommend “The Science Before Science” by Rizzi. Unfortunately, there is no single “proof of the soul” chapter. The “proof” is scattered in bits and pieces throughout the whole book.