Creation or Evolution

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian -

Back to the OT, I want to point out your constant promotion for the theory of evolution and your downplaying of God, His work and His miracles, and your use of fear tactics.

Your ploy has been to bring up evolution and all sorts of supposed evidence, followed by evolution is a fact. If someone, like myself, disagrees with you, they are lumped into the Creationist or ID camp. Both of these are purely political constructs as you use those terms. Any attempt to mention these ideas as legitimate only means your ridicule, and not a willingness to examine them, not as politics, but as ideas worthy of considerstion. Not all ideas, especially those that include religious elements, appear in scientific journals. This prejudice against considering supernatural explanations is not my constraint, especially as a Catholic.

Your comments almost always emphasize what you call science while mentioning God as a kind of footnote or afterthougt. Also, if someone tries to discredit evolution, you threaten them with the wrath of the Pope if they disagree. Have you considered for a second that what is being claimed about evolutionary theory might be wrong? Has it occurred to you that evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology are just elaborate stories created by the unfaithful so that those who want to disbelieve will have some scientific made up story to justify their disbelief?

You still don’t seem to get the idea that the Church has something to say about science and that science is not the only way of knowing. No, the Bible is not a science book but it does record things God actually did. Your insistence, along with some others, that Genesis needs to be reinterpreted because “science” says so makes me suspicious of the urgency for this.

Lucy was declared an ape by the French publication Science et Vie, which, according to that article, destroys the hominid family tree, yet it is being paraded around as evidence. If you are a Catholic then certain supernatural things are not just believed but are, in fact, true. When Jesus said, this is my body and this is my blood, He meant it. Science is not the road to salvation. It is not the only source of actual knowledge as I’ve just shown.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

To the creationists - what fatal gaps or flaws are there in Darwinian evolution?

See the publication, Science et Vie, May 1999. The cover story is Adieu Lucy. The fossil remains were examined by Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard. Their conclusion: “australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape.” Examination of other remains of the same type, identified only as StW573, led to the conclusion that it “destroys the hominid family tree.”

By the way, I am not a political creationist. Along with the Pope, I believe that some process similar to evolution occurred but not in the way stated in current biology texts.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Shredderbeam]

edwest2:

See the publication, Science et Vie, May 1999. The cover story is Adieu Lucy. The fossil remains were examined by Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard. Their conclusion: “australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape.” Examination of other remains of the same type, identified only as StW573, led to the conclusion that it “destroys the hominid family tree.”

By the way, I am not a political creationist. Along with the Pope, I believe that some process similar to evolution occurred but not in the way stated in current biology texts.

God bless,
Ed

If my understanding of human evolution is correct, australopithecines were ordinary apes - except that they walked upright.

 

[The_Barbarian]

See the publication, Science et Vie, May 1999. The cover story is Adieu Lucy. The fossil remains were examined by Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard. Their conclusion: “australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape.” Examination of other remains of the same type, identified only as StW573, led to the conclusion that it “destroys the hominid family tree.”

Science & Vie covered technical advances in industry, but also in military technology. In particular, it featured articles on explosives, firearms, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. The Vie Pratique section was concerned with technology in daily life. It included articles on photography, personal computers, video recording equipment or television. Besides these three sections, Science & Vie contained a section on amateur electronics by Henri-Pierre Penel, a section on amateur astronomy La Calculette de l’Astronome, and two sections on computer programming in BASIC, one of video games
Wikipedia

Science et Vie is a popular magazine, sort of like National Geographic. And because it’s not peer-reviewed, sometimes some really embarrassing gaffes get in. Like Zuckerman’s. Later examination of Australopithecine skeletons showed conclusive evidence of bipedalism.

In overall anatomy, the pelvis is far more human-like than ape-like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and positioned directly behind the hip joint, and there is clear evidence of a strong attachment for the knee extensors. While the pelvis is not wholly human-like (being markedly wide with flared with laterally orientated iliac blades), these features point to a structure that can be considered radically remodeled to accommodate a significant degree of bipedalism in the animals’ locomotor repertoire. Importantly, the femur also angles in toward the knee from the hip. This trait would have allowed the foot to have fallen closer to the midline of the body, and is a strong indication of habitual bipedal locomotion. Along with humans, present day orangutans and spider monkeys possess this same feature. The feet also feature adducted big toes, making it difficult if not impossible to grasp branches with the hindlimbs. The loss of a grasping hindlimb also increases the risk of an infant being dropped or falling, as primates typically hold onto their mothers while the mother goes about her daily business. Without the second set of grasping limbs, the infant cannot maintain as strong a grip, and likely had to be held with help from the mother. The problem of holding the infant would be multiplied if the mother also had to climb trees. The ankle joint of A. afarensis is also markedly human-like.
Wikipeda

Other evidence, such as anatomical features of the wrist and curved digits suggest that A. afarensis was still capable of climbing trees in an apelike manner, but the other features indicate that it was primarily a bipedal walker.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Back to the OT, I want to point out your constant promotion for the theory of evolution and your downplaying of God, His work and His miracles,

The major difference between us, Ed, is that I don’t disapprove of the way He did it. I see God’s creation as much greater and more elegant than any creationist like yourself is willing to accept.

and your use of fear tactics.

As you know, creationism is an efficient atheist-maker. No “maybe” about it.

Your ploy has been to bring up evolution and all sorts of supposed evidence, followed by evolution is a fact.

(creationists get riled up at the “e” word - “evidence”)

If someone, like myself, disagrees with you, they are lumped into the Creationist or ID camp.

If you use all the discredited ploys creationists use, and the same arguments, do you see why that might lead people to a conclusion?

Both of these are purely political constructs as you use those terms.

Your obsession with politics is one of the things that is keeping you from a rational consideration of the evidence.

Any attempt to mention these ideas as legitimate only means your ridicule, and not a willingness to examine them, not as politics, but as ideas worthy of considerstion. Not all ideas, especially those that include religious elements, appear in scientific journals.

You are expecting that everyone will avoid criticism of your ideas. And that’s a highly unrealistic expectation for a message board. What seems to rile you the most is that people do examine your claims.

This prejudice against considering supernatural explanations is not my constraint, especially as a Catholic.

I’ve pointed out to you quite a number of supernatural explanations. But they are ones the Church teaches, not creationism.

Your comments almost always emphasize what you call science while mentioning God as a kind of footnote or afterthougt. Also, if someone tries to discredit evolution, you threaten them with the wrath of the Pope if they disagree.

I did? (goes back to check) Nope. You made that one up. In fact, I have several times told you that the Church allows you to be a creationist, in spite of what the Pope has written.

Have you considered for a second that what is being claimed about evolutionary theory might be wrong?

All the time. If you accept science, you must be willing to accept that it is always provisional on new evidence.

Has it occurred to you that evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology are just elaborate stories created by the unfaithful so that those who want to disbelieve will have some scientific made up story to justify their disbelief?

No, that one is too paranoid to be seriously considered.

You still don’t seem to get the idea that the Church has something to say about science and that science is not the only way of knowing.

I said that before you did here. “Not the only way of knowing” was my phrase.

No, the Bible is not a science book but it does record things God actually did. Your insistence, along with some others, that Genesis needs to be reinterpreted because “science” says so makes me suspicious of the urgency for this.

Rather, I don’t accept the reinterpretation by creationists. As you learned, Genesis explicitly rules out YE creationism.

Lucy was declared an ape by the French publication Science et Vie, which, according to that article, destroys the hominid family tree, yet it is being paraded around as evidence.

*National Geographic *declared a new feathered dinosaur. Like Science et Vie, it was a popular magazine, unwilling to wait for peer review. And like National Geographic, it was embarrassed when the facts came out.

If you are a Catholic then certain supernatural things are not just believed but are, in fact, true. When Jesus said, this is my body and this is my blood, He meant it.

I’m unclear as to how this rules out evolution. Apparently, so is the Pope.

Science is not the road to salvation.

It’s not supposed to be, Ed. This is one of the problems you have with science.

 

[edwest2]

Science has no intellect or will, only men do.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Deconi]

I tend to disagree there, Ed.

Science IS intelligent without a will.
Men have will without intelligence…well, the ones who keep pouring “evolution” on us in these threads, anyway.

The French DISGARDED Darwin’s theories in 1925 as ‘fanciful without demonstration,’ meaning rubbish theory without evidence!!

That was before the textbooks you speak of were printed…and they still printed them!!

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian -

What you do here can be properly described as a propaganda campaign. It has all the elements: facts, misleading or incomplete statements and appeals to emotion. Another term for what you do is ‘engineering consent.’

Along with rossum and avowed atheist scientist hecd2, you augment their writing. This is not and never has been about science. hecd2 is a perfect example of someone who denies God and the Bible, calling it a myth. His purpose is to explicitly deny to God any role in the creation of life. His ‘bible’ is the biology textbook or science as you like to call it.

Whenever the dreaded term ID is mentioned, alarm bells go off, followed by, no, no, that’s religion! No! Don’t think about it! Put it out of your minds! But when I point out that Cardinal Schoenborn’s New York Times Op-Ed was titled Finding Design in Nature, I get not a peep.

The writings of the three of you have led me to believe that the current theory of evolution as presented in the biology textbook is completely atheistic. No, I’m not concerned about contaminating the holy science lab with God or the holy public school science class with God, I’m talking about right here, a Catholic forum. I am convinced that the only authority I can trust on this subject is the Catholic Church, especially the contents of Human Persons Created in the Image of God, not science.

Nonsensical references to cookbooks, plumbing manuals and hydraulics do not tell human beings anything about their true identity and their true origin. Nothing here is about educationg people about science, it’s about atheism. The evidence will make you free? Not this nonsensical evolutionary psychology or developmental psychology which explicityly tell human beings that not you, but your genes are in charge. In fact, your genes, not you, choose. And having itching ears, they will heap up teachers. They will be turned aside to fables.

I don’t want my fellow Catholics to only get part of the answer. And I want to warn my fellow Catholics that hecd2 has already expressed his commitment to spreading atheism here under the guise of science.

Be aware, my fellow Catholics, of what some people here are actually selling.

Peace,
Ed

 

[abukamoon]

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.

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.

They go on because we have Modernist Catholics theologians trying to make the Church confrom to “science”, which continues to evolve it’s theories about Creation. This Modernist approach to theology implies that virtually all of the early doctors of the Church were ignorant for believing the Bible.

So evolution-believing Catholics have rejected what the Bible has said. What will they do when “science” discovers that we were brought here by aliens from some other planet? Will they try to assimilate that into their Modernist theology?

Like Global Warming, the New Ice Age, we were going into thirty years ago, the “hole” in the ozone layer, and the AIDS epidemic that was going to wipe out civilization by the year 2000, evolution is junk science. It rejects any evidence that disproves it, because it is dogmatically defended. That is not the hallmark of science. It defines a religious belief, and that is exactly what evolution is.
Phil P

 

[The_Barbarian]

What you do here can be properly described as a propaganda campaign.

I’m telling the truth as I see it, Ed. You, that might be another story. You might do better here, if you stuck to working on building a decent argument on the facts, instead of attacking the motives of people who disagreed with you. The fact that I agree with some non-catholics on evolution is not a sign that I agree with them on Catholicism any more than the fact that you agree on evolution with fundamentalists who hate Catholics is a sign that you agree with them on Catholicism, (other than the Church’s acknowledgement that evolution is consistent with Christian belief).

The writings of the three of you have led me to believe that the current theory of evolution as presented in the biology textbook is completely atheistic.

Since you were repeatedly challenged to show even one such textbook, and you couldn’t, that one is settled.

No, I’m not concerned about contaminating the holy science lab with God or the holy public school science class with God, I’m talking about right here, a Catholic forum. I am convinced that the only authority I can trust on this subject is the Catholic Church, especially the contents of Human Persons Created in the Image of God

But you won’t accept what our Pope wrote in the Report of the International Theological Commission. Pick and chose, Ed? Not a good idea.

Be aware, my fellow Catholics, of what some people here are actually selling.

What do you think Cardinal Ratzinger was “selling” here:

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. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.

The man who is now your Pope wrote this. Do you think he was trying to make people into atheists, Ed? You can do better than this.

 

[smkw]

I keep running into threads where they clearly all end up with creation verses evolution. It always ends up in an ugly debate between both sides and much of the time, tends to become quite off topic.

I opted to create this thread to discuss the matter, we should do so in a cival manner, not putting down either side and make our points of view clear. This is also meant to broaden our horizons as to what we understand about each, perhaps we might even come to a final conclusion here, thus ending the debate forever. I feel we as christians, especially Catholics should never be divided over anything, afterall, that goes against the very nature of the word Catholic which means unity.

Athiests, agnostics, etc. should not be involved with this thread in my opinion, that would throw off the unity, but if you insist, be very clear about that matter from the get go, just so we have a better understanding and point of reference from the poster.

My hopes for this thread are to help get discussion on this matter to be civilized, informative and most of all, we show respect to each other…

 

[smkw]

DEcided to comment on this relatively old thread.
I have a friend who is convinced the earth is 6,000 years old and that Genesis is more or less, a scientific explanation of creation.
On the other side we have evolution which altho a theory is generally presented as good science. There are a lot of holes in evolution- if everything is evolving, why are there still creatures that supposedly evolved to something higher, but still remained in their original state, etc.
What I struggle with is: if the Bible is the inspired Word of God, as we believe it to be, then WHAT about the Genesis story (stories) IS inspired. Just that God created everything? Is there anything else within the creation story that is a reliable account of what God did?
Get my drift?
There are the fundamental Christians who believe “everything” to be a literal interpretation (except for the Eucharist, etc.) but this mind set has trouble believing the Bible to be 'true" if it can’t be understood as “true” as written.
Would appreciate some commentary on this line of thought.

 

[Thing]

DEcided to comment on this relatively old thread.
I have a friend who is convinced the earth is 6,000 years old and that Genesis is more or less, a scientific explanation of creation.
On the other side we have evolution which altho a theory is generally presented as good science. There are a lot of holes in evolution- if everything is evolving, why are there still creatures that supposedly evolved to something higher, but still remained in their original state, etc.
What I struggle with is: if the Bible is the inspired Word of God, as we believe it to be, then WHAT about the Genesis story (stories) IS inspired. Just that God created everything? Is there anything else within the creation story that is a reliable account of what God did?
Get my drift?
There are the fundamental Christians who believe “everything” to be a literal interpretation (except for the Eucharist, etc.) but this mind set has trouble believing the Bible to be 'true" if it can’t be understood as “true” as written.
Would appreciate some commentary on this line of thought.

Vaguely recall a line in Genesis about all the creatures which crawled out of the sea. Sea creatures don’t generally crawl out of the sea, and become, presumably, land creatures - except maybe in the special case of creatures evolving from sea to land dwelling animals, evolution, in other words. But since in Genesis that particular possibility of evolution is directed by God Himself there is some question over how long evolution needs to take, or does it need to take any length of time at all, really.

 

[buffalo]

Can we make software that comes to life?

…
Dr Richard Watson of Southampton University, the co-organiser of the conference, echoes his concerns. “Although Darwin gave us an essential component for the evolution of complexity, it is not a sufficient theory,” he says. “There are other essential components that are missing.”
One of these may be “self-organisation”, which occurs when simpler units - molecules, microbes or creatures - work together using simple rules to create complex patterns and behaviour.

…Evolution on its own doesn’t look like it can make the creative leaps that have occurred in the history of life," says Dr Seth Bullock, another of the conference’s organisers. "It’s a great process for refining, tinkering, and so on. But self-organisation is the process that is needed alongside natural selection before you get the kind of creative power that we see around us.

more…

 

[smkw]

Wrong. That’s why I put the challenge to you to come up with a scientific definition of design, a test that can show that something is designed and examples of things that have been tested and shown to be designed.Because design has not even been defined. You are an advocate for design as science. Come up with a definition and a test. If you can convince people like Dawkins that the definition and the test are valid, you have entered into the realm of science.So is astrology according to Behe. So was alchemy. Should we teach those two subjects to our highschool students during a science class?You don’t understand what a sucessful experiment is. An experiment that fails can add as much information as one that succeeds. What experiment has been undertaken to show design? What is design? How can it be tested?I didn’t say it was impossible. It has not been done by people who have staked their careers on it.Yeah, but what if GM is just a gnome company? The point is is that you can test my hypothesis. You can’t test for ID because a) design hasn’t been defined, and b) there is no test for that undefined design. If you can’t test for it, you can’t falsify it.Well, in that case, I give you the snow flake. It has a natural explanation. Design has been falsified. Or are only certain things designed?

Your proposed method fails because it can’t determine if something IS designed. How do you eliminate ALL possibilities that it could have been created by natural processes? Do you think you know every possible process?That was in response to your post where you stated “We know already (by faith) that God was involved in creation.”.Nope. That would at best show that we found a possible way that He did it.Although you haven’t shown anything of the sort, evolution is easily falsified. It just so happens that even though there are a lot of people who have been trying, no one has been able to do that yet.Huh?What are you investigating? What is design? What experiments are there to show design? So rather than insisting that a philosophy be taught as science, develop the science. I have consistently over the years on this forum stated that I would support teaching ID in science class if it can be shown to be science. Until then, it doesn’t belong there.Those are philosophical arguments, not scientific arguments.

Peace

Tim

 

[smkw]

I’m taking the liberty to jump into this conversation.
I think science needs to be defined. Webster does a fine job.
The trouble with creationism is that we cannot prove the existence of God. It is a matter of faith. There are “proofs’ for God but they are not scientific proofs. They can never be. God is, obviously, outside of nature, his creation and so we cannot “test” for God.
Evolution has major flaws and creationists largely object to Evolution because it is taught in a manner that rules God out of the equation. (People can and do believe in both, but that isn’t taught in school)
Science, being the study of nature and observable phenomena can never be in conflict with who God is, since He is the author.
Nor has anyone ever proven the THEORY of evolution. (To my mind, If all things are evolving, I would ask why the things that are reputed to have evolved into higher life forms still in their original form?..who has every seen a creature in the process of change, etc.
It is very reasonable to me to see that a watch needs a watchmaker, so to speak, but we cannot use the Bible as a launching point for science. That’s mixing oranges and apples.
Science will never disprove God, either. It can’t for the same reasons.
Just watched a TV program on evolution vs. creationism’ (NCSE).
A woman promoting evolution as science said that intelligence is proved, not by complexity but by artificiality. She cited Mt. Rushmore, a stone spear head and a paper clip as proof of intelligence. Interesting, because that can only prove intelligence coming from man. She showed a diagram of an eye and a very complex bacteria, magnified. This, she said was only 'nature”. I chuckled. How could God as an intelligent Being design something “artificial”? He created nature! In speaking of God, complexity would, to me, be a very reliable way of reaching the conclusion that an intelligent Being created life. But some are blind to that.

 

[FindTruth7]

Can we make software that comes to life?

…
Dr Richard Watson of Southampton University, the co-organiser of the conference, echoes his concerns. “Although Darwin gave us an essential component for the evolution of complexity, it is not a sufficient theory,” he says. “There are other essential components that are missing.”
One of these may be “self-organisation”, which occurs when simpler units - molecules, microbes or creatures - work together using simple rules to create complex patterns and behaviour.

…Evolution on its own doesn’t look like it can make the creative leaps that have occurred in the history of life," says Dr Seth Bullock, another of the conference’s organisers. "It’s a great process for refining, tinkering, and so on. But self-organisation is the process that is needed alongside natural selection before you get the kind of creative power that we see around us.

more…

Evolution occurs all the time. We see it in fossils, experiments, geology, etc. It’s a much broader and awesome scale for God’s existence.

 

[edwest2]

God’s existence? What’s the connection? Most scientists don’t believe in God. The textbook won’t tell you about God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

God’s existence? What’s the connection? Most scientists don’t believe in God. The textbook won’t tell you about God.

A science textbook should not tell you about God.

I thought you were opposed to teaching religion in science classes Ed? Have you changed your mind or do you advocate teaching science without textbooks?

Peace

Tim

 

[The_Barbarian]

Nor has anyone ever proven the THEORY of evolution.

Nor is any other scientific theory. You might want to look up “theory” as it applies to science, and see what it says.

To my mind, If all things are evolving, I would ask why the things that are reputed to have evolved into higher life forms still in their original form?..

Why are there less-evolved organisms? Because they fill niche not accessible to more-evolved organisms.

.who has every seen a creature in the process of change, etc.

It’s not like Pokemon. Individuals don’t evolve; populations do.

It is very reasonable to me to see that a watch needs a watchmaker, so to speak,

All artifacts do. No natural object does.

Science will never disprove God, either.

And no scientist would say that it could.

Just watched a TV program on evolution vs. creationism’ (NCSE).
A woman promoting evolution as science said that intelligence is proved, not by complexity but by artificiality. She cited Mt. Rushmore, a stone spear head and a paper clip as proof of intelligence. Interesting, because that can only prove intelligence coming from man. She showed a diagram of an eye and a very complex bacteria, magnified. This, she said was only 'nature".

Yes, there is a huge difference between artifacts and natural objects. We can readily see the difference.

God the Creator, man the designer. That’s how it is.