R
rossum
Guest
Whoops, double post. My browser was telling fibs when it said my initial submission had timed out. Naughty browser.
rossum
rossum
- Status
O
Orogeny
Guest
How about descent with modification. How do YOU define evolution?
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
That’s a Darwinian view and it is incompatible with Catholicism. If all life descends from a common ancestor, that precludes the special creation of the first man and the first woman.
All organisms within a species are related through descent with modification. Anyone will agree with this. The question is whether descent with modification accounts for the origin of new species. That is the sticky issue.
O
Orogeny
Guest
That is not incompatible with Catholicism. It does not preclude God from doing anything, since God is the Creator, the architect of life. What about humans makes them a special creation? I believe it is the soul. Evolution doesn’t deal with the soul.
You didn’t answer my question. How do you define evolution?
Oh, so you also believe in descent with modification. You darwinist, you!
Not for me, it isn’t.
Peace
Tim
C
Chris_W
Guest
Kevin Walker:
I guess I am not really of the mind to defeat evolution, necessarily. I personally think Catholicism and evolution are at odds with each other. And that is why I currently reject the theory. So, I explore that idea to help me clarify my beliefs. The Vatican is not explicit regarding the subject, so it is up to the individual to do make some determinations for ourselves. I do that by debating evolutionists.
I will look at the Teleology info you suggest.
Thx,
Chris
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Kevin. I tend to approach the subject as you are suggesting, and your previous post deferentiating between darwinism and an acceptable view of evolution was helpful. I had, up till that moment, considered them one and the same pretty much.Hi,
What occurs within evolutionist circles doesn’t concern me as much as what occurs within Darwinist circles; because it is the non-teleology and materialism espoused by the adherents of Darwinism (Communists, Marxists, Liberals, Behaviourists, Atheists, and a lot of Philosophers) which I find myself frequently arguing against defending the view of the Church, and not so much evolution per se.
Its nice to sit quietly and listen to a very loud Theory of Evolution rant/debate taking place, and when it comes your way, as a (Roman) Catholic, you just calmly tell these guys that the Vatican does not take umbrage at the theory of evolution, and then destroy their entire argument based on anti-Darwinism.
The New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia) has wonderful definitions on Teleology which gives ammunition to argue against all the heretics who dare disparage the Catholic Church!
I guess I am not really of the mind to defeat evolution, necessarily. I personally think Catholicism and evolution are at odds with each other. And that is why I currently reject the theory. So, I explore that idea to help me clarify my beliefs. The Vatican is not explicit regarding the subject, so it is up to the individual to do make some determinations for ourselves. I do that by debating evolutionists.
I will look at the Teleology info you suggest.
Thx,
Chris
C
Chris_W
Guest
Agreed. However, if you understand where I am coming from perhaps you will see my position as logical: I cannot understand how it is that Catholicism and evolution are compatible. I am exploring it, but at this point that is my position, k? Okay. Now, if in fact they are not compatible (granted that is an “if”) then I must reject the theory, by the law of non-contrdiction.
Okay, so…if I believe I must reject the theory, then doesn’t it make sense for me to state that evolution is a theory, and as such it has the potential to be incorrect? That certainly is a true statement, as has been acknowledged by evolutionists in this thread. Now then, the scientist types herein object to my position and keep throwing scientific evidence at me, and demanding I come up with a scientific rebuttal to the theory of evolution.
But I do not need a scientific rebuttal to be justified in my current position. It is enough for me to say the theory is just a theory (admitting that there is evidence that may seem to support it with what is currently scientifically known). I have no interest in debating the scientific aspects of it, other than how it pertains to Catholic belief.
Make sense?
Interesting. That pretty much settles that old story for me.
However, the point of my mentioning the story was not to suggest the truthfullness of it, but to illustrate my point that science has been wrong before, and it could be wrong now.
Peace,
Chris
C
Chris_W
Guest
Sorry, Tim, but I do not know you well enough to just take your word for it. I am exploring that issue. That is my only interest in evolution.
The science in the classroom issue has been sufficiently beaten to death, don’t you think? I have never suggested that any other opposing theory be taught in a science class! Yet you keep inferring that this is what I want. I have merely said that the theory should be taught as a theory, instead of as fact. You have admitted the possibility exists for it to be incorrect, so why would you object to that? Does it somehow diminish the scientific integrity to acknowledge that it is only a theory? It may even excite kids about science if they were made aware that there is potentially a vast amount of unknowns out there that could challenge current thinking.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Chris W:
Tim
The problem is that you still seem to consider a scientific theory as just an idea. It is much more than that. I could give you a link, but to save you time, let me just give you a good quote from talk.origins. This is a quote from Steven Jay Gould.
Peace
Tim
W
wanerious
Guest
W
wanerious
Guest
Chris W:
Another approach might be to take as an axiom that they must not contradict, and so your understanding of either Catholicism or evolution must change. I might start to be suspicious that, according to the Pope and numerous bishops and Vatican scientists, there is no conflict, so perhaps they understand tenets of Catholicism in a different way.
W
wanerious
Guest
We can tell with great certainty that it could not have differed from the present measured value by more than one part in several billion by observing the same spectral lines emitted from distant quasars 12 billion years ago. The speed of light is intimately tied to our very successful theories of electricity and magnetism, and is in fact derived from a special combination of fundamental constants. A great many things would need to change in order to accomodate any variance in this parameter.
C
Chris_W
Guest
Agreed, it is more than a simple idea. There exists scientific evidence which seems to support the theory. It remains, however, a theory.
I am starting to see where our disagreement comes from, I think: A scientist, who can only consider scientific evidence may indeed arrive at the conclusion evolution must be true, in the face of so little evidence to the contrary (or so evolutionists say
). The definition of fact given in your quote therefore, might make sense in a purely scientific world.But guess what? I am not a scientist! That means I get the liberty of considering other evidences. Woohoo! I’m free. I’m free.
By the definition you are proposing, we should also believe, considering only sceintific evidence, as a matter of fact, that a man could not rise from the dead of His own power. Or walk unassisted on the water. Or calm a storm with a verbal command…see where I’m going with this?
Scientists may be experts in their respective fields, but if limited to only scientific knowledge, they may not necessarily be correct.
C
Chris_W
Guest
So many links…
…so little time.
I’ll try to get to it, wanerious, but have you looked at how much info has been provided via links, in just this one thread?
C
Chris_W
Guest
Can’t do that wanerious. The Pope has not said, to my knowledge, that there is no conflict. He merely said evolution is likely more than jsut a hypothesis, and that we are free to explore and study the theory of evolution.
In fact, if memory serves me right, I think he followed those statements by saying we need to believe that Adam and Eve were the first two people, from whom we all descended. (I’ll have to look that up).
I am however, open to finding out if the conflict I percieve is valid or not, which is why I am here discussing this with you.
If it is so blatantly obvious that evolution is true, and if it is so blatantly obvious that there is no conflict between the theory and Catholicism, why hasn’t the Catholic Church come right out and told the faithful that important news, and end all this discussion?
Hmmm. Perhaps because it is not nearly as cut and dry as you and Orogeny are making it sound?
I think I’ll reserve the right to reject evolution until such time as I can conclude there is no conflict, or until the Church decides that for me…whichever comes first.
Frankly, I am weary of being told by evolutionists that the Church approves of the theory of evolution, when the Church has said no such thing.
C
Chris_W
Guest
Reverting to the discussion that interests me…
wanerious:
Therefore, if Adam was merely one of many men of the time, it begs the question, how did they reproduce to come into existence? To say its no more surprising than the appearance of turtles is nonsense. We don’t have the Word of God telling us the purpose of the first female turtle.
wanerious:
You would have us believe that Adam and Eve’s offspring took these beasty folks for mates…but it is too insignificant to the story to be mentioned? Didn’t God tell them to be fruitful and multiply? That seems to tie in the relevence don’t you think? Those hominoids, by your theory, would’ve been those primitve people’s relatives! You know…aunts, uncles, Great Grandpa Ugg …
wanerious:
Why does logic or deductive reasoning, fly out the window once we leave the realm of science? I was hoping to gain insight from you.
You have avoided answering the question again, wanerious. It does not require a literalism to conclude that if the purpose of the creation of woman was for the benefit of Adam, “the man” into whom God breated the breath of life, then the creation of woman HAD to follow the creation of Adam.
Therefore, if Adam was merely one of many men of the time, it begs the question, how did they reproduce to come into existence? To say its no more surprising than the appearance of turtles is nonsense. We don’t have the Word of God telling us the purpose of the first female turtle.
Please, wanerious. Swimming things were not the point of the story either, yet they were mentioned even though there would be much less interaction with fish, then with the other hominoids.
You would have us believe that Adam and Eve’s offspring took these beasty folks for mates…but it is too insignificant to the story to be mentioned? Didn’t God tell them to be fruitful and multiply? That seems to tie in the relevence don’t you think? Those hominoids, by your theory, would’ve been those primitve people’s relatives! You know…aunts, uncles, Great Grandpa Ugg …
Hmmm. How would an evolutionist respond to an answer like this from a creationist?
Why does logic or deductive reasoning, fly out the window once we leave the realm of science? I was hoping to gain insight from you.
W
wanerious
Guest
Chris W:
I have, and I usually try not to post spurious links, but these are pretty short and highly on-topic.
W
wanerious
Guest
Chris W:
Yes. As does gravitational theory, atomic theory, quantum theory, and so on. They are taught as the best explanations and models we currently have.
Yes.I am starting to see where our disagreement comes from, I think: A scientist, who can only consider scientific evidence may indeed arrive at the conclusion evolution must be true, in the face of so little evidence to the contrary (or so evolutionists say
Yes, and you’re right. These things are quite outside of science.By the definition you are proposing, we should also believe, considering only sceintific evidence, as a matter of fact, that a man could not rise from the dead of His own power. Or walk unassisted on the water. Or calm a storm with a verbal command…see where I’m going with this?
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that even within science, our models and theories are certainly not correct. They all are, at some level, imprecise, and destined to be replaced in the future by more accurate models. We find ourselves in complete agreement.
W
wanerious
Guest
Chris W:
I hope I don’t give the impression of repeating things that even I don’t think are true. The reason I posted the above two links is to address just this question. I believe, if you read the current Pope’s comments in 1996 as well as the statement released in 2004 that the second article mentions, you may find what you seek.Frankly, I am weary of being told by evolutionists that the Church approves of the theory of evolution, when the Church has said no such thing.
J
john_doran
Guest
i think this is a bit mixed-up…
the speed of light isn’t “derived” from anything; it has been measured with increasing accuracy since the 17th century.
as for its theoretical importance, specifically to special relativity, the constancy of c is a postulate of the theory; not one of its conclusions, but one of its assumptions.
see, back in the day, light was thought to travel through the aether in much the same way as sound travels through air or water. as a result, it was naturally supposed that, as with sound, the speed of light would vary in the direction of its movement relative to the measuring device, so that it would be measured as travelling more quickly or more slowly relative to on observer moving toward or away from the light being measured.
however, in a series of experiments by a couple of guys (michelson and morley) in 1879, it was determined that the (perceived) speed of light does not change relative to the motion of the measurement.
so. in another move that is commonly misunderstood, einstein set out, in his theory of special relativity, by simply assuming that there was no aether - he did not prove that it didn’t exist, but simply, as a matter of personal philosophy, postulated it’s non-existence.
anyway. the speed of light is in one simple sense obviously not constant, since it actually slows down when it passes through denser mediums; it is the speed of light in a vacuum that is supposed to be constant.
but whatever. the point is that there is no logical reason that c cannot vary - only theoretical ones. which means that it is both logically and empirically possible that it do so.
it is also interesting to see just how the philosophical biases of scientists work their way into the science…
W
wanerious
Guest
Chris W:
Dang. I’m really trying, too.
I wouldn’t call it literalism, but perhaps a narrow-mindedness of perceived purpose. I don’t mean that personally.
Because Adam is simultaneously symbolic of not just the receiver of the first soul, but of the entire race of full persons at the same time. This is not uncommon in epic literature.
Ancient men have knowledge of swimming things, and they were vital to ancient life. Would they have enough sophistication to know that, long before telling these stories, there were more primitive animals who looked very much like them? I think it unlikely.
Right.You would have us believe that Adam and Eve’s offspring took these beasty folks for mates…but it is too insignificant to the story to be mentioned? Didn’t God tell them to be fruitful and multiply? That seems to tie in the relevence don’t you think? Those hominoids, by your theory, would’ve been those primitve people’s relatives! You know…aunts, uncles, Great Grandpa Ugg …
I understand your provocation, but my serious answer would be that, in science, we have the advantage of experience and evidence. Evolutionary claims are worthless unless they can be backed up with plausibility and reason. Religious claims are a different territory, almost by definition.Hmmm. How would an evolutionist respond to an answer like this from a creationist?
I’m trying to not disappoint. Logic and deductive reasoning are the hallmarks of scientific arguments, and not necessarily religious arguments. In fact, off the top of my head I’d say that no religious argument, when pursued, can be fully logical and deductive. This is also true, ultimately, of mathematics and science (thanks to Godel), but religious claims start with an assumption of Mystery.
- Status