M
Magicsilence
Guest
Evolution seems to generate hostility in general.
- Status
J
jemfinch
Guest
You need to read up a little more on your history here; it was the Big Bang that put God back into the scientific apologetics picture, since it proved that the universe had a beginning. Until the Big Bang (or, more appropriately, until the discovery of microwave background radiation), atheists could say, “The universe has always existed” and completely obviate their need for a creator while remaining consistent with science.
Jeremy
S
Saint_Michael
Guest
No I don’t mind debate, but there’s a difference between debating and simply calling someone simple, telling them they’re wrong and they must adhere to their p.o.v. and patronizing them with endless
Who could dialogue with that? And a better question why would anyone want to aggrevate themselves by doing it? I just don’t understand why that’s needed at all on message boards.
J
jemfinch
Guest
In large part because the “fundamentalist evolutionists” see prominent members of the scientific community extremely fervent in their defense of historical evolution, and choose to imitate that fervency without analyzing what it is that inspires such people to defend historical evolution with such zeal.Evolution seems to generate hostility in general.
If they did such analysis, they’d realize that prominent, atheist members of the scientific community are so ardent in their defense of evolution not because it’s on such amazingly stable a scientific foundation, but because it supports their opposition to the existence of a Creator. Evolution is the engine behind their atheistic ideology, and so it must be defended.
You see the same attitude in many historical fields, where a particular interpretation of history is necessary to support an ideology. You see it in quotations of the Early Church Fathers by Protestants, for instance.
You can see the difference in the way a physicist would defend the thought experiment about Schroedinger’s Cat. He would try to teach his listener the meaning of the experiment, but if he failed, he would shrug it off as unimportant, because his worldview is not propped up by his belief in Schrodinger’s Cat. An atheistic evolutionist, on the other hand, has a worldview that depends very heavily on historical evolution, and so a challenge to the theory becomes an attack on his worldview, eliciting the sort of passionate response they’re renowned for.
The problem with theistic “fundamentalist evolutionists,” is that they “have zeal, but not in accordance with knowledge;” that is, they’ve adopted the fervor of atheist evolutionists but not considered why atheists are so fervent in their defense of evolution. I would hope, as Christians, that their worldview is not inordinately dependent on historical evolution, and if it is not, I wish they would realize that it’s a “live and let live” situation, not a “fight to the death or admit philosophical defeat” situation.
Jeremy
K
Karl_Keating
Guest
Phil, I didn’t equate evolution and Darwinism.
I said: “Darwinism, which has been the chief explanation of how evolution works (through slow, almost imperceptible changes) …” If A is said to explain B, then A and B must not be coterminous.
My few uses of the term “Darwinism” in that 1997 article were not to Darwinism as an ideology but to Darwinism as a scientific attempt to say how evolution could have occurred.
You may “remember when [my article] came out in This Rock,” but you haven’t remembered it well enough to keep straight how I used the term “Darwinism.”
E
Ender
Guest
This is not actually correct. A hypothesis is a tentative assumption, after which it may become a theory which implies a greater liklihood of truth, finally it may become a law.
A lot of the dispute over evolution arises out of the belief that (a) evolution and Darwinism are the same thing and (b) Darwinian evolution happens by chance so man’s creation was an accident. Neither of these beliefs is accurate.
That there is a great deal of evidence for evolution does not mean that all of this evidence supports Darwinism. Also, the definition of “random” (natural selection working on random changes) does not have to mean undirected … although that is how it is often presented.
Undirected evolution is used as a scientific lever to overthrow belief in God - the universe exists without purpose, there is no place for God, a man is no more significant than a worm - but fighting evolution is the wrong approach. There are more likely methods to arrive at the truth.
Ender
M
Michael_G
Guest
.
You haven’t shown explicitly where Genesis or Church doctrine is incompatible with evolution. You said it is. I say No. I’ve quoted the Pope, I’ve quoted the Commission endorsed by the Pope. I’ve given you answers to the two main objections: “death before the Fall” and “Adam and Eve through hominid evolution.” Do you have anything else?
Pope John Paul II: “…new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution…”
Phil P
I am trying to cut a paste some of the quotes between multiple responses. It strikes me that the dogmatic evolutionists are quite fond of quoting anything useful to their arguments while ignoring all of the history as far as what the church has always taught even ignoring the churches complete stance on creation evolution today. You will quote Popes who seem to support evolution but when quoting John Paul II you have ignored that John Paul II never fully devined what part of evolution was more than hyposthsis. Most all will except microevolution, that makes evolution more than hypothesis, it does not necessarily mean John Paul II believed are accepted most teaching on macroevolution. The Church at present allows for an invidual to accept Genesis acount 6 day creation event as literal, or to believe in some type of evolution as long as the doctrine on orginal sin, Adam and Eve one set of parents and creation of soul is maintained. So it is a fallacy imply that the church accepts evolution and mandates it as an infallible teaching, to insinuate other wise is a bare faced lie.
You say where is evolution in contradiction to church teaching.
read the following:
**Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus" earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, Then Christianity is nothing ***G Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist, February 1978, PP. 19,30.
*
Atheist Frank Zindler said,
‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. **Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.’ (3. Frank Zindler, American atheist, in a debate with William Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996. Return to text)
**
you and chimps are very closely related
Phil P
Well the water melon and jellyfish are 99% water that proves that they have a common ancestor! How about reading Dr. Michael Denton’s book Evolution a Theory In Crisis Molecular Biologist Phd and MD.
N
Nullasalus
Guest
One thing.
Never, ever let atheists inform you what you can or cannot believe as a christian. Those same people will tell you that believing that Christ was resurrected is inane and is scientifically impossible, and therefore it could not have happened.
There’s a reason why atheists were all laughs and smiles when the fight was over creationism in schools, but became very angry and agitated when christians started to indicate that evolution is entirely compatible with their religion. Even Dawkins will say as much - he gets frustrated at people who can reconcile christianity with evolution. In his mind, that’s just not fair.
M
Michael_G
Guest
Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to CriticsWho in the Florida area is going to this?
Darwin or Design? (Sept 29 at U.S.F. Sun Dome)
If you miss, don’t worry I’ll record it for you…
I’m thinking of going into the Univ of South Florida library, stacking up about 25 books and 500 papers on the evolution of blood clotting, immune system, bacterial flagellum, and asking Behe in person, "have you read these?"
Behe cross-examination at Dover
Phil P
arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm
**Species differentiation for my arguments must be of a totally different kind as in fish to amphibian, bird to mammal, not variation within kind as a variety of fish
**
Evolution
espouses disorder (chaos) to order (complexity). This is a direct
contradiction to what Einstein calls the premier law of science—the second law of thermodynamics which states that everything moves from order (complexity) to disorder (chaos). For
Evolution to be valid, we must go with scientific, observable facts.
We must follow the scientific method…
Evolution states that life arose from nonlife. **What are the observable facts?
**1. This has never been observed to happen.
2. Spontaneous generation of life—life from nonlife—was proven invalid in the mid 1800s by Louis Pasteur. Used to be called Law of Biogensis
3. As smart as man believes himself to be, how in the world are
we expected to believe that life arose from nonlife by random
chance, when man cannot produce a simple form of life, even a single cell organism, from chemicals of life
in a test tube?
Evolution states that life evolved from simple, single cell forms to
more complex, multicellular organisms, and finally to man via
chance mutations and time. Furthermore, the mutations had to
produce new genes in order for new species to occur.
***What are the observable facts?
***1. This is a preposterous mechanism. Not only has this event
never been observed, but it would ultimately require new male and
own kind. ***(Observable fact.)
***2. Sir Francis Crick (the discoverer of DNA—the genetic code) calculated the probability of one in 1 x 10 260 (that is,
one followed by 260 zeros) that nature could ever produce by chance even a simple protein, let alone two new species of the same kind, both male and female.
3. Mutations are going in the wrong direction to support
Evolution theory. All known mutations are either benign
or harmful to an organism. There is not one known mutation in the human race proven to be of benefit to man. We have over
2,000 known human genetic disorders. Scientific
observation shows mutations are moving from order to disorder, or chaos. This is the exact opposite of what evolutionists require to support their claims. ***(Observable fact.)
***Einstein’s right, Darwin’s wrong.
4. Evolution states that we have moved from simple to evermore
complex life forms, but what we actually observe is ***extinction ***of species, as in survival of the fittest or
“natural selection.” Natural Selection can only preserve what is there already it can never produce anything new. We have never
observed one new species come into existence.
Scientifically there is not any known mechanism or observable mode **for increasing genetic information **in an organism except that which man does himself.
M
Michael_G
Guest
And of course there are some who say that God could not possibly of created the world and universe and all that is in it in six days. Is that not correct.
N
Nullasalus
Guest
No, they don’t say God couldn’t have possibly done it. They say God, apparently, didn’t do it. God CAN do a lot of things. It doesn’t mean he therefore must do/have done them.
If someone wants to believe in creationism, I won’t mock them, though I’ll disagree. I’m just warning against allowing atheists to set the terms for what is reasonable to believe in. Why do you think they go on and on about how evolution is a blow against christianity? Because they desperately want it to be so. They get more agitated and worried when people disagree with their conclusion than when they agree.
J
JPrejean
Guest
You should probably take some guidance from patristic theology at this point, because you are coming awfully close to the Anthropomorphite view that the image of God pertains to actual appearance. We are in God’s image by rationality; the Fathers make this quite clear. And even if the material underpinnings of our existence were produced by evolution, the soul is clearly not. If you affirm special creation of the soul, then there is no basis for saying that material evolution in any way impinges the role of God in man’s creation. I think there is very good reason to suppose that a rational soul cannot evolve and requires God’s special intervention not only originally, but now.
Xavier Zubiri’s approach was convincing to me. He was trained in biology himself, so he understands the issues well enough, and he came to very similar conclusions with those reached by Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope. Thomas Fowler provides a useful summary here: ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/FR93204.TXT
S
Saint_Michael
Guest
- Is Jesus God?
- What did Jesus look like?
- Was Jesus the product of millions of years of imperceptable genetic mutations? Is Jesus appearance eternal? Or did He evolve too?
- I haven’t anthropomorphized anything, Jesus did that when he showed himself in human form and is still God.
8 Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed.”
If we allow science to tell us man is really a product of random mutations, then the story of Genesis is so far off the mark it only still pertains if you use a lot of imagination to make it work. And I dare say it is no better than the limited geographic theories Mormon’s now use to explain away the DNA evidence against Native Americans being Hebrews.
Evolution, the genographic project, mitochondrial DNA ALL completely contradict the existence of a literal Adam and Eve. I hate to say it but without the literal Adam and Eve our religion has no leg to stand on at all, this is where I will agree with the atheists.
Adam and Eve must be literal, evolution and mitochondrial DNA leave zero room for a literal Adam and Eve. The Church must hold true to their faith and not allow itself to give in to scientific data that appears to debunk our faith. Faith is faith, it’s not always rational and more times than not it is in direct opposition with what appears to be the rational and scientific answer. That may seem ignant but it’s the truth. Men don’t come down as God, men don’t ressurect, men do not give sight to the blind, bread and wine doesn’t become the Body and Blood of God. Why is everyone so gung-ho to sell Adam out in favor of the theory that we came from chimpy ancestors?
D
Donald45
Guest
Spoken like a true Protestant!
This is precisely the line of argumentation used by Luther and the other reformers to justify abandoning the historic Christian faith. I’d seriously consider re-thinking this.Don
+T+
J
JPrejean
Guest
1. Is Jesus God?
Sure. Begotten before all the ages according to His divinity, and begotten from Mary according to His humanity.
2. What did Jesus look like?
According to His humanity, He was created in the image of God in having a rational soul (contra Apollinarism), and He also had a real body that was not merely appearance (contra Docetism).
3. Was Jesus the product of millions of years of imperceptable genetic mutations? Is Jesus appearance eternal? Or did He evolve too?
His bodily appearance, according to His humanity, was clearly NOT eternal but was begotten from Mary at the appropriate time in history. Phillippian 2:5-8 “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” The question is whether Mary’s bodily form was the product of evolution or not, because the origin of Christ’s humanity is Mary.
4. I haven’t anthropomorphized anything, Jesus did that when he showed himself in human form and is still God.
The anthropomorphite heresy was that Jesus was in the form of God according to His human body. In other words, it confused the ways in which Jesus and humanity were in the image of God. Sure seems like that’s what you’re doing here. Certainly, in their glorification, our deified bodies will show forth the divine image within us, but you seem to be suggesting that our material bodies have this image naturally rather than through supernatural deification.
Edit – BTW
Sure. Begotten before all the ages according to His divinity, and begotten from Mary according to His humanity.
2. What did Jesus look like?
According to His humanity, He was created in the image of God in having a rational soul (contra Apollinarism), and He also had a real body that was not merely appearance (contra Docetism).
3. Was Jesus the product of millions of years of imperceptable genetic mutations? Is Jesus appearance eternal? Or did He evolve too?
His bodily appearance, according to His humanity, was clearly NOT eternal but was begotten from Mary at the appropriate time in history. Phillippian 2:5-8 “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” The question is whether Mary’s bodily form was the product of evolution or not, because the origin of Christ’s humanity is Mary.
4. I haven’t anthropomorphized anything, Jesus did that when he showed himself in human form and is still God.
The anthropomorphite heresy was that Jesus was in the form of God according to His human body. In other words, it confused the ways in which Jesus and humanity were in the image of God. Sure seems like that’s what you’re doing here. Certainly, in their glorification, our deified bodies will show forth the divine image within us, but you seem to be suggesting that our material bodies have this image naturally rather than through supernatural deification.
Edit – BTW
“Random” doesn’t mean “out of God’s control.” That appears to be a point of confusion. God can work through randomness, determinism, and free choice alike, because He’s … well … God.
S
Saint_Michael
Guest
Actually the Church clearly proclaims that if it err’s on even one matter that was deemed infallible then all other are suspect and the Church can’t be true (remember my response was to the question “if the Church declared evolution dogma what would I do?”). There’s nothing Protestant about what I said, in fact it is completely orthodox.Spoken like a true Protestant!
Don
+T+
N
Nullasalus
Guest
The Church would have erred on nothing, even if evolution were true.
Always breaks my heart to see people so worked up over Genesis having to have been literal. And as the other poster said, ‘random’ isn’t as ‘random’ as you think.
S
Saint_Michael
Guest
Mitochondrial DNA makes a literal Adam and Eve impossible, 100% impossible. According the genographic project all modern humans come from one woman on the African planes 150,000 years ago and one man around 60,000 years ago. Since Adam and Eve are seperated by 90,000 years it makes it pretty impossbile, yet they remain our direct lineage. Without a literal Adam and Eve our faith dies, accepted science of the day (evolution and mitchondrial DNA research) makes a literal Adam and Eve an impossiblity.
S
Saint_Michael
Guest
That’s your opinion, I’m of the opinion they would sell out the very foundation of our faith.
J
JPrejean
Guest
It’s a debatable point as to whether our faith dies without physical descent from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve have to be actual individuals, not individuals representing a class, but it is unclear as to whether we have to be physically descended from these individuals. The closest thing to a papal statement on this point says that it isn’t clear how polygenism could be reconciled with the belief in original sin, not that such a speculative solution was impermissible.
I take your point though. If polygenism is antithetical to Christian belief, then one or the other has to go.
- Status