Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
Should we hang banners on Churches? “We believe in Evolution! Come on in!”
Click to expand...
I was actually thinking more along the lines of a statue.

Though in seriousness, there’s not really much the Catholic laity (that’s really the only thing a post here might effect here) has to do. From a poll on CAF a little while back, most Catholics are accepting of evolution. And while I have no statistics on this, I would hazard either a majority or sizeable minority of Catholic creationists are perfectly okay with acknowledging evolution as being compatible with Catholic faith even if they hold it as scientifically inaccurate. The number of Catholics who deny clear statements that Catholics may accept evolution is a minority. The problem rests with our fundamentalist Protestant brethren who hold a dominance over perception of Christianity in America and the only thing we can do there is be good witnesses ourselves, prepared to answer in truth when asked.

@Richca With your post, I keep finding myself wanting to say something in reply, but it keeps feeling awkward. So this reply is probably going to be awkward too. I just want to put that out there. You mentioned your personal convictions and it led to me mentally saying “fair enough” for a lot of it. I’m going to try replying in a similar fashion. But like I said before, it may come off awkward.
Richca said:
Similarly, according to my reason, I do not find it reasonable that the word of a human being is more trustworthy than the word of God, i.e, the Bible. Accordingly, I find it to be absolutely in accord with human reason to believe without question or doubt the word of God.
Click to expand...
For my part, the way I look at it is that when Genesis was written, mankind didn’t know as much about biology as we do now. And in the time Genesis would’ve originated, the surrounding culture was filled with polytheistic pagans with their own creation stories predating Genesis. Adding to that are the similarities between those earlier stories and Genesis’ creation accounts. And as a final note for now, the writing style of the culture understood that the things they wrote may not be literalistically true, even if they were meant to show non-literalistic truths. Now to be clear, that doesn’t mean I discard Genesis. The contrasts between Genesis’ creation and the pagan creations create a truly beautiful lesson filled with great spiritual truths. But as a science textbook, which I’d hold it is not meant to be, Genesis has its flaws. But those flaws don’t detract from the truths that it was meant to convey.
Richca said:
it is not against reason to believe that God himself immediately created and formed every plant and animal species that exists now or has ever existed because we know, understand, and believe that this is not impossible to God
Click to expand...
For my part I will clarify that I don’t hold it unreasonably that God could’ve done it as literalistically depicted in Genesis. My position is merely that He didn’t.
 
Last edited:
When I was younger, I respected authority, including teachers. If I was told in Science Class that evolution was true, I was fine with that. No problem. But here, a strange thing is happening - a campaign, if you will, to ensure full compliance. Why? I have a wide range of scientific interests, including the history of invention. But this subject is brought up on a regular basis here. Why? What’s the point? I have never gotten that simple question answered. Instead, all I’ve gotten is the same series of posts, slightly reworded, with the same information presented, as if constant repetition will convince those on the fence.

My conclusion is that this is obviously not about science but about politics and perceptions. I dislike politics but I understand it. The current problem (among others) is too many White Anglo-Saxon Protestants still representing Christianity. I understand why that would be a problem for a certain part of the political spectrum. The other issue I have with threads like this is the always subtly phrased demand that Genesis be viewed as only symbolic. That does not, however, explain the motivation of those who post in favor of this line of thinking. Those who do not comply are then treated to the usual, planned responses:

Ignorant
Fundamentalist
Anti-Science
(among others)

I am none of those, yet the campaign continues for reasons that have nothing to do with science but to advance a desired way of thinking on those who have been awakened to the flaws in this unimportant theory. Yes, there are people who live their lives perfectly well who don’t know the theory or who don’t accept it. Oh, and then there’s the false implication that those who refuse to accept are somehow forcing people they don’t know and have never seen to do something or believe something against their will. That’s not my intention. So continue - not referring to anyone in particular- for however long you want.
 
Last edited:
In a complex system, if you already know what you are hoping to find, you are likely to find it, or at least something that you can ascribe to it.

But you are conflating lay, religious and technical definitions for “design.” You can take any physical system which consistently does a particular function, and say that system is “designed” to perform that function. The heart is designed to pump blood.

But the next step you take is painfully weak. You say, “Therefore there’s a designer, who must be God, and evolution is false.” Not only are you conflating definitions of design, you are using them as an excuse to follow up on a non sequitur.

I think at this point, I’d like to ask you to give a simple and clear definition for “design” as you mean it, to which I will hold you in any further discussions about it.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
But the next step you take is painfully weak. You say, “Therefore there’s a designer, who must be God, and evolution is false.” Not only are you conflating definitions of design, you are using them as an excuse to follow up on a non sequitur.
Click to expand...
ID the science only can say there is a designer. Philosophy tries to find out who he is.
 
Uh huh.

Oh, there’s some hidden designer. Who could it possibly be?
 
edwest211 said:
Those who do not comply are then treated to the usual, planned responses:
Ignorant
Fundamentalist
Anti-Science
Click to expand...
Many Catholics sadly seem much more interested in defending “evolution” than actual teachings of the Church such as our Lord’s resurrection, the Eucharist, etc.
 
When you make yourself an enemy of the truth, when you refuse to lift your eyes up from your texts and look at the word of God writ all around you, then is this an act of faith? Or a lack of faith that God is revealing the truth to us all the time, in reward for our interest in His Creation?
 
I’m not sure whether you misunderstand Dawkins, or deliberately misrepresent him. He most certainly did not say that he believes in ID, or that aliens were responsible for it.

I’ve told you before that instead of getting your information 3rd-party, you should do your homework to avoid ignorance. I offered to go through the entire book On the Origin of Species with you, in an effort to get you to think for yourself-- an offer which you have been conspicuously quiet about.

Now, I extend the same offer to go through entire Dawkins debates or interviews, including the one which you are parroting, and see what was ACTUALLY said.
 
benjamin1973 said:
I’m not sure whether you misunderstand Dawkins, or deliberately misrepresent him. He most certainly did not say that he believes in ID, or that aliens were responsible for it.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say he believed it. I said he thinks the designer could be aliens.
 
And this is Dawkins saying he thinks there’s ID and that aliens did it in what language?

Certainly not in the actual English words which came out of his mouth.
 
Yeah, as soon as you quoted him, I instantly went to Youtube to see what he actually said. I was not surprised to see that you were misrepresenting the case.

I’m still curious if you really can’t understand the language in that video, or if you are deliberately misrepresenting it in order to “support” some point you are trying to make about science and ID?
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
Yeah, as soon as you quoted him, I instantly went to Youtube to see what he actually said. I was not surprised to see that you were misrepresenting the case.

I’m still curious if you really can’t understand the language in that video, or if you are deliberately misrepresenting them?
Click to expand...
your turn - explain what he meant.
 
He meant what he said. Have you not actually watched the video? I mean. . . it’s pretty clear what he is saying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top