Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
40.png
LateCatholic:
The Catholic Church acknowledges it as a valid and accurate scientific theory.
Click to expand...
No, the church does not make technical judgements.
Click to expand...
Correct and the definition of Eucharist tells us a lot

Eucharist…is an action of thanksgiving to God. The Greek words eucharistein and eulogein recall the Jewish blessings that proclaim — especially during a meal — God’s works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. [Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC 1328]
 
Last edited:
LateCatholic said:
40.png
Uriel1:
Your analogy ref the “fact” of the speed of light is both interesting and apt. The speed of light has NOT been constant
Click to expand...
You are still missing the point. First of all, it IS a constant in a vacuum. It MAY have been slightly different in the distant past, and MAY be slightly different in the distant future. It is irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that, we have a reasonable expectation that the speed of light in a vacuum will effectively be constant now and going forward. We can make useful predictions on this. Heck, we’ve decided to spend billions of dollars on it. You use your phone’s GPS every day based on this.

How did we come up with this “reasonable expectation”? Experiments (lots of them). Other evidence. Logic. Math. It is NOT faith. Will you bet your house on an experiment that proves the Eucharistic wine is really blood? What type? What’s the white blood cell count? And so forth. Of course not. But millions of people very day bet their lives on science.

Typically, when religious folk say science is based on “faith”, they are just throwing out a red herring because they’ve lost some argument. If you want to really say science and faith are the same thing, define each.
Click to expand...
I am not missing any point

The OP is that the TofE is not scientific, (but rather is conjecture and faith based)
Your speed of light analogy is apt in that we were all taught it is a constant, but there was never any evidence for that, but lots of irregular readings which you seem not to have known about https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

So we have now established that:
  1. Piltdown was a fraud, some say perpetrated by snr staff in the British Museum
  2. Haeckel’s embryos were a fraud, known about for 120 years but still taught
  3. Constant speed of light seems likely to have been a fraud too
 
Last edited:
Like I said before, I accept evolution. But o_mily, though I would disagree with them in regards to the science of evolution, is 100% right when they say the Church has not made any statement on whether or not evolution is correct.

To take a look at another section of Humani Generis,
  1. … Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
Click to expand...
(That’s at the very end.)

Now it’s not surprising Pope Pius XII had some skepticism as we’ve had many advancements in evolutionary science that weren’t available to him. And it’s also not surprising that popes since then, with more knowledge of evidence about it, are less skeptical.

And it is also true that the majority of theologianns in the Church would accept evolution, or at the very least be knowledgeable in how it can be compatible with faith, but that is in no way equivalent to Church teaching being that evolution is fact.

The Church has a stance on whether or not evolution is compatible with the Catholic faith. And it is a resounding yes. Many individual in the Church would personally hold evolution to be true. But when it comes the the question of whether or not evolution is true, the Church is silent. That is a matter for scientists, who currently are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, not the Church.

If you want to claim Church teaching is that evokution is true, you would have to find something saying six-day Creationism is heresy. You will not find such sources. If however, you claim that Church teaching is that evolution is compatible with our faith, then you would be correct.

Like I said, I would agree evolution is true. And I’ve recommended thomisticevolution.org many times. But I would be in error to say a faithful Catholic can not personally view evolution as incorrect, even though I would severely disagree with them scientifically.
 
The OP is that, “The TofE is not scientific”, (but rather is conjecture and faith based) and we have established that
  1. Piltdown was a fraud, some say perpetrated by snr staff in the British Museum
  2. Haeckel’s embryos were a fraud, known about for 120 years but still taught
  3. Constant speed of light seems likely to have been a fraud too
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Yet no other scientists call them out of for it. Imagine Richard Dawkins using his title and position to deny things written in the Bible on TV. How many calm scientists appear on TV, make their argument and go home?
Click to expand...
It is true that we don’t see many other scientists “calling out” Dawkins, etc. for his atheistic interpretation of science. Is that surprising? By and large, mainstream scientists are not public figures. They do not have a large social media following. They don’t generate big book deals with publishers. They are just quietly doing their work in universities and research facilities. If anything, the prominence of atheistic scientists in the public consciousness says more about our social media and sensationalism than it does about scientists as a group. We (not me and not you, but society in general) gravitate toward the outlandish. So the popularity of Dawkins is more our fault than the fault of mainstream science.
 
Last edited:
  1. If two frauds disprove evolution, then the endless frauds of Creationist claims should have you really questioning things. I thank @Rossum, @LeafByNiggle, @Gout, and any others I have forgotten who have continuously helped clarify things with real science. Thank you, guys.
  2. The speed of light cobstant in a vacuum is not a fraud.
 
There are more than 2 frauds on the evolution side; we have just established 2 so far in the thread. If this was news to you I am astonished. If it was not news then you accepted the fraud. As for the claimed constant speed of light, read the variable research data - res ipse loquitur
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
I doubt that. I do social/media research as part of my job and on my own time. Public confidence in so-called news is dropping. The internet? A mixed bag. A kind of whining noise in the background. I watch Dawkins but only comment on him him when I have to. I don’t buy a lot of what the media is selling.
 
Uriel1 said:
So we have now established that:
  1. Piltdown was a fraud, some say perpetrated by snr staff in the British Museum
  2. Haeckel’s embryos were a fraud, known about for 120 years but still taught
  3. Constant speed of light seems likely to have been a fraud too
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say evolution is false? Because an illustrator doctored his drawings? Or that a scam to get money was exposed in 1950?

I don’t get your point. If I say 1+1=3, would you say Math is invalid?
 
buffalo said:
The Speed Of Light Can Vary In A Vacuum
Click to expand...
What are you trying to say? If it truly is discovered that the speed of light can vary in a vacuum, such a discovery would be celebrated and science moves forward yet again. Our knowledge becomes further refined. Any such discoveries around evolution would also be celebrated. And we refine evolutionary theory all the time.

Are you trying to say that because science progresses forward, and theories become better and more refined, you would rather believe that the story of Genesis is real?
 
Uriel1 said:
There are more than 2 frauds on the evolution side; we have just established 2 so far in the thread.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand your logic. If we increase the “number of frauds” would make evolution false, why don’t you just make some up? The frauds you speak of are not foundation experiments or research associated without evolution. Look at peer reviewed research instead. Haeckel himself explained his drawings, and Piltdown man was just a circus side show.

There are over 21 apocryphal gospels. The Church claims these are all frauds. Does that mean Jesus never existed? Please clarify your logic.
 
mVitus said:
If however, you claim that Church teaching is that evolution is compatible with our faith, then you would be correct.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a better statement, then, is to say the Church does not say evolution is false.

However, the Church does maintain that Adam and Eve were real persons, and that all human beings descended from that pair had souls. I do not want to rehash what was an extremely long and detailed discussion in another theead, but if you want to claim evolution and Christian theology are compatible, you must admit:
  1. At some point in our past, God identified two living creatures, male and female, and gave them “souls”. All living humans today descended from that pair.
  2. The parents of those two beings did NOT have souls
  3. Any siblings, tribesmen, and all other ‘humans’ at that time, and ALL THEIR DESCENDANTS, did not have souls. Only the descendants of the two selected persons had souls.
Evidence shows #1 is impossible, but let’s skip that. Obviously #2 and #3 can’t be argued.

The point being, you MUST pick a time in the past (go ahead an d choose) where #1 occurred. You cannot avoid this. Are you sure you want to accept this? That for hundreds if not thousands of years, humans lived together and only one family line had souls? That Adam’s and Eve’s parents were “soulless”?
You must accept this if you are going to be a Catholic and also accept Evolution.
 
Last edited:
Please mention me (@mVitus) in that other thread. I’ve actually got a lengthy answer on that for once I have some time. (I’m on a quick break at work right now.)
 
Replying to this:

** 1. The speed of light cobstant in a vacuum is not a fraud.**
 
Ya gotta read the article carefully. You can set up a phased arrangement (and thus the corroborating waveguide example) to alter the wavefronts.

Equivalent to envelope delay in datacom circuitry.

C = 1/ (sqrt (mu*epsilon)).

Change the permeability and/or permittivity of the media, and the speed changes.

Fun fact. Brass has permeability less than unity, allowing c to speed up.
 
Last edited:
I have listed two long term frauds which evolutionists taught for up to 120 years knowing them to frauds; that WAS NOT SCIENTIFIC and was done to fool people into believe that there is no creator. The Bible tells us, as does the night sky that there is a creator.

Evolution IS NOT SCIENTIFIC, or it would not have had to choose to be supported by so many fraudulent examples.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
I think you are confusing the term ‘faith’ with ‘reasonable expectation’. And that’s being very generous.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing the immaterial with the material. Faith, the belief in things unseen, never contradicts science, the belief in things seen. However, scientists who make claims that are beyond their data lose their mantle as scientists for such claims (about the unseen) and become philosophers of the metaphysical.

So, there is no need to be generous; just fair – faith is always in agreement with the right reasonable expectation. Not all apparently reasonable expectations are correct – the earth isn’t flat and is not at the center of the universe.

Fact: Science does not contradict Catholic faith. The imagination of some evolutionary scientists do contradict and we dismiss their musings as pure fantasy.

www.catholiceducation.org

Science and Religion

I dont need your God; I have science to explain everything. Your religion is a crutch for weak minds. You use superstition; I use science. (Yes and No...
www.catholiceducation.org www.catholiceducation.org

Sal : And if science says one thing and religion says another, if there’s a contradiction between them, then one of the two has to be wrong doesn’t it?

Chris : Yes.

Sal : So if science is true and religion contradicts it, then religion is false.

Chris : Oh, but religion never does contradict it.

Sal : Never?

Chris : Never. Show me one discovery of science that contradicts one belief of my religion.

Sal : That’s easy. Evolution.

Chris : Evolution is a theory. I asked for a discovery.

Sal : Science has discovered evolution.

Chris : No. Science has discovered a lot of old bones.

Sal : And they prove evolution. Man evolved from the apes.

Chris : No, they prove we came after the apes, if the dating is right. But how we came is another question. Science can’t see the answer to that question in bones. How could it?

Sal : But nearly all scientists believe the theory of evolution. Don’t you?

Chris : I honestly don’t know. I’m not a scientist. And neither are you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top