Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Uriel1 said:
Speed of light not constant?
Click to expand...
Gee, you guys are easily distracted. The speed of light was a throw away line used to indicate a point. If you’d like to use another example of what was true yesterday and is still true today then use another. I mean, for heaven’s sake.

There’s a t shirt I once saw that would suit you, Uriel. It read:

Some people say I have attention deficit dis…ooh look! A pigeon!
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
It’s because it contradicts aspects of your faith. It’s not credible that you could deny this.
Click to expand...
No, it is because there is no empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
Follow the conversation could you please, Buffalo. We weren’t talking about evolution, but science in general. Go back and read it.
 
Bradskii said:
Follow the conversation could you please, Buffalo. We weren’t talking about evolution, but science in general. Go back and read it.
Click to expand...
You - What on earth are those arguing against evolution (including yourself) doing it for? It’s because it contradicts aspects of your faith. It’s not credible that you could deny this.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
And if you claim that science is just about that which can be seen, then I am obliged to point out as many examples as you will need to show that you are emphatically wrong.
Click to expand...
Including the supernatural?
Click to expand...
Do you need to be told yet again that science deals just with the natural? I guess so.

Science Only Deals With The Natural.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Follow the conversation could you please, Buffalo. We weren’t talking about evolution, but science in general. Go back and read it.
Click to expand...
You - What on earth are those arguing against evolution (including yourself) doing it for? It’s because it contradicts aspects of your faith. It’s not credible that you could deny this.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding that science is not based on faith but ‘reasonable expectations’ where you might like to insert the term faith (you are still not reading the thread - this was covered earlier) but your sentence makes no sense. It looks like you are not even reading what YOU write.

Give it another go.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
Uriel1:
Speed of light not constant?
Click to expand...
Gee, you guys are easily distracted. The speed of light was a throw away line used to indicate a point. If you’d like to use another example of what was true yesterday and is still true today then use another. I mean, for heaven’s sake.

There’s a t shirt I once saw that would suit you, Uriel. It read:

Some people say I have attention deficit dis…ooh look! A pigeon!
Click to expand...
Psalm 14 to you too, with blessings. Were there any who would understand?

It was I who introduced the constant speed of light as yet another error of science; pay attention in your disorder
 
Couldn’t one consider the speed of light constant as a success of science, refining and building on previous knowledge through experimentation?
 
Uriel1 said:
It was I who introduced the constant speed of light as yet another error of science; pay attention in your disorder
Click to expand...
It was a throw away line. Most people would have said ‘actually there may be some dispute about that. But I understand the analogy’.

Most people would.
Uriel1 said:
Your analogy ref the “fact” of the speed of light is both interesting and apt. The speed of light has NOT been constant
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Click to expand...
As I said. Easily distracted. But then, you…ooh look. Another pigeon!
 
Bradskii said:
But if you state that science does not contradict some people’s faith and visa versa then I am obliged to give examples to prove you wrong.
Click to expand...
No examples needed as I never wrote that “science does not contradict some people’s faith and visa versa.”

This is a Catholic forum: science does not contradict the teachings of the Catholic faith.
Bradskii said:
And I didn’t say sustaining. I said maintaining. Which is what evolution does. It maintains a particular species. You can have evolution without speciation. It’s not a requirement of evolution. But you can’t have speciation without evolution. Darwin joined the dots to form his theory of why different species emerge.
Click to expand...
You make my point. Darwin’s science is limited to observing variation. Why would would have to make a 5 year voyage to the Galapagos islands to observe what is apparent in one’s own family? One of my sibs has brown eyes, another blue. When I connect those dots I do not conclude that either sib is a new species.
 
Last edited:
well said o_mlly: again you make a devastating point against the claim that Darwin’s T of E is scientific. It is simply unadulterated conjecture
 
Last edited:
Humani Generis
  1. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
  2. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
  3. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.
  4. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
40.png
Bradskii:
But if you state that science does not contradict some people’s faith and visa versa then I am obliged to give examples to prove you wrong.
Click to expand...
No examples needed as I never wrote that “science does not contradict some people’s faith and visa versa.”

This is a Catholic forum: science does not contradict the teachings of the Catholic faith.
Bradskii said:
And I didn’t say sustaining. I said maintaining. Which is what evolution does. It maintains a particular species. You can have evolution without speciation. It’s not a requirement of evolution. But you can’t have speciation without evolution. Darwin joined the dots to form his theory of why different species emerge.
Click to expand...
You make my point. Darwin’s science is limited to observing variation. Why would would have to make a 5 year voyage to the Galapagos islands to observe what is apparent in one’s own family? One of my sibs has brown eyes, another blue. When I connect those dots I do not conclude that either sib is a new species.
Click to expand...
You said faith does not contradict science. I put the visa versa in to emphasise how wrong that statement is. Because it is wrong whichever direction you run it. This may be a Catholic site but there are as many positions believed on faith as there are posters. And almost all of those arguing against evolution hold positions, based on faith, that DIRECTLY contradict science. Such as man being created from dust. Such as a global flood. Such as a literal sequence of creation as written in Genesis.

These are all fundamentalist positions, held by faith alone, which are scientifically nonsensical. Science is in direct conflict with the faith held by these people. Otherwise, as I asked previously, what on earth are they arguing for? It certainly isn’t a scientific endeavour on their part to reverse the galactic amount of information supporting the theory. Their knowledge of science has been shown to be risibly inept. It’s all cut and paste.

The teachings of the Catholic church are not, generally, in opposition to science. So don’t go playing the ‘this is a Catholic site’ card. It’s not the churches position we are discussing. It is the faith of INDIVIDUALS within the church.

And if you think that evolutionary science is a matter of just observing variation (even in Darwin’s time) then I’m afraid your are simply exhibiting your lack of knowledge of the subject once more. It’s akin to saying that astronomy is just looking at stars.
 
Last edited:
  1. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.
  2. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science.
  3. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.
  4. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus,” and Benedict XV in the Encyclical “Spiritus Paraclitus,” as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu.”
 
Last edited:
  1. How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought.
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.
  1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top