Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Buffalo, This is a great time to publish Humani Generis, and particularly point 5, "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."

The OP was that Darwin’s TofE is not scientific, and we can see here that the opinion of the Church magisterium is that evolution has not been fully proved. God love you @buffalo
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
The teachings of the Catholic church are not, generally, in opposition to science.
Click to expand...
No teaching of the Catholic church are in opposition to scientific facts. If you think there are such teachings then cite the science fact and the teaching that opposes it.
Bradskii said:
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.
Click to expand...
I just don’t like drinking Kool-Aid served up by fools.

By the way, astrology is akin to some evolution theories. The former looks at the stars, sees a repeating pattern, notes that seasons follow that really bright star and then leaps to the conclusion that human life, like the seasons, is in those stars. Sound familiar? The difference is the latter does its leap of irrational faith in bones rather than stars.
 
LateCatholic said:
40.png
Uriel1:
Speed of light not constant?
Click to expand...
What is your point? Newton’s theory of gravity was wrong and we still sent men to the moon using it.
Do you understand how science works???
Click to expand...
Oh yes I do my friend. I am a scientist, and fully Catholic. As a Catholic I recognise that Jesus created the world and all that’s in it, and as a scientist I understand that that Darwin’s theory is just that, an unproven hypothesis. It seems you are not fully Catholic, so maybe it’s better to respect the Catholicism of this forum
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
40.png
Bradskii:
The teachings of the Catholic church are not, generally, in opposition to science.
Click to expand...
No teaching of the Catholic church are in opposition to scientific facts. If you think there are such teachings then cite the science fact and the teaching that opposes it.
Bradskii said:
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.
Click to expand...
I just don’t like drinking Kool-Aid served up by fools.

By the way, astrology is akin to some evolution theories. The former looks at the stars, sees a repeating pattern, notes that seasons follow that really bright star and then leaps to the conclusion that human life, like the seasons, is in those stars. Sound familiar? The difference is the latter does its leap of irrational faith in bones rather than stars.
Click to expand...
Ahem. The term was astronomy.

Which is just like evolution. It proposes theories and makes claims on that which is observed and the assumptions that one can draw from those observations.

Some people with fundamentalist beliefs even reject that. Can you imagine…
 
More Ratzinger

Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people have tried to extend it to a philosophia universalis, has in fact been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic. Here, the attempt to distill rationality out of what is itself irrational quite visibly fails. All this is of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love of one’s neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which is what we need.
 
buffalo said:
More Ratzinger

Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people have tried to extend it to a philosophia universalis, has in fact been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution.
Click to expand...
Notice that Ratzinger isn’t railing against evolution, per se, but rather, against those who “try to extend [evolution] into a philosophia universalis.”

We can plainly see that turning this scientific theory into an philosophy of life or an ethical system runs contrary to the competency of science. It would be like attempting to build a religion out of calculus.

However, to borrow that metaphor, Ratzinger isn’t saying “calculus is bad”, but instead, “trying to make calculus a religion is bad.” I hope you can see the distinction. 😉
 
Gorgias said:
However, to borrow that metaphor, Ratzinger isn’t saying “calculus is bad”, but instead, “trying to make calculus a religion is bad.” I hope you can see the distinction.
Click to expand...
But what scientist is saying evolution is a religion?
The problem isn’t that a new religion is emerging, it’s that the preconceived notions of the past are no longer justified.

Are you a Creationist? Evolution proves that world view is false.
Do you believe in Intelligent Design? Evolution proves that world view is false.
Do you believe in Original Sin? Evolution forces you to make some significant adjustments that some may find untenable.

Does evolution say God doesn’t exist? NO
 
LateCatholic said:
But what scientist is saying evolution is a religion?
The problem isn’t that a new religion is emerging, it’s that the preconceived notions of the past are no longer justified.

Are you a Creationist? Evolution proves that world view is false.
Do you believe in Intelligent Design? Evolution proves that world view is false.
Do you believe in Original Sin? Evolution forces you to make some significant adjustments that some may find untenable.

Does evolution say God doesn’t exist? NO
Click to expand...
Covered in Humani Generis.
 
It’s quite clear that faith is required to believe what scientists thinks happens. But saying, “Just trust us” while standing behind a veil of millions of years of adjustments that were so gradual you can’t see it happening. So, it’s back to ‘just trust us.’
 
edwest211 said:
It’s quite clear that faith is required to believe what scientists thinks happens. But saying, “Just trust us” while standing behind a veil of millions of years of adjustments that were so gradual you can’t see it happening. So, it’s back to ‘just trust us.’
Click to expand...
They are asking for “blind faith”.
 
buffalo said:
They are asking for “blind faith”.
Click to expand...
You certainly do not know how scientists generally behave if you believe the above. For those of us who are trained in objectivity to follow one another like lemmings is simply preposterous.
 
Metis1 said:
40.png
buffalo:
They are asking for “blind faith”.
Click to expand...
You certainly do not know how scientists generally behave if you believe the above. For those of us who are trained in objectivity to follow one another like lemmings is simply preposterous.
Click to expand...
So why for 40 years was America telling its people to go low fat diet (high carb) when we now know that to be wrong?

It’s because scientists DO follow one-another (to get research funds perhaps)
 
Last edited:
Metis1 said:
You certainly do not know how scientists generally behave if you believe the above. For those of us who are trained in objectivity to follow one another like lemmings is simply preposterous.
Click to expand...
Everything you learned is from them. Yet they have no empirical evidence macro-evolution happens. So yes, they proclaim it, you believe it.
 
Uriel1 said:
It’s because scientists DO follow one-another (to get research funds perhaps)
Click to expand...
We can see that a few of them lost their jobs by going against the current paradigm. Funding? Hah, good luck. Be a good little scientist now, follow our rules and you will keep getting funding. These guys are in a pickle.
 
Another example is the multiverse. They would have you believe it since it is the atheist escape avenue. They all know it cannot be proven. Take it on blind faith.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LateCatholic:
But what scientist is saying evolution is a religion?
Click to expand...
They do not quite say it that way. No empirical proof? It becomes philosophy. Now it is dogma. It is evolutionism, a religion.
Click to expand...
Well said Buffalo;

No empirical proof → philosophy → dogma of evolution-> religious “fact” of evolution → ?
but it is only a theory, a mere hypothesis.

It’s certainly not science
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
They do not quite say it that way. No empirical proof? It becomes philosophy. Now it is dogma. It is evolutionism, a religion.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about the same thing? Evolution is one of the most validated theories in all of science. Perhaps it falls behind quantum mechanics and relativity, but that is it.
Do you understand the nature of science at all?
Every fossil ever discovered is empirical evidence.
Every generation that carries the genes of their parents is empirical evidence.
You can in all seriousness look at every scientific discipline, include anthropology and psychology in that list, and find empirical evidence of evolution. Biology. Chemistry. Geology. Geographic distribution. Archaeology. Physics.

To be honest, I have more respect for people that say things like “The Devil did it” or “Intelligent Design”. At least you can have a rational (to a degree) discussion with them. If you deny there is no evidence, you are delusional.

Look, don’t get a flu shot this year. When a doctor asks if you have a family history of a disease, laugh at him and don’t answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top