Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
Evolution is not claimed to be random. Only the mutations are claimed to be random. But when you filter the random mutations with natural selection, you definitely get something that is not random.
Click to expand...
Yep, evolution by natural selection is not random by definition.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Evolution is not claimed to be random. Only the mutations are claimed to be random. But when you filter the random mutations with natural selection, you definitely get something that is not random.
Click to expand...
Yep, evolution by natural selection is not random by definition.
Click to expand...
Yes. What’s the problem? Nobody is saying evolution is random.
 
If we are to believe that characters in Genesis live to 600+ years before the flood, and that characters lived to 100+ years in other parts of the Bible, how would evolution explain such phenomena?
 
Last edited:
This is a good essay to answer your question in how what’s random to us is note random to God. (I’m guessing the essay following it does even more, [I’m taking a slow walk through these essays, hence why I don’t speak from experience yet.])

http://www.thomisticevolution.org/disputed-questions/gods-providential-governance-of-creation/

One if the metaphors I found intriguing was rolling dice. To us, the roll of the die seems random. Because we don’t have all the information. But if you had all the information, the roll would not seem random anymore. It would seem to be the obvious result of those initial conditions.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Those rules do not include looking for God.
Click to expand...
Yet the claim is made that modern “science” can understand our origins. Without the key to the reality of existence, all that results is illusion - the theory of evolution. For Christians the central point should remain God and creation, how He brought into existence that of which we are an expression - mankind, fallen into personal and interpersonal dysharmony in Adam, reunited as one church, the body of Christ, in Jesus. The “rules” I believe may lead some to perdition.
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Those rules do not include looking for God.
Click to expand...
Yet the claim is made that modern “science” can understand our origins.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you mean by “origins.” If you are speaking only of physical processes that lead to the body of modern man, then yes, that is a proper branch of science. If one tries to use “science” to make philosophical claims about the ultimate cause of our existence, that person is stepping outside the rules of science.
 
Last edited:
After reading that, my feral cat stalked off to polish his plans of killing and eating the dogs.
My screen and tv addicted kelpie is still staring at this screen, waiting for movement. She recognises David Attenborough’s voice, and insists watching all his docos.

I think perhaps the cat is still concerned with his stomach and hunting prowess, the kelpie, in her well fed life of leisure, now has time to evolve her brain into the internet and tv Information Age

It is my fault my kelpie is addicted to iPads, smart phones and tv screens with David Attenborough
 
mVitus said:
the roll would not seem random anymore. It would seem to be the obvious result of those initial conditions.
Click to expand...
Although roll can only be within the limited set of possibilities inherent in the die, a roller and the conditions of the play, it is as dependent on the initial conditions as it is with all that follow at any point while the die is in motion. The “roller” here not only sets things in motion but also brings them into existence in each moment. The analogy actually fails to appreciate the nature of creation as the beginning of time within the eternal act of existence.
 
But not thylacines, also carnivores, resemble dogs, but have little to do with them on the evolutionary tree
 
Stop cutting and pasting paragraphs that you think prove a point, however you lack the understanding of and can’t be bothered editing enough to remove things like figure 1
 
Last edited:
The priest that wrote the essay admits any one analogy is going to be inadequate when taken to a full extent beyond what it’s intended to mean. I figured I’d let people use the link to read the essay as opposed to copy pasting the whole things given that it’s six pages long in the book.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, Jesus underwent a horrendously difficult Passion

Why indeed does God choose that narrow difficult rocky path
 
Roseeurekacross said:
But not thylacines, also carnivores, resemble dogs, but have little to do with them on the evolutionary tree
Click to expand...
Indeed. Thylacines are the Marsupial equivalent of the Placental canids and a good example of parallel evolution.

rossum
 
@Uriel1 Since when has science been about Catholic balance? True science should not be swayed by faith but by study of the natural world and what we believe should stand up to it if our faith is truly authentic faith. That’s exactly why astrophysicist and Priest George Lemaitre wasn’t happy when others said his ‘scientific’ work was based on what we believe about God being our Creator… Yet it fits that God would create the big bang to start all of what we see in the natural world and is a scientific ‘theory’… One must go out of the realm of the spiritual in order to see the authentic truths of what we believe so Catholic balance isn’t fitting to describe science.

If you are unhappy that the schools are pressing too hard on evolution as the source of our being and not leaving room for God than speak up about it but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. My children went to public schools, one is an earth studies biologist and the other has a masters in aerospace engineering AND they believe in God as Creator of Heaven and Earth and all that is seen and unseen. They learned about God in Catechism classes and at Mass. No need to throw out science or boycott it. In fact often times people reject Christianity because of Christians rejecting science because of taking parts of the bible too literally. The bible is NOT a science book!
 
Last edited:
Science has discovered wondrous things about how God’s creation works. It only deepens my appreciation more for bothe science and creation.

The Genesis is not science. It is theology. Uriel, you seem to want to let theology influence science. That would only impede it.
 
Happymom said:
@Uriel1 Since when has science been about Catholic balance? True science should not be swayed by faith but by study of the natural world and what we believe should stand up to it if our faith is truly authentic faith. That’s exactly why astrophysicist and Priest George Lemaitre wasn’t happy when others said his ‘scientific’ work was based on what we believe about God being our Creator… Yet it fits that God would create the big bang to start all of what we see in the natural world and is a scientific ‘theory’… One must go out of the realm of the spiritual in order to see the authentic truths of what we believe so Catholic balance isn’t fitting to describe science.

If you are unhappy that the schools are pressing too hard on evolution as the source of our being and not leaving room for God than speak up about it but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. My children went to public schools, one is an earth studies biologist and the other has a masters in aerospace engineering AND they believe in God as Creator of Heaven and Earth and all that is seen and unseen. They learned about God in Catechism classes and at Mass. No need to throw out science or boycott it. In fact often times people reject Christianity because of Christians rejecting science because of taking parts of the bible too literally. The bible is NOT a science book!
Click to expand...
Slow down lady and try to be a bit less smug; please read what I said. I didn’t say science was about Catholic Balance. I did say, “The only problem is that kids are often taught by teachers who are not neutral on God and faith, but reject Jesus and pedal naturalism: the Catholic balance has been lost”.

If kids through school are conditioned by secularists that there is no God, and if that’s what they believe the cool people think, that’s what most of them’ll think too

That’s partly why Mass attendance in the USA of the 21 -29 year old Catholics is now down to 25%, and falling. Your two are but good anecdotes in a sea of decline
 
Last edited:
Ecclesiastes said:
Explain why God would choose to do things the hard way when He had much more sure ways to create man.
Click to expand...
Oh, dearie me, Ecclesiastes - “the hard way”? Goodness me, what a pit to tumble into, and yet, how typical of so many Creationists, who really don’t understand “omnipotence” or “omniscience” at all. Can God find one way “hard” and another way “easy”? What’s easy about spontaneous creation? Or do you think Evolution takes too long? Does God get bored waiting, do you think?
 
@Uriel1 I’m sorry if I sounded smug to you online. If you met me I’d assure you I’m not smug most people find me rather friendly I was merely trying to get a point across. 🙂 : the Catholic balance has been lost sounds more to me like a statement alone rather than belonging to the rest of the sentence… Okay but I did talk about your concern about teachers not being neutral. It should be addressed but science not thrown out. okay?

I don’t believe the trouble lies in the science classes but more of a societal thing and has seeped into family life. Affluency being the most problematic here in America where families have gotten complacent in their faith because they simply do not believe they need God and place more importance on possessions than their faith. Then goes away from church and the minute that happens they go away from learning right from wrong, believing what they feel is right is right rather than the truths of God. But when sin abounds grace abounds more.

I am a firm believer also that the more one learns about science the more it points to an intelligent Creator who is God. Now what are WE going to do with that knowledge??? put aside science? that isn’t in the teaching of the Church and shouldn’t be.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top