Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I fear Buffalo’s ideas of macro- and micro- evolution are confused. Some posts ago he was postulating that the originally created kinds numbered no more than a few thousand at most. If we accept that, and accept that all the millions of different species that have appeared on earth since then have been no more than micro-evolutions of these original species, then surely his “micro” and my “macro” have so much in common as to be indistinguishable from each other. By any coherent definition of the terms, macro-evolution is no more than a collection of micro-evolutions, as a million is no more than a collection of tens. The attempt to define a qualitative distinction between the two is doomed to fail.
 
Last edited:
Neither Micro nor Macro evolution present any problem at all. It is perfectly possible to believe that God set the whole process in motion knowing how it would turn out at all levels and on all scales.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
I fear Buffalo’s ideas of macro- and micro- evolution are confused. Some posts ago he was postulating that the originally created kinds numbered no more than a few thousand at most. If we accept that, and accept that all the millions of different species that have appeared on earth since then have been no more than micro-evolutions of these original species, then surely his “micro” and my “macro” have so much in common as to be indistinguishable from each other. By any coherent definition of the terms, macro-evolution is no more than a collection of micro-evolutions, as a million is no more than a collection of tens. The attempt to define a qualitative distinction between the two is doomed to fail.
Click to expand...
You and rossum are misrepresenting or misunderstanding.

From the original created kinds what we see today are adaptations of the original kind they started as. This is not macro-evolution. Species is a man made attempt at classification. The tree of life has fallen and is now a bush. Continued genetic classification is shedding new light on what a “species” is.
 
1amgreen said:
Neither Micro nor Macro evolution present any problem at all. It is perfectly possible to believe that God set the whole process in motion knowing how it would turn out at all levels and on all scales.
Click to expand...
Micro, certainly does not. Macro is not evident.

If God planned and guided evolution, it is no longer blind unguided chance. IT IS DESIGN!
 
rossum said:
Much easier to have a single pair of kangaroos (or even marsupials) and allow macro-evolution to take over from there.
Click to expand...
Much easier to have a single pair of kangaroos (or even marsupials) and allow micro-evolution to take over from there.

God knew that by preserving the kinds and sheltering them in the ark was all that was needed. No need for millions.
 
Last edited:
Then why treat the Bible like it was a science book? Why the threads here that have been going on about this subject for years?
 
buffalo said:
From the original created kinds what we see today are adaptations of the original kind they started as. This is not macro-evolution. Species is a man made attempt at classification. The tree of life has fallen and is now a bush. Continued genetic classification is shedding new light on what a “species” is.
Click to expand...
I, and all evolutionists, perfectly agree with the words I have bolded, but we call it “evolution”, just evolution, not macro-evolution or micro-evolution, nor, in most cases, adaptation. The real difference between us, and some other creationists, depends on how many original “kinds” there were. I go for one, you, apparently, for a few thousand, and “real” creationists for several million. True, the more you start with, the less evolution needs to take place to produce the variety we know of, but whatever number you choose, and whatever word you choose to describe its subsequent variation, careful analysis of it will show it to be indistinguishable from what I call “evolution”.
 
buffalo said:
From the original created kinds what we see today are adaptations of the original kind they started as.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This would not be considered a kind, of the human variety, as some may claim.
 
Last edited:
Actually I don’t believe it has. Catholics are not science deniers, or at least shouldn’t be, Nor do we deny God as our Creator. But that said we can learn much about our material world and the history of it because the Bible is a good historical document preserved better than any other historical document on record of our ancient world so it clues us in to the secrets of our natural world. Add edit last relevant sentence.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
From the original created kinds what we see today are adaptations of the original kind they started as. This is not macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
Not in science, buffalo. Science does not recognise the religious concept of “kind”, the word is meaningless in science.

If you want to discuss science, then use the scientific definition. If you want to discuss baraminology, then you are not discussing science.

For example:
  • Are kangaroos all one kind or many kinds. Why?
  • Are kangaroos and koalas the same kind or different kinds? Why?
Unless and until creationists can give objective criteria for distinguishing the boundaries between kinds then the concept is useless.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Much easier to have a single pair of kangaroos (or even marsupials) and allow micro -evolution to take over from there.
Click to expand...
Not at all. If only micro-evolution had happened there would still only be one species of kangaroo (or marsupial). Since we observe more than one species of both, then either the Ark story is not intended to be literal or macro-evolution has happened.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Much easier to have a single pair of kangaroos (or even marsupials) and allow micro -evolution to take over from there.
God knew that by preserving the kinds and sheltering them in the ark was all that was needed. No need for millions.
Click to expand...
Excellent! Unlike my colleague Rossum, I, as scientific as they come, don’t mind talking about kinds, as by whatever definition you care to come up with, and by whatever definition of adaptation, macro-, micro- or just plain evolution you care to come up with, their subsequent variety and dissemination will, after any analysis, be seen to be indistinguishable from good old standard evolution. The Kangaroo kind? Why not? And the Wallaby kind? And the Rat-kangaroo kind? I mean they look the same but a bit smaller. Adadaptation, evolution, the words don’t matter, the process is what matters, and it’s the same for your theory as it is for mine.
 
It doesn’t matter whether it is blind chance or design. It is a meaningless distinction. If He exists then even chance was created by God. If the Casino owners of Las Vegas can manipulate the laws of chance to make billions then God can use them to create us. The validity or otherwise of any aspect of the theory of evolution or any other scientific theory or speculation is not relavent to religious belief.

My whole point is that to create the impression that there is any conflict between belief in God and belief in evolution is to create an unneccessary obstacle to faith.

People say to me, “Oh you’re a Cathoic, so I suppose you don’t believe in evolution then.” Or people say, “I don’t believe in God because I only accept what can be scientificaly proven.” Both views are mistaken for many reasons.

It is a shame that people are put off even considering God as a possibility because they think it is at odds with what they believe to be scientific truth; whatever the merits or otherwise of that supposed truth.

It is terrible that some people think that those who believe in God are crackpots who deny what science appears to tell us.

Most people whom I know believe in God and evolution, but those who deny that possibility bolster the impression amongst non-believers that religious faith is unscientific superstition.

Science is an ongoing search for an explanation of how things work, There will be some dead ends and some great insights. Things that have been accepted for generations eventually need to be modified in light of new discoveries and fresh ideas. It is good that we explore in this way but no scientific theory, speculation or even incotrovertable fact need ever been seen to conflict with belief in God because Science attempts to tell us how things work; God is why they work.
 
Last edited:
1amgreen said:
My whole point is that to create the impression that there is any conflict between belief in God and belief in evolution is to create an unneccessary obstacle to faith.
Click to expand...
What you describe, to me, is one of the great scandals in our modern world. How many people have lost faithbecause they were falsely told reason and faith were at odds, instead of being, as St. John Paul II said, the two wings by which we fly.

It’s one thing to personally hold a literalistic interpretation of Genesis. It’s another to mandate it on others.
 
1amgreen said:
Science attempts to tell us how things work; God is why they work.
Click to expand...
And it does so by evidence, which in the case of evolution has been moulded into a story that distorts reality.

Nobody considers me a crackpot. They are actually surprised that someone could hold such a radical view in light of the pervasiveness of the modern mythos of how we came to be and what we are. I’d say that most people who enter into such discussions are left with something to think about. Some even here although the motivation may be only to argue.

God is the living Truth and in Him we find not only the why’s but the who/what’s, the where/when’s, and the how’s. It will all be known and reality will appear far more clear, that bread far more wholesome than the straw that is our thoughts and calculations.
 
Last edited:
These thoughts are inconsistent with Divinely revealed truth. Jesus raised the dead multiple times. We don’t go to Church because we believe in science. We don’t pray to Jesus because we believe in science. Science cannot baptize us. But believing non-God forces created us is foolishness, And believing evolution contributes to scientific research is false. Drug discovery is expensive because evolution provides no guidance.

Applied science tells us how things actually work and is repeatable.
 
Anyone can believe what they want. No one here is actually real or known, so no one can issue any mandates.

My faith does not need the approval of science so why is this particular subject brought up on a regular basis?
 
Last edited:
And the reason evolution is so important is what? I’ve never gotten an answer to that. I could be totally agnostic about it but that’s not good enough here.

Who do we pray to? Science or God? And can science show us God? Of course not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top