Dinosaurs or really big chickens

[rossum]

Ah, but this comparison does not hold up. If you are going to claim the ability to explain the material world, then you cannot simply stop at some point in the explanation and say “everything before this just is.” That is the dilemma science faces if it claims it can explain everything - it will be required to do so.

Science does not currently claim to be able to explain all of the material world. If it had then science would be dead and there would be nothing left for scientists to do. Science claims to have the best explanations currently available for part of the material world. The work of science is to improve the explanations we currently have and to extend explanations into areas where we do not currently have any.

Whereas, no theist (at least, no Judeo-Christian theist) suggests that they can explain the existence of God.

Which was precisely my point. Some people ask more from science than they are prepared to ask of their own beliefs. My question on the origin of life was an example.

rossum

 

[rossum]

That’s all very nice, but it still doesn’t explain anything. What was the “pre-existing state” before the Big Bang? What was it composed of? Why did it result in the Bang?

In science a valid answer to a question is “We don’t know yet.” Science does not know everything, any more than theology does - what was the name of Seth’s wife, the mother of Enosh? The existence of unanswered questions does not invalidate either.

Ah, but my dear fellow, unlike science, Christians do not claim to have all the answers. We specialize in incomprehensible mysteries. (Try explaining transubstantiation, or the Triune Godhead, or the hypostatic union of Christ some time.) So in this light, saying “God was always here, and He’ll always be here” is a perfectly legitimate explanation.

Science does not claim to have all the answers either. Some philosophical materialists may possibly claim so, but in my opinion they would be foolish to do so.

All we really have, at the bottom line, is what God has allowed us to know…not because He wants us to be ignorant, but because we were only created to be able to understand things up to a certain point, beyond which, we simply are not smart enough to figure it out. We don’t like to admit that we are just the dumb goldfish in the tank, being watched by the smart guy outside the tank who gives us this neat environment to live in, who feeds us, and provides for us, but who is vastly more intelligent and superior to us.

Science does not allow for us to assume that a question cannot be answered before we even try to find an answer. All relevant questions are in principle open to scienctific examination.

I notice that you did not attempt to answer my question about the creationist explanation for the origin of life.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Oh yes they did, all dogs are evolved from a few domesticated wolves. Your disbelief in evolution does not have any weight against the mountain of scientific evidence for evolution. The Catholic Church learned a ong time ago that it is unwise to try to contradict science in the arena of natural things. You would do well to follow the Church’s example.

Nope. It took about 100 years for dogs to be domesticated.

Russian experiments years ago confirmed the fact. All they did is selectively breed the dogs with a mild disposition and voila you have a dog. This is not evolution. The domestication led to the breeds we have today.

 

[buffalo]

Genesis is usually figured to have been written around 1440 BC, so you’re in the ballpark. However, religious texts do not claim to be based on hypothetical observation, and open to re-interpretation with new evidence, as do scientific texts.

Unless you’re Bishop Spong, that is.

I mean their ideas and the structures based on those ideas, which were primarily a 20th-century phenomenon, not the men themselves.

Judging from a good many of the Darwinists I’ve talked to on the Net over the last eight or nine years, a lot of them.

Oh, I never said we need to stop asking questions. All I said was that we need to stop bragging that we know the answers, because we don’t. Try as science might to know everything, there’s still a considerable portion of reality that is way over science’s head.

I agree. Arguing about origins is almost as pointless and silly as arguing about eschatology.

Toledoths of Genesis

 

[VociMike]

Science does not currently claim to be able to explain all of the material world. If it had then science would be dead and there would be nothing left for scientists to do. Science claims to have the best explanations currently available for part of the material world. The work of science is to improve the explanations we currently have and to extend explanations into areas where we do not currently have any.

Well obviously science does not yet have explanations for all of the material world - that much we agree on. But that is very different from science acknowledging that there is a fundamental barrier beyond which it will never be able to offer explanations regarding the material world. There is an implicit (and often explicit) belief among many people that everything will eventually be explained by better data and better theories. If true, then science will eventually be able to explain the origin of everything, which is to say, the universe will be able to explain itself. But I deny that the universe can explain itself. I deny that there will one day be no more fundamental questions about the material world that have not been answered via the scientific method. So at some point science breaks down, and it breaks down without having offered the final answers which many people believe it capable of offering.

Which was precisely my point. Some people ask more from science than they are prepared to ask of their own beliefs. My question on the origin of life was an example.

That’s because science seems to claim to provide more than does faith. Faith does not claim to provide proofs, but science does. So it is only fair that science should be held to the higher standard which it claims for itself.

 

[edwest2]

At present, the Catholic Church is willing to consider a long Creation but what I object to is the constant, observable anti-religious/anti-God rhetoric coming from the evolution camp. If it were just a case of here is the evidence, that’s it, I’d have no pronblem with it, but that is not the case. Evolution and Naturalism are being sold as one package. Take Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. It’s not enough for him to present the “evidence” for evolution, he must include Naturalism as part of the package. “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.”

So for all those wondering what the fuss among Catholics is: that’s it. “Hey kid. Here’s all the evidence for evolution.” Kid: “But, according to this, we all got here through purely natural causes. Where’s God?” “Who knows, kid. Who knows.” Kid: “But this means evolution didn’t Need God.” That’s right kid. That’s right." Kid: “Do you believe in God?” “There’s no evidence for god, so, no.”

Pope Benedict has clearly stated that the appearance of man on earth was an Intelligent Project. I’m siding with the Pope on that one.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/

And I also do not agree with those who insist that the word day in Genesis did not mean 24 hour days. Driving anyone away from the faith? Driving people to the faith is the job of the Holy Spirit of God. The Pope has also spoken about those “fooled by atheism.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Milliardo]

At present, the Catholic Church is willing to consider a long Creation but what I object to is the constant, observable anti-religious/anti-God rhetoric coming from the evolution camp.

I would also object to that; the problem isn’t evolution per se then, but rather some people who try to present it. Note that not all who believe in it are atheists or have this thing against God; I certainly subscribe to it (see my previous posts about it), but also acknowledge that God is the one who moved it all along.

Pope Benedict has clearly stated that the appearance of man on earth was an Intelligent Project. I’m siding with the Pope on that one.

I agree as well; like I said before, evolution and creation can happily co-exist. People from both sides of the fence should come to terms and realize that they’re actually seeing only one side of the same coin.

And I also do not agree with those who insist that the word day in Genesis did not mean 24 hour days.

The Bible is also clear in stating that for God, time is rather relative, so it is not impossible to think that a day for God would mean a million years, or even a second. Time for God is really in His own reality; meaning, He can make a day stretch for a thousand years, and a year to be just a second.

 

[edwest2]

No. Those who promote evolution promote naturalism at the same time. It is consistent and observable. The evolution group cannot allow God to be on the other side of the coin, whether they are atheists, agnostics, or indifferent. The Pope also has things to say about Western culture and its cynicism and indifference, but that’s another topic.

Suffice it to say, the current, constant message is: evolution yes, God no. Religion bad, very bad.

May the Name of Jesus Christ be praised,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Well obviously science does not yet have explanations for all of the material world - that much we agree on. But that is very different from science acknowledging that there is a fundamental barrier beyond which it will never be able to offer explanations regarding the material world.

So far there is no scientific evidence for there being a fundamental barrier.

There is an implicit (and often explicit) belief among many people that everything will eventually be explained by better data and better theories.

Such a belief exists.

If true, then science will eventually be able to explain the origin of everything, which is to say, the universe will be able to explain itself. But I deny that the universe can explain itself. I deny that there will one day be no more fundamental questions about the material world that have not been answered via the scientific method. So at some point science breaks down, and it breaks down without having offered the final answers which many people believe it capable of offering.

I note your belief, though I do not subscribe to it. My belief is that the material universe is capable of providing an explanation of itself, even if it turns out that we are all just an inflated quantum fluctuation. Without scientific evidence neither belief is scientific. If such a barrier exists, it has not been reached yet. If such a berrier does not exist then we will never reach it. Here and now both beliefs are consistent with the evidence we have.

That’s because science seems to claim to provide more than does faith. Faith does not claim to provide proofs, but science does. So it is only fair that science should be held to the higher standard which it claims for itself.

Science does not provide any proofs, proofs are for mathematics. Science provides evidence, and theories to explain that evidence. Theories are not proofs because theories are all works in progress and can be amended or replaced as new evidence comes in.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Nope. It took about 100 years for dogs to be domesticated.

Russian experiments years ago confirmed the fact. All they did is selectively breed the dogs with a mild disposition and voila you have a dog. This is not evolution. The domestication led to the breeds we have today.

Thankyou for agreeing with my point. I was responding to abu kamoon:

No animal ever evolved from another animal. There are variations whithin species. Look at all the variations in dogs. They didn’t evolve from one another.

Dogs did evolve from each other and originally from wolves. The Russian experiments were about domesticating foxes, not wolves or dogs: Early Canid Domestication: The Farm Fox Experiment and took closer to 50 years. They are a nice example of arificial selection in action.

rossum

 

[zian]

No. Those who promote evolution promote naturalism at the same time. It is consistent and observable. The evolution group cannot allow God to be on the other side of the coin, whether they are atheists, agnostics, or indifferent. The Pope also has things to say about Western culture and its cynicism and indifference, but that’s another topic.

Suffice it to say, the current, constant message is: evolution yes, God no. Religion bad, very bad.

May the Name of Jesus Christ be praised,
Ed

Ed,
It is a strawman to suggest that ALL those who accept evolution deny God.

Many do (e.g. Dawkins, Dennett, etc.).

Many do not (e.g. Francis Collins).

When it comes to Dawkins, you and I are pretty much on the same page.

 

[edwest2]

I am not interested in straw. I am interested in showing my fellow Christians that evolution and naturalism (there is no God, only science) are being sold together. That is wrong.

If there is evidence for evolution (and I do not think there is any) then it should not be marketed here in such a desperate fashion. What do I mean by desperate?

How can you ignore science?
How can you ignore the evidence?
You are anti-science if you reject evolution (how so ?)
You must deal with the evidence.

And repeat this over and over and over again, daily, constantly.

When you have a conversation with someone and tell them something and they disagree with you once, do you ask them the same thing everyday for the next year? No. This is being marketed like any product. “What? You don’t believe in evolution? Are You NUTS!!!” “Do you want to embarrass All Christians???” “Haven’t you looked at the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E???”

Yes, I’ve been hearing about the so-called “evidence” constantly, daily, all over the internet. And whenever anyone brings up evidence that is contrary, the evolutionists go on the defensive, either by quoting the lines I just mentioned above or saying nonsense like, “Well, it really doesn’t matter anyway.”

Ask yourself, why are these people daily, constantly promoting the theory of Evolution? Why? Just for the heck of it? Clearly not.

You MUST believe in evolution because part two is this: “Isn’t it obvious that God was not needed to create human beings? I’ve got this philosophy called Naturalism that you’re just gonna love. Besides, who believes in God anymore? He’s just like Santa Claus.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

I am not interested in straw. I am interested in showing my fellow Christians that evolution and naturalism (there is no God, only science) are being sold together. That is wrong.

Science is predicated on methodological naturalism. All of science, not just evolution. You might as well talk about meteorology and naturalism being sold together.

As to strawmen, zian said “It is a strawman to suggest that ALL those who accept evolution deny God.” Which is correct. As well as Francis Collins, there are Kenneth Miller, who is Catholic, Keith Miller, who is Protestant and Theodosius Dobzhansky, who was Orthodox. All of these are perfectly happy with evolution as science and with the methodological naturalism of science.

To say “there is no God” is philosophical naturalism. T.at is a philosophical position common to many atheists. It is not necessary to be a philosophical naturalist to be a scientist as is shown by the many scientists who are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and so on.

If there is evidence for evolution (and I do not think there is any) then it should not be marketed here in such a desperate fashion.

When it comes to material things science is on its home ground and is very difficult to beat. The Catholic Church learned a valuable lesson with Galileo and has taken care not to repeat the mistake since. You would do well to emulate the Church’s example. Stick with the “in God’s image” part of creation - that is man’s soul. Evolution says nothing about the soul - it does not fossilise and it is not present in our DNA.

Ask yourself, why are these people daily, constantly promoting the theory of Evolution? Why? Just for the heck of it? Clearly not.

I am doing it because I prefer truth to falsehood. Creationism has been trying to insert itself in the school science curriculum since at least the 1920s and as a former teacher (Math and Physics) I do not want pseudoscientific nonsense taught to children in science classes. If you want to teach a theological position then do it in religion class where it belongs.

You MUST believe in evolution because part two is this: “Isn’t it obvious that God was not needed to create human beings? I’ve got this philosophy called Naturalism that you’re just gonna love. Besides, who believes in God anymore? He’s just like Santa Claus.”

You are conflating philosophical naturalism - “the material is all that exists” with methodological naturalism - " the material is all that science can deal with". In this you are following Richard Dawkins’ agenda since he tends to do the same thing.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

I stand by my statement. What is being marketed here is a product called “evolution.” There is no evidence for it.

It’s fine that you prefer truth over falsehood, so do I. But it’s clear that you have been a part of the campaign to advertise evolution to those Christians who do not believe in it. Why? I’m not advocating teaching Creation in public schools. I don’t believe in a small group that labels itself “the Religious Right.”

Don’t you understand that religious schools have been teaching students that God created the heavens and the earth for centuries and that those same students went on to have successful careers in the sciences? If you don’t want Creation taught in public schools then write to all the school boards in the country and tell them that. In the meantime, if you think it’s OK for religious schools to teach that God created the heavens and the earth, then why are you posting on a Catholic forum?

God bless,
Ed

 

[abu_kamoon]

I agree with what you said, edwest2. Believers is Naturalism (which is the basis for evolution) rarely carry their belief to its logical conclusion. If all that we see is the result of Natural Forces, then we are just carrying out what we have been programmed to do.

Examples of this kind of thinking are the idea that people become homosexuals because of genetics. The latest thing I heard along these lines is that people’s political outlook is also a function of genetic factors! This is the Naturalist philosophy.

If you believe this, where does the idea of free will enter into the picture? The Naturalist, if he is to be consistant, will have to say that we really don’t have free will. We do what we have been genetically programmed to do when affected by various stumulii. How many people believe this?

The Naturalist philosophy is completely contrary to Catholic teaching. We are told that we have free will. We decide whether or not to commit and act, or not. I agree that there can be mitigating factors, but ultimately, we are responsible for our own actions.

ابو كمون

 

[edwest2]

Yes. Once we believe we are the product of purely natural forces and are little more than a container of chemicals or biological mechanisms, we are just machines responding to outside stimuli as programmed. Any statement otherwise is inconsistent with science.

Catholics believe that we become new creatures when we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and follow Him.

World history shows that dragons were indeed dinosaurs. Dinosaur and human footprints have been found together.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I would like to correct my above statement to read that there are reports of dinosaur and human footprints being found together.

God bless,
Ed

 

[VociMike]

I am not interested in straw. I am interested in showing my fellow Christians that evolution and naturalism (there is no God, only science) are being sold together. That is wrong.

There is no question that this is true in many circles. I believe that it is our duty as Catholics, not to reject objective science, but to pry apart objective science from the agendas that many people would attach to that science (and which sometimes takes the form of unobjective science).

In short, our response to every scientific claim should be along the lines of “Yes, God certainly works in wonderous ways!”

 

[edwest2]

I don’t see much prying going on. Most people seem to take a “I can believe in God and evolution too? Cool.” approach without studying the evidence.

The evidence for evolution is quite clear: No God Required, at all. To even imply that God was somehow involved is not necessary and I think that most people are missing that. Pope Benedict is not missing that but I think many Catholics are. Right now, the Catholic Church is emerging from a 30 year propaganda campaign started by the secular media. “Trust us, this is what’s true. Evolution? Sure.”

At the end of the day though, the goal is to remake the United States and Western culture into a secular, unreligious culture. As Catholics, we must prayerfully, each one of us, repent and turn to God and recommit our lives to Jesus Christ.

Back to dinosaurs, I think there is good evidence that humans interacted with them, but the evolutionists want to deny it the loudest. Objective? Doesn’t look like it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

I stand by my statement. What is being marketed here is a product called “evolution.” There is no evidence for it.

The former Pope seemed to think that there was evidence:Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

…]

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
So evolution complies with the requirement for consistency with the observed data. That observed data is the evidence for evolution.

Perhaps you could have a look at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences own documents:

Recent advances in the evolution of primates. Working Group, 24-27 May 1982, pp. xvii-204
Bat malaria: zoogeography and possible course of evolution, P.C.C. Garnham, pp. 16
The origin and early evolution of life. Plenary Session, 22-26 October 1996, pp. 340

source

You are incorrect to claim that there is “no evidence” for evolution.

Don’t you understand that religious schools have been teaching students that God created the heavens and the earth for centuries and that those same students went on to have successful careers in the sciences? If you don’t want Creation taught in public schools then write to all the school boards in the country and tell them that. In the meantime, if you think it’s OK for religious schools to teach that God created the heavens and the earth, then why are you posting on a Catholic forum?

Religious schools are free to teach their religion in religion classes. When in science classes they should only teach science. My issue is not with teaching religion, but with teaching religion disguised as science.

rossum