Do you believe in gravity?

[reggieM]

Of course we don’t understand everything in evolution.

Would you say the same about gravity?

 

[reggieM]

Why is it so important for you evolutionists to make everyone believe what you do? Why do you have a hard time with us who believe a more traditional form of Creation?

Those are good questions.

I don’t like how these discussions on evolution bring out the anger and sarcasm, etc. in people.

There are so many inflammatory responses.

It’s enough for me to say that the more I read about evolution, the less I believe it to be true. I do not see the evidence to support the claims – and the claims continue to grow so that the entire universe is explained by natural forces – and then multiverses explain the origin of this one, etc.

I think there’s a healthy and vibrant culture of people who oppose Darwinism right now and that culture is growing and also attracting some good writers and thinkers.

I’ll now expect a good amount of ridicule and sarcasm in reply to that last sentence.

But I do think that Darwinian evolution is a threat to the Catholic faith – a very dangerous one, at that. I do not believe it is scientific, but rather ideological in its essence. It’s a substitute for religion and eliminates God from the universe using fraudulent science and a culture of oppression.

I have not found the pro-Darwinists here on CAF to be friendly or courteous at all. If they’re so right about everything, why can they not simply teach and show in a charitible manner? Why must they resort to ridicule and outrage?

I see many of them with a very negative attitude towards others – towards their fellow Catholics, towards anyone, just because evolutionary theory is held up for question.

If you want to win people over to become Darwinists like yourself, I recommend using a friendly and polite manner.

I will say that Sideline is usually a very good exception to what I just said and he is considerate of others in his views.

I admit that I use some harsh words at times also and I apologize. I don’t like how these conversations bring out that part of our character. It’s not good virtue for us Catholics to be working on – we have to do better, in my opinion (I’ll speak for myself).

 

[cascherman]

Personally, I believe MICRO-evolution exists, but I have not seen any support for out of species evolution, or MACRO-evolution.

If you have evidence for macro-evolution, it would definitely be interesting to see.

As for gravity and evolution being compared. Sorry, but I cannot exhibit evolution as easily as I can gravity, so I don’t think they are comparable.

 

[rossum]

Why don’t you accept our right to NOT believe a theory and just move on? That also does not violate Church teaching. Why is it so important for you evolutionists to make everyone believe what you do? Why do you have a hard time with us who believe a more traditional form of Creation?

I cannot speak for others; my primary motivation is to help prevent creationism being taught in science classes in schools.

I have no problem with people believing in creationism, nor do I have a problem with creationism being taught in religion classes. I have a big problem with creationism being taught in science class in school. I taught science and mathematics for five years; I do not want creationism inflicted on my former colleagues.

Creationism is not science, it is religion. It has no place in science classes any more than English Literature or Spanish has a place in science class. Its place is in religion class.

If creationists were content to teach creationism in Sunday school and in private schools then I would probably not be so active. It is the attempts to legislate one particular interpretation of the Bible into state school science classes that I think need to be countered strongly.

rossum

 

[Deconi]

Science is the only mechanism we have that can ‘explain’ creationism. Our ignorance of Creation or setting it aside as a possible question for science maintains the chasm between the two (Science and Creation)

Creation is NOT religion! It is as factual as God exists, or both are a lie.

 

[Other_Eric]

Would you say the same about gravity?

Even scientists cannot say the same about gravity. They’ve been laboring on a workable theory of quantum gravity for about 81 years and have still come up dry. Therefore we may also safely say that we do not know everything about gravity.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, I believe in gravity. To prove it, I just have to stand in front of a mirror without any clothes on.

Wife of 1
Mommy of 4
Slave to 10 chickens, 10 cats, 7 rabbits, 2 ducks and whatever critter happens to show up on our doorstep

Now there’s a poster who does not take herself too seriously! I particularly love your “location”, i.e. “hiding from housework”.

But back to gravity. I am no physicist, but men have always known there is something (a “force” if you will) that pulls us and other objects to earth. If we jump out of a tree, we land on whatever surface is below the tree; every time, unless something else intervenes. Now, it gets a little stranger when we posit that I also attract the earth, and that notion came much later. Then Einstein says (If I understand him) that gravity is not an attractive force, particularly, but a curving of the space/time continuum around an object. And, of course, now physicists say there isn’t enough matter in the universe to account for all the observable gravity. So, they posit the existence of “dark matter” to make up the deficit, and they could be right. Then, there’s the interaction of the “weak force” and the “strong force” and all that stuff they talk about before they lose me completely. Oh yes, and prevailing gravitational theories don’t work out with quantum mechanics.

But the reality is that nobody really knows the full nature of it. So we have this weird situation in which something is, in some respects, so obvious that no one should even give it a further thought, and in some respects beyond the understanding of the “best of the best”.

Regardless, it seems not at all difficult for me, as a Catholic, to think of gravity as a part of the action of God. There are those who say that all of these “natural” explanations of this or that show the absence of Divine causation. But do they? On a very basic level (and again, I am not a physicist. Nor am I a philospher) the human mind really does seem to rebel against the notion that the universe (let alone its “rules” which, if anything are more remarkable still) just “poofed” out of nowhere without any causative agent at all, and without a brain in its own “head”. It rebels against the notion that the “stuff” out there was just always there, and that somehow there just isn’t a responsible principle despite all the complexity and seeming consistency. Lots of “thoughts”, but no brain thinking them.

Some people can, and manifestly do, accept that. Some say that, well, it’s just the limitations of the human mind that make me think there must be some creator behind what we call creation. If so, I guess I can’t be blamed too much for thinking it, and have to wonder, then, why some claim to be exempt from that mental limitation, particularly when they can’t prove it even exists.

But I don’t see any contradiction in believing God makes the apple fall to earth. How do we know how God acts? Does He really have to reach out and push the apple to earth each time, or does He perhaps have principles in His mind that account for every apple hitting the earth, every time?

If God really is God; infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, He could do that. Maybe He didn’t even have to “invent” gravity. Maybe it’s simply a manifestation of a “truth” indwelling in His fullness of truth.

I, for one, am anything but bothered about scientific discoveries or mathematical constructs about things we’ll never actually see. It seems to me that the more people “discover”, the further we get from the simple “clockwork universe” so many thought demonstrated the nonexistence of God. Physicists, in particular, seem to find themselves bumping up against things they are inclined to admit they’ll never penetrate.

I don’t particularly believe God has hidden things in the physical world from us, as if He is somehow “guarding his secrets”. I think He wants us to discover what we are capable of discovering. But it increasingly appears there are things we’re just not going to know. And the real nature of gravity might be one of them.

 

[Sideline]

Sorry. I am not that arrogant to believe that. Especially since we have never met. I meant that if you are going to try to get into a debate like so many of the evolutionists do, I will not debate this again, and again, and again, and …

Sorry, misunderstood.

And what make you assume that I have not studied the theory? I find it sad that most evolutionists make that assumption, but then again why should I? I guess a theory is a lot like an assumption!

1. You said that there is no proof of evolution. If you studied much science you would realize that scientists don’t try and prove theories as much as they try and support them. They build a model and find evidence for (or try and poke holes in) it until they have a well supported theory.
2. You may have been saying was that there was no evidence for the theory. But saying that there is no evidence for a theory, that is probably the best supported theory of all time, suggests that you can’t have studied it very closely.

A theory isn’t like an assumption at all. That’s more of a hypothesies.

 

[sodak]

You’re probably thinking at this point, “What an absurd question, of course I do. How could you not?” No one questions it. We have a word for people who don’t believe in gravity. The word is “insane”.

To me, the question, “Do you believe in Evolution?”, is just as strange as asking if I believe in gravity.

The funny thing is, our theories regarding evolution are better supported than our theories of gravity.

I have degrees in Physics and Mathematics, and the above statement is utterly wrong.

In physics we have two theories (Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity) that don’t match up. They can be approximated, of course, but they don’t fit seemlessly in with each other.

Almost no hard science fits seamlessly. This is a strawman. We still can’t cure the common cold, should we not have doctors?

There isn’t a big old hole like that in evolution.

They’re more like gaping chasms. Evolution has some very serious holes.

Of course we don’t understand everything in evolution. We can’t predict new species, and we can’t watch a bacteria evolve all the way into a highly complex life form. But we understand how it works amazingly well.

Many of the people who claim evolution is wrong, believe in a limited (or super in some cases) form of evolution. The people who don’t believe it, still believe it. They can’t even try and refute it, without some sort of acceptance, unless they want to try and deny scientific enquiry all together.

Or they simply want an unsupported hypothesis/postulate to have more credible backing before they are told that they must believe in it. Trying to use a broad brush on everyone who doubts evolution as an uneducated person who doesn’t believe in scientific enquiry is very, very arrogant.

Why are people so resistent to the idea that life evolved? It doesn’t violate Catholic teaching. It isn’t forbidden by the Church.

Many Catholics aren’t resistant at all.

To try and refute it logically you need to accept many of its principles. Why not just accept that it exists and move on?

I’ll accept it when there is a decent amount of evidence for, as others have pointed out, macro evolution. For the most part, I really couldn’t care less. However God wanted us here is how he put us here. But I’m not going to believe a postulate without some pretty convincing evidence, and I haven’t seen it yet. I’m officially undecided, and if I stay that way my entire life, fine with me. I just don’t consider this an important enough subject to get all worked up about.

But don’t lump us into some narrow stereotype. That’s insulting. Use your energy filling in the holes, and yes, there are many.

 

[Sideline]

It is misleading to compare gravity to evolution. Gravity being a law that is backed up by voluminous mathematical equations that can accurately predict observed astronomical phenomena. Evolution has no such mathematical foundation, cannot be used to predict observed biological phenomena, cannot be disproved in the laboratory and does, in fact, need to be readjusted to conform to things we have observed.

Could I suggest you lear a little more about gravity? You don’t seem to have a firm grasp of it. (The give away is saying “gravity is a law”.)

That said, the dichotomy as is typically posed between evolution and creationism is a false one. Evolution is no more inherently atheistic than are the laws of thermodynamics. God is noticeably absent in both ideas, each more or less being explained as “occurring on their own.” This is not to say that a Richard Dawkins or a Christopher Hitchens might not use evolution in service to some other agendas he may have. Such arguments say more about the people making them then they do about evolutionary theory.

Who said evolution is inherently atheistic? I sure didn’t.

 

[steveandersen]

Gravity!?!!?

You mean some mysterious force acting at a distance without an apparent transmission mechanism

feh!

they’ll never prove that.

 

[Sideline]

I have degrees in Physics and Mathematics, and the above statement is utterly wrong.

I have a degree and you’re wrong.

Well, that got us nowhere. Perhaps some evidence would be helpful.

Almost no hard science fits seamlessly. This is a strawman. We still can’t cure the common cold, should we not have doctors?

I have no idea what you think a straw man argument is, because it certainly doesn’t fit what I posted. I wasn’t suggesting that the theory of relativity doesn’t have merit. I wasn’t saying we can’t make it work. What I am saying is that people have a misconception that gravity is perfectly understood. That it is science, and that evolution is a fairy tale, but nothing could be further from the truth.

I’ll accept it when there is a decent amount of evidence for, as others have pointed out, macro evolution. For the most part, I really couldn’t care less. However God wanted us here is how he put us here. But I’m not going to believe a postulate without some pretty convincing evidence, and I haven’t seen it yet. I’m officially undecided, and if I stay that way my entire life, fine with me. I just don’t consider this an important enough subject to get all worked up about.

You talk as if someone were making you have an opinion. As if you were forced to post. You could have remained silent if you really didn’t care.

You say there isn’t any evidence, my bet is you aren’t looking for it.

But don’t lump us into some narrow stereotype. That’s insulting. Use your energy filling in the holes, and yes, there are many.

What narrow stereotype?

 

[ElizabethPH]

yes what I see when I look in the mirror is proof positive.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Oh, sure, you can show us things falling to earth. Everyone believes in microgravity. But the idea that gravity can make all the stars in the galaxy rotate around it, that’s macrogravity, and no one has ever seen it happen.

You gravitationists always try to pull a switch on people, when you talk about gravity.

 

[sodak]

I have a degree and you’re wrong.

Well, that got us nowhere. Perhaps some evidence would be helpful.

The point was, that I have experience in this area, and you won’t be able to get away with absurd statements such as evolution has more proof than gravity. You’d be laughed out of any freshman Physics class in college. You put forth the postulate/hypothesis, and I called you on it. The burden of proof rests upon you.

I have no idea what you think a straw man argument is, because it certainly doesn’t fit what I posted.

See my above comment.
I wasn’t suggesting that the theory of relativity doesn’t have merit. I wasn’t saying we can’t make it work. What I am saying is that people have a misconception that gravity is perfectly understood.

Absolutely nothing in science is completely understood. Nothing. We understand gravity well enough to be able to predict and explain it with a very high degree of precision, repeatably and reliably. In fact, gravity was used many years after Dr. Einstein as the final proof of one of his theorums on Relativity. It was proven to a very high degree of precision. Show me some examples of that in evolution. Repeatable and reliable predictions. You can’t.

That it is science, and that evolution is a fairy tale, but nothing could be further from the truth.

I never called evolution a fairy tale - don’t put words in my mouth. I said that I haven’t seen enough evidence of it to convince me. I’m officially undecided.

You talk as if someone were making you have an opinion. As if you were forced to post. You could have remained silent if you really didn’t care.

I usually do on this subject. When I see blatantly absurd statements such as yours, then I feel compelled to refute them. I’m not going to sit around and see a very well researched peer reviewed, and challenged branch of science (Physics) sullied in comparison to a very unproven hypothesis that has gaping holes in it (Evolution).

You say there isn’t any evidence, my bet is you aren’t looking for it.

You would be wrong. It is pretty standard if you don’t have any facts on your side to start personally attacking the other side. In the world of real science, when you do that in a debate, you automatically lose.

What narrow stereotype?

That people are resistant to the idea that life evolved. We simply demand some evidence, and what evidence that has been observed so far is highly debatable. I’m also looking for some reliable and repeatable predictions from Evolution.

 

[sodak]

Oh, sure, you can show us things falling to earth. Everyone believes in microgravity. But the idea that gravity can make all the stars in the galaxy rotate around it, that’s macrogravity, and no one has ever seen it happen.

You gravitationists always try to pull a switch on people, when you talk about gravity.

Tell that to Kepler. You’re several centuries behind the times. Not only have we seen it happen, we can explain it to a high degree of precision. We have used it to predict and find planets (Neptune and Pluto). Gravitational anomolies in orbits of inner planets (Uranus) led scientists to look for other planets causing it, and the theory also told them where to look. And they were right.

Give me an instance in micro - evolution where they were able to extrapolate and successfully predict an instance in macro - evolution.