T
theCardinalbird
Guest
So now are we discussing the legitimacy of Darwin’s theory of evolution?
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
I think he brought the view that things happen on their own, devoid of any final cause into the realm of biology. Things are believed to do what they do because of the nature inherent in what they are, devoid of any ontological cause or purpose. Lamark proposed that animals could affect changes in their offspring by virtue of such behaviour as stretching to reach foliage might cause giraffes to appear in time from short-necked predecessors. That theory was dumped. Not so lucky are we with a view that all the diversity and beauty that is to be found in all creatures (regardless of what instinctive emotional reaction we might have towards them) is the result of the same mechanism that causes cancer, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, etc, - random mutation at a biochemical level.
There are variations in the definition of evolution and some would definitely include how animals perceive each other, acknowledging natural phenomena such as male plumage in birds. How the mind would have evolved has been addressed and was discussed by Freud in his Beyond the Pleasure Principle, where he postulated Eros and Thanatos, the life and death instincts inherent in nature. There’s not much detail when it comes to possible mental mutations or whatever, and closer we get to mind and the indisputable reality of personal existence (the fact that you are one being, thinking and really hurting when it hurts, etc), the less explanatory value there is in the concept of evolution, biomolecular or otherwise.
I’m going to go a bit further regarding your final comment, and say that Satan does not deceive the masses, but the individual person. To a certain extent, he uses fear drawing on our cowardice, to block people from asking questions, from keeping an open mind. It is our fear of the masses, of being ridiculed (Richard Dawkin’s favourite approach that hides the failings of his views), of being excluded that is being played upon. We should fear God instead, from whom we may think we can hide in our delusions, but as the final Truth, knows all from eternity through his infinite compassion.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Of course, that’s why some of us Catholics don’t believe it.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Apparently. I don’t see what there is to discuss. We have a pretty good sampling from the fossil record, we have a great deal of molecular data that, by and large acts as an independent and supporting data set. When someone is left trying to defend shaky Biblical interpretations that even the Church seems to have backed away from, then I’d say what’s really going to happen is some strange arguments about how accepting descent with modification imperils one’s soul, or just reiterating the same tired and long debunked claims by the Answers in Genesis and Discovery Institute crowd.
I don’t even understand the fundamental problem. Nothing in biology, or any science for that matter, speaks at all to whether God was involved or not. It’s not even a question for science, any science. You’re not going to find God showing up in biology, climatology, hydrology, cosmology, geology, physics, chemistry, epidemiology or any of the other hundreds of areas of research. The fundamental problem appears to be that some people just cannot fathom that they are wrong in their Biblical interpretation.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
And what is this supposed wrong Biblical interpretation?
N
niceatheist
Guest
I’d say any interpretation that either insists upon ignoring the geological column and the age of the Universe, or demands special creation events would be a “wrong” interpretation, in that it defies what has been observed in nature. Now it is true that God could have created the Universe with the illusion of age and could have created all life looking like everything fell into a tree of life, but so far as I understand it, that is a form of Omphalism, and would suggest a deceiver deity, which I doubt many Christians would be comfortable with.niceatheist:
And what is this supposed wrong Biblical interpretation?
Do you think there’s anything in science that in any way denies the existence of God or His involvement in the natural world?
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
If you are referring to scientific evidence that strongly points to the conclusion that God in fact doesn’t exist, I don’t think I know of any.
I think science and Catholicsm are friends, just some scientists tend to make questionable conclusions when finding evidence.
I also rely on scripture as a vital resource in understanding God and his ways
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
N
niceatheist
Guest
So you have absolutely no intention of actually understanding the theory at all, and prefer just to throw scriptures around?niceatheist:
Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”
Psalm 14:1
And really, who on this thread is saying “There is no God”. The existence of God is not a question evolution hopes to deal with.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
More to the point, I’m asking if you think there’s any scientific theory that says anything on the existence of involvement of God.niceatheist:
If you are referring to scientific evidence that strongly points to the conclusion that God in fact doesn’t exist, I don’t think I know of any.
I think science and Catholicsm are friends, just some scientists tend to make questionable conclusions when finding evidence.
I also rely on scripture as a vital resource in understanding God and his ways
R
rossum
Guest
A Bible interpretation which ignores what God made, and so ignores half of God’s message. God made the world and God wrote the Bible. We can use one to interpret the other because both are from God. If your Bible interpretation insists that what we observe in God’s world is wrong, then that interpretation ignores half of what God has done.
See Galileo and some interpretations of the Bible current around his time. Those interpretations were wrong because they ignored God’s work and relied solely on His word. By doing that they ignored a way God provided to correct their error.
rossum
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Is there a scientific theory that proves he doesn’t exist?
R
rossum
Guest
Be very careful. The God who said that is not the Trinitarian Christian God. Just ask your local Rabbi.
rossum
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
What are these interpretations? I assume you have a link or two
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Well they would say it’s the same God and if you read Genesis you would see that there is in fact a plural when God spoke and if you doubt that Jesus completed the prophecies of Judaism prophets I suggest you look at the BibleBe very careful. The God who said that is not the Trinitarian Christian God. Just ask your local Rabbi.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
No. Any more than there is a scientific theory that proves Vishnu or the Great Spirit do not exist.
At most science can disprove a few specifics: Christians are not immune to snake bites (Mark 16:17-18) and Zeus does not live on top of Mount Olympus in Greece.
rossum
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
So I guess quantum physics isn’t science? Considering it proves some things as well in the Bible
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
First of all, as the old joke goes, proof is for liquor and math. Science doesn’t strictly prove anything, it comes up with the best possible explanation based on the current data.niceatheist:
Is there a scientific theory that proves he doesn’t exist?
But to answer you question, no, there is no such theory, because science is fundamentally agnostic. It’s not the job of science to deal with the existence of God.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Well then I guess we can agree for once
T
Techno2000
Guest
But, when he prays to God the father, he’s also praying to Jesus and the Holy Spirit… the Trinity.Techno2000:
Be very careful. The God who said that is not the Trinitarian Christian God. Just ask your local Rabbi.
rossum
Last edited:
- Status