Early Saints on Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kamalayka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EphelDuath said:
There’s as much evidence for biological macroevolution as there is for gravity. Am I rejecting Christ by following a false religion by accepting that gravity is a real force?
Click to expand...
StAnastasia said:
No, science not about prove things. Christianity is religion, but religion not exhausted by Christianity.
Click to expand...
The fact that I have to believe something so stupid as evolution is why I can’t be catholic
 
EphelDuath said:
There’s as much evidence for biological macroevolution as there is for gravity. Am I rejecting Christ by following a false religion by accepting that gravity is a real force?
Click to expand...
Gravity I can prove every day. After irradiating many fruit flies, who have short lifespans, no evolution.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The old how-why argument is not valid …
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
If that were true, there would be no such science as philosophy. 🙂
edwest2 said:
… Both the biology textbook and individual scientists state that man is not part of any plan. We are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have us in mind. Both in the biology text and among leading scientists, there is no why. We just happened to come into existence through chance and error followed by a supposed system of selection.
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
That would depend upon the “individual scientist” whose views were being considered.

There seems to be an unfounded concensus or generality developing on the thread that all scientists accept the theory of evolution. That simply isn’t true.

For example, consider three of science’s brightest minds:
So it would appear that some scientists are free - not only to reject the theory of evolution, but they are also free to believe , as Einstein, Pasteur and Lejeune did, in the existence of God.

:hmmm: … Go figure !

God bless all.
 
EphelDuath said:
There’s as much evidence for biological macroevolution as there is for gravity. Am I rejecting Christ by following a false religion by accepting that gravity is a real force?
Click to expand...
Let’s examine this:

Gravity

Testable - yes
repeatable -yes
predictable - yes

Evolution

testable - no
repeatable - no
predictable - no
 
First of all, no.

But, the point of contention is that I’m rejecting Christ as savior king of the universe any time I choose to believe anything that is allegedly untestable?
 
edwest2 said:
Leading Scientists Still Reject God:

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Click to expand...
One, the evidence for evolution is not based on an appeal to the authority of scientists. It’s based on an overwhelming amount of physical, testable evidence. Listen to this: 100% of scientists could be literal devil worshipers, and if they say that “grass is green,” and they can prove said statement with logical conclusions, then there is no reason to immediately discard their claim. Is there an ulterior motive at work? Perhaps, but motives are not relevant to the accuracy of their claims (unless it was an appeal to authority, which it is not).

Two, this is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution, which it does.
 
buffalo said:
Let’s examine this:

Gravity

Testable - yes
repeatable -yes
predictable - yes

Evolution

testable - no
repeatable - no
predictable - no
Click to expand...
You have a somewhat elementary school level of understanding about how science works. You seem to be stuck on the idea that science is related to whether or not something is testable based on the scientific method that we all learned in 4th grade. Science today has much less to do with repeatability than with whether a particular hypothesis is falsifiable. To put it bluntly, a good deal of modern physics is no testable, quantum mechanics for example, but it remains the dominant scientific paradigm until someone is able to falsify it. At present no one has been able to falsify evolutionary theory, thus it stands.

Cheers,
JRB
 
It’s not just falsifiability, it also has to deal with the fact that there would be an incredible amount to explain if biological macroevolution did not take place; so much that I would have to say that God has therefore tricked us, which I do not believe He would do.
 
If macroevolution were no more than a theory, there would probably be much less fuss, but for some it can become an entire philosophy ewtn.com/expert/answers/evolution_as_philosophy.htm
, the article’s author - Dr. Richard Geraghty, PhD , points out a potential danger in this:

“Thus the Church is content to let the scientists go about their business and will only react when some step beyond the limits of science in making the claim that the theory of evolution has made Christianity obsolete.”

Along these same lines,there exist more extravagant views that evolutionism has even become a religion in and of itself , nwcreation.net/atheism.html

It may well be worth reiterating:

*Evolution attempts to answer the question” how?”.

Christianity answers the question “Why?”*

This isn’t an old argument, (technically, not an argument at all). It is the teaching of the Catholic Church as specified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church; 284

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p4.htm#I
 
foxscape said:
You have a somewhat elementary school level of understanding about how science works. You seem to be stuck on the idea that science is related to whether or not something is testable based on the scientific method that we all learned in 4th grade. Science today has much less to do with repeatability than with whether a particular hypothesis is falsifiable. To put it bluntly, a good deal of modern physics is no testable, quantum mechanics for example, but it remains the dominant scientific paradigm until someone is able to falsify it. At present no one has been able to falsify evolutionary theory, thus it stands.

Cheers,
JRB
Click to expand...
Using falsifiability as the sole criteria sets you on a limited path.You admit then that it can never be verified. A long standing theory is not sacrosanct and only retains its value until falsified or replaced. The other implications is that no observations are free from error and we should question whether our conclusions are correct.
 
buffalo said:
Using falsifiability as the sole criteria sets you on a limited path.You admit then that it can never be verified. A long standing theory is not sacrosanct and only retains its value until falsified or replaced. The other implications is that no observations are free from error and we should question whether our conclusions are correct.
Click to expand...
If by verified you mean that we cannot magically run evolution through a lab then yes it cannot be ‘verified’. If by verified you mean that we cannot recreate and observe the big bang then technically yes it cannot be ‘verified’. That is why a lot of science has moved beyond verification as the sole criteria. Not every scientific fact can be run through an experiment. A process like evolution that takes millions of years can’t be reproduced. The signs, however, are very much present and the theory will stand until someone can provide sufficient evidence that points to it being false. Thus everything you have said above is technically correct. Welcome to the wide world of science 🙂
 
foxscape said:
If by verified you mean that we cannot magically run evolution through a lab then yes it cannot be ‘verified’. If by verified you mean that we cannot recreate and observe the big bang then technically yes it cannot be ‘verified’. That is why a lot of science has moved beyond verification as the sole criteria. Not every scientific fact can be run through an experiment. A process like evolution that takes millions of years can’t be reproduced. The signs, however, are very much present and the theory will stand until someone can provide sufficient evidence that points to it being false. Thus everything you have said above is technically correct. Welcome to the wide world of science 🙂
Click to expand...
Now I feel so much better. Thanks! 😃
 
EphelDuath said:
One, the evidence for evolution is not based on an appeal to the authority of scientists. It’s based on an overwhelming amount of physical, testable evidence. Listen to this: 100% of scientists could be literal devil worshipers, and if they say that “grass is green,” and they can prove said statement with logical conclusions, then there is no reason to immediately discard their claim. Is there an ulterior motive at work? Perhaps, but motives are not relevant to the accuracy of their claims (unless it was an appeal to authority, which it is not).

Two, this is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution, which it does.
Click to expand...
You just ignore things I point out and just go back to “just say yes to evolution”?
And why should you care, one way or the other, what the Church allows people to believe?

I posted that link to point out that leading scientists, buried under layers of materialism, have had their beliefs affected by their scientific work.

You can believe in evolution all you want. Leave me outside of biology textbook evolution because it’s invalid as written.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
And why should you care, one way or the other, what the Church allows people to believe?
Click to expand...
Because the Church cannot lead any individual into error, only other individuals can do so. If theistic evolution were inherently sinful or contrary to God, as you are arguing, then the Church would be in error for allowing its faithful to accept it.
I posted that link to point out that leading scientists, buried under layers of materialism, have had their beliefs affected by their scientific work.
Click to expand...
So? If somebody said, “I read the Bible and became an atheist,” should we say that the Bible is an inherently evil or wrong document?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top