Evolution a Farce?

[rossum]

theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin

Thank you for that, very amusing as is much of The Onion’s content. I am sure anthony is aware, but for those of you who have not seen it before, The Onion is a satirical site and all of the stories there should be treated as fiction, unless you are very sure they are not. Just have a look around at the other stories there.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Through Pope Benedict, the clear and appropriate criticism of evolutionary theory is made. The science is incorrect and incomplete.

That’s not what he said. In fact, he says that there is a large body of evidence showing that evolutionary theory is correct. The truth matters, Ed. It should matter to you.

As he stated, the theory cannot be scientifically proven.

Well said. No scientific theory can be proven. Science is about inferences from evidence, not proof.

he wrote this:

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to **grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason(my emphasis) It was a particular characteristic of the 19th century to appreciate the historicity of all things and the fact that they came into existence. It perceived that things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming. This was true not only in the realm of the human but also in that of nature. It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state, but that it was comparable instead to a living, growing tree that gradually lifts its branches higher and higher to the sky. This common view was and is frequently interpreted in bizarre fashion, but as research advances it is becoming clearer how it is to be correctly understood…But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error." He recognizes the role of science but adds crucial information that must be known by all human beings. **
Pope Benedict XVI

Precisely. If I finish a metal sculpture with a randomly oxidized surface, one could say that each random change in the surface was a “mistake”, an “error”, but one would be wrong. I am simply using randomness to produce the result I want.

In an infinitely greater process, God uses contingent processes to do the same things. This is certainly as random as my work, but certainly no more due to chance and error than my work. In fact, since God made the rules, it is not due to chance and error at all, even if the processes are affected by chance.

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skillful: but time and chance in all.

Again, the truth matters.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Buffalo cleverly asks:

Yes or no - Did the Church have a problem with it in the past?

Barbarian replies:
The Church had a problem with the Earth obiting the Sun in the past. But neither geocentrism nor creationism were ever the dogma of the Church.

Were Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI rebelling against the teaching of the Church? No, they were not.

Buffalo writes, disappointedly:

The question was asked in a yes or no format.

So Buffalo, have you quit beating your wife? Yes or no?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Buffalo advises:
Aristotle argued against evolution.

Barbarian chuckles:
Aristotle also argued that women have fewer teeth than men, and that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. The man had an unfortunate disregard for evidence. Such people naturally object to evolution.

Are you putting the church in the same category?

I wasn’t aware that Aristotle argued about the Church. Seems unlikely to me.

And you have continually refused to answer my question.

No, I merely didn’t give you the answer you wanted. Neither did Jesus when the Pharisees thought they had Him in a clever trap, asking Him if it was right to pay tribute to Caesar. I’m sure they were angered and disappointed when He didn’t answer “yes” or “no.” For the same reason you’re annoyed.

I gave you the correct answer, precisely what you didn’t want.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo advises:
Aristotle argued against evolution.

Barbarian chuckles:
Aristotle also argued that women have fewer teeth than men, and that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. The man had an unfortunate disregard for evidence. Such people naturally object to evolution.

I wasn’t aware that Aristotle argued about the Church. Seems unlikely to me.

No, I merely didn’t give you the answer you wanted. Neither did Jesus when the Pharisees thought they had Him in a clever trap, asking Him if it was right to pay tribute to Caesar. I’m sure they were angered and disappointed when He didn’t answer “yes” or “no.” For the same reason you’re annoyed.

I gave you the correct answer, precisely what you didn’t want.

You are in contempt of court. You will not answer the question directly. Your motives here are now suspect.

 

[Sideline]

You are in contempt of court. You will not answer the question directly. Your motives here are now suspect.

Well, someone’s motives are certainly suspect.

Why would you want someone to answer yes or no, if the nuance is a more accurate portrayal of the truth?

Because the complete answer doesn’t support your position?

I find it interesting that you had no issues dodging the question of whether denying evolution was an infallible teaching of the Church (which seems like an important point), yet you do have a problem with Barbarian answering your question completely.

So if you are demanding straight answers from others, why not pony up yourself? Was the Church’s history of believing in special creation infallible dogma? Yes or no?

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo cleverly asks:

Barbarian replies:
The Church had a problem with the Earth obiting the Sun in the past. But neither geocentrism nor creationism were ever the dogma of the Church.

Were Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI rebelling against the teaching of the Church? No, they were not.

Buffalo writes, disappointedly:

So Buffalo, have you quit beating your wife? Yes or no?

There is no history to support a claim that I did. The answer is no.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo advises:
Aristotle argued against evolution.

Barbarian chuckles:
Aristotle also argued that women have fewer teeth than men, and that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. The man had an unfortunate disregard for evidence. Such people naturally object to evolution.

I wasn’t aware that Aristotle argued about the Church. Seems unlikely to me.

No, I merely didn’t give you the answer you wanted. Neither did Jesus when the Pharisees thought they had Him in a clever trap, asking Him if it was right to pay tribute to Caesar. I’m sure they were angered and disappointed when He didn’t answer “yes” or “no.” For the same reason you’re annoyed.

I gave you the correct answer, precisely what you didn’t want.

I stated that the church has defended itself against evolutionary ideas for a long long time. Barbarian claims not this type.

So the next question is - what type?

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo cleverly asks:

Barbarian replies:
The Church had a problem with the Earth obiting the Sun in the past. But neither geocentrism nor creationism were ever the dogma of the Church.

Were Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI rebelling against the teaching of the Church? No, they were not.

Buffalo writes, disappointedly:

So Buffalo, have you quit beating your wife? Yes or no?

Were the Popes rebelling?

No - I don’t think so . They are trying to accommodate what the scientists have been telling them.

Of course they are trying to do so and stay faithful to past teachings. Are we going to hear from our pope - we blew it? Do we need to reverse the constant teachings of the church?

The constant teaching of the church is that Eve came from Adam, that they are our first parents, that they had preternatural gifts, bodily immortality, freedom from suffering, and infused knowledge.

This is what evolution has to answer.

 

[rossum]

There is no history to support a claim that I did. The answer is no.

That is not a “yes or no” answer as requested, the first sentence fails to conform to the specified format. “You are in contempt of court. You will not answer the question directly. Your motives here are now suspect.”

rossum

 

[buffalo]

That is not a “yes or no” answer as requested, the first sentence fails to conform to the specified format. “You are in contempt of court. You will not answer the question directly. Your motives here are now suspect.”

rossum

Not you too? So let’s try and transform this into my arguments here.

I have documented the constant teaching of the Church on these matters. I have asked a question. I asked for a yes or no because the answers were avoiding the question.

It’s a nice but fruitless try to frame the question put to me in the same way. :tsktsk: There is no documentation in evidence to support the question, unlike what I have proposed and asked. The question therefore should not even have been asked as it had no basis.

 

[The_Barbarian]

“Answer me; yes or no!” is a door that swings both ways.

The amusing part is the indignation of those who don’t suspect it will swing back and bop them in the nose.

 

[buffalo]

“Answer me; yes or no!” is a door that swings both ways.

The amusing part is the indignation of those who don’t suspect it will swing back and bop them in the nose.

As Barbarian again tries to slip through the door unnoticed.

After this many exchanges you have no intention of answering the question. Let’s move on.

 

[The_Catholic]

Holy yipes! You guys are still going on about this!

Evolution is not a “farce.” Creationists have been hit by a laser shot by theistic evolutionist hands and reduced to a pile of dust under their feet

God made us by evolution, praise Him.

Ok, this post was a little silly, but I’m in a silly mood

 

[The_Barbarian]

As Barbarian again tries to slip through the door unnoticed.

After this many exchanges you have no intention of answering the question.

Probably the Pharisees muttered the same thing under their breath when Jesus refused to answer their question with a "yes or no.

Let’s move on.

I guess that means you aren’t going to tell us if you’re still beating your wife or not.

 

[buffalo]

Probably the Pharisees muttered the same thing under their breath when Jesus refused to answer their question with a "yes or no.

I guess that means you aren’t going to tell us if you’re still beating your wife or not.

Right. Actually it is none of your business.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thank you Bottle of Beer. I believe I covered all of these and many more.

What is clear is that Catholic teachings on the origins of man have a long legacy. No one can deny it. When all the posters on this board finally admit to the history we can move onto the next phase of the debate. Are we there yet?

You mentioned Arcanum in some detail, but I don’t remember any discussion of the others ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes or no. Your claim is Revelation is not true?

**I am not claiming Revelation is untrue; not at all **​

---

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Because it would be a contradiction in terms. An accident is not something willed.

The Crucifixion was intended to be a good thing by God. He used the sinful intentions of men for his good will toward men.

Who says they can’t? If God intends something to happen,he may make it happen whether man intends it or not.

That being so, the human race can be a mistake (under one aspect), & be willed by God (under another). You’re supporting my point. Thank you ​

Except that this is poorly phrased: “mistake” implies intention, & the universe has no intention; besides which, it is an abstraction. But the sense is clear enough.

God did will for there to be randomness,or freedom of movement,but that is not the same as the idea that randomness can create living organisms.

It’s not, nor did I say it was: randomness is not the same as the or an idea of randomness.​

Neither do we see reality as God does - so where we see randomness, God sees purpose:He is the Author of it all, after all. Unless God is not purposive. So, evoliution can be “random” within our vision of reality, & “not-random” in God’s.

 

[buffalo]

That being so, the human race can be a mistake (under one aspect), & be willed by God (under another). You’re supporting my point. Thank you ​

Except that this is poorly phrased: “mistake” implies intention, & the universe has no intention; besides which, it is an abstraction. But the sense is clear enough.

It’s not, nor did I say it was: randomness is not the same as the or an idea of randomness.​

Neither do we see reality as God does - so where we see randomness, God sees purpose:He is the Author of it all, after all. Unless God is not purposive. So, evoliution can be “random” within our vision of reality, & “not-random” in God’s.

Some scientists do see purpose in the universe.