D
drpmjhess
Guest
Correction: “God works in, with and under the natural order.”
- Status
G
garysibio
Guest
Now exactly what have those finches developed into? Oh wait, they’re still finches. Gee, what a disappointment.
The author of the short article did not go into detail about the other examples but I bet the changes there are no more dramatic that the finches or he would have emphasized one of them.
Sorry, no sale.
Gary
G
garysibio
Guest
Uhh, whatever floats your boat.
Please show me a biology textbook or an article by an evolutionist that makes God an essential part of evolution. I don’t think Richard Dawkins would see it your way.
Then why would God tell us in the Bible that He created the universe in six days? He could have said He created it gradually without going into details. Theistic evolution, which more accurately describes what you believe, is just an attempt to but a Christian veneer on a heavily flawed theory.
Gary
G
Ghoti
Guest
I have the requisite application forms. There’s two: One is in Latin, the other in English.I will have to look in the CCC’s appendix and forward you the application.
The English one is full of errors and problems, and is printed on defective paper, so that it tears every time I try to fill it out.
The Latin one is perfect, but there’s nowhere to fill in any info, because the instructions say I can’t change the form.
B
buffalo
Guest
Boy doesn’t that sum things up.I have the requisite application forms. There’s two: One is in Latin, the other in English.
The English one is full of errors and problems, and is printed on defective paper, so that it tears every time I try to fill it out.
The Latin one is perfect, but there’s nowhere to fill in any info, because the instructions say I can’t change the form.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Hopefully, you won’t find any science textbooks that do so. As the Pope says, that is not the proper function of science. However, you can read “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller, a devout Roman Catholic. He is not presenting it as merely a science book, but rather a book explaining the way faith and science are consistent with one another.
He didn’t, and the Church does not teach that He did. If you want to believe it, you can, but the Church does not support you in that.
The reason scientists accept evolution is that it accurately explains the evidence. The reason Catholics accept evolution, is that it is consistent with our faith.
This is what the Chuch teaches; it’s consistent with our faith, at least the theory that is accepted by science is consistent with Christian belief.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Ah, the creationist “I’ve seen a man walk 100 yards, so that’s possible, but I’ve never watched a man walk 20 miles, so no man can do that” argument.
I have often wondered if creationists really believe that.
The evolution of new species is an observed fact. Over many lifetimes, new genera, families, classes, and phyla evolve. No one familiar with the evidence denies this. Even many creationists now admit that new species, genera, and families evolve.
R
rossum
Guest
You need to do a bit more research here. Finches are a biological family, the Fringillidae. To get an idea of what a biological family is, we are in the family Hominidae. The living Hominidae include Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans and ourselves. Extinct Hominidae include all the Australopithecines , Homo Ergaster, Homo Neanderthalensis and so on. In effect the Hominidae includes all the great apes. So when you say “they’re still finches”, you are agreeing that we could have evolved from an ancestral ape - “they’re still Hominidae”
Is the difference between an Orangutan and a human dramatic enough for you?
rossum
K
kaab
Guest
It is disparaging to me that the truth can be manipulated in such obscene ways. As a true Catholic and a member not only of The Order but also of The Way, I am disgusted by all of this nonsense. Jesus is not my god , god is my god, I deny the whole story and even the existence of Jesus. All of you so-called “Christians” are going to burn in vicious hell for your sins against our one true God, God.
R
reggieM
Guest
Good point. These evolution threads on CAF are marked by some defenders of evolution who are entirely uncritical of evolutionary theory and who are passionate in their defense of Charles Darwin himself. The arguments in defense of both are given with such dogmatic certainty that one must conclude that these evolutionary apologists cannot admit the tiniest flaw in either the theory or the man.
I find that, in itself, remarkable. Evolution is defended with what must be considered a religious fervor. The theory is indeed “heavily flawed”. To then see evolutionary-defenders act as if the theory was so air-tight that it’s impossible to consider any of the numerous criticisms raised against it as plausible, only indicates how extreme the Darwinian-defense really is.
Even in defending Catholicism, which is a body of truth on an infinitely higher level than Darwinism, apologists know that one should admit areas where the teaching is not clear or could, in fact, be reformed. I see the Darwinists, however, as incapable of having any critical distance on the theory. It’s something as personal as religion. Any criticisms of Darwinism are met with the kind of outrage and ridicule that is reserved for when someone insults your wife or family memeber.
It’s that kind of extreme partisanship that is remarkable, to me.
I can fully understand that attitude for atheists. After all, Darwinism is the foundation for their stance against God. It’s their armor against religion and spirituality, therefore, there can’t be any real compromise or admission of the flaws in evolutionary theory.
But what about Catholics who are as passionate about Darwin as their atheist counterparts are?
Again, I don’t know. It’s a very obvious mental attribute though and it should be obvious to anyone who has a healthy distance from Darwinian propaganda to see.
R
reggieM
Guest
G
garysibio
Guest
You’re missing a very important point here that negates your entire argument. The system of classification which we use to categorize the natural world is a man-made system which has been imposed on the natural word. In anthropology they call this a folk classification.
In the time of the Old Testament, bats - which we call mammals - were lumped in with birds. This is not an error. It was just more relevant to the ancient Jews that bats had wings and flew and not so relevant that they had hair and produced milk to feed their children.
The upshot is that it doesn’t matter which animals we put in which family, it’s all a man-made system anyway. In addition, as an avid birder, I can tell you that the different species of finch are a lot closer to each other than apes and men are.
Gary
R
ricmat
Guest
Uh-oh. The evolution-is-perfect folks are going to be upset when they realize that calling someone a creationist is not actually an insult.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
“The Order, also known as the Brüder Schweigen or Silent Brotherhood, was a terrorist organization active in the United States between 1983 and 1984. The Order described themselves as a white nationalist revolutionary group, and are probably best known for the 1984 murder of radio talk show host Alan Berg.”
Is this your group?
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Is this news to you, ricmat?Uh-oh. The evolution-is-perfect folks are going to be upset when they realize that calling someone a creationist is not actually an insult.
R
reggieM
Guest
D
drpmjhess
Guest
The Barbarian, I wish you could attend the marvelous conference I’m participating in this weekend, with – as keynote speaker – Father Geroge Coyne, retired driector of the Vatican Observatory. The conference is about divine action in the universe, and floows up the series of excellehnt conferences sponsored jointly by the Vatican and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. What you say here is quite consonant with Coyne’s theology.
In his lecture this morning Father Coyne noted that he conducts his stellar cosmology according to the assumptions of methodological naturalism, just as his Jesuit biologist colleagues employ this assumption in their biological work with evolution. He and his Jesuit brothers find their science enriches their prayer life as priests.
Petrus
R
ricmat
Guest
I’m talking about the ones who don’t consider themselves creationists. And who imply that all creationists are YECs.
Like in the post directly below this one…
S
SeekingCatholic
Guest
This is a silly ad hominem, attempting to win the argument by portraying defenders of evolution as zealots. If anything six-day creationists are much, much more dogmatically certain about their theory and cannot see the huge flaws there.
And this is begging the question, assuming what needs to be proved - that the theory is “indeed heavily flawed”. Engage in a scientific debate with me and the other scientists on this thread or another one about the supposed heavy flaws if you wish. But because you think you can’t win the debate you resort to silly circular arguments like this.
Ridicule is the proper response to ignorance which attempts to parade itself as knowledge. Think whatever you want. It’s a free country. However it does not do much for the intellectual honesty of your side when the “moon dust” argument gets re-hashed (which is like an urban legend in creationist-evolutionist debate circles), with of course the usual glib confidence that scientists are “hushing up” the evidence that would “prove” a young earth.
Perhaps because we’re passionate about TRUTH, and are unwilling to sacrifice it to ideology. It would be nice for Catholicism if evolution were false. It would also have been nice if geocentrism were true.
Ah, yes, now the bandwagon approach, together with using the pejorative “propaganda”. The inability for critical thought and objective analysis of scientific data is a very obvious mental attribute of creationists and should be obvious to anyone who has a healthy distance from creationist propaganda. See? Two can play this game and it leads no closer to truth.
R
ricmat
Guest
Thank you seekingcatholic. Your post demonstrates exactly what reggiem was talking about. The funny thing is, you can’t even see it.
- Status