Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

  • Thread starter Thread starter John121
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church is giving a nod to God. It understands the difference between science and theology. But thank God, it can combine the two. Science can’t, which makes it incomplete. It lacks the critical information the Church provides.
 
Theologically incomplete perhaps, maybe even metaphysically incomplete, but God is not a variable one can insert into any scientific study. If you’re chief objection is that it gives aid and comfort to atheists, then that is just a fallacious appeal to consequences
 
I don’t blindly accept anything on the internet but there are acceptable sources. One thing I do for a living is research. It has to be verifiable.
 
Funny. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, among others, have been given plenty of aid. I saw Mr. Dawkins on TV spewing his vitriol and contempt. It’s too bad some people believe him.
 
So what? That’s still a fallacious appeal to consequences. And they have the right to derive whatever they want, providing, at least in Dawkins case, it doesn’t intrude on his research.
 
Yes, yes, yes. Another non-answer. Meanwhile, men like Dawkins continue to poison people’s minds.
 
I know. Which is why this thread will continue forever. As in, forever.
 
edwest211 said:
Funny. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, among others, have been given plenty of aid. I saw Mr. Dawkins on TV spewing his vitriol and contempt. It’s too bad some people believe him.
Click to expand...
He’s annoyed at fundamentalists. He’s annoyed at you, Ed. Try not to take it too personally.
 
Why Richard Dawkins all of a sudden the end all be all of scientific inquiry?

Richard Dawkins tends to be quite unscientific at times and has a strong racist and xenophobic political agenda which he uses his results to promote.
 
Based on decades of experience both as a researcher and as a moderator on another forum, I know how this works. The odds of me finding anything that you would find acceptable is one followed by 17 zeroes. But do continue.
 
You claim that science is incompatible with God, yet can provide no evidence tonback this claim up.

Also, I still have yet to see a single peer reviewed paper which endorses intelligent design.
 
Richard Dawkins appeared on TV, was viewed by God knows how many people, and he, along with a number of others, is out to poison people’s minds.
 
Well anything is better than nothing. I haven’t even seen a fake source endorsing intelligent design or showing that science is incompatible with Catholicism.
 
edwest211 said:
I know. Which is why this thread will continue forever. As in, forever.
Click to expand...
You keep posting Ed, and I for one will not let this thread stop. People need to be able to read what you write. It’s important to have it out in the daylight.

Keep it up.
 
Joel Olsteen appears on TV everyday poisoning people’s minds too. Why should I give Richard Dawkins or Joel Olsteen any sort of legitimacy?
 
From Communion and Stewardship:

“In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top