Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

  • Thread starter Thread starter John121
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That says nothing about intelligent design, nor does it say that I should reject the results of science. Did you even read it?
 
I posted a quote earlier that does mention design. Obviously, you will only read what you want.
 
It’s not a non answer. They have the right to believe or not believe whatever they want, and the right to speak publicly of it. Again it’s just your fallacious claims
 
That’s nonsense. You should realize that. Everyone reading should realize that. Human beings and life did not come from a ‘lucky accident.’
 
I didn’t see the quote. Would you be kind enough to repost?

I literally did read it, it literally says nothing about intelligent design or rejecting science.
 
You are calling the Church’s claims fallacious. You are free to do so, but I will continue to post those claims.
 
No Im not. You are not the voice of the church. I’m under no obligation to accept you as an authority
 
I’m not sure you even know what the theory of evolution is and what it explains. The theory of evolution does not or purport to explain the origins of life.

Evolution doesn’t claim that humans and life are “lucky accident”.
 
You are misrepresenting the Church’s positions. The Church literally does not endorse intelligent design. You can believe in it all you want, but that’s not gonna make it dogma.

Do we need to review the 9th commandment here?
 
Last edited:
No one here is “rejecting science.” Stop that please. Some are rejecting the Church when it links God with science. Read this:

“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.”

The word design appears in the following (which you reject):

“A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology.”
 
We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
 
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. Natural selection is totally blind to the future. “Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in Biology by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
[/quote]
 
A few words about Intelligent Design:

Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed

Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed - Real science? Objective studies supporting design theory are now more common, appearing more frequently in respected journals and publications.
www.allaboutscience.org

And those peer-reviewed papers are mentioned here:

evolutionnews.org

In Time for Darwin Day, It’s Our New List of Pro-ID Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers; 50th Paper Published in 2011 | Evolution News

What do you give to an exhausted relic of antique 19th-century scientific materialism that has everything but genuine credibility?
evolutionnews.org evolutionnews.org
 
"asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top