Evolution and God

  • Thread starter Thread starter strugglingalong
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JRKH said:
Ed,
Nicely written and cuts to the core of the matter. True Scientists will try to hold themselves open to new evidence. However - - People, of every walk and in every proffession, cannot help but bring their own bias and/or conclusion to things. It is the nature of things.

Of course in these matters there are those who speak/write and those who listen/read. Those who do the listening/reading can either accept or reject the conclusions. This they will do based on a number of factors. In addition, most people will choose to read/believe those items that most closely align with their own, current, world view rather than try to widen their world view by broad based reading.
Again, it is just the nature of things.

We can be greatful for those, like yourself, who work to counteract some of the “Poor Science” that is out there. I mean that sincerely. Of course, we’ll have to watch you too to make sure you don’t practice “Poor Science” by introducing your own bias.😉

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Thank you, James. At the end of the day, we are all responsible for the decisions we make. Do we know where our biases or fears come from? What do we do to correct or alleviate them? On what basis do we decide what is true and what is not?

Information comes in all forms. I can prove gravity all I want. I can pick up a plumber’s manual and fix a pipe or a car repair manual, etc. In other cases, I must simply leave it to the experts.

From the Catholic perspective, certain spiritual truths are given as being actually true. We don’t pray to nobody. The body and blood of Christ are in the consecrated bread and wine. Saints are credited with miracles today.

Science has become a hot topic. Why? My reading of posts here clearly indicates the goal is not knowledge but the erosion or elimination of Church teaching and the replacement of God and divine revelation with human knowledge. Without our connection to the Living God, who Pope Benedict calls the “rational mind” behind creation, who are we? What are we?

Bags of chemicals pre-programmed by our genes that can reproduce. That’s it. Biological devices that act and react to our environment through sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. That can make inferences, create tools and form abstract thoughts. Evolutionary psychology will have us believe that it is our genes that motivate us to perform these adaptive only abilities. That’s all.

The Church has the complementary answer. We were infallibly developed into our current form by God. But, Adam and Eve were our first parents. The Bible, while not a scientific text, records things God actually did. It records things Jesus Christ actually did. Our soul is not just an abstract, throw away concept, it is an integral part of us. Our total humanity includes body and soul. Our minds are not just developments of matter and genetics but our link to the divine.

God bless,
Ed
 
JRKH said:
My first question would be to ask what the source is for the portion in quotes.

My second observation would be that it is interesting, but since I am not well versed on principles and processes discussed I do not feel particularly qualified to comment.

Third and most important. Such conclusions, whether correct or not, should not disturb a Catholic. Our Faith is in God. Our Hope is in God. Our Trust is in God. If our faith is disturbed by trifles such as the age of the earth, then our faith is not strong and we must work on refocusing our faith firmly upon God.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
I agree. Here is where it is from: sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/devolution_of_evolution.htm . I didn’t list the source because of source bias. I wanted people to actually speak to the facts and claims in the portion I quoted. People too easily say, “Oh I think that source is wrong so it is all wrong because it is from that source.” That is an easy way out rather than discussing what is actually claimed.

It doesn’t disturb me. I find myself right at home in the article 👍 but I agree with you.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
Orogeny said:
I say that the author of that article is clueless and is simply repeating discredited YEC literature.

Do you need a point by point refutation?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
I’d like to see what the refuting points are.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
strug << Here is a frightening quote that illustrates the danger of evolution, at least when it is joined to atheistic philosophy. This quote illustrates my concern >>

BTW, stop reading those damned (literally) atheists and start reading these blessed (literally) books:

In the Beginning… by Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict
Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI (Ignatius Press, 2008)
Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith by Cardinal Christoph Schonborn (Ignatius Press, 2007)
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller (Eerdmans, 2003)
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology by William A. Dembski (Intervarsity Press, 1999)
Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth R. Miller (HarperCollins, 1999)
Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul by Kenneth R. Miller (Viking Adult, 2008)
Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology by Darrel Falk (2004)
The Language of God by Francis Collins (2006)
Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought by David N. Livingstone (Eerdmans, 1987)
The Post-Darwinian Controversies by James R. Moore (Cambridge Univ Press, 1981, 1979)

The last two books completely disprove and discredit the old “warfare” model or "conflict thesis" (John William Draper, Andrew D. White) of science and religion. The atheists and agnostics (Thomas Henry Huxley) were always wrong. Do not be afraid. 😛 Thank you.

Phil P
 
PhilVaz said:
strug << Here is a frightening quote that illustrates the danger of evolution, at least when it is joined to atheistic philosophy. This quote illustrates my concern >>

BTW, stop reading those damned (literally) atheists and start reading these blessed (literally) books:
Click to expand...
If your advise to quit reading what is written by atheists is taken literally where do you suppose will that leave us all eventually?
 
strug << Wow, no flood? Next science will show us infallibly how homosexuality is genetic… >>

No Wow about it. 😃 The history is very carefully researched and documented in that article.

I believe the Noachian flood was local, and that can be defended biblically. See the old earth creationist sites for your best biblical defenses of this stuff.

As for gays, there might be some genetic disposition for any kind of sinful behavior, doesn’t mean we have to accept any of it. Now don’t change the subject of the thread on me. It is “Evolution and God” 😛

Science is tentative, not infallible, but some things we can be quite sure about because of the data, experiments, and repeated testing. See Scientific Proof and the Scientific Method (part of Theobald’s “Evidences for Macroevolution” article).

Phil P
 
strugglingalong said:
I’d like to see what the refuting points are.

Pax Christi tecum.
Click to expand...
Phil’s links will cover this much, much more thoroughly that I will here, but here are a couple of things that right off the bat should raise a red flag in your head that the author of that article is clueless about the actual science.

"A favorite method is the potassium-argon system, used to date many fossilized specimens."
Potassium-argon (or better yet argon-argon) is used on igneous rocks, not on fossils. That is a significant error, not just a slip of the tongue.

"This dating technique was recently tested for accuracy and failed.15 Three independent laboratories were sent a sample of basalt produced by an Hawaiian volcanic eruption less than 200 years ago. The testing results varied from 20 million years to 3 billion years.16, 17"
I know that Phil has this covered in his links, but let me touch on this one real briefly. The person who did this study did so knowing that the results would be wrong. How did he know? Because he knows the limitations of the test method, yet he intentionally chose to use a method that he and every other scientist knows won’t work. He KNEW that he would get bad data. What does that say about him?

"On the other hand, let’s consider a global flood depositing sediments world-wide. The fossil record gives evidence of violent death.18 "
Perhaps in some cases, but the vast majority of fossils do not indicate violent deaths of the original organism.

"Thousands of wide-eyed fossilized fish, fins still extended. Apparent rapid and violent live burial of clams with intact closed shells. (Slow sedimentary burial would result in open shells unhinged by decayed ligatures.)19"
Have you ever looked for living clams? Actually dug them up from the sand and mud that they live in? Want to guess what happens to their shells when they die in place? Regarding fossilized fish - many of those fossils are found in shales. They actually make the best fossils because the fine-grained rock helps preserve a great deal of the original detail. Shales are made up of clays which take a long time to settle from the water column. Black shales, in particular, are problematic for a flood scenario because they are typically deposited in an anoxic (low or no oxygen) environments. That isn’t what you would find in a catastrophic flood.

"It is known that a frothing phenomenon in a liquid environment, such like what a global deluge would cause, rapidly leaches out potassium and argon isotopes, much like dunking a tea bag rapidly into 20 cups of hot water."
Hmm. Argon isn’t leachable. It is a gas. Why would the author of the paper write that?

Read Phil’s links. You will get a lot more information than these couple of extremely brief comments.

Peace

Tim
 
Namesake said:
There is no evidence of a flood as recorded in Genesis. Science never claims infallibility.
Click to expand...
Do the words “absolutely true” mean nothing? I am skeptical about claims that there was no flood as recorded in Genesis. Around the world, there are many stories about such a flood.

God bless,
Ed
 
name << If your advise to quit reading what is written by atheists is taken literally where do you suppose will that leave us all eventually? >>

My advice to fightened Christians and terrified Catholics only is to stop reading the damned atheists. The saved atheists is another question. Those are OK atheists in my book. 😛

BTW, P.Z. Myers, a damned atheist, must be fired. 😃

EDIT: Speaking of damned and saved atheists, I will come "out of the closet" as of today:

bringyou.to/apologetics/apologia.jpg

Maybe it will catch on. 👍 😃

Phil P
 
edwest2 said:
Do the words “absolutely true” mean nothing? I am skeptical about claims that there was no flood as recorded in Genesis. Around the world, there are many stories about such a flood.
Click to expand...
And not a single piece of evidence of a recent, global flood.

Peace

Tim
 
PhilVaz said:
strug << Wow, no flood? Next science will show us infallibly how homosexuality is genetic… >>

No Wow about it. 😃 The history is very carefully researched and documented in that article.

I believe the Noachian flood was local, and that can be defended biblically. See the old earth creationist sites for your best biblical defenses of this stuff.

As for gays, there might be some genetic disposition for any kind of sinful behavior, doesn’t mean we have to accept any of it. Now don’t change the subject of the thread on me. It is “Evolution and God” 😛

Science is tentative, not infallible, but some things we can be quite sure about because of the data, experiments, and repeated testing. See Scientific Proof and the Scientific Method (part of Theobald’s “Evidences for Macroevolution” article).

Phil P
Click to expand...
See your post #64 which contains the words “absolutely true.” Why did you add that? Are you concerned that some might be hesitant to accept the information as not absolutely true? Why?

Do you accept miracles by God? Those done by Jesus Christ? Or only those miracles that don’t get in the way of an evolutionary explanation?

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
See your post #64 which contains the words “absolutely true.” Why did you add that? Are you concerned that some might be hesitant to accept the information as not absolutely true? Why?

Do you accept miracles by God? Those done by Jesus Christ? Or only those miracles that don’t get in the way of an evolutionary explanation?

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, why do you always jump to the conclusion that someone who accepts science doesn’t accept God?

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
Ed, why do you always jump to the conclusion that someone who accepts science doesn’t accept God?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
“Absolutely true” does seem related to infallible, which I was told science is not…but if it’s “absolutely true” that is not much room left for error.

And you didn’t answer Ed’s question about your belief about miracles. You merely deflected.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
strugglingalong said:
“Absolutely true” does seem related to infallible, which I was told science is not…but if it’s “absolutely true” that is not much room left for error.

And you didn’t answer Ed’s question about your belief about miracles. You merely deflected.

Pax Christi tecum.
Click to expand...
Ed has done this before with other people for other reasons. He seems to think that anyone who accepts scienc cannot also believe in miracles and, therefore, Jesus Christ. Really bad reasoning there.

And yes, I believe in miracles. This might be a shocker to you, but I actually believe that God created everything.

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top