Evolution book

[The_Barbarian]

So you still didn’t answer the question Barbarian. It’s a simple yes or no answer.

Still trying to make the discussion an interrogation? Told you it wouldn’t work. The question was, if someone told me that science convinced them that God existed, would I point out the logical error in that?

I said that even if a person came to believe God by abusing prescription drugs, I wouldn’t try to dissuade him. But I would be deeply concerned that he had built his faith on such a shaky foundation, and on faulty logic. When he found out it was faulty, then what?

Likewise, a person who builds his faith on science is similarly at risk.

The Christian thing to do, would be to guide him toward the documents of the Church that explain Christian belief, and our basis for them, not to let him remain in error, where he might easily be led astray again.

If you don’t understand my position at this point, then you are not equipped for God’s real world, where “yes” and “no” are not always adequate.

How about answering the above. Yes, or no.

How about no more pettifogging, and dealing with the issue as it is? You can do that, can’t you?

 

[ricmat]

The question was, if someone told me that science convinced them that God existed, would I point out the logical error in that?

No, I didn’t say that. You made that up.

I clearly stated that science brought him to the point where he made a final philosophical leap to believe in God, and throw away the scaffolding that got him there. Science got him in range, and he got to the point where he no longer needed it to maintain his belief. Here it is again.For many atheists, science is their god. If their god leads them closer to God, then perhaps they’ll take the last leap of philosophical faith and believe in him.
from this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3579475&postcount=97

and

So, Barbarian. If someone you believed was an atheist came to and said “Barbarian, science was the scaffolding upon which I climbed higher and higher until I saw God and thus came to believe in him. And then I was able to throw the scaffolding away, so I no longer need it to maintain my belief in God” — would you try to convince him of the errors in his logic?

Instead of answering the question, you posed a different one of your own, substituting “abuse of prescription drugs” for “science”.

I said that even if a person came to believe God by abusing prescription drugs, I wouldn’t try to dissuade him. But I would be deeply concerned that he had built his faith on such a shaky foundation, and on faulty logic. When he found out it was faulty, then what? Likewise, a person who builds his faith on science is similarly at risk. The Christian thing to do, would be to guide him toward the documents of the Church that explain Christian belief, and our basis for them, not to let him remain in error, where he might easily be led astray again.

To show you how it is possible to actually answer other people’s questions, I’ll answer yours.

If I knew a person whose belief in God was built on, and continued to be built on prescription drug abuse, I would gently try to guide him to a more Church based understanding of God.

But if you were trying to rephrase my original question using a different setting, your story should have had the person going off prescription drugs by the time you met him, while still believing in God.

How about no more pettifogging, and dealing with the issue as it is? You can do that, can’t you?

Well, since I raised the issue in the first place, it’s my issue. “As it is” is defined by me, not you.

And you still haven’t answered the question I originally posed.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I clearly stated that science brought him to the point where he made a final philosophical leap to believe in God, and throw away the scaffolding that got him there.

Suppose someone had a bad experience abusing prescription drugs, saw what he thought were devils and hell, and became convinced of the supernatural and accepted Christianity.

Later, he discovered that he had been deluded, but in the meantime realized the truth about God. Would I tell him he was wrong to abuse prescription drugs? Sure. If someone convinced himself of God by some misuse of science, and later learned the truth about God, even though he had started for logically wrong reasons, would I still tell him that he goofed? Sure. If he no longer needed the delusion that science could find God for him, no harm done. If the other one realized that his religious visions were drug-induced hallucinations, then no harm done telling him that.

For many atheists, science is their god.

Then they wouldn’t be atheists, would they? By definition, atheists are people who have no God.

Barbarian suggests:
How about no more pettifogging, and dealing with the issue as it is? You can do that, can’t you?

And you still haven’t answered the question I originally posed.

I did. But you didn’t like the answer. That’s how it goes. You’re entitled to an answer, but you’re not entitled to the one you wanted to hear. You have to understand something; the atheists who tell you that science told them there is no God, have bought into the same error you have. And once you accept the idea that science can tell you about such things, then people will reject God at a much greater rate than they will accept God, because it is impossible to use any method in science, and come up with God.

You’re constructing a justification for atheism.

 

[ricmat]

1. Suppose someone had a bad experience abusing prescription drugs, saw what he thought were devils and hell, and became convinced of the supernatural and accepted Christianity.

Later, he discovered that he had been deluded, but in the meantime realized the truth about God. Would I tell him he was wrong to abuse prescription drugs? Sure. If someone convinced himself of God by some misuse of science, and later learned the truth about God, even though he had started for logically wrong reasons, would I still tell him that he goofed? Sure. If he no longer needed the delusion that science could find God for him, no harm done. If the other one realized that his religious visions were drug-induced hallucinations, then no harm done telling him that.

1. Then they wouldn’t be atheists, would they? By definition, atheists are people who have no God.
2. I did. But you didn’t like the answer. That’s how it goes. You’re entitled to an answer, but you’re not entitled to the one you wanted to hear. You have to understand something; the atheists who tell you that science told them there is no God, have bought into the same error you have. And once you accept the idea that science can tell you about such things, then people will reject God at a much greater rate than they will accept God, because it is impossible to use any method in science, and come up with God.
3. You’re constructing a justification for atheism.

1. You answered your own question, very well I might add. But you didn’t answer my question. I don’t care if your answer is yes or no, so it’s not a matter of hearing what I want to hear. What I did hear was the answer to your own question.
2. When I say that science has become the god of the atheists, I used small g not capital G.

For many atheists, science is their god.

Pay attention.

They don’t believe in God, but they have gods which they do believe in.

1. You say that you answered my question, but all I saw was diversions involving drug abuse, and other basic changes to the parameters of the question. And then answers to another of your self-posed questions which restated my question incorrectly.

Here’s my question again. Note that I’m not saying that science brought him to belief in God’s existence, I’m saying that science got him close enough to God that he believed in God, at which point he threw away the science “scaffolding” that got him there.

So, Barbarian. If someone you believed was an atheist came to and said “Barbarian, science was the scaffolding upon which I climbed higher and higher until I saw God and thus came to believe in him. And then I was able to throw the scaffolding away, so I no longer need it to maintain my belief in God” — would you try to convince him of the errors in his logic?

is your answer yes, or no?

1. I’m not constructing anything here. I’m trying to get you to answer a simple question. Why won’t you answer it directly? But then it took me months to get you to agree with a statement I took directly from the US Adult Catechism…

Methinks that whatever ricmat proposes, Barbarian must disagree with it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You answered your own question, very well I might add.

Yours, too, but you’re kinda put out that it didn’t work the way you hoped.

For many atheists, science is their god.

Barbarian chuckles:
Then they wouldn’t be atheists, would they? By definition, atheists are people who have no God.

When I say that science has become the god of the atheists, I used small g not capital G.

Atheists don’t have any gods at all. By definition. That’s what the word means.

Pay attention.

You seem displeased that I was paying attention.

They don’t believe in God, but they have gods which they do believe in.

Can’t be atheists, then.

**American Heritage Dictionary - (ā’thē-ĭst) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. **

You say that you answered my question, but all I saw was diversions involving drug abuse, and other basic changes to the parameters of the question.

What has you riled, is that I answered in detail. Derailed the whole plan, um?

Here’s my question again. Note that I’m not saying that science brought him to belief in God’s existence, I’m saying that science got him close enough to God that he believed in God, at which point he threw away the science “scaffolding” that got him there.

Science can’t do that. As I pointed out, if you try, it’s more likely that the effort will lead you away from God, than to Him. If one is deluded enough to seek God through science, then the most likely outcome is atheism, since no scientific methodology will show you God.

So, Barbarian. If someone you believed was an atheist came to and said “Barbarian, science was the scaffolding upon which I climbed higher and higher until I saw God and thus came to believe in him. And then I was able to throw the scaffolding away, so I no longer need it to maintain my belief in God”

Then I wouldn’t believe he was an atheist.

would you try to convince him of the errors in his logic?
is your answer yes, or no?

If I knew he was indeed no longer dependent on that delusion, I’d point out that science can’t be used to find God. If not, I’d be quiet and instead try to expose him to a more secure foundation for faith.

I’m not constructing anything here.

So why are you trying so hard to get me to answer it your way? It is getting comical, as hard as you work to get me to answer without clarification.

I’m trying to get you to answer a simple question. Why won’t you answer it directly?

It seems that my direct answer is what angers you.

But then it took me months to get you to agree with a statement I took directly from the US Adult Catechism…

Yeah, I kept giving you the Church’s position, and you kept insisting I had to answer it your way. Funny.

Methinks that whatever ricmat proposes, Barbarian must disagree with it.

Odd, I thought you said you were just asking a question…if you’re going to do this kind of thing, you need to be careful what you say.

 

[ricmat]

Then they wouldn’t be atheists, would they? By definition, atheists are people who have no God.

Atheists don’t have any gods at all. By definition. That’s what the word means.

Can’t be atheists, then.

**American Heritage Dictionary - (ā’thē-ĭst) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. **

Those who don’t have God in their lives find other substitutes. With a small g, god can mean Zeus, or whatever. But it can also mean anything that is worshiped. Atheists sometimes worship science. This is a figure of speech, Barbarian.

What has you riled, is that I answered in detail. Derailed the whole plan, um?

And another Barbarian quote:

I have been in court as an expert witness often enough to know how to deal with leading questions.

You come across as very paranoid.

I asked a simple question which you refused to answer.

Science can’t do that. As I pointed out, if you try, it’s more likely that the effort will lead you away from God, than to Him. If one is deluded enough to seek God through science, then the most likely outcome is atheism, since no scientific methodology will show you God.

So Science can’t do that - lead someone in the direction of God. But you believe that science can lead you away from God. Interesting observation. Personally, I believe that it can go either way depending on the person. But if the person is already an atheist, as in my question, there’s only one way to go, and that’s in the God direction.

We are called to seek God in all we do, including science.

If I knew he was indeed no longer dependent on that delusion, I’d point out that science can’t be used to find God. If not, I’d be quiet and instead try to expose him to a more secure foundation for faith.

No where did I propose science as a foundation for faith.

You made that up.

What I proposed was a situation where science was a temporary scaffolding which was removed after the project was complete. A foundation is forever. A scaffolding is not. There are many paths which God uses, depending on the individual person.

But thank you for finally answering my question.

So why are you trying so hard to get me to answer it your way? It is getting comical, as hard as you work to get me to answer without clarification.

It seems that my direct answer is what angers you.

A direct answer would be “yes”, or “no” then possibly followed by some qualifiers, such as “assuming this or that”. You invented new stories which changed the basic boundaries of the problem. That’s not “clarification.”

Yeah, I kept giving you the Church’s position, and you kept insisting I had to answer it your way. Funny.

I quoted directly from the Catechism. THATS the Church’s position. Barbarian’s opinions are not necessarily Church position.

Odd, I thought you said you were just asking a question…if you’re going to do this kind of thing, you need to be careful what you say.

I proposed that you answer a question. And you avoided doing it at all costs.

Methinks you’re paranoid.

But then, you finally got there. It wasn’t so hard, was it?

 

[drpmjhess]

Except that evolution is not true.Gary

Gary, if you believe evolution is not true, your belief is totally ineffectual. 100,000 biologists use it every day to extend our knowledge about the physical world. The alternatives to evolution (IDC and YEC) have not added a single item scientific knolwedege.

Petrus

 

[abu_kamoon]

Gary, if you believe evolution is not true, your belief is totally ineffectual. 100,000 biologists use it every day to extend our knowledge about the physical world. The alternatives to evolution (IDC and YEC) have not added a single item scientific knolwedege.

Petrus

And Devine Creation will never contribute a single item to scientific knowledge, because Creation, AKA our origins is NOT scientifically observable.

Until scientists realize this fact, they will continue to insists they everyone bow to the altar of evolution, in whatever form it is being preached.

Scientist speculating on the physical aspects of our origins, and then arrogantly informing us that Genesis is a myth doesn’t do much for the image of science.

 

[drpmjhess]

Until scientists realize this fact, they will continue to insists they everyone bow to the altar of evolution, in whatever form it is being preached…Scientist speculating on the physical aspects of our origins, and then arrogantly informing us that Genesis is a myth doesn’t do much for the image of science.

Science is objective, and scientists don’t bow to altars. Rather, they propose hypotheses to explain phenomena, and then confirm or disprove the hypotheses. They use theories – plate tectonics, evolution, cell theory, atomic theory, etc., – as overarching structures to make sense of evidence.

Theories become stronger as confirmed hypotheses support it; theories are overthrown when sufficient evidence accumulates that does not support the theory. I know a number of prayerful priests who are also experts in their fields, and who use this scientific method. Science is certainly not their altar!

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

The religion of Darwin is being promoted here, not Christian beliefs.

In Human Persons Created in the Image of God, it states that if evolution occurs it cannot occur without God. Further, evolution without the addition of divine providence is impossible.

Scientists do not use evolution every day. Ask any chemist or electrical engineer. In biology, bacteria have pre-existing, built-in ways to defend themselves against contact with harmful substances in their environment, including lateral gene transfer between different species of bacteria and losing (that’s right, losing) genetic information, which allows them to survive in say, a hospital, but not out in the wild.

All that is being promoted here is Godless textbook evolution. Get it straight, if God is not part of the explanation, it is not the whole, correct or true explanation.

That is why atheists are walking around with “proof” and “We’re all just animals, man.” It denies our true origin and true dignity as creations of God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

The religion of Darwin is being promoted here, not Christian beliefs.
…
" It denies our true origin and true dignity as creations of God.
God bless,Ed

That would be news to my priest friends who are evolutionary biologists, and who see in the evolutionary process the providence of God at work. Evolution enhances our true dignity as part of God’s creation. I recognize you don’t see it that way, but that’s how Catholic biologists understand it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

It’s unfortunate that some people hate anything so badly that they feel compelled to make up falsehoods about it.

 

[pnewton]

The religion of Darwin is being promoted here, not Christian beliefs.

In Human Persons Created in the Image of God, it states that if evolution occurs it cannot occur without God. Further, evolution without the addition of divine providence is impossible.

Nothing exists without the addition of divine providence. The reason biologists do not take God into account for the same reasons architects to not account for God when drafting, or CPA’s do not account for God during audits. Science is a search for truth from a differnt angle than theology.

 

[ricmat]

It’s unfortunate that some people hate anything so badly that they feel compelled to make up falsehoods about it.

Like Barbarian, and ID?

 

[drpmjhess]

Like Barbarian, and ID?

What has Barbarian made up about ID?

 

[ricmat]

What has Barbarian made up about ID?

I’m not going to go all through this again, we’ve been debating this for months. I’ll send you a PM.

 

[drpmjhess]

I’m not going to go all through this again, we’ve been debating this for months. I’ll send you a PM.

OK – I’m just asking. I don’t recall running across anything made up.

 

[edwest2]

That would be news to my priest friends who are evolutionary biologists, and who see in the evolutionary process the providence of God at work. Evolution enhances our true dignity as part of God’s creation. I recognize you don’t see it that way, but that’s how Catholic biologists understand it.

Evolution that has nothing to do with God does not enhance anything. On the contrary, it has simply bred more atheist rationalism.

Man is presented as having no net worth except as a carrier of selfish genes that compel him to reproduce. His own identity is a myth and nothing more than neurons firing in response to outside stimuli. Get it straight, the current world of evolutionary anthropology seeks to kick God out of the picture entirely. You are your genes - nothing more. You have no identity or dignity or real worth. You are an organism.

It’s sad that this is being promoted here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

Evolution that has nothing to do with God does not enhance anything. On the contrary, it has simply bred more atheist rationalism.

Man is presented as having no net worth except as a carrier of selfish genes that compel him to reproduce. His own identity is a myth and nothing more than neurons firing in response to outside stimuli. Get it straight, the current world of evolutionary anthropology seeks to kick God out of the picture entirely. You are your genes - nothing more. You have no identity or dignity or real worth. You are an organism.

It’s sad that this is being promoted here.

Peace,
Ed

Ed has touched on something that I think is worth commenting on. It seems that nobody has problems with religious art, or religious music, or pretty much religious anything else. Except that they say that religion and science can never mix, ever. They must never come in contact (or so it seems).

There is the myth, of course, that religion wants to halt science in it’s tracks, and at some point stop looking deeper into how things work. But that’s a myth. As Catholics we should know this better than anybody else. The history of Catholic scientists is quite impressive.

But the devaluation of human life that Ed talks about is a very real phenomenon. It is being pushed by many scientists (not all obviously) who want no mixing of religion and science primarily because of the ethical constraints that religion brings with it. You see much of this attitude in embryonic stem cell research, and other proposed and ongoing genetic manipulations - transhumanism is another field where this view is prevalent. I’ve said in the past that some scientists worship science in lieu of God. And when they put scientific exploration above natural law and human dignity, and conscience, they indeed put science above God.

And to Ed’s point - the more general theory/hypothesis (not sure what the correct term really is here) that everything came into being by random (unplanned / unguided) events is gaining ground (IMO).

Those of us who believe that God was involved spend too much time fighting each other over the minute details of exactly “how” God was involved, and too little time fighting the real enemy, who says that there is no God.

 

[abu_kamoon]

It’s unfortunate that some people hate anything so badly that they feel compelled to make up falsehoods about it.

Upon reading this quote, the first thing that came to mind was the series of “missing links” that have be fabricated, and/or miss-identified: Peking Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy & c.

Why are some evolutionists so desperate to have others believe?