Evolution: Catholic High School

[Namesake]

Evolution occurs through changes (mutations) in the DNA, in combination with natural selection, changes in the environment, and other factors.

Mutations do not occur at the level of DNA. Mutations occur during meiosis (chromosomes) and most scientists accept the gene as the fundamental unit of evolutionary change, not DNA, especially the allele (which is a product of meiosis). Of course not all scientists agree with that.

“Environment and other factors” is a redundancy because it’s all part of competition (including all sorts of factors) that favors some mutations over others which is natural selection.

 

[Namesake]

All I can add is that it is difficult to see how the information stored in DNA came to be in the first place.

It all has to do with how proteins came to be. That probably happened because some organic molecules with affinity for each other came together and attracted other molecules and eventually long chain proteins formed. That took billions of years to go from inorganic to organic to biological systems. It probably happened that way but we really don’t understand how, yet. But it’s a work in progress. And the coolest part is that all that stuff is the stuff of stars. What a universe!

 

[PhilVaz]

Thanks! As I said, I do not know the proper terminology, I only have the very basic general concepts in my head. I could have copy/pasted from some technical article but I chose to type off the top of my head. Bad move PhilVaz!

You have shown I would probably have gotten an F+ on my biology paper. I took one class in college biology 20+ years ago, and I did receive a “D” if I remember. But the videos and links still stand!

Phil P

 

[edwest2]

It all has to do with how proteins came to be. That probably happened because some organic molecules with affinity for each other came together and attracted other molecules and eventually long chain proteins formed. That took billions of years to go from inorganic to organic to biological systems. It probably happened that way but we really don’t understand how, yet. But it’s a work in progress. And the coolest part is that all that stuff is the stuff of stars. What a universe!

I don’t buy it. Protein folding is very intricate. Temperature ranges are critical. Too hot and the protein denatures. I realize the AGTC are just chemicals but the intricate coding is not just a long chain of parts but a blueprint for a human being.

I’m not saying don’t study it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

I don’t buy it. Protein folding is very intricate. Temperature ranges are critical. Too hot and the protein denatures. I realize the AGTC are just chemicals but the intricate coding is not just a long chain of parts but a blueprint for a human being.

I’m not saying don’t study it.

Look Ed, you just refute almost all science. You should realize how out on the fringe you are because science really does have some very clear answers and most scientists are really good people. But you just keep trying to reinvent science to suit you. Bang your head against that wall as long as you can but it won’t change the wall.

 

[Namesake]

I don’t buy it. Protein folding is very intricate. Temperature ranges are critical. Too hot and the protein denatures. I realize the AGTC are just chemicals but the intricate coding is not just a long chain of parts but a blueprint for a human being.

I’m not saying don’t study it.

DNA is not even close to a blueprint. Not even remotely close and that further demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding. It’s much more like a recipe and nothing at all like a blueprint.

Ed, you really are way out of your league and you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[edwest2]

Embarrassing myself is not the issue. I want this individual to realize that God and science are complementary.

biotech.iastate.edu/ppt_presentations/html/DNA_food/03.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Embarrassing myself is not the issue. I want this individual to realize that God and science are complementary.

biotech.iastate.edu/ppt_presentations/html/DNA_food/03.html

God and science are almost certainly complimentary. Your problem is that you refute nearly all science. That’s not a very good thing to do in the face of so much evidence. You refute the evidence. If you really know that much science you ought to publish.

 

[wildleafblower]

Evolution is taught in a science class so please let’s not forget the** NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT (P.L. 107-110), ** Participation of private school students and teachers by the **United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. ** Here’s a snippet from that document which should be read in it’s entirety:

I N T R O D U C T I O N
This brochure provides a brief description of the education programs authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) that allow for the equitable participation of private and religious school students and teachers. The Act, which reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), contains ten parts, or “titles,” most of which outline the goals and purposes, funding formulas, and other details of the various educational programs authorized in each title of the Act. The chart at the end of this brochure describes where former ESEA title programs have been relocated within the ten titles of NCLBA.

The General Provisions outlined in Title IX of the Act describe provisions that govern most of the preceding titles. Sections 9501-9506 of Title IX contain “Uniform Provisions” specifically affecting
private and religious school students and teachers. Sections 9501-504 include a list of programs in which private and religious school students and teachers are eligible to participate, as well as the general requirements regarding private and religious school participation in those programs. . .

Table of Contents

Title II Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers
and Principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Part A: Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund . . . 13
Part B: Math and Science Partnerships . . . . . 14

14 Part B: Math and Science Partnerships
FY02 appropriation $12,500,000 (New program)
ACTIVITIES
Grants are provided through the Part B Math and Science Partnerships program to support partnerships that provide professional development programs designed to improve the academic achievement of students in mathematics and science. Partnerships must include a State, an institution of higher education (IHE), and a high-need LEA, and may also include other entities, such as additional LEAs, IHEs, public and private orgainizations, and businesses. Teachers in private schools located in LEAs participating in these partnerships, regardless of the entity that receives the grant and whether or not the private schools is a member of the partnership, must be offered equitable participation, including consultation during the design, development, and implementation of the program to ensure it meets the needs of the private school students, as required in the Uniform Provisions.

Programs supported through the partnerships may include summer institutes for mathematics and science teachers with school year follow-up sessions; training in curriculum development and increased subject matter knowledge; opportunities for collaboration with working mathematicians, scientists, and engineers; and stipends or scholarships to obtain alternative certification or advanced course work. . . ."
usccb.org/education/fedasst/nclba3.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/education/fedasst/nclba3.pdf
There’s more to be explored about Education on the USCCB’s website. From this point on, this French-Irish lassie is going to a party today thru the 24! (I’m not a nun.) May God bless everyone that I’ve met along the way this past week.

 

[anthony022071]

No problem with this. The document doesn’t engage in a scientific debate. It simply accepts the standard science with no argument
(4.5 billion year old earth, common descent or macroevolution as “virtually certain”).

Virtually certain to whom? The paragrach starts off with the words
“According to the widely accepted scientific account,”.

If Cardinal Ratzinger accepted common descent in the Vatican document,why did he doubt macro-evolution in his book Truth and Tolerance?

catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=21156&section=Cathcom

The first two sentences I have no problem with and agree with you. Your conclusion (that a “naturalistic” something is “out of the question”) assumes science (i.e. evolution) refers to a philosophical naturalism. It does not. Evolution by natural selection is a purely scientific theory. It says nothing for or against God.

The point is that the theory is itself ontologically naturalistic. It is a theory of natural history in which nature is all that exists. Methodological naturalism is an outgrowth of philosophical naturalism as found in the writings of Francis Bacon and Thomas Browne,who argued that all natural phenomena should only be explained with natural causes and scientific laws.
In the 1600’s,science was called natural philosophy or experimental philosophy. So the method and professional attitude of modern science has a philosophical origin,however much some scientists may deny it. The philosophical naturalism that you refer to,that of Carl Sagan,did not start to become widespead until perhaps the late 1800’s,with scientists such as Thomas Huxley.
In methodological naturalism,there is a denial of divine providence within the context of the study of nature.
So the theory of evolution is,de facto,ontologically naturalistic.

The theory can be summarized:

This is pure science.

Science is not pure method. Theory is not method. There are assumptions and speculation and interpretation involved. And what underlies scientific thinking is naturalism,which disallows for divine providence.

Same thing. Putting a theistic spin on the science = putting a theistic interpretation on nature and natural causes since science investigates nature and natural causes.

It isn’t the same thing. Nature is one thing,the scientific interpretation of nature is another. Catholic theology has it’s own knowledge about nature and natural causes,based upon revelation and reason guided by faith.

You are again confusing science with philosophy, just as the atheist Richard Dawkins does, just as the theist Phillip E. Johnson does.

Science is a method for investigating nature. That is all. It does not speak to God.

I’m not confusing science with philosophy. Science has a guiding philosophy,which is naturalism. Hence the name methodological naturalism.

When you say God does not work in “naturalistic theories” you are correct if you mean naturalism as a philosophy (i.e. philosophical naturalism). I.E. God cannot work in a theory that requires atheism or philosophical naturalism.

The theory of evolution is naturalistic in itself. There is no room for a Creator who is always creating and maintaining the natural world. Nature is explained as if it were developing and sustaining itself. If divine providence is not necessary within the context of a theory of natural history,then the theory is in fact promoting atheistic world-view. The only way you can believe in the theory of evolution is to suspend belief in a Creator who is always actively involved in living creatures.

 

[edwest2]

This is correct. The first assumption must be that there is nothing outside of nature, which is identified as an active force. Nature has no will or guidance or intention. It has no rational mind by which it arrives at human beings. It is assumed that Bang, a large explosion (at the Planck length no less) scattered matter far and wide. This matter somehow organized itself, differentiated and just happened to form solid spheres surrounding a nuclear furnace. Then, a planet, which just happened to be at the right distance, “produced” life from non-life.

The statement was made that truth cannot contradict truth. Well, modern science is a closed system, no supernatural elements can be considered for eternity.

Fortunately, the Church can speak about both complementary parts. It can speak about science and divine revelation. It can combine this information and draw conclusions from it. Pope Benedict does not regard ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ as an active force. As Thomas Aquinas put it, causes do not extend back into infinity. The Church has ruled that the universe is of finite age.

So, the conclusion follows that any theory of evolution that is complete in itself and assigns to random mutation and natural selection as being the only mechanisms, excludes any other active agent by definition.

The Church is leaving it to science to work out details but it already knows, in advance, that all truth points to God. We who live in this modern age may think that certain questions are settled. I am reminded of the clerk in the Patent Office in the early 1900s who recommended that it be closed since he had decided that everything worthwhile had been invented already.

There are those who come here to promote this idea, some with great passion, and some who assert that a great, to them, error exists in the Church. This process called evolution is important. Why is it important in the sense that they believe all Christians must accept it? And why is divine revelation unimportant to some of them?

Science, operating only through the mind of man, has made great discoveries and made helpful inventions. However, when scientists, convinced of their certainty, tell the Church and people in general that evolution negates a role for God, what are they saying? As scientists, as biologists or in any other related field, what are they saying? They have gone beyond the bounds of their self-defined scientific method and now make pronouncements they cannot prove. Anyone who has studied the history of the early Church should forget about Vatican City and all the modern trappings. The early Church was about persecution and death. It wasn’t about the collection basket.

A careful reading of the entire encyclical, Humani Generis, reveals strict instructions about studying this subject. I can only conclude that today, this great urgency regarding the acceptance of evolution among Christians, and the statement about scientists regarding evolution and the removal of a role for God, that atheism is the desired condition. The desired mindset.

Truth cannot contradict truth but only if truth is allowed to move in both directions and through all areas of reason. Nature magazine tells us most leading scientists still reject God. This information cannot be a part-time interest on the part of the scientists. And I can understand how uncomfortable they would feel living in a world that according to their worldview, believes in so many, to them, absurd things.They would be more comfortable living in a world where the voices and actions of devoutly religious people were restrained or limited in some way. And this has happened in the last 30 years.

From the Catholic perspective, biology is limited, but scientists, especially recently, through popular books, have been more strident and precise about building a case for atheism based on science, especially as it regards evolution. Religion is viewed as evil, the good is underplayed. But this is the necessary condition for creating any enemy. You must dehumanize the other side and make your group or belief sytem the answer or antidote to the problem. I trust that the Pope and the Church will continue to produce well-reasoned and fully complementary comments about this subject as it relates to the truth of the world and as it relates to divine providence. We do not pray to no one.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Rogerteder]

O brother–May Our Lady, on the feast of her Assumption, Pray for us.-----anyway—you guys are giving me chest pains–How about this------If the question comes up (I know it will) then I will simply present both views. The Catholics, who believe in creationism(a literal interpretation of Genesis) say evolution is wrong because they believe there are no transitional fossils…dah dah dah… Other catholics believe in evolution and it is acceptable from the Church as long as they acknowledge" A B C-"
I will tell my students "I encourage you all to do your own research and make your own conclusions—agree???

 

[PhilVaz]

Roger << If the question comes up (I know it will) then I will simply present both views. >>

OK students, today we will give you both sides of everything.

Some people believe the earth is flat, however pictures of the earth have been taken from space, but those could have been faked. Others say the earth is held up by an unending series of Turtles.

Some people believe the earth is young, some that it is old, some that it is of medium age (just right), and some that it is neither young, medium, or old but hollow with people living inside it called the “Hollow Earth” people.

Some people believe the sun goes around the earth, some the earth goes around the sun, some the earth and sun circumambulate each other, and some that we are all living within the Matrix and we all rotate around the Wachowski Brothers.

Some that evolution is atheistic, some that evolution is theistic since Darwin believed in a Creator and referred to creation dozens of time in the Origin of Species, others that evolution is the greatest false deception in the history of mankind, others that evolution is the greatest true idea that anyone ever had.

BOTH SIDES, AND MORE! :crying:

Blessed Assumption day

Phil P

 

[The_Catholic]

I realize no one on here cares what I think, that’s evident by everyone ganging up on me cause I differ on creation. Some have even called me by saying " hey ‘Catholic’ " having parentecies around my name, instead of simply calling me by my name; therefor eimplying I don’t deserve the title “Catholic” or I’m not a brother anymore because I differ on a few matters. Doesn’t matter I was baptized into the Church, doesn’t matter at all. I differ so I’m no longer a brother. Apparently I am so wrong and all of you are so right, especially you master theologian jedi. Knowing the way most religious people are, I’m convinced that NOT ONE of you care about my soul, but are just out here to show me up, prove me utterly wrong, and to take that! as if I’m a nobody. It’s evident by the tones you all display in your posts against me. That’s alright, I’m used to it and understand where and when I’m not wanted. So I’ll leave this forum. Funny, Catholic forums is getting more and more a reputation of having too many self-righteous people on it, and all it ever does, instead of help, is drive me down. I’m going to adopt the Amish view, and simply talk in person with a brother, if I’m still considered a brother cause of my aweful ways of think ing on creation.

I’m not a gullible idiot, I’ve been seeking God with all my heart for 10 years. I own a library of books, and went out and two 2 more last night just to understand more on the evolution issue. I bought “Saving Darwin” by Karl W. Giberson and “There is A God” by Antony Flew. All I sincerely desire is the Truth, not my own opinon, only the Truth! Which is why certain issues in Catholicism seem wrong to me now, not really any doctrines, just certain issues. I’m still seeking to understand, and again, all I want is the Truth. But it’s hard to find when there are so many different faiths, so many different sects of Christianity, even the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic argue and argue like bitter enemies. All it does is lead to further confusion. Why? Well it wouldn’t be bad if one simply and respectfuly disagreed with anoth, but no, every Church roughly says "I’m right I’m right I’m right and you’re dammed you’re dammed you’re dammed, you’re accursed, and blah blah blah. It’s the main reason why we have so many problems in religion. I have a host of real personal friends, where we disagree on a friendly respectful tone, yet do not kill each other or seperate. I wonder why that is?

I suppose I’ll even get scolded for saying this Very well.

One last thing about creation, yes, I find it silly that so many people want God to DO EVERYTHING for them, yes master jedi, God creating something or allowing it to happen are 2 tottally different things. Why? Because by God creating and destroying, hundreds, thousands upon thousands of creatures, and to still be doing it, is ludicrous. You’re calling Him a monster. You say it served it’s purpose? Really? The Hanuman Langurs, in Northern India have a mating system what biologists call “harem polygyny.” Dominant males have exclusive sexual access to a group of adult females, as long as they can keep other males away. Sooner or later a stronger male usurps the harem and the defeated must join must join the celibate outcasts. The new male shows his “love” for his new wives by trying to kill their unweaned infants. For every successful killing a mother stops lactating and goes into estrous. Deprived of her nursing baby a female soon starts ovulating. Then she accepts the advances of her baby’s "murderer, and he becomes the father of her next child.

Other animals do simliar things, or have slow cruel poisons and are eating alive etc. I could go on forever, but no, I do not suppose God created intentionally a world as things. And you can’t say they came from the effects of “sin” cause types of these creatures date back thousands of years ago. I am more so to agree with the 6 day creationists, or even Dawkins, before I accept the notion that God forcefully caused evolution.

Letting God allow a universe to occur on the other hand, is completely different. I think I understand what Miller means, quite well, and when I did it hit me hard, felt beautiful, that God truly does love us and WANT us!.

 

[The_Catholic]

Ok, listen closely, and while I realize I may be wrong, as of now this is what I believe, then I will leave these forums so as not to be stoned. and sorry to the OP for dragging this thread a little off subject.

Since God began the universe-the universe as we know it- (cause it’s interesting to know there may be other parallel universes out there, or bubbles of other universes, but I’m sure that’s a no no with you guys) ALL of Creation owes its existense to Him, in another sense, I do not think He initionally used His power to create us in any specialy way as He may have the Angels or Heaven, but allowed us to form by chance. Yes, I said that aweful dreadful word, “chance.” This makes us freer creatures, rather if He created every piece of us by His direct power. Why? Because a species who He desires to commune with on quite a personal level, who was not initionally and openly formed by Him, makes it all the more loving and awesome were that species to choose FREELY His love. Were we created specially, our bodies that is, we’d be more prone to choose Him. But God allowing chance tp precede, a species unlike any other (angels or the like) would form and be 100% and completely FREE–NO STRINGS ATTATCHED!! Who God wished to give an eternal soul to. THAT to me is AWESOME!! I can clearly see it and understand it.

I am not a Deist. I believe God intervenes on a daily basis, and also that deism is scientifically proved wrong by quantum physics, and also a universe of chance, not a machine, and God DOES intervene in our lives daily. Of course!! All of creation as we see, the mountains, tress, animals and stars, may be intentionally created by Him in His Heaven, in a PERFECT state as we could imagine it, but here in our plain, I believe He first wants us to live and learn, and yes, NOT be pulled by His strings every second of every day. There is no freedom in God controlling EVERYTHING, unless one is lazy and wants God to do everything. I do not.

God bless you all, and good bye.

 

[Deconi]

O brother–May Our Lady, on the feast of her Assumption, Pray for us.-----anyway—you guys are giving me chest pains–How about this------If the question comes up (I know it will) then I will simply present both views. The Catholics, who believe in creationism(a literal interpretation of Genesis) say evolution is wrong because they believe there are no transitional fossils…dah dah dah… Other catholics believe in evolution and it is acceptable from the Church as long as they acknowledge" A B C-"
I will tell my students "I encourage you all to do your own research and make your own conclusions—agree???

HA HA HA HA…and they say, Sungenis is the wacko!!

He has more ‘Catholic’ in his toenails than some of the deluded pretenders around this forum!

And, Hey ‘Catholic,’

Lighten up a bit and don’t take things personally, necessarily. The ‘Catholic’ title, is to signify your name; not INVALIDATE it!! We are all Catholics in a Catholic Forum, so I need to put EMPHASISes around you name! (I don’t know why others may do so, but that’s mine)

Whether you stay or leave, you’re still Catholic, under the nome de plum, “Catholic”

Your views are as valid as EVERYONE else here. But, you must not only expect, replies, corrections, applause, aggreement, arguments and downright oppositions, but you must also learn tolerance in how to deal with them. Through this you gain ‘endurance’ to sift through the rubbish to find the truth. Is this not the purpose of ‘debating?’

Form memory, all I gave youwas a ‘thought’ to consider! You are free to use it at will.

 

[jman507]

Life cannot come from nonlife. I don’t see any current scientists proving this. My point is, based on all that is currently known, this should be possible. But, so far, it can’t be done.

God bless,
Ed

What exactly is life?

 

[Wolseley]

O brother–May Our Lady, on the feast of her Assumption, Pray for us.-----anyway—you guys are giving me chest pains–How about this------If the question comes up (I know it will) then I will simply present both views. The Catholics, who believe in creationism(a literal interpretation of Genesis) say evolution is wrong because they believe there are no transitional fossils…dah dah dah… Other catholics believe in evolution and it is acceptable from the Church as long as they acknowledge" A B C-"
I will tell my students "I encourage you all to do your own research and make your own conclusions—agree???

I could have told you this would happen, Roger. I dropped out of these evolution threads long ago, since the evolutionists will not tolerate any deviation whatsoever from Lord Darwin. Try it, and you’ll get sarcastic, snotty, condescending replies from them (like you got in the post after yours above). Trust me on this—I’m a combat veteran in those old evolution threads.

Again, I repeat: it’s a waste of time.

 

[Deconi]

Roger << If the question comes up (I know it will) then I will simply present both views. >>

OK students, today we will give you both sides of everything.

Some people believe the earth is flat, however pictures of the earth have been taken from space, but those could have been faked. Others say the earth is held up by an unending series of Turtles.

You know, this is rather juvenile, Phil.

If you sail the seven seas for months, you never fall of! So it must be ‘flat’ and continuous…

The turtle pictures were just attempts by an impressionist artist of his interpretation of what Bible believers, believed. They thought to use turtles to speak towards an old earth; you know,…adding turtle life-spans, etc.

Some people believe the earth is young, some that it is old, some that it is of medium age (just right), and some that it is neither young, medium, or old but hollow with people living inside it called the “Hollow Earth” people.

All three positions are yet to be decided, so they’re valid!

Some people believe the sun goes around the earth, some the earth goes around the sun, some the earth and sun circumambulate each other, and some that we are all living within the Matrix and we all rotate around the Wachowski Brothers.

We know the last one is FALSE because God doesn’t have brothers and He doesn’t get on well with any other gods!

Some that evolution is atheistic, some that evolution is theistic since Darwin believed in a Creator and referred to creation dozens of time in the Origin of Species, others that evolution is the greatest false deception in the history of mankind, others that evolution is the greatest true idea that anyone ever had.

I don’t recall Darwin EVER saying, “You don’t need a Creator if my theory holds up!”

What then, have they done with his work?

BOTH SIDES, AND MORE! :crying:

Phil P

I still love you though, Man!

 

[The_Barbarian]

I dropped out of these evolution threads long ago, since the evolutionists will not tolerate any deviation whatsoever from Lord Darwin.

And the tone has improved markedly, Wolseley. “Snotty condescending” remarks like the above do very little but point out that you have nothing of substance to offer.

Again, I repeat: it’s a waste of time.

For anyone who’s decided that he has nothing left to learn, yes.