Evolution In The Classroom

  • Thread starter Thread starter ctconnor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
I am not sure about meteorologists or quantum mechanics, but most biologists accept that concept of species for sexually breeding species. There are different definitions for bacterial species, where a single individual splits into two.

There is no loss of function required. The smallest change between species I am aware of is three mutations. One mutation changed the colour and the other two mutations changed the breeding season. In neither case was function lost. Both species have colour and both species have a breeding season. The different colours mean that they live in different habitats (camouflage) and the different breeding seasons means that they do not interbreed.

The two species are Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa downesi.

rossum
Click to expand...
They cannot or do not?
 
buffalo said:
They cannot or do not?
Click to expand...
They are different species - they look different, they live in different places and they breed at different times of the year. Neither has lost information - both have information on colour and both have information on breeding time.

Your point about loss of information was incorrect.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
IIs it true that the first line of Genesis has been only recently confirmed by science? Yes or No
Click to expand...
The first line of Genesis has nothing to do with science; it is not nor ever has been a scientific claim. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” – this is a statement of theological belief, not an astronomical assertion subject to falsification.
 
rossum said:
They are different species - they look different, they live in different places and they breed at different times of the year. Neither has lost information - both have information on colour and both have information on breeding time.

Your point about loss of information was incorrect.

rossum
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
liquidpele said:
More accurately, it’s supported by many atheists because it is a process that doesn’t need to involve God or magic. .
Click to expand...
Right, as I pointed out already. Evolution proposes that the atheistic-materialism as a philosophical foundation is sufficient for undestanding the entire diversity of nature and the origin of human beings.

That is where it conflict with Catholic teaching.
 
StAnastasia said:
The first line of Genesis has nothing to do with science; it is not nor ever has been a scientific claim. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” – this is a statement of theological belief, not an astronomical assertion subject to falsification.
Click to expand...
You claim is that the first line of Genesis has no scientific implications? LOL.

As I stated before - time space and matter all in the very first line. Only scientifically verified recently.
 
rossum said:
They are different species - they look different, they live in different places and they breed at different times of the year. Neither has lost information - both have information on colour and both have information on breeding time.

Your point about loss of information was incorrect.

rossum
Click to expand...
Polar bears and grizzly bears look different too. They still are bears,
 
reggieM said:
Right, as I pointed out already. Evolution proposes that the atheistic-materialism as a philosophical foundation is sufficient for undestanding the entire diversity of nature and the origin of human beings.

That is where it conflict with Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Evolution proposes only that species diversity is accounted for by natural selection, everything else is people using it support their independent agenda.
 
tjm190 said:
Evolution proposes only that species diversity is accounted for by natural selection, everything else is people using it support their independent agenda.
Click to expand...
Your version of evolutionary theory has already been falsified. The new version includes mechanisms other than natural selection.
 
buffalo said:
But they are the same kind thank you.
Click to expand...
“Kind” means nothing from a scientific point of view. It is the YEC intellectual equivalent of a toddler’s “doggie” designating a dog or a fox or a wolf or a coyote.
 
buffalo said:
But they are the same kind thank you.
Click to expand...
How do we know? Where can we find a definitive definition of what is, and what is not, a “kind”, aka Baramin?

Are wombats and kangaroos part of the same “marsupial” kind or are they different kinds? How can we objectively tell where the boundaries between kinds are.

Biological classifications are based on descent from a common ancestor. What is the basis for kinds?

rossum
 
Wow, I missed a lot over the weekend! I don’t have anything to add to the scientific discussion, but I wanted to say this.

It is acceptable for a Catholic to believe in theistic evolution within certain boundaries. See Michelle Arnold on this matter:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354765

Even though I don’t believe in Intelligent Design, (which to me is just trying to fit God in where ever you can because it’s scary to believe otherwise) I do understand why people might cling to it. It is comforting to feel that you can “prove” that God exists in that way, however that “proof” it is not necessary for every Christian’s faith and I (personally) am not sure that God really wants us to know him fully in that way. Wasn’t it St. Paul who said that “we see through a mirror darkly”? Perhaps that does not refer just to our intellectual understanding of God but also to our scientific understanding.

Now, some posters here feel that theistic evolution relegates God to the back ground but that is how YOU feel about theistic evolution, not necessarily those who subscribe to it. Do you really think that the highly educated Catholic priests who believe in theistic evolution do so because they want to limit God’s involvement and make humans an after thought? No, they believe it because, in their mind, it fits into their faith.

So for me the bottom line is believe what you want, but don’t presume to know what is in the heart and mind of someone who believes in theistic evolution. And this is what I feel that some comments have done.
 
StAnastasia said:
“Kind” means nothing from a scientific point of view. It is the YEC intellectual equivalent of a toddler’s “doggie” designating a dog or a fox or a wolf or a coyote.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmn. :hmmm: Are you sure? I think you need to stay on top of this.

DNA is beginning to reveal some basic building blocks will allow the kinds to be better known. In other words we will be finding certain DNA sequences that will be unique to cats, unique to snakes, unique to humans etc…

Are you prepared to accept the results?
 
carinapir said:
Wow, I missed a lot over the weekend! I don’t have anything to add to the scientific discussion, but I wanted to say this.

It is acceptable for a Catholic to believe in theistic evolution within certain boundaries. See Michelle Arnold on this matter:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354765

Even though I don’t believe in Intelligent Design, (which to me is just trying to fit God in where ever you can because it’s scary to believe otherwise) I do understand why people might cling to it. It is comforting to feel that you can “prove” that God exists in that way, however that “proof” it is not necessary for every Christian’s faith and I (personally) am not sure that God really wants us to know him fully in that way. Wasn’t it St. Paul who said that “we see through a mirror darkly”? Perhaps that does not refer just to our intellectual understanding of God but also to our scientific understanding.

Now, some posters here feel that theistic evolution relegates God to the back ground but that is how YOU feel about theistic evolution, not necessarily those who subscribe to it. Do you really think that the highly educated Catholic priests who believe in theistic evolution do so because they want to limit God’s involvement and make humans an after thought? No, they believe it because, in their mind, it fits into their faith.

So for me the bottom line is believe what you want, but don’t presume to know what is in the heart and mind of someone who believes in theistic evolution. And this is what I feel that some comments have done.
Click to expand...
Alright, where is the action of the theistic in ‘theistic evolution’? Please point it out.

Intelligent Design is not needed by me or anyone I’m aware of to “prove” God because God is affirmed as the Creator of heaven and earth at each Mass. That’s not the point of it. The point is to look at complex nanomachinery in the cell and recognize it as complex nanomachinery.

The desperate fear is that ID will gain scientific legitimacy and end up in the sacred classroom and it will ruin the country or something equally vague.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top