Evolution, the foundation of the culture of death

[hugh_r.miller]

Hello!

It appears to me that the hypothesis that all life forms evolved from inorganic dead materials is the very foundation of the “culture of death” we as Christians are now trying to defeat.

As a corollary to the above statement it appears so obvious that if academia continues to except the claim that this evolutionary hypothesis is a fact instead of treating it as a controversy and debate it openly I fear Christianity and the culutre of life will go the way of the Edsel. The hand writing is on the wall.

A possible solution is to use the scientific method: Why not line up all the “hard” scientific evidences for and against evolution including the time factor just as evolutionists do as a starter and press academia to do likewise; and, I don’t just mean the baloney that National Geographic promotes as it did recently.

Intelligent design as proposed by the Discovery Institute, President Bush recently and to Cardinal Schoenburn to a lesser extent are all very interesting and very helpfu to the debate. However, since the time factor of billions and billions of years for the existence of the universe and the earth is what keeps evolution in the limelight it would be only fair I contend to allow evidence against those long ages to be included in the facts. The culture of death will be impeded only when evolution is seen as what it really is, pure mythology. On with the debate! Hugh R. Miller

 

[Maranatha]

hugh r. miller:

Hello!

It appears to me that the hypothesis that all life forms evolved from inorganic dead materials is the very foundation of the “culture of death” we as Christians are now trying to defeat.

God is all powerful. If we wanted to create a universe that took 6 billion years to form life, and that life evolved from inanimate matter, then I believe he has the power to have made that happen.

The problem come when Atheists propose that the universe always existed and our existence is the result of random chance. If that is the case, then there is no meaning to life and there are no moral absolutes that we are required to live by. This rejection of God is the root of the culture of death.

As a corollary to the above statement it appears so obvious that if academia continues to except the claim that this evolutionary hypothesis is a fact instead of treating it as a controversy and debate it openly I fear Christianity and the culutre of life will go the way of the Edsel. The hand writing is on the wall.

A possible solution is to use the scientific method: Why not line up all the “hard” scientific evidences for and against evolution including the time factor just as evolutionists do as a starter and press academia to do likewise; and, I don’t just mean the baloney that National Geographic promotes as it did recently.

Intelligent design as proposed by the Discovery Institute, President Bush recently and to Cardinal Schoenburn to a lesser extent are all very interesting and very helpfu to the debate. However, since the time factor of billions and billions of years for the existence of the universe and the earth is what keeps evolution in the limelight it would be only fair I contend to allow evidence against those long ages to be included in the facts. The culture of death will be impeded only when evolution is seen as what it really is, pure mythology. On with the debate! Hugh R. Miller

I believe we should leave the science in the science classroom and philosophy and theology in the philosophy classroom. Extrapolating the physical to the philosophical always fails. Watering down the metaphysical to the physical frequently falls short as well.

 

[Orogeny]

hugh r. miller:

Hello!

It appears to me that the hypothesis that all life forms evolved from inorganic dead materials is the very foundation of the “culture of death” we as Christians are now trying to defeat.

Riiiiiiight.

As a corollary to the above statement it appears so obvious that if academia continues to except the claim that this evolutionary hypothesis is a fact instead of treating it as a controversy and debate it openly I fear Christianity and the culutre of life will go the way of the Edsel. The hand writing is on the wall.

Then christianity is false and doesn’t deserve to perservere.

A possible solution is to use the scientific method: Why not line up all the “hard” scientific evidences for and against evolution including the time factor just as evolutionists do as a starter and press academia to do likewise; and, I don’t just mean the baloney that National Geographic promotes as it did recently.

That’s what science has already done and, in fact, continues to do. The fact that you are not aware of that indicates you don’t follow science.

Intelligent design as proposed by the Discovery Institute, President Bush recently and to Cardinal Schoenburn to a lesser extent are all very interesting and very helpfu to the debate.

Interesting, perhaps. Science, NOT.

However, since the time factor of billions and billions of years for the existence of the universe and the earth is what keeps evolution in the limelight it would be only fair I contend to allow evidence against those long ages to be included in the facts. The culture of death will be impeded only when evolution is seen as what it really is, pure mythology. On with the debate! Hugh R. Miller

So, why don’t you start here with some of your “hard science” against an old earth?

Peace

Tim

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Orogeny:

Riiiiiiight.

Then christianity is false and doesn’t deserve to perservere.

That’s what science has already done and, in fact, continues to do. The fact that you are not aware of that indicates you don’t follow science.

Interesting, perhaps. Science, NOT.

So, why don’t you start here with some of your “hard science” against an old earth?

Peace

Tim

Tim:

Did you hear the one about the Paleantologists and Biologists from the PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA who recently got hooted out of a Symposium on Bio-Evolution because ONE OF THEM dared to mention, after his comrades had demonstrated the lack of support for random chance evolution IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, the possibility that we came about through “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”??

Tim, were the hooting and the catcalls these scientists received for daring to suggest this PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS? Or, could these Scientists have been defending their cherished orthodoxy and against what they perceived as an assault on its very core without thinking about the evidence that was being presented?

And, Tim, What about PILTDOWN MAN, which Paleantologist, Evolotionists and Anthropologists took to be the MISSING LINK for 50 YEARS until it WAS PROVEN TO BE A FRAUD??

Tim, Evolution might be useful in describing “HOW”, but it is of NO value in describing “WHY” and whether or NOT you have value as a human person.

That’s the purpose of Religion, or, in this Case, Catholicism which states that you and I are created for a purpose by a God who loved us so much that He sent His Son to die for us when we had fallen and were in darkness and under sentence of death.

Tim, would you rather believe that we are just animals and that, once we die, that’s it, or, do you think that you might want to look at things the way the great mathematician Decartes did, and accept God and heaven, because it makes more RATIONAL sense and offers more HOPE than the alternative?

I beg you to look at DNA and the EYE and ask yourself how these things came about by chance before you answer that question. And then I ask you to look at what happened to slavery and “Jim Crow” once Christians took aim at them.

Blessed are they who act to save the Innocent, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Maranatha:

The hardest thing for Evolutionists to accept is that the Universe and the earth had beginnings. Once you accept a BEGINNING, LOGIC requires that you accept an END. Now, if this is all there is, that’s a VERY DEPRESSING THOUGHT!

We also know not only from Scripture, but from SCIENCE, that the world had a BEGINNING, and that it will have an END! We also know that we now have the power to end the world through an all-out nuclear war. One reason the arms race terrified many secularists more than the Soviet Union taking over the world.

That’s one BIG reason Atheists continue argue those points…

Maranatha:

God is all powerful. If we wanted to create a universe that took 6 billion years to form life, and that life evolved from inanimate matter, then I believe he has the power to have made that happen.

The problem come when Atheists propose that the universe always existed and our existence is the result of random chance. If that is the case, then there is no meaning to life and there are no moral absolutes that we are required to live by. This rejection of God is the root of the culture of death.

As a corollary to the above statement it appears so obvious that if academia continues to except the claim that this evolutionary hypothesis is a fact instead of treating it as a controversy and debate it openly I fear Christianity and the culutre of life will go the way of the Edsel. The hand writing is on the wall.

I believe we should leave the science in the science classroom and philosophy and theology in the philosophy classroom. Extrapolating the physical to the philosophical always fails. Watering down the metaphysical to the physical frequently falls short as well.

…Maranatha, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, tomorrow and FOREVER, and He created a Church of which He said, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it!” I don’t see how a few academics are going to accomplish what “the gates of hell” can’t!

I believe the Church has to do as Christ commanded it, preaching the Gospel to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching them to do all that He has taught us!

If we do that, If we are doing what God wants us to do, I don’t think we’ll have to worry about the above - We’ll have to worry about something else - persecution.

Science should be left in the science classroom, but I think we have every right to insist that what is taught as science be tested according to the scientific method, which can’t be done to Random Chance (no God or First Cause possible) Evolution, and that evolution not be taught as dogmatically as it has been taught, without regard to contrary evidence or lack of supporting evidence such as “Missing links” in the Fossil Record.

And, no, Metaphysics, Phylosophy and Theology should never be “Dumbed down” to help some physical theory make sense or so that people who’ve not had courses in logic can understand the subject matter without doing some hard work.

Blessed are they who act to save the Innocent, Michael

 

[Orogeny]

Traditional Ang:

Tim:

Did you hear the one about the Paleantologists and Biologists from the PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA who recently got hooted out of a Symposium on Bio-Evolution because ONE OF THEM dared to mention, after his comrades had demonstrated the lack of support for random chance evolution IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, the possibility that we came about through “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”??

Tim, were the hooting and the catcalls these scientists received for daring to suggest this PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS? Or, could these Scientists have been defending their cherished orthodoxy and against what they perceived as an assault on its very core without thinking about the evidence that was being presented?

What does that story have to do with the original poster’s charge that evolution is the cause of the culture of death? HMMMM.

By the way, could it have been that they did look at the evidence and found it lacking? Were you there or is this something you read at some fundamentalist site?

And, Tim, What about PILTDOWN MAN, which Paleantologist, Evolotionists and Anthropologists took to be the MISSING LINK for 50 YEARS until it WAS PROVEN TO BE A FRAUD??

OK, forget my question about where you were getting your information. You answered that very well with this question.

Let me ask you one question regarding Piltdown Man. Who was it that questioned, investigated and ultimately proved it to be a fraud?

Tim, Evolution might be useful in describing “HOW”, but it is of NO value in describing “WHY” and whether or NOT you have value as a human person.

That’s the purpose of Religion, or, in this Case, Catholicism which states that you and I are created for a purpose by a God who loved us so much that He sent His Son to die for us when we had fallen and were in darkness and under sentence of death.

Correct. You are not arguing against anything I have ever posted on these threads.

Tim, would you rather believe that we are just animals and that, once we die, that’s it, or, do you think that you might want to look at things the way the great mathematician Decartes did, and accept God and heaven, because it makes more RATIONAL sense and offers more HOPE than the alternative?

I don’t accept God and heaven because they are rational. I accept them on faith. As Jesus said to Thomas, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” I have not seen and I believe. How about you?

I beg you to look at DNA and the EYE and ask yourself how these things came about by chance before you answer that question. And then I ask you to look at what happened to slavery and “Jim Crow” once Christians took aim at them.

What in the world does DNA, the eye and Jim Crow have to do with each other? If you are trying to make some sort of claim that evolutionary explanations for DNA or the eye are somehow tied to slavery, you have a VERY LONG WAY TO GO.

Peace

Tim

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Tim:

For 3,000+ years, Judaism and Christianity taught that man was a living soul created by a loving God who cared about us and gave us a purpose and a reason for being.

Blind chance evolution contradicted that and stated that we were nothing but evolved animals with big brains that had no reason for being except to pleasure ourselves, avoid pain and propogate. That’s a pretty meaningless existence and has to be at least part of the foundation of the Culture of Death…

Orogeny:

What does that story have to do with the original poster’s charge that evolution is the cause of the culture of death? HMMMM.

Tim, wouldn’t you agree?

According to the people on EWTN (I forget the show, but he claims he was there), the PRC scientists FOUND GAPS in the fossil record where reason told them MISSING LINKS should have been. What shocked me was the response they received when they proposed the idea that maybe evolution AS IT IS TAUGHT doesn’t explain the facts and isn’t fully supported by the fossil record.

Orogeny:

By the way, could it have been that they did look at the evidence and found it lacking? Were you there or is this something you read at some fundamentalist site?

OK, forget my question about where you were getting your information. You answered that very well with this question.

Let me ask you one question regarding Piltdown Man. Who was it that questioned, investigated and ultimately proved it to be a fraud?

I was reminded about Piltdown Man by the recent “Ape to Man” show on the History Channel. Homo Erectus was rejected because he didn’t fit the preconceived model, while Piltdown Man was enthusiastically accepted and taught because the fraud did.

It wasn’t until after several fossils of Homo Erectus were gathered while none of Piltdown were that Paleantologists reluctantly decided to allow the ONE skull they had so enthusiastically accepted to be examined. It was during preliminary testing that it was found that the bones were still bones and not even fossils!

Orogeny:

Correct. You are not arguing against anything I have ever posted on these threads.

I don’t accept God and heaven because they are rational. I accept them on faith. As Jesus said to Thomas, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” I have not seen and I believe. How about you?

Tim, I hadn’t seen any of your other posts, so I didn’t know whether you were a Catholic or not, and you had sounded a little like an agnostic in your post (we have a lot of non-Catholics and even a few atheists in the forum). I, therefore, used an argument that has sometimes worked to get agnostics to think about the subject and to not just dismiss it out of hand.

I came back to the faith 22 months ago as a result of the actions of an Israeli Rabbi who “nudged” me on a secular board. I’ve shared that story elsewhere on the board.

Orogeny:

What in the world does DNA, the eye and Jim Crow have to do with each other? If you are trying to make some sort of claim that evolutionary explanations for DNA or the eye are somehow tied to slavery, you have a VERY LONG WAY TO GO.

Peace

Tim

Tim, DNA and the Eye are both evidence of design. They simply could not have come about by blind, random chance.

Slavery, Jim Crow and a long list of other evils have become extinct (at least in the West) to a large extent because of the influence of Judeo-Christian religions.

These are two different types of things. One has to do with how the Universe was created. The other with our religion’s effect on society.

Neither have to do with tying evolutionary explanations to anything, including slavery.

Shalom, Michael

 

[AlanFromWichita]

What body parts or systems aren’t made up of materials that themselves are inert except that God has breathed life into them?

If you look closely enough, we are mostly empty space, as if you look with a strong enough microscope you’ll see empty space with tiny particles with electric charges whizzing around.

There is so much empty space in things we consider solids, that cosmic rays invade our computer memory chips, and as I recall from old-fashioned physics and semiconductor failure analysis, there are particles from the sun that go all the way through the earth, usually without hitting anything because it’s so tiny. Sometime they do hit something, and some consider this a source of aging.

Alan

 

[CreosMary]

Another thread with the usual suspects, eh Tim? how ya going by the way?
To the initial poster here is website to let you know you are not alone.
kolbecenter.org/
God is great and omnipotent, he does not need mans little ideas
God Bless
Br CreosMary

 

[norbert]

hugh r. miller:

Hello!

It appears to me that the hypothesis that all life forms evolved from inorganic dead materials is the very foundation of the “culture of death” we as Christians are now trying to defeat.

If we cover our eyes and ears, and throw around some “Culture of Death” labels, then reason/logic/science will go away, is that what you hope? By trying to understand the natural world, are we going to hell? Should we move back to caves? Science is not about the supernatural; it’s about identifying natural explanations for natural phenomena that occur in the natural world.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

norbert:

If we cover our eyes and ears, and throw around some “Culture of Death” labels, then reason/logic/science will go away, is that what you hope? By trying to understand the natural world, are we going to hell? Should we move back to caves? Science is not about the supernatural; it’s about identifying natural explanations for natural phenomena that occur in the natural world.

Well sure, if you put it like that, maybe. But since science has never been successful at proving God does not exist, then science is only free to discover those truths that already coincide with my pre-determined opinion, because God’s truths were fully mature while your science was still wearing diapers, and I believe in God. Therefore science must not conclude anything I don’t want it to.

Isn’t that about right?

Can you tell I live in Kansas? :whacky:

Alan

 

[Orogeny]

CreosMary:

Another thread with the usual suspects, eh Tim? how ya going by the way?
To the initial poster here is website to let you know you are not alone.
kolbecenter.org/
God is great and omnipotent, he does not need mans little ideas
God Bless
Br CreosMary

Hey, Creos! I’m doing well. How are things down under?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Traditional Ang:

Tim:

For 3,000+ years, Judaism and Christianity taught that man was a living soul created by a loving God who cared about us and gave us a purpose and a reason for being.

I have not contradicted that anywhere.

Blind chance evolution contradicted that and stated that we were nothing but evolved animals with big brains that had no reason for being except to pleasure ourselves, avoid pain and propogate. That’s a pretty meaningless existence and has to be at least part of the foundation of the Culture of Death…

Evolution, or at least the current theory, is based on selection, not blind chance.

Apart from our souls, we are animals with big brains. However, God created our souls and that, in combination with our bodies, makes us human.

According to the people on EWTN (I forget the show, but he claims he was there), the PRC scientists FOUND GAPS in the fossil record where reason told them MISSING LINKS should have been.

So you are saying the missing links are missing?!? To borrow a line from that great movie, “Casablanca”, I’m shocked!

What shocked me was the response they received when they proposed the idea that maybe evolution AS IT IS TAUGHT doesn’t explain the facts and isn’t fully supported by the fossil record.

So you heard it second hand at best, don’t remember who said it and are not quite sure exactly what the disagreement was about, so let’s throw out all the scientific evidence and research that has gone into the theory of evolution. Unfortunately for you, that is not how science works.

I was reminded about Piltdown Man by the recent “Ape to Man” show on the History Channel. Homo Erectus was rejected because he didn’t fit the preconceived model, while Piltdown Man was enthusiastically accepted and taught because the fraud did.

It wasn’t until after several fossils of Homo Erectus were gathered while none of Piltdown were that Paleantologists reluctantly decided to allow the ONE skull they had so enthusiastically accepted to be examined. It was during preliminary testing that it was found that the bones were still bones and not even fossils!

Well, since you didn’t answer my question, I will answer it for you. SCIENTISTS uncovered the fraud. Now, if Piltdown Man is evidence of some scientific conspiracy as you seem to believe, why would scientists do that?

Tim, I hadn’t seen any of your other posts, so I didn’t know whether you were a Catholic or not, and you had sounded a little like an agnostic in your post (we have a lot of non-Catholics and even a few atheists in the forum). I, therefore, used an argument that has sometimes worked to get agnostics to think about the subject and to not just dismiss it out of hand.

You succumbed to the common fundamentalist thinking that a Christian cannot accept evolution. That is wrong.

I came back to the faith 22 months ago as a result of the actions of an Israeli Rabbi who “nudged” me on a secular board. I’ve shared that story elsewhere on the board.

That is truly good news! Congratulations (belatedly) and welcome back!

Tim, DNA and the Eye are both evidence of design. They simply could not have come about by blind, random chance.

Do some research on this before you take it to the bank. Try to keep to scientific sites so that you can see the other side of the argument.

By the way, they are not evidence of design.

Slavery, Jim Crow and a long list of other evils have become extinct (at least in the West) to a large extent because of the influence of Judeo-Christian religions.

I hate to break this to you, but christians owned slaves too.

These are two different types of things. One has to do with how the Universe was created. The other with our religion’s effect on society.

Neither have to do with tying evolutionary explanations to anything, including slavery.

Shalom, Michael

Now I’m confused. You seem to be making my argument for me. Not that that’s a bad thing!

Peace

Tim

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Tim:

NATURAL Selection = Blind chance, At least when it comes to Macro-Evolution. Evolution as it is now taught has as its basic premise that God is completely unnecessary for our existence which would have been brought about purely by NATURAL SELECTION, with or without His (name removed by moderator)ut.

If you believe that God is necessary for our existence in our present form, then you have to believe in some form of Creation or Intelligent Design. If you believe that we are Living Souls, then you can’t accept evolution AS IT IS TAUGHT in our schools…

Orogeny:

Evolution, or at least the current theory, is based on selection, not blind chance.

Apart from our souls, we are animals with big brains. However, God created our souls and that, in combination with our bodies, makes us human.

So you are saying the missing links are missing?!? To borrow a line from that great movie, “Casablanca”, I’m shocked!

So you heard it second hand at best, don’t remember who said it and are not quite sure exactly what the disagreement was about, so let’s throw out all the scientific evidence and research that has gone into the theory of evolution. Unfortunately for you, that is not how science works.

If evolution, as it is taught, were a taught, most of those transitional species would be findable in the fossil record. Fact is that they’re not.

I did answer the question. You didn’t like my answer. Scientists finally decided to examine the one fossil of Piltdown Man after nearly 50 years of finding NO other Piltdown specimens, while fossils of the one they turned down, Homo Erectus, were being found in Africa and Asia.

It was then that they found that they had been duped by a crude fraud that fit their PRECONCEIVED NOTION of what a Transitional Homonid would look like, while they had had rejected the REAL HOMONID because it didn’t fit their PRECONCEIVED NOTION of what the one transitional speciies would look like.

I never said that they had any sort of a conspiracy. You are electing to put words in my mouth, and that’s more wrong than anything you’re accusing Fundamentalist Christians of.

Orogeny:

Well, since you didn’t answer my question, I will answer it for you. SCIENTISTS uncovered the fraud. Now, if Piltdown Man is evidence of some scientific conspiracy as you seem to believe, why would scientists do that?

You succumbed to the common fundamentalist thinking that a Christian cannot accept evolution. That is wrong.

That is truly good news! Congratulations (belatedly) and welcome back!

Do some research on this before you take it to the bank. Try to keep to scientific sites so that you can see the other side of the argument.

By the way, they are not evidence of design.

I understand there are quite a few REAL SCIENTISTS who would disagree with you about the DNA and the EYE being things that could not have evolved without divine (name removed by moderator)ut and are therefore evidence of Design.

May I ask, what does the fact that some Christians who had malformed consciences and owned and even mistreated slaves have to do with the fact that the movements to eliminate slavery and then Jim Crow were led by Christian ministers and populated by Christians and then Christians and Jews who were acting out the dictates of their faith?

Orogeny:

I hate to break this to you, but christians owned slaves too.

Now I’m confused. You seem to be making my argument for me. Not that that’s a bad thing!

Peace

Tim

We probably agree on more things than not.

My argument is not so much with the PROCESS of evolution as with the UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS and the PREMISES that are taught as scientific fact in most of our schools and Universities, where our youth are taught that NATURAL SELECTION EVOLUTION is PROOF that there is NO God and NO need for God. I believe that this is how Evolution, as it is taught, is part of the foundation of the Culture of Death.

Now, I had the collage level courses on biology, anthropolgy and physiology, and I’m sure you did, too

I think that neither of us is going to pursuade the other, so it may be best to end this duscussion on the most amiable terms possible.

Shabbat Shalom, Michael

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Who cares if science does not specifically acknowledge God?

I didn’t think it was the scientists’ jobs to do so.

Nor do I find that because science has a “natural” explanation that God has nothing to do with it.

Science has found that we all must breathe to live. That neither supports nor refutes whether God has anything to do with that process. Science has also found a way to feed people with a tube, something that religion has occasionally found it likes “science” to do even though the use of such tube does not acknowledge that God will provide. So it isn’t about science and religion, but it’s often though of and argued that way.

Then again, science should not become too cocky. They should state what they know in terms of data, how they have put that together into one or more hypotheses or theories, and be honest about the difference between circumstantial evidence and “proof” of something. Also be honest that there is a difference in the strength of proof when controlled experiments and the scientific method can be applied, and when there is a certain sample of facts that we have adapted a theory to try to explain.

As far as I know, macroevolution is purely speculation, based on incomplete data. It may be very convincing, with DNA analysis and all that stuff, and it may even be true.

Back to the religious side, the Catholic schools have taught my own children that Genesis is not to be taken literally, a conclusion I had come to independently but didn’t dare speak of until I found it was taught by the Church. Taking that into account, there is insufficient information to make the stupid claim that many “fundies” do that macroevolution disproves God so it must be wrong. It does nothing of the kind.

I heard a quote attributed to G.K.Chesterton something to the effect, “it’s one thing to ponder a Gorgon or a Griffith, creatures that don’t exist. It’s quite another to ponder a rhinoceros which does exist but looks as if it doesn’t.”

Science and religion are ostensibly both dedicated to finding the truth, from different directions. In Kansas, I’m practically numb from all this, to the point I am almost tempted to say, “who cares about where we came from specifically, why do we need to teach evolution anyway,” but then for that matter, there’s a lot of things we’re taught we really don’t “need” to know. I teach College Algebra, and especially for the students that will not go on to higher math, there are a lot of useless things I teach them – and in fact would like to teach them a few different things. Alas, education doesn’t move much faster than the Church, when it comes to making their curriculum useful for today’s world, and there is just as much controversy.

Honestly, why does a student never taking any more math after my class and going to college on a soccer scholarship, need to know how to calculate the asymptotes of a hyperbola? At least they finally dropped that from the class. As a math nerd, I like that stuff. For a person taking College Algebra as senior in high school or older, chances are they aren’t a math nerd.

In case it looks like I’m putting down both sides of this ongoing rabid debate and not coming to a conclusion, it’s because I am. I’ve found that some of these people are so impossible to even talk to about this, they really leave little hope for reconciliation.

Ultimately science and religion look at truth from different angles, but they should never contradict. People like contradictions, though. Maybe they think as long as they have an enemy then they have a cause and a purpose to life.

Alan

 

[Orogeny]

Traditional Ang:

NATURAL Selection = Blind chance, At least when it comes to Macro-Evolution.

Selection does not equal blind chance. You need to look into this a bit because you are wrong.

Evolution as it is now taught has as its basic premise that God is completely unnecessary for our existence which would have been brought about purely by NATURAL SELECTION, with or without His (name removed by moderator)ut.

Where does God fit into the laws of gravity? Should we not teach gravity because the laws of gravity don’t require God?

If you believe that God is necessary for our existence in our present form, then you have to believe in some form of Creation or Intelligent Design. If you believe that we are Living Souls, then you can’t accept evolution AS IT IS TAUGHT in our schools.

No, I don’t, at least not from a scientific perspective. Creation as described in Genesis is not a science lesson, it is a theological lesson - Why vs How. Intelligent Design is a way to try to get God inserted into science classes. ID is not science.
As far as how evolution is taught in schools, no legitimate science can claim to explain the soul because the soul is supernatural and science is the study of the natural. Therefore, I don’t have a problem studying the natural world in science class and the supernatural world elsewhere.

If evolution, as it is taught, were a taught, most of those transitional species would be findable in the fossil record. Fact is that they’re not.

You are making a couple of erroneous assumptions here. First is that there are no transitional fossils known. That is absolutely wrong. EACH fossil type is a transitional to another form. Second, there are very clear transitional fossils as you would describe them. Check out horses, whales, dinosaur/birds, reptile/mammal among others.

I never said that they had any sort of a conspiracy. You are electing to put words in my mouth, and that’s more wrong than anything you’re accusing Fundamentalist Christians of.

OK. How about a pre-concieved notion that blinds science and allows some frauds to make news.

I understand there are quite a few REAL SCIENTISTS who would disagree with you about the DNA and the EYE being things that could not have evolved without divine (name removed by moderator)ut and are therefore evidence of Design.

And I understand that there are a huge number more that would disagree with those scientists. If those scientists feel that they have evidence of design, they should present that data to the scientific community and let the process play out. That’s how evolution has become such a strong theory.

May I ask, what does the fact that some Christians who had malformed consciences and owned and even mistreated slaves have to do with the fact that the movements to eliminate slavery and then Jim Crow were led by Christian ministers and populated by Christians and then Christians and Jews who were acting out the dictates of their faith?

You brought up slavery as an example of…well now that I think of it, why did you bring up slavery?

We probably agree on more things than not.

That’s very likely.

My argument is not so much with the PROCESS of evolution as with the UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS and the PREMISES that are taught as scientific fact in most of our schools and Universities, where our youth are taught that NATURAL SELECTION EVOLUTION is PROOF that there is NO God and NO need for God. I believe that this is how Evolution, as it is taught, is part of the foundation of the Culture of Death.

Any teacher that is teaching that any scientific theory, law or hypothesis is proof of anything, especially the existence or not of God, is wrong. God should not be a topic of any science class, either in the positive or negative.

Now, I had the collage level courses on biology, anthropolgy and physiology, and I’m sure you did, too

Not biology (unless you count inverterbrate paleontology), anthropology yes, physiology no. Plenty of geology though!

I think that neither of us is going to pursuade the other, so it may be best to end this duscussion on the most amiable terms possible.

Shabbat Shalom, Michael

Please understand me, Michael. I rarely get upset at these discussions. I think they are good. The only time I get upset is when someone decides that I cannot be a Catholic and still accept evolution, the age of the earth, the big bang, etc.
I strongly believe that we are doing a disservice to ourselves if we don’t take advantage of the gifts that God gives us. One of those gifts is intelligence. I firmly believe God wants us to study and understand His creation. When we come in with preconcieved notions as to how He does things, we are not taking advantage of his gift.

Peace

Tim

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Many scientists claim to admire Einstein when it comes to relativity, but don’t seem to turn to him when it comes to some of his musings on God.

Maybe it’s time to inject a few “Albert-isms” here. I feel especially close to him, having been told by friends and coworkers that we have similar hairdos.
Albert Einstein:

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.

To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself.

** We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.**
**
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.**

The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth. The trite subjects of human efforts, possessions, outward success, luxury have always seemed to me contemptible.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.

Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.

** Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn’t play dice. **
**
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.**

Teaching should be such that what is offered is perceived as a valuable gift and not as a hard duty.

The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.

** I want to know God’s thoughts…the rest are details. **

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

** Perfection of means and confusion of ends seem to characterize our age. **

** Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe. **

Politics is more difficult than physics

When his wife asked him to change clothes to meet the German Ambassador: they want to see me, here I am. If they want to see my clothes, open my closet and show them my suits.

** I don’t believe in mathematics. **

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.

** When the solution is simple, God is answering. **

Where there is love there is no question

 

[Rosalinda]

I just happened to be reading an address online by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin given in Ireland July 18th musing “Will Ireland be Christian by 2030?” and didn’t I come upon some words of our Holy Father which are pertinent to this debate.

"That relationship (with God) was described by Pope Benedict XVI in his inaugural address in Saint Peters’ Square now some months ago: “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary. There is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by the Gospel, by the encounter with Christ”

---

---

 

[Benedictus]

AlanFromWichita:

Who cares if science does not specifically acknowledge God?

I didn’t think it was the scientists’ jobs to do so.

Nor do I find that because science has a “natural” explanation that God has nothing to do with it.

…

Ultimately science and religion look at truth from different angles, but they should never contradict. People like contradictions, though.

Wow. A breath of fresh air in a thread that was making my eyes bleed.

Biology isn’t philosphy or theology. The questions that a biologist seeks to answer are different than the questions a philosopher addresses. The methods used by a biologist are different than the methods of theologians. In many ways, science is orthogonal to philosophy and theology.

 

[Orogeny]

Benedictus:

Wow. A breath of fresh air in a thread that was making my eyes bleed.

Man! That sounds truly painful!

Peace

Tim