Evolution vs. Darwinism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kevin_Walker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kevin Walker:
I think the fallacy of your argument lies in the reliance of your own personal definition of ‘Darwinism’ rather than operating around the definition of ‘Darwinism’ provided by the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
Did you take the trouble to have a look at the copyright notice at the bottom of the webpage from New Advent?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V
Copyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight
Nihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Darwinism in 1909 was very different to the modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis. In 1909 Darwinism was often seen as an alternative to Mendelian genetics rather than as a complement to it as now. You have heard of DNA no doubt. In 1909 Darwinism didn’t include DNA since its importance was not then known. A lot has changed in science since 1909.

PhilVaz’s definition was accurate.

rossum
 
40.png
rossum:
Did you take the trouble to have a look at the copyright notice at the bottom of the webpage from New Advent?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V

Copyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight
Nihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Darwinism in 1909 was very different to the modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis. In 1909 Darwinism was often seen as an alternative to Mendelian genetics rather than as a complement to it as now. You have heard of DNA no doubt. In 1909 Darwinism didn’t include DNA since its importance was not then known. A lot has changed in science since 1909.

PhilVaz’s definition was accurate.

rossum
Click to expand...
Hi rossum,

Please peruse post #17 to see that the Catholic Encyclopedia does get updated occasionally. The Catholic Church’s definition of “Darwinism” defined in the New Advent still stands today.

I wish I had the unCatholic propensity to second guess the Vatican and just go ahead and redefine any term to fit my argument - that is called a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is a fallacy in logic.
 
Guess what? If what you’re saying is correct, then the New Advent encyclopedia has mis-defined Darwinism. It is simply “descent with modification by natural selection.”

Hi Phil,

If you truly believe that the New Advent has mis-defined Darwinism, then it is your duty to submit your improved definition for acceptance and set the record straight.

Otherwise I think you’re missing the point that ‘Darwinism’ contains a lot of atheistic and materialistic elements that the Vatican understandably disagrees. I personally like the Church’s definition of Darwinism and have used it successfully in debates against all the liberals, Marxists, and non-Teleological professors and others we have swarming in the general Boston area.

Personally I think you have Darwinism confused with something else and not the Catholic definition of that term.
 
Kevin Walker:
please visit the chronological list of Popes which postdates 1907 by seventy-one years with his eminence Pope John Paul II.
Click to expand...
Interesting. However, I noticed there are no links to biographies of the popes since Pope Pius X. The reason is that New Advent’s site does not include any such articles, only papal bios written 90+ years ago.

I perused a few topics that are relevant to Catholicism over the past century: Vatican II, Teresa of Calcutta, communism, World Wars I & II, Lateran Treaty. Of these, only communism was listed, and that article was blissfully ignorant of the Russian Revolution, the iron curtain, cold war, etc.

I am unconvinced that this Catholic Encyclopedia “is constantly updated and defines concepts not around yet in 1906.”

Instead, I think the list of popes is an aberration, perhaps a singular one, modified only to avoid misinterpretation by the ignorant as supporting a sedevacantist stance.
 
40.png
digitonomy:
Interesting. However, I noticed there are no links to biographies of the popes since Pope Pius X. The reason is that New Advent’s site does not include any such articles, only papal bios written 90+ years ago.

I perused a few topics that are relevant to Catholicism over the past century: Vatican II, Teresa of Calcutta, communism, World Wars I & II, Lateran Treaty. Of these, only communism was listed, and that article was blissfully ignorant of the Russian Revolution, the iron curtain, cold war, etc.

I am unconvinced that this Catholic Encyclopedia “is constantly updated and defines concepts not around yet in 1906.”

Instead, I think the list of popes is an aberration, perhaps a singular one, modified only to avoid misinterpretation by the ignorant as supporting a sedevacantist stance.
Click to expand...
Hi Digitonomy,

Then I suggest you read every single definition contained within the New Advent as I have done to see updates. Thanks!
 
Kevin Walker:
Please peruse post #17 to see that the Catholic Encyclopedia does get updated occasionally. The Catholic Church’s definition of “Darwinism” defined in the New Advent still stands today.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about the list of popes, I am talking about the outdated description of Darwinism, circa 1909, that the Encyclopedia gives. It may be of interest to historians of science, but it is not currently correct.

Looking at the parts of the Encyclopedia article you quoted in your opening post:
There is, in fact, no evidence whatever for the common genetic descent of all plants and animals from a single primitive organism.
Click to expand...
This may have been true in 1909. Since then we have discovered that all plants and animals use the same genetic code, which constitutes powerful evidence for common descent. Science has advanced a lot in the last 96 years.
Hence the greater number of botanists and zoologists regard a polygenetic (polyphyletic) evolution as much more acceptable than a monogenetic (monophyletic).
Click to expand...
This is not true now. Very few botanists and zoologists would now accept anything other than a single (monophyletic) origin for life on earth. Again this article has obviously not been updated since 1909. In the whole lengthy article on Darwinism there is no mention at all of DNA. The article is seriously out of date and should not be relied on.

What do you think of this argument?
P1 Darwinism says that the moon is made of green cheese.
P2 The moon is not made of green cheese.
C3 Therefore Darwinism is wrong.

Yes, it is a laughably bad argument because P1 is wrong and so C3 fails. You need to be careful that your arguments against Darwinism do not fall into the same trap by using an incorrect or outdated definition of Darwinism. Since 1909 Darwinism has merged with Mendelianism and incorporated post-war work on radioactive dating and DNA. It has changed since 1909 when this Catholic Encyclopedia article was written. Like all scientific theories, evolution changes to incorporate new scientific knowledge. Science is a work in progress where good theories can be replaced by better ones. You need to update your definition.

For a good modern introduction to evolution I would suggest “What Evolution Is” by Ernst Mayr. In his preface he says:
“And finally, my account is directed to those creationists who want to know more about the current paradigm of evolutionary science, if for no other reason than to be able to better argue against it.”
Click to expand...
rossum
 
40.png
rossum:
I am not talking about the list of popes, I am talking about the outdated description of Darwinism, circa 1909, that the Encyclopedia gives. It may be of interest to historians of science, but it is not currently correct.

Looking at the parts of the Encyclopedia article you quoted in your opening post:

This may have been true in 1909. Since then we have discovered that all plants and animals use the same genetic code, which constitutes powerful evidence for common descent. Science has advanced a lot in the last 96 years.

This is not true now. Very few botanists and zoologists would now accept anything other than a single (monophyletic) origin for life on earth. Again this article has obviously not been updated since 1909. In the whole lengthy article on Darwinism there is no mention at all of DNA. The article is seriously out of date and should not be relied on.

What do you think of this argument?P1 Darwinism says that the moon is made of green cheese.

P2 The moon is not made of green cheese.
C3 Therefore Darwinism is wrong.

Yes, it is a laughably bad argument because P1 is wrong and so C3 fails. You need to be careful that your arguments against Darwinism do not fall into the same trap by using an incorrect or outdated definition of Darwinism. Since 1909 Darwinism has merged with Mendelianism and incorporated post-war work on radioactive dating and DNA. It has changed since 1909 when this Catholic Encyclopedia article was written. Like all scientific theories, evolution changes to incorporate new scientific knowledge. Science is a work in progress where good theories can be replaced by better ones. You need to update your definition.

For a good modern introduction to evolution I would suggest “What Evolution Is” by Ernst Mayr. In his preface he says:

rossum
Click to expand...
Hi rossum,

You do realize that everything you wrote in the above post is not ‘Darwinism’ as defined by the Catholic Church?

Again, according to the Catholic Church: “Darwinism and the theory of Evolution are by no means equivalent conceptions.”* The New Advent*

You seem to make the constant error of interchanging Darwinism with Evolution, and that cannot be done with any logical concatenation on a Catholic discussion forum.

You must keep in mind that the Catholic use of the term ‘Darwinism’ contains elements of materialism, atheism, and non-Teleological belief systems which is what the Vatican and all Catholics denounce.

You seem to insist on using a genetic or anthropologic definition of Darwinism rather than a Catholic definition of Darwinsm which is where you are in error. The biological definition of evolution is fine but not its definition of Darwinism.

I respectfully suggest that you tighten up your definitions and learn the Catholic difference between Darwinism and Evolution.
 
Kevin,

We are in fundamental disagreement here. Darwinism is a scientific theory, not a theological one. For theology it would be reasonable to look to the Church for definitions. For science I use scientific definitions.

If you want to argue about “Theological Darwinism” then you are not arguing about science. My interest in this is purely from the scientific side; I do not wish to involve myself in theological discussions.

rossum
 
What’s the big deal with evolution? I think it’s very interesting and awesome! I see an incredible amount of God’s AWESOME POWER within the science. So much different beautiful and frightening things. It’s on a process alright, just like the Christian.

BTW, what group of Christians began all this anti-scientific stuff?
God give you peace
 
JWB << BTW, what group of Christians began all this anti-scientific stuff? God give you peace >>

Good question, you can blame Seventh-day Adventist George McCready Price during the early 20th century who wrote numerous creationist and “Flood geology” books, who in turn influenced Henry Morris and company to write The Genesis Flood in 1961 (and later ICR, and even later AnswersInGenesis). From there all the modern Protestant fundamentalist “creationism” began. Before Price, the Christian geologists and biologists etc were convinced of both the old age of the earth and evolution. Before Darwin, geologists were settled on the age of the earth (at least millions of years), but they didn’t know how old (4.5 billion) until the discovery of radioactivity in the early 20th century and work on the precise radiometric dating techniques in the 1940s and 50s.

I will admit and I don’t hide from the tensions that exist trying to reconcile evolution with original sin, the Fall, and Adam/Eve, and how to interpret early Genesis, especially the whole “monogenism” (which appears to be Catholic dogma) vs. “polygenism” (which seems to be supported by evolution) question.

Changing Views of the History of the Earth

Another good history of various creationisms here:

The Evolution of Bible-Science

Phil P
 
J.W.B.:
BTW, what group of Christians began all this anti-scientific stuff?
God give you peace
Click to expand...
Soooo…if one does not accept the “current” beliefs of the atheistic scientists…he/she is “anti-science”…hmmmm. Your ideas and prejudices obviously aren’t as “evolved” as you think you are.

BTW…for you evolutionary believers out there…will humans continue to evolve…perhaps even (after a few million years of course) will we evolve into balls of light (representing our newly evolved pure mental existence) as depicted in the atheist Gene Rodenberry’s Star Trek?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top