EVOLUTION: what about this

[The_Barbarian]

A Scientist wants to become a Catholic but he’s afraid he’ll have to ‘leave his brain at the door’ before entering the Church.

If so, he should learn more about the Church, and perhaps what JPII and Pope Benedict XVI have said about it. That should reassure him.

He’s going have to believe the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. He’s going to have to believe that Mary, mother of God, was assumed, bodily, into heaven. He’s going to have to believe that two miracles were attributed to every saint in the book. Things that literally happened.

Shouldn’t be a problem.

But if he’s told the Church is “iffy” about evolution, that’s a problem? Give me a break.

It’s a problem only because it’s not true. The Church takes no stand on evolution at all. Our recent Popes have spoken favorably about it, but they are merely expressing personal opinions, not dogma.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, you didn’t answer my question: what sort of scientific evidence would prove that a man was the Son of God? Blood or genetic analysis? Fingerprints? Dental records? Would this evidence need to be quantitative?

Or are we perhaps talking about something other than what science can measure?

StAnastasia

It is clear you do not want to accept the Church’s authority on certain matters, even when it comments on science. Here, Pope Benedict recognizes that while certain things are left to science, the Church must, at times, have the audacity, as he puts it, to clarify. The Pope is not a CEO. He is called Holy Father for a reason.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

I urge you to respect the words of the Pope since as Christ told Peter: “He who hears you hears me.”

You treat science as if it were a detachable part of your body that must be left outside of the Church door. It is not a limb that needs to be attached whenever you do science, and detached whenever you do religion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

If so, he should learn more about the Church, and perhaps what JPII and Pope Benedict XVI have said about it. That should reassure him.

Shouldn’t be a problem.

It’s a problem only because it’s not true. The Church takes no stand on evolution at all. Our recent Popes have spoken favorably about it, but they are merely expressing personal opinions, not dogma.

Why should you refer to any Pope while talking about science? Why? Do the words of any Pope change any scientifically derived information? The answer is no. So if you want to present what you believe to be facts then let them stand or fall based on their own merits and not bring any religious leaders into the picture. Because when you do, it clearly tells everyone that the facts alone are insufficient. That the facts alone are not what’s important. What’s important is getting everyone to just say yes to evolution.

The Pope speaks as the Holy Father. The head of the Body of Christ on earth. His remarks are well-considered and should be treated as well-considered by all. He has said much about evolution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[III888]

Now that is a lot of brass air fittings liangdianup.com/subpages/airfitting_1.htm there is just about every type
of air fitting that you could want. Wholesale prices too. I guess these could be used as small water pipe fitting also. I
used some of the parts to make my babington wvo bu

 

[Namesake]

Scientists are directly linking science to religion. Evolutionary science has stepped outside of its bounds and is being promoted as the new belief system. The average person hears these scientists, hears about their work and hears about their conclusions, which their work cannot demonstrate, that God is rejected. Science tells us that God “did not breathe life into Adam’s nostrils.” Just ask Alec (hecd2) on this board for the non-evidence for Adam and Eve.

Atheistic-Science is a religious belief system because it is based on faith and an imagined future where man is god and will equal god and his power. Evolution, for them, negates a role for God, at best, and proves that, like the Greek and Roman gods, belief in the Christian God should be discarded as well.

The goal is a Scientific-Atheist Technocracy. Our minds and machines will save us. A warning: none of that will matter when we stand before the Living God at judgement.

It’s quite unfortunate that you tie your faith to concepts that can be refuted by science. Maybe you need a stronger more durable faith.

 

[StAnastasia]

It is clear you do not want to accept the Church’s authority on certain matters, even when it comments on science. Here, Pope Benedict recognizes that while certain things are left to science, the Church must, at times, have the audacity, as he puts it, to clarify. Peace,Ed

Ed, you are the one who won’t accept the Resurrection on faith if you want scientific proof of it. And you still haven’t answered my question: “What sort of scientific evidence would prove that a man was the Son of God?” Is that because in fact you have no answer?

 

[StAnastasia]

Now that is a lot of brass air fittings liangdianup.com/subpages/airfitting_1.htm there is just about every type
of air fitting that you could want. Wholesale prices too. I guess these could be used as small water pipe fitting also. I
used some of the parts to make my babington wvo bu

Item # 452807 might be used for adapting scientific to theological language…
liangdianup.com/inventory/452807.htm

 

[Namesake]

I am against scientism, the philosophy that defines reality as only what can be detected by humans and their devices.

Maybe you should change terms. Objectivism as defined by Ayn Rand would be closer to what you call scientism.

 

[Namesake]

THE RESURRECTION!!!

With all due respect there is no scientific proof of that.

 

[Dchsknight]

I did not bother reading all of this thread because it seems to go around in circles. Someone probably said this already but i will say it again. Does the person who started the thread and all the people who have talked in this thread, Believe the bible. BECAUSE if you believe the bible to be all god breathed then Evolution can not work and jsut because some pompous guys in white coats who SEEM to be smarter then all us little people say that evolution work, DOESNT mean that it is. Here is the truth about the matter… are you ready for it…WHO CARES?! God created the heavens and the earth. You either accept it or not. if you dont then your denying God and not wanting to accept what God said, Which by the way God is far smarter then any dude in a white coat. God could and can create the universe and everything in it in any way he wants or wanted. if he wanted to make it in millions of years then he could have, But the bible does say 7 days. Not 7 days, which could be 70millions years, 7 days. 7, 24 hour periods or 23.whatever (Just so the people who are gonna be nitpicky). But that only works if you believe the bible. (And just as a note you can not pick and choose what is true in the bible. you either believe it or not). To be really honest it takes way more faith to believe in some dude who admitted he was wrong on his bed and ed up theory about animals changing into humans. Then having God saying “Let there be light”, Plus the thing about evolution and all that buisness is that it has to be in a world where there is no outside source. But when you look at this world and how freaking complex it is, it could not have been an . you can not take a bunch of metal ore and stick in a room lock it up for millions of years and expect it to refine it self and form itself and make it self in to a car. that is just stupid. Some one has to make it. When the science community says OH Evolution is right and is all an acident, a big Bang, then they are denying God. And Lord help and forgive anyone who denies God, because God is gonna deny them in heaven.

 

[StAnastasia]

With all due respect there is no scientific proof of that.

1 angel → stone + divine power / death = resurrection.

Equipment needed for proof: 1 empty tomb + EEG + EKG monitors + stigmata + beach fire + 153 fish → camcorder to record ascension.

 

[edwest2]

Maybe you should change terms. Objectivism as defined by Ayn Rand would be closer to what you call scientism.

I watched an interview with Ayn Rand and Mike Wallace. I would describe her beliefs as selfish and a-religious.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

I watched an interview with Ayn Rand and Mike Wallace. I would describe her beliefs as selfish and a-religious.

Close Ed. Rand was very clearly an atheist and she was very clearly a rationalist. Your use of the term “scientism” is not as descriptive and commonly understood as the term objectivism.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

No, I didn’t say “disagree”. I said “personal attack.”

I understand what you wrote and I responded to what I intended to respond to.

I’m sure you did. And I responded to what you wrote. In that response, I made it clear that you weren’t responding to what I was talking about (which was ad hominem attacks), but that you were talking about “disagreeing.” Of course there is disagreement. But just because one disagrees doesn’t mean that you have to disrespect them.

Orogeny:

…the problem is if you don’t understand science, you don’t understand science.

Personal attack. It is immaterial to the debate. Either he is wrong, or he is right.

Orogeny:

I’m sorry, but that is silly.

I agree. Ad hominem’s are silly.

Orogeny:

A statement of a fact is not an ad hominem attack.

As I pointed out in my last post, “Evolutionists don’t understand what constitutes an ad hominem attack. When responding in a debate, any personal information of your opponent is not open for discussion. This would include whether your opponent is ugly, has a bald head, is a female, is short, or whether they “know science.””

If your opponent is fat, making mention of it is, as you say “a statement of fact,” but it is also an attack against the person.

 

[Namesake]

Personal attack. It is immaterial to the debate. Either he is wrong, or he is right.

It isn’t even remotely a personal attack. Stating that someone doesn’t understand science is just an observation and in this case it is supported by the evidence.

 

[PEPCIS]

It isn’t even remotely a personal attack. Stating that someone doesn’t understand science is just an observation and in this case it is supported by the evidence.

As I said, it’s a personal attack. What does whether or not he understands science have to do with the debate? Let’s say you are discussing the peppered moths as evidence for evolution, and he gives you his creationist response? Will you spit out that he is just a stupid creationist, and he doesn’t understand science? Or will you give him the scientific evidence to prove that he is wrong?

If you stoop to calling him ignorant, you are merely looking in the mirror.

 

[Namesake]

As I said, it’s a personal attack. What does whether or not he understands science have to do with the debate? Let’s say you are discussing the peppered moths as evidence for evolution, and he gives you his creationist response? Will you spit out that he is just a stupid creationist, and he doesn’t understand science? Or will you give him the scientific evidence to prove that he is wrong?

If you stoop to calling him ignorant, you are merely looking in the mirror.

Not true at all. Calling someone stupid is a personal attack but calling them ignorant is not in any way shape or form a personal attack. Stating that because of the evidence from their comments that they don’t understand science is not a personal attack. It is just an observation.

I guess you just don’t understand the difference.

 

[reggieM]

Scientists have been pompous about their claims and yet shown to be wrong in the past as well. We saw earlier on this thread that the scientific world during the time of Newton assumed that the universe was eternal and infinite. This idea remained the conviction of “the vast majority” of scientists all the way through the 1950s (see D’Souza) and the advocates of this theory believed that the implications were atheistic. Atheists trumpeted their “scientific facts” and had imagined that they had eliminated any grounds for belief in God.
Believers were confused and on the defensive. It seemed that materialism and scientism had triumphed and that atheistic science had proven the nature of the universe.
It wasn’t until the 1960’s when Penzias and Wilson’s findings combined with other research to confirm the Big Bang theory – thus refuting the eternal universe concept.

The same thing will be true about evolution. The “overwhelming consensus” of atheistic-scientists make their claims. The world follows them and is willing to deny the foundations of the Christian faith in order to believe their conjectures. We even have atheistic-materialism receiving applause in the halls of the Vatican, by some of our own corrupted shepherds who want to be pleasing to the world rather than to the Spirit of God.

But eventually, God will reveal another “big bang” that will put evolutionism out of business. For believers, its a matter of waiting in patience, in the face of ridicule and persecution of atheists. It has always been that way. That’s just the way this fallen world works, and will work (with God never allowing His Word to be totally vanquished) until Christ returns in Glory.

Anti-God pride and arrogance cannot succeed in the long term, although the persecutors always have their time to delight themselves.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If you’re willing to reject *de fide *Catholic teaching and assert that either human beings do not have a soul (supernatural component), or else whatever appears spiritual in man is actually the product of natural processes – then there shouldn’t be a problem at all.

If evolution were able to explain everything, then it would explain the origin of the human soul, the spiritual life of man and the miracles of Christ.

I don’t reject the spirituality of the soul. I just do not see how a created cause could affect the Transcendent Cause “behind” all causality; that is a bit as though one were to be afraid of being kidnapped by a character in a short-story one has written: for two different “worlds” are involved, not one. Nor do I believe that there is anything special about lack of an explanation by secondary causes. ISTM that the marvellous & the miraculous are being confused.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I can provide a link to PZ Myers’ interview on youtube, or a link to the Nature article where most leading scientists reject God. Bottom line: Stephen Jay Gould says we’re all animals, as in, no God involved. So does evolution. Scientists deny God and they use the same mountains of evidence to back that up.

Peace,
Ed

STM that Gould wins on points:​

• man is an animal - whereas:
• God is not anthropomorphic
  Science is not atheistic - it avoids the mistake of treating God as a methodically appropriate explanatory device. God-talk has no explanatory value in science: “God created whales” may be sound theology, but as science it is useless, because it is completely about whales. “God did it” is not only worthless for the purposes of science as the sort of study that it is: it is as good as meaningless, because scientists do not have the same ideas about God.

God is irrelevant to science, because He is not restricted to its data: He is too big for it. Only things of the natural order can be completely contained with the natural order; He Who is “beyond” it & “greater” than it, cannot. The antisupernaturalism comesfrom those who want God to be a scientifically significant entity.