EVOLUTION: what about this

[edwest2]

I don’t know of a “party line” It certainly doesn’t play a significant role among my colleageus, but admittedly I teach in a Catholic university. I wonder if the strident atheism of Dawkins et al. stands out in sharper relief because we hear it against the equally shrill anti-science rhetoric of IDers and YECs.

StAnastasia

“rhetoric” is meaningless. There is Church teaching and there is a requirement to be in obedience to Church teaching and not some anonymous anti-Church posters on the internet.

“anti-science”? That is wrong word usage and a promotion of a generalization. Do we have Church documents condemning electricity or the automobile? When people use the word science like this, incorrectly, it tells people there are those who reject all of the sciences. Get it right, please.

I was always interested in science, but now that the majority of leading scientists have aligned themselves with atheism, I think that should be pointed out clearly to all people. If we live only for this life then we seek only gain in this life. And what a seemingly (to some) wonderful gain it would be to create a (false) atheist-scientific utopia. Science needs to be kept in its own self-imposed confines where it was once respected and highly regarded by myself and others. Now, it has lent its talents to spreading an ideology. It has stepped out of its own bounds and perhaps a few of these scientists think they are doing some good by denying that which is good and true, but the contradiction is obvious. Scientism, the belief that our senses and instruments are the only way to perceive reality, must be overcome.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

I think we’d still need universities to tell us what “edentulate montagnards” are.

–Mike

I believe West Virginia has the highest rate of “edentulism” – having no natural teeth left, at 42.8%. Connecticut is lowest. Edentulism varies in direct proportion with the number of institutions in higher learning in a state. The more highly educated a state’s population is, the less edentulism it suffers.

The big question is, is the correlation between total tooth loss and the denial of evolution merely stochastic? or directly causal? or some combination of factors?

 

[reggieM]

I wonder if the strident atheism of Dawkins et al. stands out in sharper relief because we hear it against the equally shrill anti-science rhetoric of IDers and YECs.

Creationists have equal clout, influence, popularity, support from the scientific-community and book sales as Richard Dawkins does?

Dawkins’ atheism does not stand in sharp relief since it is the consensus, mainstream view among the scientific community.

Yes, the fact that you work in a Catholic school is an important filter on your worldview and in your assessment of the scientific community.

PZ Myers, Dawkins, Dennett, Lewontin, Provine … all hard-core atheists, they’re all part of the evolutionary mainstream.

 

[reggieM]

The big question is, is the correlation between total tooth loss and the denial of evolution merely stochastic? or directly causal? or some combination of factors?

Nice bit of stereotyping from a liberal-Catholic theologian here. Appparently, you judge people by the quality of their teeth. How about by the quality of their skin color?

 

[StAnastasia]

What an imagination. If they are harmless just let them be and live their own worldview.

Thank you! Yes, “if” they are harmless. But look what happened to Servetus, Bruno, Galileo! I wouldn’t feel safe arguing against geocentrism if I were alone around Cassini and he had a box of matches… If a geocentrist is content to life his own worldview that’s fine. I have relatives who swear by astrology and crystal healing, and who see ghosts and follow ley lines.

 

[StAnastasia]

Nice bit of stereotyping from a liberal-Catholic theologian here. Appparently, you judge people by the quality of their teeth. How about by the quality of their skin color?

No, it’s true – look it up. West Virginia has a high edentulism rate and a relatively low university graduation rate. If you read my previous post carefully, I am not asserting causation here – merely expressing interest in the correlation.

 

[Dchsknight]

Dchsknight, I have read some of your posts and I like them. To be honest I find evolutionism so absurd I believe we insult our God given intellect even debating the subject with evolutionists, and we insult the Catholic faith associating it with evolutionism as in theistic evolutionism, the double devilry.
But back to my question for you personally. Given all you say, do you believe the Church when it defined and declared the Bible reveals a geocentric world. Having started my rescue from the devil’s ignorance (I once believed in evolution) I extrapolated backwards and found evolutionism is but a ‘natural’ development (evolution if you like) of heliocentricism. The grerat apostasy that resulted from scientism was predicted by Pope Urban VIII in his defence of the simple, literal interpretation of the Church for sixteen hundred years,

I cannot understand how creationists, blessed with a greater faith in tradition than the evolutionists, can deny their own belief system - the literal interpretation of the Scriptures - and deny geocentricism, the only defined and declared such interpretation of Scripture.

When answering please ignore the intellectual bigots prowling every thread on faith and science ready to insult any who do align themselves with the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church and reject the theories and consensus shared even by agnostics and atheists.

To be quite honest. I am a normal man, I am a cook at a camp applying to be a teacher at a school. I am not some big theologian or some big intellectual. I am just an ordinary man. I went to college for an art degree, and a BA in Animation. I was raised Baptist and by the grace and love of God and by him answering my prayers to show me the truth, I get to join the Catholic Church at easter vigil. MY Knowledge of the bible goes this far: I have read it, i believe every word of it and that it does not contradict it self and Science and History don’t contradict it either. I can not confidently say that the bible says the universe is Geocentric, because i don’t and have not studied and scrutinized the bible and history that much. I have to say i dont see where in the bible that it says it is Geocentric, If you can show me where it says or even implies it…

On the Church teaching part…

As far as my understanding and what the church says, i don’t always agree with, do i think that some parts of the Church were and are corrupt? Hell yes, what church isn’t. Do i believe that God is working through the men and women who have power in the catholic church and even protestant, to bring us back under one church and one authority, Yes, Do i think it will ever happen in our day and age, No, It dont think it will happen until Christ comes back. Do i think that the Church is 100% infallible…no… because only one man was ever 100% infaliable and that is Jesus. Does the Pope speak infallibly, yes, only on faith and morals. is this a Faith and Morals subject yes and No, yes on the fact that Evolution is a mockery of God and Believing in it insults our god,father,creator and mediator, no, in the matter that, believing in evolution is not what God is gonna ask us when we get to heaven.

So what do i say to the Church saying that the bible teaches Geocentricism: I think that is a stretch and i would have to be shown where and how those church fathers and people in power came up with that. Do i trust in God to correct me? Yes, i know he will because he brought Jesus in the Eucharist and i can not wait to take my first Communion.

Lastly i would like to say, I will not and will not ever back down from this Subject, Evolution is evil and denial of God’s word and **** science. Because people are unwilling to accept what God says on the matter. Because then would have to stop little babies in their mothers womb. They would have to stop themselves with harmful things. They would have to kneel before the alter and say Jesus you win. And people are not willing to submit. By the very word submit means that they would have to say they don’t know best and humble themselves and put themselves under Christ. I will forever battle and fight for God’s word and that Science does not know Jack compared to God. I am unafraid of the ridicule and the mockery. I am afraid of what people will say on this thread. I know whom i belong to that is Christ Jesus my God,savior, king, Mediator, Best Friend, Brother and Creator. His Opinion of me matters most and i will not remain silent.

Now to answer another volley that will be certain to come my way. I think Science is beautiful and wonderful. I love the things that have been made because of science. Computers are crazy! i play in the Xbox 360 all the time and marvel at the science behind it. I work in 3D on maya, Photoshop, Illustrator and all that jazz and marvel at the tools that have been made to allow me to do my art work. I will not however stand for any science that Deny’s God, Jesus Christ, or the work of his Holy Church. Which Evolution does. Evolution Denies God and his Holy power, saying that God did not create the world and that by some and slow process we showed up on this PERFECTLY made life giving planet. That is just stupidity, it is absurd and i am gonna get yelled at for saying those things but that is ok, Because i am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is his holy book and church. And i will forever stand on the bible over science any day, because his bible just makes sense.

 

[StAnastasia]

“anti-science”? That is wrong word usage and a promotion of a generalization. Do we have Church documents condemning electricity or the automobile? When people use the word science like this, incorrectly, it tells people there are those who reject all of the sciences. Get it right, please.

Ed, automobiles are artifacts of technology, not of any new science. Rejecting an overwhelmingly accepted and applied explanatory scientific framework is indeed anti-scientific, unless you can show some good reason to reject it in favor of a new “paradigm.” To date, the world still awaits one single discovery by the ICR, CRI, AiG, or Discovery Institute that would validate by one iota their alternative visions of how the world works.

 

[reggieM]

I was raised Baptist and by the grace and love of God and by him answering my prayers to show me the truth, I get to join the Catholic Church at easter vigil.

That is great news. I enjoyed this post also – excellent.

I love the things that have been made because of science … I will not however stand for any science that Deny’s God, Jesus Christ, or the work of his Holy Church. Which Evolution does.

Exactly. Science is a tremendous gift but it has been abused by evolutionary nonsense and atheistic fairy-tales of monkeys turning into human beings.

Evolution Denies God and his Holy power, saying that God did not create the world and that by some and slow process we showed up on this PERFECTLY made life giving planet. That is just stupidity, it is absurd…

It is indeed.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Well, that’s what you’re trying to prove, now isn’t it?

Nope. I’m not trying to prove anything, but rather I am showing the logical consequences of permitting micro evolution.

No, that is NOT evident at all. What is evident is that you are extrapolating where you shouldn’t be. Is mutation a direct cause of speciation? In controlled environments, yes, but not in nature.

According to the principle of micro evolution (which you admit as being empirically evident), small changes in the genetic code can be passed onto a genetic descendent, so on and so forth; hence we have a mechanism that supports the inevitability of macro-evolution given time, environment and natural selection.

For example, mutations recorded in fruit fly, bot fly, etc, are done in controlled environments. It has been repeatedly noted that if you remove the controls that the “mutations” revert back. For example, one mutation which caused blindness in the fruit fly reverted back to sightedness when the controls were removed.

In other words; various kinds of mutations and qualities are encouraged in respect of, and is dependent upon, the kinds of enviroments in which they find themselves.

Well…you have already accepted micro-evolution which means that change can ocurr outside of the laboratory .

It follows from the mind of an evolutionist, but not in the real world.

Personally I think it follows from the evidence. The question is; why would God make it look as if evolution were true if it is not?

Evolutionists BELIEVE that this is how Macro-evolution occurs.

No. They follow the evidence without consideration to any belief. Like Christians, they accept that there is such a thing as a natural order made up of secondary causes (unlike the pagans who believed that the Gods were causing all events). They practice “methodological naturalism” as a principle in so far as they never pre-suppose direct design when studying nature. They do not assume that God is a direct causal factor in so far as they accept a natural order of events in space. Their study of the natural world is purely Objective. That’s not to say that one must not believe in God; it just means that Science is not the study of God and nature, but is instead just the study of nature, and that is all. Metaphysics does the rest.

The point I’m trying to make is, there is nothing in the evolutionary theory that is intrinsically contradictory or irreconcilable to Christian theology (Certainly not Catholic theology, as they tend to be more in touch with the sciences).
If Christianity is true, then in principle, there is nothing that science can find emprically that can disprove Christianity. It is simple impossible. It is true that some atheists twist the theory to make it look as if it opposes belief in God, while the protest of Yecs only serves to promote the fallacy that Christianity is blind superstition.
How embarrasing.

That’s because evolution is opposed to Christianity. It’s not hard to establish that, either.

Then establish it. The last I heard it was only Atheists and Atomists that were opposed to Christianity

For example, those who believe in evolution are primarily made up from the following:

• pro-abortionists
• pro-gay advocates
• rejection of God’s moral law (relativistic)
• atheistic
• Humanistic
• pro-green
• anti-war
• anti-death penalty

Sad, but true.

It is sad, and it is absolute nonsense to stuff everybody into those categories just because you want to promote your world view.
It is true that a positive and effective science ought to be grounded in a belief in God as a fundamental foundation. But evolution cannot be thought to be immoral or in error just because a large number people who advocate science allegedly have some kind of belief that contradicts Christian ethics. If 90 percent of Christians supported mass genocide tomorrow just because they believed that the production of oil and the acquisition of land was more important then loving thy neighbor, would that mean that Christianity is a false/bad religion? No. It would merely mean that those 90 percent of Christians are mistaken. They are misinterpreting 2000 years of good Christian theology; or rather, the only theology they are interested in, is there own.

 

[reggieM]

… I am not asserting causation here – merely expressing interest in the correlation.

Yes, as I said – judging people by their physical qualities (or ridiculing the poor because they’re not university educated). It’s pretty standard liberal elitism. I’ve seen it for a long time.

 

[Dchsknight]

You need to go back and look again. There is no Mark 16:33. In Mark 15, on the other hand, we have:

Mark 15:26,33 – And it was the third hour, and they crucified him…And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Thanks to Buffalo for the reference from St. Augustine:

–Mike

OK i did miss read my numbers, It is Mark 15:33, But still Mark and Matthew don’t contradict. Even in the New Jerusalem bible they don’t contradict. here is the problem, the fudging happens because mark was an Accountant, Matthew was a Tax collector(Not a very Accurate person) Mark was a very P’s and Q’s guy Matthew was not. You can not take the gospels and expect them to be exact with each other. Matthew simply does not state when the time was he was crucified. Matthew states the jews crucified him and then at the 6th hour the darkness happened so by reading that and understanding Jesus was already on the Cross at the 6th hour in Matthew, in mark he was on the cross at the 6th hour. Matthew simply just did not say when it happened. Most likely because he did not care, Matthew is very Teaching book, Mark is very precise, that is because that is how those men were. Luke is very wordy, He wrote down almost every thing he said and John very preachy, because that is who john was. He was not called a Son of Thunder for no reason, So you have a very teachy gospel, a very Precise gospel, a gospel for if you want to know what was said and one for if you want to preach from. You can not expect Four guys who came from four different backgrounds, who did four different things for a living, to say the EXACT same thing, do they contradict…no, are they different…yes, but do they contradict each other… no never, because the bible NEVER ever contradicts itself, because if it did, then pope is not really in power we should never ever listen to the Catholic church because it reallies on a contradicting document.

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes, as I said – judging people by their physical qualities (or ridiculing the poor because they’re not university educated). It’s pretty standard liberal elitism. I’ve seen it for a long time.

I don’t believe I said anything about the poor. I just noted an undeniable correlation. If noticing correlations is elitist, I stand convicted of education.

 

[ricmat]

Bye bye antibiotics. Hello multi-drug resistance with a vengeance. Bye bye universities. Hello straw-chewing, edentulate montagnards.

My wife is Vietnamese, and she protests your characterizations of Montagnards. Watch your language, please.

And you say bye bye universities because of a rejection of Evolution (only). Not science in general. They are not identical.

Well, at least the witch-burnings would return, and perhaps the Spanish Inquisition and other Catholic forms of public entertainment. Throwing books onto the bonfires flaming around scientists, theologians, and other heretics at the stake might wean our overweight kids off MTV, IPODs, Facebook, and other passive and isolating forms of entertainment. It would afford opportunities for social networking, and would help fight the ballooning obesity epidemic.

StAnastasia

Please let us know at which Catholic university you teach, so that we don’t accidentally recommend it to anyone.

I believe West Virginia has the highest rate of “edentulism” – having no natural teeth left, at 42.8%. Connecticut is lowest. Edentulism varies in direct proportion with the number of institutions in higher learning in a state. The more highly educated a state’s population is, the less edentulism it suffers.

Here’s one you can look up. Loss of natural teeth is related to age. I’ll bet that West Virginia has a higher percentage of old folks than Connecticut does. After you look it up, tell me if I’m wrong.

No, it’s true – look it up. West Virginia has a high edentulism rate and a relatively low university graduation rate. If you read my previous post carefully, I am not asserting causation here – merely expressing interest in the correlation.

It sure looks like you are asserting causation.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, automobiles are artifacts of technology, not of any new science. Rejecting an overwhelmingly accepted and applied explanatory scientific framework is indeed anti-scientific, unless you can show some good reason to reject it in favor of a new “paradigm.” To date, the world still awaits one single discovery by the ICR, CRI, AiG, or Discovery Institute that would validate by one iota their alternative visions of how the world works.

Automobiles are what? They are not artifacts any more than the pyramids are artifacts. I don’t think I have to point out the knowledge needed to put a car together. Even if I got a roomful of highly educated people in a room and told them to build a car, I doubt they could do it

“Rejecting an overwhelmingly accepted…”? Accepted by who? I think you are ignoring the current mainstream noise being generated by the secular media. For those who love only this life, they want gain, and power over others, if they are in a position to do so. This isn’t just about science but how people view themselves and others, which affects entire societies.

And why are you concerned about Institutes? Is it only about their perceived influence? They are anti-Christian because the ends do not justify the means. In my view, one is entirely political and it would not surprise me that it exists only to stir the political pot.

“explanatory scientific framework…”? At least one scientist has posted here about this. Evolution doesn’t reach conclusions that are compatible with the deposit of faith. Scientists, by overstepping their bounds, can interpret evidence to conform to their own ideology. The majority of life forms biology studies are still alive today: viruses, bacteria, single celled organisms to man. We still have apes. Any similarities can be attributed to our oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere, radiation from our sun, one earth gravity, and a few other factors.

Evolution should be replaced by comparative biology, because that’s all it is. Any linkage to past living things is highly speculative and imaginative. Bacteria have the built-in ability to exchange genetic material with other bacteria species. Viruses have the built-in ability to modify themselves. But viruses and bacteria always remain viruses and bacteria.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

You need to go back and look again. There is no Mark 16:33. In Mark 15, on the other hand, we have:

Mark 15:26,33 – And it was the third hour, and they crucified him…And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Thanks to Buffalo for the reference from St. Augustine:

–Mike

Jewish Calendar

 

[StAnastasia]

Loss of natural teeth is related to age. I’ll bet that West Virginia has a higher percentage of old folks than Connecticut does.

Edentulism is a function of age, diet, education and access to dental care.

 

[StAnastasia]

Automobiles are what? They are not artifacts any more than the pyramids are artifacts. I don’t think I have to point out the knowledge needed to put a car together. Even if I got a roomful of highly educated people in a room and told them to build a car, I doubt they could do it.

Both automobiles and pyramids are technological artifacts. They are the result of skilled manufacture.

 

[cassini]

. I have to say i dont see where in the bible that it says it is Geocentric, If you can show me where it says or even implies it…

.

“And Ezachias had said to Isaias: What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me and that I shall go up to the temple of the Lord the third day? And Isais said to him…Wilt thou that the shadow go forward ten lines or that it go back so many degrees? And Ezechias said: It is an easy matter for the shadow to go forward ten lines, and I do not desire that this be done, but let it return back ten degrees. And Isaias the prophet called upon the Lord, and he brought the shadow ten degrees backwards by the lines, by which it had already gone down in the dial of Achaz”. — (IV Kings 20:8-11).

“Behold I will bring again the shadow of the lines, by which it is now gone down in the sun dial of Achaz with the sun, ten lines backwards. And the sun returned ten lines by the degrees by which it was gone down”. — (Isaias 38:8)

“Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still… Is it not written in the book of the just [now lost]? So the sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day. There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel.” — (Josue 10:12-13).

“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run unto the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow; unto the place from whence the rivers come they return, to flow again…Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say; behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.” — (Ecclesiastes 1:4-7, 10).

“The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands….
He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way. His going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide himself from his heat.” —(Ps. 18:1, 6-7).

 

[edwest2]

To StAnastasia,

After hearing reports that the Wright Brothers had built a flying machine, Scientific American accussed them of lying. There is also the scientist who declared that heavier than air flight by some type of flying machine was impossible (hot air balloons not being part of his example).

Peace,
Ed