EVOLUTION: what about this

[Dchsknight]

No sticking a bunch of organisms in a new environment and have them change to fit is not evolution, that is Adaptation. like sticking a Hairy dog in the desert, generations later they will stopping hairy. that is adapting not evolving, the dog will still be a dog. dogs will always be dogs, Man will always be man. Birds will always be birds. but fish can not change into a lizard. a bug can not change into a Human. BECAUSE if any animal can change into a man then we are not made in the image of God. And God was created too. which goes against the catholic creed. Man was made as we are today, and stayed that way till the present, because if not then sin can not apply to us, because we started out as something else, lets say a fish, and fish can not sin. the point is: if evolution is right then we can not have a god, because we weren’t made in his image. Which is why, all Evolution is Atheistic.

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian -

You’ve written that science is too weak to study the supernatural. Have you been reading the recent posts by hecd2 about what he calls the Adam and Eve myth?

If truth cannot contradict truth, what do you make of his denial of clear Church teaching: that all men are from natural generation from him?

What will you say to most leading scientists who reject God? Truth cannot contradict truth?

And what would these same scientists say to you if you told them, evolution is how God did it? Would you get agreement? Or, at best, maybe? That doesn’t mean anything.

Catholics and the so-called Bible Thumper Christians are smart enough to recognize that a game is being played here. Go ahead, just accept evolution. It’s the way God did it. Oh yeah? Got any science to back that up? But science is silent about God and the Bible. I’ll just refer you back to hecd2 and his Adam and Eve myth statements which he supports with science.

Most Christians in this country know that after evolution, science will just start trampling over other Biblical truths.

Scientism needs to be overcome. But the problem is this: those who live as if this life is all there is, want power over others and fame. They are setting themselves up as the high priests of an atheist-scientific technocracy. And they do use science to “explain” (or so they imagine) God, the supernatural and the Bible.

The threat is clear. I hope all Christians will resist the idolatry of the human mind and the deception of living without the truth of God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[davidv]

If this is so, then what I’d like to know is, what difference does having a soul make? {snip}

All the difference in the world. Without a soul nothing is alive. The soul animates the body, whether plant, animal or human.

 

[Dchsknight]

To The Barbarian -

You’ve written that science is too weak to study the supernatural. Have you been reading the recent posts by hecd2 about what he calls the Adam and Eve myth?

If truth cannot contradict truth, what do you make of his denial of clear Church teaching: that all men are from natural generation from him?

What will you say to most leading scientists who reject God? Truth cannot contradict truth?

And what would these same scientists say to you if you told them, evolution is how God did it? Would you get agreement? Or, at best, maybe? That doesn’t mean anything.

Catholics and the so-called Bible Thumper Christians are smart enough to recognize that a game is being played here. Go ahead, just accept evolution. It’s the way God did it. Oh yeah? Got any science to back that up? But science is silent about God and the Bible. I’ll just refer you back to hecd2 and his Adam and Eve myth statements which he supports with science.

Most Christians in this country know that after evolution, science will just start trampling over other Biblical truths.

Scientism needs to be overcome. But the problem is this: those who live as if this life is all there is, want power over others and fame. They are setting themselves up as the high priests of an atheist-scientific technocracy. And they do use science to “explain” (or so they imagine) God, the supernatural and the Bible.

The threat is clear. I hope all Christians will resist the idolatry of the human mind and the deception of living without the truth of God.

Peace,
Ed

AMEN brother…it is almost like a war, Like when Invaded Poland and said Opps and every one believed him. this is the same with Satan and Evolution.

 

[StAnastasia]

IThis, to me, is the most logical-sounding reconciliation of creation and evolution that I’ve seen so far. It will be interesting to see what the conference in March 2009 brings, and what the Church makes of its findings.–Mike

Mike, there have been a number of interesting proposals along these lines. I suspect this topic will be broached at the Rome conference, in the Fifth and Eighth sessions.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Mike, there have been a number of interesting proposals along these lines. I suspect this topic will be broached at the Rome conference, in the Fifth and Eighth sessions.
StAnastasia

**Pontifical Gregorian University
An International Conference on
“Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories”
A critical appraisal 150 years after “The Origin of Species”

Pontifical Gregorian University
Rome, 3-7 March 2009**

**Tuesday 3 March 2009

First Session: The Facts that we Know**

09:00 a.m. Addresses of the Authorities
10:00 a.m. Simon Conway Morris: Paleontological Evidences
10:45 a.m. Coffee Break
11:15 a.m. Werner Arber: Bio-Molecular Evidences
12:00 a.m. Douglas J. Futuyma: Taxonomic Issues
12:45 p.m. Discussion
01:30 p.m. End of the Session and Lunch
**
Second Session: Evolutionary Mechanisms I**

03:30 p.m. Jean Gayon: History of the Evolution Theories
04:15 p.m. Francisco J. Ayala: The Standard Theory
05:00 p.m. Tea Time
05:30 p.m. Lynn Margulis: Symbiosis
06:15 p.m. Jeffrey L. Feder:The Speciation Problem
07:00 p.m. Discussion
07:30 p.m. End of the Session and Dinner

**Wednesday 4 March

Third Session: Evolutionary Mechanisms II**

09:00 a.m. Scott F. Gilbert: Evo-Devo
09:45 a.m. Stuart Kauffman: Complexity and Evolution
10:30 a.m. Coffee Break
11:00 a.m. Robert Ulanowicz: Evolution and Environment
11:45 a.m. Stuart A. Newman: A “pattern language” for evolution and development of animal form
12:30 p.m. Discussion
01.00 p.m. End of the Session and Lunch
**
Fourth Session: The Origin of Man**

03:00 p.m. Giorgio Manzi: History of the Research
03:45 p.m. Olga Rickards-Gianfranco Biondi: Molecular Approach
04:30 p.m. Tea Time
05:00 p.m. Yves Coppens: Paleontological Approach
05:45 p.m. Fiorenzo Facchini: Paleontological Approach in the Hominization and Possible Philosophical Implications
06:30 p.m. Robin Dunbar: Paleontological Data
07.15 p.m. Discussion
07.30 p.m. End of the Session and Dinner

**Thursday 5 March

Fifth Session: Some Anthropological Questions About Evolution**

09:00 a.m. Anne Dambricourt Malassé: Some Paleontological Attempts at Defining Humanity
09:45 a.m. Colin Renfrew (Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn):The Concept of Evolution as applied to the Development of Human Cultures
10:30 a.m. Coffee Break
11:00 a.m. Ludovico Galleni: Moving Towards Humankind?
11:45 a.m. David S. Wilson: Some Philosophical Considerations on Human Emergence and En-Culturation
12:30 p.m. Discussion
01:30 p.m. End of the Session and Lunch

Sixth Session: Philosophical Aspects of Evolution I

03:00 p.m. Juergen Mittelstrass: Philosophical Introduction
03:45 p.m. Dominique Lambert: Epistemological Problems of Evolution Theories
04:30 p.m. Tea Time
05:00 p.m. Elliott Sober: Philosophy and Biology
05:45 p.m. Vittorio Hösle: Why Do We Not Get Rid of Teleological Principles?
06:30 p.m. Discussion
07.30 p.m. End of the Session and Dinner

**
Friday 6 March

Seventh Session: Philosophical Aspects of Evolution II**

09:00 a.m. Card. Georges Cottier: Metaphysical Sense of Creation and Evolution
09:45 a.m. David J. Depew: Accident, Adaptation and Teleology in Aristotle and Darwin
10:30 a.m. Coffee Break
11:00 a.m. Massimo Stanzione: Philosophical Issues of Evolution Theory
11:45 a.m. Ronald Numbers: Historical Background of “Intelligent Design”
12:30 p.m. Discussion
01:00 p.m. End of the Session and Lunch

Eighth Session: Theological Aspects of Evolution I

03:00 p.m. André Wénin: The Theme of Creation in the Old Testament
03:45 p.m. Jean-Michel Maldamé: Theology and Evolution Theories
04:30 p.m. Tea Time
05:00 p.m. Jacques Arnould: Creationism, “Intelligent Design” and Evolution
05:45 p.m. Georges Chantraine: Theological Vision of Evolution by Teilhard de Chardin
06:30 p.m. Discussion
07:30 p.m. End of the Session and Dinner

**Saturday 7 March

Ninth Session: Theological Aspects of Evolution II**

03:00 p.m. William R. Stoeger: Emergence and Finalism
03:45 p.m. Rafael Martinez: The Reception of Evolutionary Theories in the Catholic Church
04:30 p.m. Tea Time
05:00 p.m. Robert Russell: Theological Debate around Evolution
05:45 p.m. General Conclusions
07:30 p.m. End of the Conference

 

[The_Barbarian]

Then you should challenge his proofs.

No problem. Why does it take less energy to launch a satellite near the Equator, relative to the amount it takes at higher latitudes?

The conventional explanation is that the Earth is rotating, and that velocity (which is faster at the equator) is added to that produced by the engine.

Tell us how it works if the Earth doesn’t rotate.

 

[BRB1]

The Big Bang Theory & Evolution requires a creator.

Atheistic Scientists argued at length for a Steady State Universe, because they desired to ruleout the need for God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You’ve written that science is too weak to study the supernatural.

Yep.

Have you been reading the recent posts by hecd2 about what he calls the Adam and Eve myth?

If truth cannot contradict truth, what do you make of his denial of clear Church teaching: that all men are from natural generation from him?

I believe there were two real people from whom we are all descended. There is nothing in biology or evolutionary theory to rule that out.

What will you say to most leading scientists who reject God? Truth cannot contradict truth?

Guys like Stephen Gould? Yes. BTW, he was an agnostic, and even speculated that we are here because Someone wanted to share it all.

I know few true atheists in science; most are agnostics. And none that I know about claim science rejects God.

And what would these same scientists say to you if you told them, evolution is how God did it?

They have been generally supportive. Most are pleased to know that Christianity is compatible with the truth.

Would you get agreement? Or, at best, maybe? That doesn’t mean anything.

Seems like one every couple of years or so is sufficiently interested to come and take a look for himself. One last year became a Christian, although not a Catholic yet. edit: And last year, a fallen-away Catholic told me that my discussion of “Communion and Stewardship” convinced him he had to come back and see what else he had wrong about the Church. Do him a favor and pray for him in that investigation.

Catholics and the so-called Bible Thumper Christians are smart enough to recognize that a game is being played here.

Most Catholics I know are more open to the truth than the guys sometimes called Bible-thumpers.

Go ahead, just accept evolution. It’s the way God did it. Oh yeah? Got any science to back that up?

Most scientists know that science is not for ruling God in or out. They know it’s about faith.

But science is silent about God and the Bible.

See above. It’s supposed to be. If the Church won’t do it for you, there isn’t much hope.

I’ll just refer you back to hecd2 and his Adam and Eve myth statements which he supports with science.

Tell me about the science. While a single pair often can’t start a new population, because there isn’t enough variation to keep it going, it does happen. Supposedly all the hamsters in the US are from a single pair. And of course, if God could miraculously give those two people immortal souls, He could also make sure they were one of the lucky pairs.

Most Christians in this country know that after evolution, science will just start trampling over other Biblical truths.

Needless paranoia, ed. After all, evolutionary theory is no threat to Christian belief. Why should some other branch of science be so?

Scientism needs to be overcome. But the problem is this: those who live as if this life is all there is, want power over others and fame.

If you think that such motives are found only in atheists, you are hopelessly naive, ed.

They are setting themselves up as the high priests of an atheist-scientific technocracy.

Nope. As you learned earlier, none of them claim that science rules out God.

And they do use science to “explain” (or so they imagine) God, the supernatural and the Bible.

Sounds interesting. Show us the papers in the literature where they did this.

The threat is clear. I hope all Christians will resist the idolatry of the human mind and the deception of living without the truth of God.

Creationism is a form of self-idolatry, wherein people decide they know better than God how creation should be.

 

[Dchsknight]

Barbarian,

Charles Dawkins says Science rules out God. Creationism does not say that Man knows better, Creationism says this God created the world in 7 days, that is what the bible says not man, Man says Men evolved from monkeys and goop over millions and millions of years. Science tries ot be bigger then God, BIG example, Abortion, Eugenics, Contraception, And Cloning.

 

[StAnastasia]

Charles Dawkins says Science rules out God.

Can you give us the citation for this?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Pontifical Gregorian University
An International Conference on
“Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories”
A critical appraisal 150 years after "The Origin of Species

Wow. Ayala, Numbers, Morris, Futuyma, Margulis, et al. A distinguished group, indeed. I wish I could be there. Will they publish the proceedings? That would be worth reading.

 

[StAnastasia]

Wow. Ayala, Numbers, Morris, Futuyma, Margulis, et al. A distinguished group, indeed. I wish I could be there. Will they publish the proceedings? That would be worth reading.

I imagine they will publish it, perhaps with critical additions. It’s the rubbing shoulders for a week that should be exciting. (I was offered lodging in a seminary not far from the Vatican.) There is often an interdisciplinary synergy developed at these gatherings.

StAnastasia

 

[MindOverMatter]

Doesn’t it make more sense – isn’t it more consistent – to think of the soul as a sort of spiritual receptivity that all living things possess to some degree, and that in humans this receptivity is much, much more developed and capable than it is in any other living creature? From there, we could easily say that at some time in the past, human spiritual receptivity (i.e., “the human soul”) had developed to the point that God could invite humanity to share in the divine life via communion with His Spirit…only humanity rejected this invitation and thereby condemned itself to continue in the world of death and dying and futility from whence it originated. And this explains the need for the Son of God to come down and save humanity – because humanity would not, could not save itself via its own power.

This, to me, is the most logical-sounding reconciliation of creation and evolution that I’ve seen so far. It will be interesting to see what the conference in March 2009 brings, and what the Church makes of its findings.

–Mike

A person is a soul and body, not a soul in a body. I think the biological organism that we call human, has reached a specific level of being that allows it to recieve a soul. However it is possible that God created the universe with somekind of developmental “world soul” that becomes selfaware when individual organisms fullfill the genetic model that is “Person.” Aslong as a person is both Soul and Body, then pehaps this could be a possible route.

But the Pope said that God creates each individual soul immmediatly; if im not mistaken. Then again, time for God is different to us.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Charles Dawkins says Science rules out God.

Who is “Charles Dawkins?” Richard Dawkins’ simple-minded brother, perhaps?

Dawkins admits that science can’t rule out God. In fact, he has recently admitted that nothing can rule out God.

**“There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
**
Ad purchased by Richard Dawkins, placed on London buses.

Creationism does not say that Man knows better, Creationism says this God created the world in 7 days, that is what the bible says not man,

Even early Christians like St. Augustine knew that these weren’t literal days. Creationists take the literal meaning and twist it into something it was never meant by God to be.

Man says Men evolved from monkeys and goop over millions and millions of years.

Evolutionary theory doesn’t. You’d probably be more effective in fighting science, if you knew what it is.

Science tries ot be bigger then God, BIG example, Abortion, Eugenics, Contraception, And Cloning.

You probably should know that Darwinians like Morgan and Punnett demonstrated that eugenics could not work. And Darwin himself said that even allowing the weak to die of was an overwhelming evil.

You’ve grafted your political and emotional fears onto science. It’s not the way you imagine it to be.

 

[Dchsknight]

Can you give us the citation for this?

Maybe you should watch Expelled…

 

[StAnastasia]

Maybe you should watch Expelled…

I’ve seen it and published a review of it. Can you tell me where Darwin says science rules out God?

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’ve seen it and published a review of it. Can you tell me where Darwin says science rules out God?

I think the idea that evolution makes God improbable, is a very powerful and negative image.

Do you have your review of expelled on the net somewhere?

 

[The_Barbarian]

See below. I think Dawkins is a better authority on what he thinks than Stein, particularly after Stein so dishonestly misrepresented so many people in his film.

Stein banned anyone who understands that evolution and God are compatible from his film, but prominent scientists like Ayala, Dobzhansky, and Miller give lie to the argument that the two are incompatible.

 

[MindOverMatter]

See below. I think Dawkins is a better authority on what he thinks than Stein, particularly after Stein so dishonestly misrepresented so many people in his film.

Stein banned anyone who understands that evolution and God are compatible from his film, but prominent scientists like Ayala, Dobzhansky, and Miller give lie to the argument that the two are incompatible.

Why does Dawkins think that Evolution makes God improbable, and atheism an intelectually fullfilled position.?.