N
Namesake
Guest
It has had it’s day and it’s over.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
We will just wait and see.
R
rossum
Guest
Dissent supported by evidence wins Nobel Prizes. Einstein dissented from Newton, with supporting evidence. Dissent without evidence is opinion and not science. In science the evidence wins.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Conflicts are resolved by evidence drawn from reality. Some of those journals are publishing evidence to illuminate areas where there is not currently enough evidence to resolve a conflict.
Other journals are simply gathering evidence - at the moment a lot of work is going into sequencing genomes just to see what emerges. There are still many unanswered questions that can be worked on.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
M
Mersenne
Guest
So you are claiming aids is not caused by the virus HIV?
yeah, you know, I guess the “dissent” about leprechauns existing isn’t tollerated either. Unsupported nonsense isn’t tollerated in science.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Too late. A lot of people, myself included, were initially attracted to it. But when it was clear that it was just creationism with a shave and clean clothes, interest dropped.
It’s primarily supported by creationist organizations now. As head IDer Phillip Johnson admitted, it’s been a “train wreck” for ID lately.
The Dover Decision did for ID what Edwards vs. Aguillar did for “balanced presentation.” Set a precedent.
R
reggieM
Guest
Nah - that’s just the way science works.
Yes, contradictions, reversals, dismissals, “rethinking” … that does not imply that there is any error or conflict at all. It’s just an “alternative manner of expressing the absolute certainty” that is evolution.
R
reggieM
Guest
Yes, certainly. But of course, evolutionary theory recognizes no conflicts whatsoever. It conforms perfectly and completly with reality. (As you stated previously).
R
reggieM
Guest
Nah - that’s just the way science works.
Yes, true! We can see evolutionists here on CAF contradicting each other and we can see the theory itself refuted in many ways … but this means nothing. “Evolutionary theory” is still 100% certain. Why? Well, if you deny that “then you really don’t know anything about science”.
E
edwest2
Guest
On another forum where I am a moderator, I see the same words and the same points about Evolution and ID. That forum is filled with atheists, humanists, leftists and a few agnostics.
The only science that matters is evolution. The comments about the ‘lack of a quality science education in this country,’ clearly translates as: ‘not enough people believe evolution is true. We must change this by repeating it over and over and over again. Evolution is a fact (sometimes with, ‘get over it’ tacked on).’ And why is this so important? I get no hint that it is about “educating” anyone. I only see the need to get universal acceptance, apparently by repeating the same thing over and over.
And Intelligent Design? I see anger and frustration and Dover. As if no actual thought need be put into considering actual design in nature as written about by Cardinal Schoenborn. If you believe in ID, they point to Dover. They point to an organization that has zero to do with Christian principles. In fact, it could legitimately be called a conspiracy by these so-called Institutes to “sneak” God into public science classes. (Jesus Christ didn’t sneak into anywhere, He taught openly.) Which would be a fate worse than… the vague awful things they say would occur if “science” were ever compromised. Science of course, meaning evolution.
So, my brothers and sisters in Christ. Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary, the devil, goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour.
Nope. This discussion is not about science. It’s about converting everyone to a scientific atheism as voiced by PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and others.
Peace,
Ed
The only science that matters is evolution. The comments about the ‘lack of a quality science education in this country,’ clearly translates as: ‘not enough people believe evolution is true. We must change this by repeating it over and over and over again. Evolution is a fact (sometimes with, ‘get over it’ tacked on).’ And why is this so important? I get no hint that it is about “educating” anyone. I only see the need to get universal acceptance, apparently by repeating the same thing over and over.
And Intelligent Design? I see anger and frustration and Dover. As if no actual thought need be put into considering actual design in nature as written about by Cardinal Schoenborn. If you believe in ID, they point to Dover. They point to an organization that has zero to do with Christian principles. In fact, it could legitimately be called a conspiracy by these so-called Institutes to “sneak” God into public science classes. (Jesus Christ didn’t sneak into anywhere, He taught openly.) Which would be a fate worse than… the vague awful things they say would occur if “science” were ever compromised. Science of course, meaning evolution.
So, my brothers and sisters in Christ. Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary, the devil, goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour.
Nope. This discussion is not about science. It’s about converting everyone to a scientific atheism as voiced by PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and others.
Peace,
Ed
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Why does Evolution equal Atheism?
Your living in the stone age man. Evolution is the future. Those 6 day Creationists and Atheists really got to your brain with a vengence. Can’t you see that its all a ploy thats been developed in order to make it seem as if Evolution is undermining the Catholic Faith? ID is doing more damage to the faith then atheism ever could! There making us sound like ducks.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Where is this other forum?
R
reggieM
Guest
That is very good. Thanks for some great insights on what this question is really about.
I have discussed these matters with atheists on other forums also, and the result is the same. Evolution is a cherished belief – it provides security and certainty for a person who is distant from God.
Science is exaulted as the most pure and perfect method of thought that humans can possess. All sorts of emotional and personal convictions are invested in science … and those who question the propaganda that comes from the science culture are attacked and ridiculed.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
What your talking about is not Science; its “Scientism”
R
reggieM
Guest
Evolution does indeed undermine the Catholic Faith.
All Catholics must believe that there is an Intelligent Designer.
So, no – I don’t accept that you know what you’re talking about.
R
reggieM
Guest
Evolution is a 19th century theory.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
ID is doing more damage to the faith then atheism ever could! There making us sound like ducks.
All Catholics must believe that there is an Intelligent Designer.
No, we must believe that there is a Creator.
An intelligent “designer” is the official doctrine of the Rev. Myung Son Moon’s Unification Church.
All Catholics must believe that there is an Intelligent Designer.
No, we must believe that there is a Creator.
An intelligent “designer” is the official doctrine of the Rev. Myung Son Moon’s Unification Church.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
\
No, evolution is a natural phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is a 20th century scientific theory, which incorporates elements of Darwin’s theory, Genetics, and molecular biology.
J
Joseph_L_Varga
Guest
The rude and uncharitable tone of several posters on this thread makes me reluctant to enter the discussion, but I will do it nevertheless.
I just want to go on record, I’m a scientist with a PhD in chemistry, I have been fascinated with genetics, the theory of evolution, and the chemistry of living matter since 1982, and with chemistry in general since 1978, currently I earn a living as a scientific researcher - AND I AM UNCONVINCED ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Before anyone here jumps to label me as a stone age man, unscientific, uneducated, religious fanatic, etc - please spare the efforts. I could go on further about my scientific qualifications, GRE scores in chemistry, my publication record and how many times I have been cited in the scientific literature. I also see edwest2 was labeled in rather rough terms here - do you really know him? And if you don’t know him, why are you jumping to conclusions and label him the way you do? Is it necessary to personally attack anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution?
From a religious and theological standpoint, I couldn’t care less if God created the biosphere through the mechanism of evolution, random events and selection, or on the contrary, he created all species all at once and in a final form. So please don’t label me a religious fanatic either, I don’t have a religious or theological agenda to push here.
Being a practical man looking to understand chemical recognition processes (receptor-ligand interactions) which can be used to design artificial ligands for pharmaceutical purposes, I would use for that purpose whatever insights the theory of evolution would provide, but I haven’t found any useful insights. Chemical recognition processes can be explained just as well based on an ID hypothesis.
Moreover it wouldn’t shake my world, my philosophical and religious outlook, and my ego, if the theory of evolution could be proven after all. I would simply use any insights gained from it in my day-to-day job as a scientist. It wouldn’t alter my religious practice either, not even a iotta. God who is above and outside of the material world, created this world, and the exact mechanism by which He created it will not influence my understanding of His moral laws and commandments that govern my daily life.
I simply want to assert my right, as a scientist, to disagree and question scientific theories that are not sufficiently detailed and well proven for me to accept them as a fact. Will you evolutionists please allow me to do that without labeling me with all sorts of insulting epithets?
I just want to go on record, I’m a scientist with a PhD in chemistry, I have been fascinated with genetics, the theory of evolution, and the chemistry of living matter since 1982, and with chemistry in general since 1978, currently I earn a living as a scientific researcher - AND I AM UNCONVINCED ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Before anyone here jumps to label me as a stone age man, unscientific, uneducated, religious fanatic, etc - please spare the efforts. I could go on further about my scientific qualifications, GRE scores in chemistry, my publication record and how many times I have been cited in the scientific literature. I also see edwest2 was labeled in rather rough terms here - do you really know him? And if you don’t know him, why are you jumping to conclusions and label him the way you do? Is it necessary to personally attack anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution?
From a religious and theological standpoint, I couldn’t care less if God created the biosphere through the mechanism of evolution, random events and selection, or on the contrary, he created all species all at once and in a final form. So please don’t label me a religious fanatic either, I don’t have a religious or theological agenda to push here.
Being a practical man looking to understand chemical recognition processes (receptor-ligand interactions) which can be used to design artificial ligands for pharmaceutical purposes, I would use for that purpose whatever insights the theory of evolution would provide, but I haven’t found any useful insights. Chemical recognition processes can be explained just as well based on an ID hypothesis.
Moreover it wouldn’t shake my world, my philosophical and religious outlook, and my ego, if the theory of evolution could be proven after all. I would simply use any insights gained from it in my day-to-day job as a scientist. It wouldn’t alter my religious practice either, not even a iotta. God who is above and outside of the material world, created this world, and the exact mechanism by which He created it will not influence my understanding of His moral laws and commandments that govern my daily life.
I simply want to assert my right, as a scientist, to disagree and question scientific theories that are not sufficiently detailed and well proven for me to accept them as a fact. Will you evolutionists please allow me to do that without labeling me with all sorts of insulting epithets?
- Status