EVOLUTION: what about this

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joseph_L_Varga said:
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?
Click to expand...
I have a question for you Doctor.

Without the theory of evolution, in your studies, would we have discovered the medicinal values of what is around us to the degree of being able to project ahead and formulate / conjour medicines to CIRCUMVENT any, one, known desease?

…and WELCOME TO THE “FUNNIES” by the way.

:cool:
 
edwest2 said:
The only science that matters is evolution.
Click to expand...
Well, you are entitled to your incorrect opionion. I care much more about geology than I do evolution, but geology isn’t challenged as much as evolution is by fundamentalists. Yes, there are the occasional ridiculous claims that Berthault has undercut the basis of geology (tell that to an igneous petrologist) or that the dating methods used in geology are wrong, but I don’t normally see much other discussion about geology here.
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.
Click to expand...
Evolution is a fact. Get over it.
And Intelligent Design? I see anger and frustration and Dover.
Click to expand...
Good, let’s discuss this. How about we teach paganism in our catechism classes. I’m sure you would support that, right Ed? Same thing as insisting that ID be taught in science class. As you have demonstrated, our science education in this country is not good to begin with. If we throw in a non-science like ID, we have even less time to actually teach science.
As if no actual thought need be put into considering actual design in nature as written about by Cardinal Schoenborn.
Click to expand...
I don’t need to think about the Cardinal’s writing when I am doing science because it clearly isn’t science.
If you believe in ID, they point to Dover.
Click to expand...
I wonder why?
They point to an organization that has zero to do with Christian principles.
Click to expand...
Science is open to all faiths and those who have no faith. The fact that I am a Catholic doesn’t make me any more qualified to do science than the fact that I love the Houston Astros does.
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.
Click to expand...
No, this discussion is about your lack of honesty (remember those textbooks you claimed to exist and now admit don’t) and lack of understanding of what science is.

Peace

Tim
 
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.
Click to expand...
Did you know that Gregor Mendel, who established genetics, was a devout Catholic, and thought some sort of evolution was true?
Before anyone here jumps to label me as a stone age man, unscientific, uneducated, religious fanatic, etc -
Click to expand...
There are educated men who doubt evolution, such as Kurt Wise. But he has the integrity to admit that he doubts it in spite of the evidence, and that he prefers his interpretation of the Bible to the evidence. I can respect that.

But it’s difficult to see how anyone who understands science could deny the evidence for evolution. That is bizarre in the extreme. And ID is no more useful in science than Wicca. They are religious beliefs, so stated by the people who invented them.
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.
Click to expand...
One is free to deny anything in science. One is not free from criticism for one’s opinion. That’s how science works. Rough game, but it is highly effective.
Will you evolutionists please allow me to do that without labeling me with all sorts of insulting epithets?
Click to expand...
Instead of trying to impress us with your qualifications, why not tell us the best evidence you have that evolution is not true? Then we can take a look at it.

Otherwise, it’s just another non-biologist, who doesn’t accept biology.

Tell us about it.
 
The_Barbarian said:
Instead of trying to impress us with your qualifications, why not tell us the best evidence you have that evolution is not true? Then we can take a look at it. Otherwise, it’s just another non-biologist, who doesn’t accept biology.Tell us about it.
Click to expand...
Barbarian, this is an interesting point. Most evolution deniers are non-biologists, so I don’t expect them to be current with biological science. In fact, I can’t think of a biologist with credibility who rejects evolution.

StAnastasia
 
The revealed Word of God is the starting point, not the scientist. As Pope Benedict has stated, there are other areas of reason we still need. In its limited view of the world, science can only contribute a relatively small amount of information. God is clearly identified by the Church as a direct causal agent.

Peace,
Ed
 
MindOverMatter said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is an interview with a scientist named PZ Myers on youtube. He makes it crystal clear that science is linked to atheism. That science is corrosive to belief. He was also motivated to post a video of him putting a rusty nail through a eucharistic host and throwing it in the trash. He told Christians: “It’s just a f****** cracker!”

Then there’s Richard Dawkins telling television viewers: “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.”

Don’t assume that other religious groups factor into this for me. It’s people who post youtube videos and who publish books with titles like The God Delusion that have convinced me. Or the journal Nature which published an article titled “Most Leading Scientists Still Reject God.” When asked, Richard Dawkins is using the same ‘mountains of evidence’ for evolution to be an intellectually satisfied atheist.

You need to understand. Most leading scientists are not rejecting God for no particular reason, but, as far as they are concerned, the evidence is not there. They have, in other words, reached a conclusion about a subject that supposedly science is incapable of studying. Yet the Catholic Church clearly teaches that the average person, scientist or whoever, can detect God by use of natural reason alone.

I would ask you to reconsider your living in a particular time period fallacy. Nothing is the future unless people do something. Things and events do not emerge without effort. The New Atheism and the current propaganda wave in favor of evolution and against Scripture, is more like 1920s Marxism than any sort of ‘future.’ The goal of the State was to create propaganda against religion and to suppress all superstitious beliefs from among the people. They would get State run schools to help them, like what is happening in the West today. There are small groups that want an Atheist Technocracy in charge.

Peace,
Ed
 
There is an interview with a scientist named PZ Myers on youtube. He makes it crystal clear that science is linked to atheism.
Click to expand...
That opinion is what separates Catholics from creationists and atheists. As you know, the church teaches that there is no conflict between science and faith.
 
The_Barbarian said:
That opinion is what separates Catholics from creationists and atheists. As you know, the church teaches that there is no conflict between science and faith.
Click to expand...
But as the Pope has said there is between faith and evolutionism.
 
StAnastasia said:
BMost evolution deniers are non-biologists, so I don’t expect them to be current with biological science. In fact, I can’t think of a biologist with credibility who rejects evolution.
Click to expand...
Most evolution-believers are non-biologists. Therefore, most of the people who believe evolution do not have any credibility (according to this logic).
 
edwest2 said:
There is an interview with a scientist named PZ Myers on youtube.
Click to expand...
He is one of the most well-respected, credible and popular evolutionary-biologists in the world.
He makes it crystal clear that science is linked to atheism.
Click to expand...
Therefore, it must be true because the credible-evolutionist Mr. Myers has affirmed it many times.

To think otherwise is to suggest that this most highly-regarded evolutionist is wrong and that there is some kind of conflict in the fundamental views of evolutionary theorists. But we know (supposedly) that this is not possible because “evolution is a fact” and there is “nothing that conflicts with evolutionary theory”.

Thus, PZ Myers is correct, as all evolutionists must agree. The scientific consensus asserts that science is linked to atheism.
 
Barbarian observes:
That opinion is what separates Catholics from creationists and atheists. As you know, the church teaches that there is no conflict between science and faith.
But as the Pope has said there is between faith and evolutionism.
Click to expand...
But not between faith and evolution. In fact, the Pope has affirmed the most sweeping claim of evoutionary theory, common descent of all living things.

“Evolutionism” is sort of like “social Darwinism”; a corruption of evolutionary theory for social/political objectives.

You can have it.
 
The_Barbarian said:
That opinion is what separates Catholics from creationists and atheists. As you know, the church teaches that there is no conflict between science and faith.
Click to expand...
Of course there is no conflict between science and faith since the central tenet of Christianity is CREATION. The central tenet of atheism is EVOLUTION. Thats why all of demonstrable science is against evolution, because its a lie, a philosophy and an equivocation. Its a typical bait and switch trick or which of the three cups has the pea.

.
 
redneck22 said:
Of course there is no conflict between science and faith since the central tenet of Christianity is CREATION. The central tenet of atheism is EVOLUTION. Thats why all of demonstrable science is against evolution, because its a lie, a philosophy and an equivocation. Its a typical bait and switch trick or which of the three cups has the pea…
Click to expand...
Yeah, except no one can seem to give any demonstrable evidence against evolution here in this forum or anywhere else.

And by the way, atheism was around a long time before evolution.

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top