Evolution

[masterjedi747]

Would you like a reference to the Scientific American article from the turn of the last century that discounted as nonsense that the Wright brothers had flown a powered aircraft?

That sounds hilarious, actually… so yes, if it’s not too much of a problem.

Evolution according to the textbook is complete in and of itself, it needs nothing outside of it. Is that clear?

That the textbook account of evolution is complete in and of itself?
Or that many people think it is? Yes to the second, no to the first.

Also, Cardinal Schoenborn and Pope Benedict have had to respond to scientists who go outside the bounds of what can be demonstrated by science to say evolution negates a role for God. Is that clear?

Crystal.

Then people like Professor Richard Dawkins use their credentials and standing in the scientific community to go on television and say, “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.”

And as you said, this would be an example of someone exceeding his scientific credentials and making philosophical claims outside the bounds of what can be demonstrated by science.

He then goes on to give the textbook explanation of evolution.

Right. But unless the textbook explanation is making similar philosophical claims that go beyond the bounds of what can be demonstrated by science, then I say the problem lies not with the textbook, but with the professor. Don’t blame the textbook for leaving out the philosophy, because that’s not its job… blame the professor for augmenting the textbook with his own misguided philosophical errors.

 

[edwest2]

Have people not been paying attention to the noise in the background? The New Atheism?

Have no Catholics here read about Cardinal Schoenborn’s concerns about ideology in science?

No, I’m not concerned about the theory of evolution itself, but about people here like hecd2. He points out there’s no evidence for this or that claim in the Bible and gets a tad upset when people don’t change their minds based on his evidence and his reasoning. So, right here, on this forum, the Richard Dawkins type scenario is playing out. Adam and Eve? No evidence!

Doesn’t he realize that, as a scientist, science can only go so far? Apparently not. And it’s happening in the outside world with other scientists, leading scientists. I can only conclude that his, and a few others’, attempts to present evidence, as they call it, is simply their way of saying, See, see, what you believe is nonsense! Don’t they realize how far away from science such comments are?

God bless,
Ed