Evolution

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

No? Just listen to 60 seconds of this interview with PZ Myers:

youtube.com/watch?v=EczOQ1mV5aU

God bless,
Ed

I’m sorry ed - but just because a scientist uses science to attack and try to undermine peoples Faith - doesn’t mean that all scientists are - or that the science itself is. There are a lot of evolutionary scientists who are also Christians.

Just do a Google search on - creationists; evolution; creation - you will find a lot of scientists who only want to merge - wherever possible - the science with the Bible.

Hard thing to do - but it is possible to put the two together. Maybe not seamlessly, and certainly not to scientific standards because God cannot be measured or put into a box to study …but possible to put forth ideas concerning the two.

Peace

John

 

[The_Catholic]

What do you believe - Creationism or Evolution? Here are some quotes by Pope Benedict concerning the Church’s views:

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

– Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)[page # needed]

In a book released in 2008, his comments prior to becoming Pope were recorded as:

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.” The first Thou that–however stammeringly–was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

– Joseph Ratzinger[11]

All us theistic evolutionists and creationists are all on the same side in creation. The scientific *athesits *are wrong. Why? Because they believe that their god Chance was responsible for the universe, while you and I, and all Theists do not. That’s the thing about Theistic evolution, it’s just as mysterious as a 6 literal day creation. For what are the chances of evolution happening on its own? What are the chances of the Anthropic Principle–the four essential cosmological features of the universe–just perfectly coming into play? The perfect gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. What are the chances for the proper and perfect conditions for life on earth to just form? What are the odds for DNA and the first “simple” cell, with such overwhelming complexity to just come about? Or such mutations that lead to purpose and value? The odds are highly unfavorable for the atheists god “Chance.” But not if created and guided by God. Which is why even former atheist Antony Flew came to believe in a Creator (I have his book “There is A God”), and many professional physics are bewilldered about the perfect conditions of the universe, as if it “knew” we were coming.

And evolution can be harmonized with the Bible, which is why the Church doesn’t forbid it. Yet so many others on this forum just can’t accept that idea because simply *they *can’t accept evolution, which is nothing more than God’s tool.

peace

 

[edwest2]

To John -

Did you listen to the interview? Did you hear his claims? He used the word most. That is backed up by Nature magazine which reported most leading scientists still reject God. I’m not trying to inject God into science but I am pointing out the facts.

Science does not come first. It is limited. It appears that throughout history, man has experienced something beyond himself. The Church teaches that man can discover God through his natural reason.

It is an abuse of his prestige and standing in the scientific community when a man like Richard Dawkins goes on television to make claims that science cannot demonstrate. Like, “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” To label this opinion would be incorrect, since he points to the same mountain of evidence for his claims. Today, science is too infected with ideology. Cardinal Schoenborn and Pope Benedict are aware of this. It is a shame that science is being used to further certain agendas, but it is also true.

Catholics need to be reminded about this.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

All us theistic evolutionists and creationists are all on the same side in creation. The scientific *athesits *are wrong. Why? Because they believe that their god Chance was responsible for the universe, while you and I, and all Theists do not. That’s the thing about Theistic evolution, it’s just as mysterious as a 6 literal day creation. For what are the chances of evolution happening on its own? What are the chances of the Anthropic Principle–the four essential cosmological features of the universe–just perfectly coming into play? The perfect gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. What are the chances for the proper and perfect conditions for life on earth to just form? What are the odds for DNA and the first “simple” cell, with such overwhelming complexity to just come about? Or such mutations that lead to purpose and value? The odds are highly unfavorable for the atheists god “Chance.” But not if created and guided by God. Which is why even former atheist Antony Flew came to believe in a Creator (I have his book “There is A God”), and many professional physics are bewilldered about the perfect conditions of the universe, as if it “knew” we were coming.

And evolution can be harmonized with the Bible, which is why the Church doesn’t forbid it. Yet so many others on this forum just can’t accept that idea because simply *they *can’t accept evolution, which is nothing more than God’s tool.

peace

The textbook leaves all supernatural explanations or interventions out. So, most young people simply get the idea that it did all happen on its own. The textbook is what people who defend evolution refer to. God? What God? Show me God!

I don’t think any atheists want evolution and the Bible within light years of each other, which is why atheists love the science so much. It all happened on its own - no God needed. That is what the debate is about.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Catholic]

The textbook leaves all supernatural explanations or interventions out. So, most young people simply get the idea that it did all happen on its own. The textbook is what people who defend evolution refer to. God? What God? Show me God!

I don’t think any atheists want evolution and the Bible within light years of each other, which is why atheists love the science so much. It all happened on its own - no God needed. That is what the debate is about.

God bless,
Ed

Of course the text books leave all mention of divine guidance out, you’re not allowed to speak of God in public schools anymore. One of the reasons the creation-evolution controversy got so out of hand was thanks to Ellen White, George Mcready Price, and Henry Morris for loudly preaching evolution was a satanic idea, when many theists didn’t have a problem with it. Those three affected both theists and atheists. Naturally atheists fought back too, clinging to evolution more so, as an amunition, and they brought chance into place, missing the fact of God being the Provider and Guider.

I agree with you Ed regarding the text books constantly teaching “blind purposeless accidental chance.” But the world is not going to want the Truth, as Christ predicted.

To say that evolution operates under merely chance, I now think is no different than saying Zeus created us. It’s just another way to attempt to get rid of God.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

To John -

Did you listen to the interview? Did you hear his claims? He used the word most. That is backed up by Nature magazine which reported most leading scientists still reject God. I’m not trying to inject God into science but I am pointing out the facts.

Science does not come first. It is limited. It appears that throughout history, man has experienced something beyond himself. The Church teaches that man can discover God through his natural reason.

It is an abuse of his prestige and standing in the scientific community when a man like Richard Dawkins goes on television to make claims that science cannot demonstrate. Like, “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” To label this opinion would be incorrect, since he points to the same mountain of evidence for his claims. Today, science is too infected with ideology. Cardinal Schoenborn and Pope Benedict are aware of this. It is a shame that science is being used to further certain agendas, but it is also true.

Catholics need to be reminded about this.

God bless,
Ed

I’m not completely disagreeing with you ed. Really I’m not. However - I think it is wrong to characterize all scientists with those who have an agenda, when there are scientists who have no problem with theists - or who are Christians themselves.

Just like it is wrong to label all Christians as fundamentalist wackos ( my terms here for illustration - so I don’t get flamed for it again ) who refuse to listen to any kind of reason not backed up explicitly by Scripture.

Certainly we are in a battle…we always will be - if not about this, then about something else…but: making the same mistakes they are doesn’t improve our position one bit. It only degrades it. IMO.

The surest way for someone to have to come to terms with God - is to allow Him to be worked over by the Holy Spirit if he won’t listen to anything else. Again - that’s just my opinion.

Peace

John

 

[rossum]

Well, here is Mathematical Proof among others - I don’t see a religious agenda to it, despite the page title.

This is far from being a “mathematical proof”. To take just the first point, Human Population:Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population. This is a reasonable average length of time.
The assumption of a uniform growth rate gives absurdly low figures for the poplation of the world in antiquity. Just imagine, the pyramids of Egypt were built about 200 years after the flood when the entire population of the whole world amounted to about 20 people with the 168.3 year doubling time - and that makes no allowance for the populations of Australia, America, China etc.

It is also worth pointing out that the family of Noah went from two to eight in the 100 years before the flood, which is a much larger doubling rate; three doublings in 100 years gives a doubliing time of 33.3 years, much quicker than the doubling time of 168.3 years used in the rest of the calculation. The author’s own data shows that his assumptions are incorrect.

A mathematical model with incorrect assumptions will give an incorrect answer. The source you refer to is not a good one.

It is also worth pointing out that any source referring to the septuagint and Noah’s flood as part of a supposedly scientific argument must almost certainly have a religious agenda.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Have you seen the other evolution threads here? A common statement is “evolution is a fact.”

It is. It is both a fact and a theory. We observe the fact of evolution when we see bacteria evolving immunity to antibiotics. The theory of evolution is our best explanation for how this happens. Gravity is a fact, and there is also a theory of gravity which is our current best explanation of gravity. Fact and theory run together in parallel. The fact is what happens, while the theory is our best explanation of how it happens.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The textbook leaves all supernatural explanations or interventions out. So, most young people simply get the idea that it did all happen on its own. The textbook is what people who defend evolution refer to. God? What God? Show me God!

“What God?” indeed. When I was a teacher there were Catholics, Protestants, JWs, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and (probably) Hindus in my classes. Which God/gods should have been included in the textbooks? Would you agree with a public school having a biology textbook referring to Allah or to Vishnu? Please get practical here Ed; your proposal may well be OK for a private religious school but it is impractical for a public school with pupils from many religions and from none.

rossum

 

[rossum]

What do you believe - Creationism or Evolution?

Like others, I accept evolution because of the evidence supporting it. If the evidence changes then my support will change. Evolution is science, so “belief” is not the correct concept to use. As to creationism, I will quote the Clergy Letter Project:We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.

Here are some quotes by Pope Benedict concerning the Church’s views:

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

– Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)[page # needed]

That sounds eminently sensible to me, far more so that many of the young earthers we see on the internet. By taking that position the Pope takes all the evidence for evolution and makes it religiously neutral. The YEC position makes that same evidence work against “Christianity” (by which is normally meant “YEC Christianity”). The Pope has the right of it here. Evolution is not mutually exclusive with religion but in fact can complement it.

rossum

 

[CGDouglas]

rossum:

Evolution is not mutually exclusive with religion but in fact can complement it.
rossum

Agreed.

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[reggieM]

All us theistic evolutionists and creationists are all on the same side in creation. The scientific *athesits *are wrong. Why? Because they believe that their god Chance was responsible for the universe, while you and I, and all Theists do not. That’s the thing about Theistic evolution, it’s just as mysterious as a 6 literal day creation. For what are the chances of evolution happening on its own? What are the chances of the Anthropic Principle–the four essential cosmological features of the universe–just perfectly coming into play? The perfect gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. What are the chances for the proper and perfect conditions for life on earth to just form? What are the odds for DNA and the first “simple” cell, with such overwhelming complexity to just come about? Or such mutations that lead to purpose and value? The odds are highly unfavorable for the atheists god “Chance.”

Those are good thoughts – thanks.

I think you’re making the same argument that many who support intelligent design use. We can see these remarkable things in nature, as you mention. This overwhelming complexity could not be the result of mere chance and accident (even including natural selection).

I don’t think the people here arguing against evolution are opposing the theory because they think it is against the Bible, the way fundamentalists think. It’s more a matter of looking at the contradictions and inconsistencies in the theory itself.

Plus, as you point out – many people do use evolution as a way to claiming that God does not exist. This is a very widespread error within science – and it goes out to our whole society.

 

[FreedomLiberal6]

What do you believe - Creationism or Evolution? Here are some quotes by Pope Benedict concerning the Church’s views:

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

– Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)[page # needed]

In a book released in 2008, his comments prior to becoming Pope were recorded as:

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.” The first Thou that–however stammeringly–was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

– Joseph Ratzinger[11]

Well it’s cool hes not a total evolution rejector

~Peace~

 

[narrowpath]

I myself am a thiestic evolutionist. What Fancis Collins calls ‘biologos’.

 

[vince70]

Does anyone know, if we did evolve from an ape like creature, then why do we now where clothes? Humans are the only species on earth to wear clothes. If we did originally wear nothing and resembled other ape-like creatures then started wearing something, then this isn’t evolution but regression, isn’t it? No other creature similar to man wear’s clothes.

 

[rossum]

Does anyone know, if we did evolve from an ape like creature, then why do we now where clothes?

So we can live in non-tropical environments. Why do you think that the Inuit wear clothes? Most peoples living in the tropics wore few, if any, clothes.

Humans are the only species on earth to wear clothes.

Depending on how you define “clothes” both caddis fly larvae and hermit crabs can be considered to wear “clothes” - portable coverings that they did not directly grow themselves.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Does anyone know, if we did evolve from an ape like creature, then why do we now where clothes?

Hmm… good question. I’ve worn clothes for years. I don’t even think about it anymore. But I notice that people who don’t, attract a lot of unfriendly attention.

 

[edwest2]

I’m not completely disagreeing with you ed. Really I’m not. However - I think it is wrong to characterize all scientists with those who have an agenda, when there are scientists who have no problem with theists - or who are Christians themselves.

Just like it is wrong to label all Christians as fundamentalist wackos ( my terms here for illustration - so I don’t get flamed for it again ) who refuse to listen to any kind of reason not backed up explicitly by Scripture.

Certainly we are in a battle…we always will be - if not about this, then about something else…but: making the same mistakes they are doesn’t improve our position one bit. It only degrades it. IMO.

The surest way for someone to have to come to terms with God - is to allow Him to be worked over by the Holy Spirit if he won’t listen to anything else. Again - that’s just my opinion.

Peace

John

Hi John,

I didn’t say all, I said most. I don’t like to generalize. In the past, as now, terrible things do happen when people label any group as “they are all like that.” That said, I think listening to scientist PZ Myers, who recently put a nail through a eucharistic host and threw it in the trash, alerted me to the current evangelic atheism. His directly linking science to atheism and the ‘conversion’ to atheism stories in the interview clealy show that science and atheism are linked, perhaps more now than in the past.

I study the history of technology, and there will always be people who will use a new weapon, device or even an idea as a way to intimidate, harm and injure other people. This injury can include the spreaing of false and misleading information in order to gain some advantage over an opposing group.

The use of the word ‘reason’ is a good example. As Pope Benedict stated, there are other areas of reason that we still need. As Cardinal Schoenborn stated, the Church finds itself in the position of defending reason itself.

What are they talking about? It’s not science. It’s about divine revelation. Christianity did not exist for 2,000 years because of science but because of faith. However, most universities and colleges in the United States were founded by religious groups. Only now, after over 30 years in the hands of a secular leadership, will Catholic places of higher learning once again be managed by those who have something authentically Catholic to give to their students.

If there is to be real understanding between Christians and non-Christians, there needs to be a real understanding regarding the truths of the faith - actual truths. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ among them. If those who wish to have a dialogue begin with the premise that ‘I think your beliefs are full of **** but let’s talk anyway’ then I don’t think that allows for a proper consideration of Christianity, not just as a belief system but as actual history.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

This is far from being a “mathematical proof”. To take just the first point, Human Population:Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population. This is a reasonable average length of time.
The assumption of a uniform growth rate gives absurdly low figures for the poplation of the world in antiquity. Just imagine, the pyramids of Egypt were built about 200 years after the flood when the entire population of the whole world amounted to about 20 people with the 168.3 year doubling time - and that makes no allowance for the populations of Australia, America, China etc.

It is also worth pointing out that the family of Noah went from two to eight in the 100 years before the flood, which is a much larger doubling rate; three doublings in 100 years gives a doubliing time of 33.3 years, much quicker than the doubling time of 168.3 years used in the rest of the calculation. The author’s own data shows that his assumptions are incorrect.

A mathematical model with incorrect assumptions will give an incorrect answer. The source you refer to is not a good one.

It is also worth pointing out that any source referring to the septuagint and Noah’s flood as part of a supposedly scientific argument must almost certainly have a religious agenda.

rossum

Ok, In all fairness I skipped the Math part - because I’m no good at it. The rest seemed Ok - to me anyway.

My main point in even getting into this thread (will I never learn?), as I said before and you reiterated, is that both evolutionists and creationists can peacefully co-exist, and neutral ground isn’t that hard to find if you want to find it.

Peace

John

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Hi John,

I didn’t say all, I said most. I don’t like to generalize. In the past, as now, terrible things do happen when people label any group as “they are all like that.” That said, I think listening to scientist PZ Myers, who recently put a nail through a eucharistic host and threw it in the trash, alerted me to the current evangelic atheism. His directly linking science to atheism and the ‘conversion’ to atheism stories in the interview clealy show that science and atheism are linked, perhaps more now than in the past.

I study the history of technology, and there will always be people who will use a new weapon, device or even an idea as a way to intimidate, harm and injure other people. This injury can include the spreaing of false and misleading information in order to gain some advantage over an opposing group.

The use of the word ‘reason’ is a good example. As Pope Benedict stated, there are other areas of reason that we still need. As Cardinal Schoenborn stated, the Church finds itself in the position of defending reason itself.

What are they talking about? It’s not science. It’s about divine revelation. Christianity did not exist for 2,000 years because of science but because of faith. However, most universities and colleges in the United States were founded by religious groups. Only now, after over 30 years in the hands of a secular leadership, will Catholic places of higher learning once again be managed by those who have something authentically Catholic to give to their students.

If there is to be real understanding between Christians and non-Christians, there needs to be a real understanding regarding the truths of the faith - actual truths. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ among them. If those who wish to have a dialogue begin with the premise that ‘I think your beliefs are full of **** but let’s talk anyway’ then I don’t think that allows for a proper consideration of Christianity, not just as a belief system but as actual history.

God bless,
Ed

OK - no problem. I guess I mis-read your tone. Easy to do on here .

Peace

John