Flaws with Theistic Evolution

[SpiritMeadow]

Not only do I find Darwinism to be very unattractive as a theory, but I find the conclusions to be ludicrous and absurd. The fact that these conclusions are defended with an ardor that surpasses what we find even in some Islamic groups tells me a lot about what people are actually seeking in this scientific view.

What conclusions do you find absurd and ludicrous…and what would you propose in its place?

I for one am only seeking that my Church not look absurd and ludicrous by claiming “scientific” doctrines that are rejected across the world as being not science.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I note the Catholic-Darwinists here who never challenged you once on your atheistic conclusions. Instead, they attacked me for defending ID. They sucked down scientific positivism without a thought – selling out the God they claim that they love and believe in.

That is not something to laugh at, but to be very sad about, as I see it.

Why would Catholics who believe in evolution criticize someone they believe is correctly reflecting the accepted scientific position? Well when you run out of arguments through the label of postivism or relativism at folks. They both work equally well to prove nothing. How are we selling out God? I guess 2 popes have done the same thing.

Is this another case where you disagree that the Church is not conservative enough? That seems to be happening a lot here. Course they are not not following Church teaching at all…just ummmm trying to get the Church to see the real truth.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What category would you put Padre Pio in, for example?

First of all, it’s evidence that there are supernatural causes in existence. The Gospels are evidence of this. The apostolic church is evidence of this. The reports of miracles are evidence of this. This material can be investigated and evaluated. How has it happened that there are so many instances where these events have been said to occur? Why would so many people be deluded? What is the nature of the fraud and what did it expect to gain for the deceivers? There are a lot of questions like this.

If there are supernatural causes in the universe, then what role do they play in human life? If they do play some role, then this needs to be considered in any scientific explanation of the development of human life.

I believe in miracles, but I can see how people in some instances may have believed things miraculous that were not. This occurs quite commonly. For hundreds of years epilepsy was considered a royal disease that had to do with supernatural things. Today we know better.

 

[ricmat]

yes, human guided breeding is certainly science. God guided evolution is a belief that I believe is not capable of being tested.

OK.

I’m not insisting that it is testable. I am suggesting that design in nature is worth looking for.

were you aware the that NAS has come out with a brand new statement regarding evolution and creationism? I’ve not seen it yet, but I think it restates the obvious. Do you really believe they are deliberately keeping the truth from people?

I haven’t seen it either. Frankly, I have no interest in 6 day creationism.

But let’s suppose that it says that “ID is nothing more than religion posing as science” or equivalent (which I think is what you are getting at.

If you start with the thinking that “If religious people are behind it, then it can’t be science.” or

If you start by defining ID as 6 day creationism, or

If you define in advance that if the data turns out to somehow promote the possibility of a designer, then it’s not science

then by definition “ID is not science.”

These definitions are set up exactly to ensure the proper outcome for those making the definitions.

On the other hand, if you define science as “those guys that came up with the flat earth theory” then that science isn’t science either.

Nuf said. If you get a chance, read one of the books I suggested. I think you would get a lot out of them, even if you don’t change your mind.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

“not science” is the slogan response to ID. Intelligent Design is a solid concept and worth looking into, but its implications are too jarring for some. If we found a clearly artificial structure on the moon, but no moon men, who would we credit the find
Ed

Nobody is saying don’t look into it. Look into it all you want. Just don’t try to artificially attach it as a scientific inquiry you have yet to provide any proof about in some paternalisitic attempt to protect people who might be mislead. People on this site are really big on trying to protect others from reading, thinking a lot of things for their “own good”. People do tend to see through that ruse.

 

[edwest2]

Here is the real truth:

“Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that ‘new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge’ (‘Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution’ 1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are ‘several theories of evolution’ that are ‘materialist, reductionist and spiritualist’ and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.” Part 64, Human Persons Created in the Image of God

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

I for one am only seeking that my Church not look absurd and ludicrous by claiming “scientific” doctrines that are rejected across the world as being not science.

The Vatican:Holy See supports science. Didn’t you read my last posting to this topic? They have a Scientific Advisory Committee that supports evolution henceforth it would be wise for those who claim to belong to “the Church” realize it!

(msg. 207)
HISTORY OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is international in scope, multi-racial in composition, and non-sectarian in its choice of members. The work of the Academy comprises six major areas: Fundamental science; Science and technology of global problems; Science for the problems of the Third World; Scientific policy; Bioethics; Epistemology.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_10121999_history_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...s/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_10121999_history_en.html

STATUTES OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Part II: THE ACADEMICIANS
Art. 5

*Candidates for a seat in the Academy are chosen by the Academy on the basis of their eminent original scientific studies and of their acknowledged moral personality, without any ethnical or religious discrimination, and are appointed for life by sovereign act of the Holy Father. *
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_170999_statues_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...nts/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_170999_statues_en.html
:

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This thread is not about science, it is about ideology. God is placed by some, into a box, and we visit Him on Sundays. But he is not allowed to go near the SACRED Peer Reviewed Papers.

What has become holy for some is the peer reviewed papers. The substantial and that which can be experienced by the five senses become objects of worship. SpiritMeadow has stated that scientific statements should not be applied to religion, yet there are those here who want Catholics to validate naturalism. I am against that 100%.
Ed

Ed why do you continue to denigrate other peoples level of faith? You imply that others aren’t as faithful as you are. We know nothing of your faith life, and you know nothing of ours. Yet you define ours as being maybe on Sunday, while we are to infer that your’s is somehow much fuller and of course better. Don’t you think you are being unfair and uncharitable?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Vatican:Holy See supports science. Didn’t you read my last posting to this topic? They have a Scientific Advisory Committee that supports evolution henceforth it would be wise for those who claim to belong to “the Church” realize it!

As usual I have no clue what you are talking about…I defend the Church’s doctrine on evolution. You have called me a pantheist, and not a deep thinker, so I’m not terribly interested in what error you are making this time. Thanks for your post!

 

[wildleafblower]

As usual I have no clue what you are talking about…I defend the Church’s doctrine on evolution. You have called me a pantheist, and not a deep thinker, so I’m not terribly interested in what error you are making this time. Thanks for your post!

SpiritMeadow if you can read what you wrote that I quoted in msg. 226 then you should be able to understand my response.

Furthermore, I never as you state “called you a pantheist, and not a deep thinker.” There is absolutely no evidence for such. Your error. Let’s move forward and stay on topic.

Let’s work together. You seek information and asked:

were you aware the that NAS has come out with a brand new statement regarding evolution and creationism?

Yes, I have found the statement for you. I am currently gathering more info before presenting it. I did watch the news last night and heard about this. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

 

[edwest2]

Ed why do you continue to denigrate other peoples level of faith? You imply that others aren’t as faithful as you are. We know nothing of your faith life, and you know nothing of ours. Yet you define ours as being maybe on Sunday, while we are to infer that your’s is somehow much fuller and of course better. Don’t you think you are being unfair and uncharitable?/QUOTE

Those are your assumptions. What I am saying is that some people (and since I don’t know you, I’m referring to people in general) put SCIENCE above God or in place of God and divine revelation. You try to say two Popes agree with evolution, but based on Human Persons Created in the Image of God, written by then Cardinal Ratzinger, it mentions ‘theories’ of evolution and that the statement of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories, including neo-Darwinism. So I don’t know where you get the two Popes statement.

There are no flaws with theistic evolution as long as it is understood that the science aspect needs to be linked to the divine providence aspect. I don’t hate science, or science teachers, but as a Catholic, I need to point out to people (and I know there are non-Catholics here) that the textbooks alone do not provide the whole, complete answer. And I completely disagree with anyone that says the Church talks about religion only. It talks about both, synthesized as one answer.

I hope that clears things up.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

Date: Jan. 3, 2008
Contact: Maureen O’Leary, Director of Public Information
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail news@nas.edu

Scientific Evidence Supporting Evolution Continues To Grow; Nonscientific Approaches Do Not Belong In Science Classrooms

WASHINGTON – The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) today released SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM, a book designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom. Recent advances in science and medicine, along with an abundance of observations and experiments over the past 150 years, have reinforced evolution’s role as the central organizing principle of modern biology, said the committee that wrote the book.

*“SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM provides the public with coherent explanations and concrete examples of the science of evolution,” said NAS President Ralph Cicerone. “The study of evolution remains one of the most active, robust, and useful fields in science.”

“Understanding evolution is essential to identifying and treating disease,” said Harvey Fineberg, president of IOM. “For example, the SARS virus evolved from an ancestor virus that was discovered by DNA sequencing. Learning about SARS’ genetic similarities and mutations has helped scientists understand how the virus evolved. This kind of knowledge can help us anticipate and contain infections that emerge in the future.”

DNA sequencing and molecular biology have provided a wealth of information about evolutionary relationships among species. As existing infectious agents evolve into new and more dangerous forms, scientists track the changes so they can detect, treat, and vaccinate to prevent the spread of disease.

Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of populations of organisms, usually over multiple generations. One recent example highlighted in the book is the 2004 fossil discovery in Canada of fish with “intermediate” features – four finlike legs – that allowed the creature to pull itself through shallow water onto land. Scientists around the world cite this evidence as an important discovery in identifying the transition from ocean-dwelling creatures to land animals. By understanding and employing the principles of evolution, the discoverers of this fossil focused their search on layers of the Earth that are approximately 375 million years old and in a region that would have been much warmer during that period. Evolution not only best explains the biodiversity on Earth, it also helps scientists predict what they are likely to discover in the future.

Over very long periods of time, the same processes that enable evolution to occur within species also can result in the appearance of new species. The formation of a new species generally takes place when one subgroup within a species mates for an extended period largely within that subgroup, often following geographical separation from other members of the species. If such reproductive isolation continues, members of the subgroup may no longer respond to courtship from members of the original population. Eventually, genetic changes become so substantial that members of different subgroups can no longer produce viable offspring. In this way, new species can continually “bud off” of existing species.

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, opponents have repeatedly tried to introduce nonscientific views into public school science classes through the teaching of various forms of creationism or intelligent design. In 2005, a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, concluded that the teaching of intelligent design is unconstitutional because it is based on religious conviction, not science (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District). NAS and IOM strongly maintain that only scientifically based explanations and evidence for the diversity of life should be included in public school science courses. “Teaching creationist ideas in science class confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not,” the committee stated.*

[snip]

www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876

A summary of the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism by the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES and INSTITUE OF MEDICINE in pdf form:
books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf
http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS has made available online
**Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008) **
books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=R1

https://www.nap.edu/read/11876/chapter/1#R1

 

[edwest2]

Quite unimpressive. The supposed discovery of supposed ancestors or transitional creatures is entirely dependent on the way those reading the information want to present it.

For example, there are still certain types of fish that can walk on land. The common seal has flippers that it can also use to walk on land. Viruses remain viruses. They do not grow hands and feet and begin walking. Bacteria can exchange bits of DNA between each other (lateral gene transfer), even among different species.

Scientists have discovered bacteria in dirt that are resistant to ‘modern’ antibiotics, including synthetics. Bacteria in hospitals usually lose genetic information, and could not survive in the wild. But this ability is built into the bacteria.

The National Academy of Sciences ignores the fact that most skilled and unskilled workers - truck drivers, mechanics, automobile assembly - do not have to learn or know anything about evolution. Myself, while studying chemistry, did not have to know anything about evolution, and while studying electronics, also did not have to know anything about evolution. What the academy and other scientific organizations and individuals are trying to do is to impose an atheistic, naturalistic worldview on others.

I do not believe for a second that the earth would stop spinning on its axis if more people stopped believing in purely naturalistic evolution.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

I think I’m getting what bothers Ed. He thinks that science can be used by atheists to attack religion. They can, of course. If you’re an ideologue, anything will do. So, if we can just, um fudge the truth a bit, then, it is supposed that atheists will have nothing to go on.

But God is truth, and the truth matters. And even if Dawkins wants to argue that evoution allows one to be an atheist, the fact is that atheism existed long before evolution.

And scientists would never go for it, anyway. Pointless hope. The whole enterprise depends on honesty; fraud does a great deal of damage.

The truth is the truth, and what others do with it has no bearing on the truth whatever.

 

[edwest2]

“fudge the truth” Not nice of you to put me into the liars’ camp. As far as ICR and all the rest, I don’t know who those people are. It may surprise you to know that this Catholic is not a Beheist or any other type of “ist.” I came to my own conclusions based on my own research.

Your idea of a using “fudging the truth” as a strategy will get no support from me. I know what the truth is and it includes divine revelation. What I am against is “Natural Explanations Only” and science worship.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

If you argue against evolution by claiming atheists use it to attack God, then your argument is fatally flawed. The truth is what it is, regardless of what others might make of it.

 

[edwest2]

The truth? The truth of naturalistic evolution? I don’t believe that is the truth for one second. As a Catholic, I firmly believe that it was divine providence that guided any type of evolution that may have happened.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

The truth? The truth of naturalistic evolution? I don’t believe that is the truth for one second.

Invincible ignorance, um?

As a Catholic, I firmly believe that it was divine providence that guided any type of evolution that may have happened.

As the Pope says, even contingency can be used by God to His purposes. God creates everything. You’re just not comfortable with the way He does some of it.

 

[edwest2]

Invincible ignorance, um?

As the Pope says, even contingency can be used by God to His purposes. God creates everything. You’re just not comfortable with the way He does some of it.

I’m comfortable with the work of God, but I’m not comfortable with naturalism and only naturalism. Ignorance? I totally disagree.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

The truth is the Vatican’s Scientists and Popes call it evolution. The major flaw is there isn’t a Theistic Evolution. Call the US Bishops office if you like.

I am not a creationist nor a theist just a Roman Catholic woman who acknowledges three persons in one; a truine God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) . I have a supernatural faith in God and an unending love for Jesus who makes my heart and mind sparkle with good fibes through the power and glory of the Holy Spirit.

Thank you.