**I may be very wrong, but I don’t think Darwin addressed the supernatural at all. He himself was a Christian, and as I understand it made no statement regarding God at all in his work. One cannot attribute to him what he did not say. **This refutes Darwin’s theory. Evolution “guided by divine providence” is not what Darwin proposed.
I wouldn’t begin to know. Do you know?How would evolution have been different if it wasn’t guided by divine providence?
Again, I don’t think he made any such statement but I’m sure the more scientifically inclined will speak to it.Darwinism proposes that no divine guidance was needed in the evolutionary process.
I will always speak against those who now, today, take this science and use it to promote atheism. And that’s the problem.All of it is guided by divine providence. Evolution and contingency are merely tools of God in this process.
Good to hear you say it. Science can only tell us about our physical bodies and how they came to be. It cannot and will never be, able to fully define what it is to be human.
We have a spirit and an immortal soul which are not subject to scientific inquiry.
Then don’t help them by insisting that science can prove or disprove God.I will always speak against who now, today, take this science and use it to promote atheism.
That’s how it is. You might like it, or hate it, but the fact remains.And your concept of scientific inquiry is too cut and dried.
And atheists have seized on these “failures” as evidence there is no God. In actuality, they were doomed from the start. God is beyond the reach of man’s science.Science has attempted to find the soul, and science has investigated spirits and spirit phenomena.
Irrelevant. Science is science.It would be productive to stop pointing out how calculus, cookbooks, gravity, electricity or other aspects of science do not involve a deity. None of these things talk about human origins, only evolution does.
Then why don’t you, Ed?The Church accepts that some sort of evolution occurred but it must be linked to the actions of divine providence.
It IS walking on it’s hands and legs, Ed. You really should put some time in researching claims before you make them.The common seal can walk on its flippers. Is it on its way to developing hands or legs? I don’t think so.
Did you not, in this same post, admit that the Church acknowledges evolution? Is the Church promoting athiesm, Ed?To my fellow Catholics - please understand that those who promote evolution promote naturalism, which excludes God, and denies to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.
You really don’t understand what Barbarian is asking, do you?Perhaps you should write to Mr. Vogler and explain to him that no beetle species existing today are as old as he (and the article I posted) claims.
I found this article…… the Church acknowledges evolution?
Peace
Tim
I never said that it does. Even Ed will admit that the Church accepts evolution as long as it is understood that evolution is guided by God.I found this article…
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=71
But I can’t find a church article in which it states that the church supports unguided “random events” sort of evolution. Could you point me in that direction?
Of course it is not. Who here said that it was, Ed?For Catholics, science is not an absolute standard.
Yep.It always needs to be compared to divine revelation.
And yet you ignore the science part. Why is that, Ed?Everyone is ignoring the linkage that is always made by the Church. Always. Part science and divine providence. Science books only contain part of the answer.
That is a false statement, Ed. Either support it or retract it.And everyone is ignoring the miracles that are investigated by the Church. Today.
I wasn’t actually accusing you of saying it.I never said that it does. Even Ed will admit that the Church accepts evolution as long as it is understood that evolution is guided by God.
Peace
Tim
I’m saying that we should not try to get science to verify God, because such efforts always fail, and those who try, end up looking like fools, and thereby damage our chances of reaching many who might otherwise accept Him.Barbarian - are you saying that we should not investigate such things because failures support atheistic views that God does not exist?
I can think of one case. In the last paragraph of a late edition of “The Origin of Species”, Darwin mentions his belief that God produced the first living thing.I may be very wrong, but I don’t think Darwin addressed the supernatural at all. He himself was a Christian, and as I understand it made no statement regarding God at all in his work. One cannot attribute to him what he did not say.
I’m sorry, but I didn’t see any claims by Dr. Vogler that any beetle species was that old.Perhaps you should write to Mr. Vogler and explain to him that no beetle species existing today are as old as he (and the article I posted) claims.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt works in our courts. It actually works in science for virtually every conclusion science comes to.I’m saying that we should not try to get science to verify God, because such efforts always fail, and those who try, end up looking like fools, and thereby damage our chances of reaching many who might otherwise accept Him.
A long time ago, St. Augustine cautioned his fellow Christians to aviod such foolish assertion, for that very reason.
What foolish assertion? Who is trying to get science to verify God? My point is and always has been, the textbooks are incomplete, but around here, that is not the way they are presented. Evolution is declared a fact. While God is… just sort of tacked on as an afterthought.I’m saying that we should not try to get science to verify God, because such efforts always fail, and those who try, end up looking like fools, and thereby damage our chances of reaching many who might otherwise accept Him.
A long time ago, St. Augustine cautioned his fellow Christians to aviod such foolish assertion, for that very reason.
Hey Ed, if you got God tacked on as an afterthought…that’s a whole lot better than I’ve seen around here.What foolish assertion? Who is trying to get science to verify God? My point is and always has been, the textbooks are incomplete, but around here, that is not the way they are presented. Evolution is declared a fact. While God is… just sort of tacked on as an afterthought.