Genesis v Evolution

[edwest2]

Science is not done by machines, it is done by human beings. Other human beings use the end product of science for their own ends, usually the military and industry, but others do as well.

At present, anti-God individuals post here with the strong purpose of showing how a belief in Science must be sold to all Christians. It is marketing. The purpose of which is supposedly to show that Reason and Science are the source of all human knowledge, they are not. As Pope Benedict has stated, there are other aspects of Reason that point to a Divind Creator, but to hold Science as the only source unnecessarily limits our view of what was created.

Here is some insight as to what scientists think and talk about:

secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=harris_27_2

God bless,
Ed

 

[cpayne]

Well, let’s find out if we’re all on the same page or not. Is there anyone posting on this thread who thinks reason and science are the only valid sources of knowledge, or the only sources?

 

[Ahimsa]

Well, let’s find out if we’re all on the same page or not. Is there anyone posting on this thread who thinks reason and science are the only valid sources of knowledge, or the only sources?

I do, in the sense that the only valid souces of knowledge must utilize both reason (or ‘logic’) and science (or ‘empirical verification’).

 

[cpayne]

I do, in the sense that the only valid souces of knowledge must utilize both reason (or ‘logic’) and science (or ‘empirical verification’).

I would disagree; I (and I think probably most of us on this thread) would also accept revelation as a valid source of knowledge.

 

[R2D2]

I don’t really know if this contributes to this thread or not but here it is…

Debate between Kent Hovind and Mike Shermer

Note: I am aware that Kent Hovind was convicted of tax evasion.

 

[Ahimsa]

I would disagree; I (and I think probably most of us on this thread) would also accept revelation as a valid source of knowledge.

‘Revelation’ is an experience. Logic and science can be applied to all experiences. “Come, let us reason together,” said Sanctus Paulus.

 

[cpayne]

We might be quibbling about terms, but here goes: Revelation as such is not empirically verifiable and is therefore out of the realm of science. If I say God revealed something to me, can anyone empirically demonstrate He did or did not?

What God reveals is thereafter amenable to logic. However, revelation cannot be rationally arrived at to begin with. Without knowing God as a Trinity, could we just sit down and rationally arrive at that conclusion?

 

[freesoulhope]

‘Revelation’ is an experience. .

We gain knowledge from experience. However, i would say that revelation is not the kind of knowledge that you can come to know by “pure reason alone”; rather it is a direct experience that one can recieve with out the apllication of logic and reason; it is a “given knowledge”, which one can choose to have a reasonable faith in.

In other words, when Paul saw God on the road to damascas, it was not a matter of philosophical debate; rather it was raw facts-- direct knowledge of God.

 

[Ahimsa]

We might be quibbling about terms, but here goes: Revelation as such is not empirically verifiable and is therefore out of the realm of science.

By ‘empirical verification’, I refer primarily to the process of experiencing for oneself a given claim. Whether every other, or any other, person would also be able to experience what you experience, is another question. The resurrection of Jesus, as a revelation, could then be verified by one’s own experience of resurrection. Whether any one else, or every one else, is also resurrected would not undermine the fact that you yourself experienced resurrection.

If I say God revealed something to me, can anyone empirically demonstrate He did or did not?

Not necessarily, but if God revealed something to you, then you yourself experienced such a revelation, via empirical observation. In order to empirically verify your revelation, you might have to wait until after you die.

What God reveals is thereafter amenable to logic. However, revelation cannot be rationally arrived at to begin with.

True. Like I said before, logic can, and must, be applied to revelation.

Without knowing God as a Trinity, could we just sit down and rationally arrive at that conclusion?

No, but now that you know God as Trinity, what would you logically conclude?

 

[Ahimsa]

We gain knowledge from experience. However, i would say that revelation is not the kind of knowledge that you can come to know by “pure reason alone”; I would add that science, as empirical observation and verification, does not operate by ‘pure reason alone’. Indeed, ‘pure reason alone’ would seem to be rather impossible.

rather it is a direct experience that one can recieve with out the apllication of logic and reason;

Yes, Paul’s experience was “raw”, but his communication of that experience was “cooked”. (Not “cooked” as in “He cooked the data”, but “cooked” in the sense of “interpreted”.)

 

[edwest2]

Do you believe Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven as real, or what do you believe?

Is the Holy Bible the actual Word of God or not?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Brad]

From Pope John Paul II:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.”

Exactly correct. The doctrine of faith is truth. The theory of evolution may be true but looking unlikely. No conflict.

 

[cpayne]

Do you believe Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven as real, or what do you believe?

Is the Holy Bible the actual Word of God or not?

God bless,
Ed

I’m not sure who’s being addressed, so I’ll answer: Yes to both questions. If you were to ask, “Do you think evolution is a scientific fact?” the answer to that would be yes, too.

 

[edwest2]

And yet Pope Benedict recently stated that evolution cannot be scientifically proven.

God bless,
Ed

 

[freesoulhope]

And yet Pope Benedict recently stated that evolution cannot be scientifically proven.
God bless,
Ed

Thats his scientific opinon; it is not binding on Catholics to agree.

 

[cpayne]

And yet Pope Benedict recently stated that evolution cannot be scientifically proven.

God bless,
Ed

The nature of scientific proof is such that I would agree with the Pope. However, at a certain level of empirical evidence many scientific theories may be referred to as factual.

 

[edwest2]

I will wait for clarification from the Church and only the Church.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Nepenthe]

I wouldn’t hold your breath, any more than nontheists are holding their breath for science to verify any gods.

The papacy actually has been pretty clear about this. The position seems to be ‘well, you aren’t flat-out heterodox if you want to believe in some sort of literalistic creation and so forth. However, if you are scientifically literate, then hey, you aren’t heterodox either, and your knowledge is helpful towards furthering scholarship and understanding, and the great Catholic tradition of learning – so go for it! It won’t hurt you, and it might help!’

 

[drpmjhess]

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences. The evidence from astronomy, geology, and a host of other sciences is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that the earth itself is very ancient, and that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. Catholics who adhere doggedly to a literal interpret of Genesis 1-11 in the face of this panoply of evidence will only further ghettoize themselves and their religion. Tragically, they will lose credibility in public discussions precisely when the Catholic voice and witness is most sorely needed in crucial debates about stem cell research, cloning, and other life issues.

Whatever you may feel personally about how much of Genesis is myth, how much is legend, and how much is history, it is intellectually irresponsible for Roman Catholics to promote “young earth creationist” pseudoscience. Catholics who are themselves untutored as to how science actually works should not participate in deceiving others, particularly children. The effect of this is that when children grow up to learn how scientific theories actually work and that they have been deceived, they often misguidedly reject the Catholic faith as a whole. This is a tragedy. Thank goodness Pope Benedict seems to have worked through and beyond the Cardinal Schonborn nonsense about “intelligent design creationism.”

 

[Brad]

Evolution is a vital

For scientific careers.

, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences.

By those favoring the implications of the theory and those wishing to keep or advance their careers.

The evidence from astronomy, geology, and a host of other sciences is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that the earth itself is very ancient,

Has nothing to do with proving evolution. Also, some of this aging methodology is suspect and God could create and aged earth but that’s a separate issue.

and that all living things share a common ancestry.

No evidence for this most especially in the fossil record.

Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence.

There is no evidence that life came from non-live through evolution. There is no evidence that one species became another species through evolution. There is no evidence of the non-fit mutations that didn’t make it through the process of evolution. There are theories however, taught as fact to schoolchildren.

Catholics who adhere doggedly to a literal interpret of Genesis 1-11 in the face of this panoply of evidence will only further ghettoize themselves and their religion.

A religious attack doesn’t prove evolution. This is Dawkinism.

Tragically, they will lose credibility in public discussions precisely when the Catholic voice and witness is most sorely needed in crucial debates about stem cell research, cloning, and other life issues.

Kind of like Jesus. Shameful that so many haven’t learned.

Whatever you may feel personally about how much of Genesis is myth, how much is legend, and how much is history, it is intellectually irresponsible for Roman Catholics to promote “young earth creationist” pseudoscience.

Equating young earth with non-evolution and old earth with evolution does not prove evolution. Some people believe the earth is older and don’t support evolution theory.

Catholics who are themselves untutored as to how science actually works should not participate in deceiving others, particularly children.

Au contraire. Scientists who know how science works should stop deceiving children. You must have a hypothesis that can be proven false. Evolutionary theory fails as a scientific theory in this critical factor. Jeez - whenever anyone dares question it, they get mercillessly accused ot being a religious fanatic and scientific illiterate. Talk about squashing debate and being one-sided.

The effect of this is that when children grow up to learn how scientific theories actually work and that they have been deceived, they often misguidedly reject the Catholic faith as a whole. This is a tragedy. Thank goodness Pope Benedict seems to have worked through and beyond the Cardinal Schonborn nonsense about “intelligent design creationism.”

Pope Benedict has done no such thing.

Also, 90% of Catholic Schools teach evolution so your theory of people leaving the Church because they were taught evolution is not true is most likely false as well.