C
Chris_W
Guest
The Barbarian:
Please provide the link or reference for this quote so that I can read it in context.
- Status
C
Chris_W
Guest
You like that style? Would that be because it is friendly, or charitable, or because it elevates the discussion?
At any rate. To answer the question, you might be interested because she seems rather capable of arguing effectively the case for ID to be taught in school. Julie Thomas attempts to demonstrate that ID serves as a useful tool in science, thus rebutting the evolutionists argument that ID falls outside the realm of science.
What difference does it make who she is? Is there an actual rebuttal to her work or conclusions, or do people just conveniently ignore her?
S
steveandersen
Guest
Chris W:
FWTW here is the Talk Origins bio on her
well if she were a research biologist or something similar it would give her far more wieght than if she were just someone with an opinion and a keyboard like me.
FWTW here is the Talk Origins bio on her
C
Chris_W
Guest
Fair enough. She does sound like a research biologist of some sort, at least from the info she presents. But that aside, if someone said “I can disprove the Catholic claim that Jesus walked on water” it would give some reason to look into the matter I would think. She seems to be attempting to prove Intelligent Design is in fact a beneficial scientific theory providing for advancements in the field of biology, which if true, would rebut the assertion so often made by evolutionists, that ID falls outside the realm of science.well if she were a research biologist or something similar it would give her far more wieght than if she were just someone with an opinion and a keyboard like me.
FWTW here is the Talk Origins bio on her
As far as her refusal to make clear her beliefs, she addresses that quite well I think, saying essentially that science should not include beliefs. She refuses to make her beliefs known because they are irrelevent.
She also comments on the irony of evolutionists asserting that people use ID to try to prove God, yet when she doesn’t use ID for that purpose, they question her motives.
Interesting stuff.
B
buffalo
Guest
Chris W:
You won’t get many here to agree that current science does not include beliefs. The same argument you hear to not teach ID in schools applies to evolution too.
Much is included under the term science.
I agree that science should not include beliefs.
Chris,
You won’t get many here to agree that current science does not include beliefs. The same argument you hear to not teach ID in schools applies to evolution too.
Much is included under the term science.
I agree that science should not include beliefs.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Chris W:
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm
Please note the name of the person who authorized the publication of the document (it is found at the bottom of the document).
Peace
Tim
I wasn’t the one who posted the quote, but it is from a document that I have read numerous times and find fascinating.
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm
Please note the name of the person who authorized the publication of the document (it is found at the bottom of the document).
Peace
Tim
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
P
PhilVaz
Guest
David citing Amazon.com review: “Lamoureux delivers a 40-page critique of Johnson, his arguments”
David << What are 2 of the Johnson arguments critiqued? What are some flaws with those 2 arguments? >>
Maybe I will get back with you. I have the book with me (Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins) and the Amazon.com reviewer is correct. Johnson takes a licking but keeps on ticking (like Paley’s Watch). His talks critiquing metaphysical naturalism (what he calls “scientific naturalism”) are generally good and I agree with him on those (his philosophical critiques of Dawkins, Provine, Lewontin, Futuyma, etc).
But his science is poor, and based on few texts. For example, he doesn’t cite and didn’t seem to be aware of the major study on the fossil record, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution by Robert Carroll, even though it was published in 1987. Johnson claims in Darwin On Trial (1991) that paleontologists believe whales evolved from “rodents.” Anyone looking this up in Carroll’s book would know better. Plus in the 1990s we now have the solid evidence for land mammal-to-whale evolution. Lamoureux hammers Johnson on this point, and Johnson had no response. Part of Lamoureux’s critique of Johnson is online here.
Phil P
David << What are 2 of the Johnson arguments critiqued? What are some flaws with those 2 arguments? >>
Maybe I will get back with you. I have the book with me (Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins) and the Amazon.com reviewer is correct. Johnson takes a licking but keeps on ticking (like Paley’s Watch). His talks critiquing metaphysical naturalism (what he calls “scientific naturalism”) are generally good and I agree with him on those (his philosophical critiques of Dawkins, Provine, Lewontin, Futuyma, etc).
But his science is poor, and based on few texts. For example, he doesn’t cite and didn’t seem to be aware of the major study on the fossil record, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution by Robert Carroll, even though it was published in 1987. Johnson claims in Darwin On Trial (1991) that paleontologists believe whales evolved from “rodents.” Anyone looking this up in Carroll’s book would know better. Plus in the 1990s we now have the solid evidence for land mammal-to-whale evolution. Lamoureux hammers Johnson on this point, and Johnson had no response. Part of Lamoureux’s critique of Johnson is online here.
Phil P
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Kolbe Center? Not the most reliable source, and not at all in accord with Catholic doctrine:
As most of you know, a major event took place on the origins front last Friday, when the New York Times published a letter by Cardinal Schonborn–with the blessing in advance of Pope Benedict XVI–dismissing as unfounded any and all claims that the Catholic Faith is compatible with Darwinian evolution. This action may be the first positive step by the Vatican leadership on the origins front since the monitum against the writings of Teilhard de Chardin in the 1960’s. But much work remains to be done.
But here’s what Schonborn actually said:
"Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge…I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained."
In other words, he has no problem with evolution so long as science doesn’t extend beyond its proper bounds. Which is what scientists have been saying all along.
Schonborn’s differences with the Pope turn out to be non-existent. Both Benedict XIV and Schonborn allow the fact of evolution, but point out that it cannot explain our purpose.
Which is, again, what Darwinists have been pointing out.
As most of you know, a major event took place on the origins front last Friday, when the New York Times published a letter by Cardinal Schonborn–with the blessing in advance of Pope Benedict XVI–dismissing as unfounded any and all claims that the Catholic Faith is compatible with Darwinian evolution. This action may be the first positive step by the Vatican leadership on the origins front since the monitum against the writings of Teilhard de Chardin in the 1960’s. But much work remains to be done.
But here’s what Schonborn actually said:
"Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge…I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained."
In other words, he has no problem with evolution so long as science doesn’t extend beyond its proper bounds. Which is what scientists have been saying all along.
Schonborn’s differences with the Pope turn out to be non-existent. Both Benedict XIV and Schonborn allow the fact of evolution, but point out that it cannot explain our purpose.
Which is, again, what Darwinists have been pointing out.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Barb << Both Benedict XIV and Schonborn allow the fact of evolution, but point out that it cannot explain our purpose. >>
Hey its Benedict XVI
and good to see the Schonborn 10/2/2005 lecture on creation-evolution is getting out. I look forward to his book based on the catechetical lectures. Maybe he can have a Catholic biologist review it before publishing.
I also recommend the Schonborn interviews done by Steve Ray! They discuss Mary and Peter. Ros Mos and Fr. Pacwa discuss Jesus and Moses. Kind of “bonus” DVD material from the wonderful Steve Ray series.
Phil P
Hey its Benedict XVI
and good to see the Schonborn 10/2/2005 lecture on creation-evolution is getting out. I look forward to his book based on the catechetical lectures. Maybe he can have a Catholic biologist review it before publishing.I also recommend the Schonborn interviews done by Steve Ray! They discuss Mary and Peter. Ros Mos and Fr. Pacwa discuss Jesus and Moses. Kind of “bonus” DVD material from the wonderful Steve Ray series.
Phil P
C
Chris_W
Guest
Thanks Orogeny. I thought it looked familiar, but something just didn’t set right with the quote in the post…
**
…perhaps because the initial sentence of the paragraph from which the quote is taken was removed!**
It actually reads:
“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago …While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them…Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”
C’mon Barbarian, that’s a pretty important preface to the paragraph don’t you think? :tsktsk:
P
PhilVaz
Guest
ChrisW << C’mon Barbarian, that’s a pretty important preface to the paragraph don’t you think? >>
And here you are, about 1.5 years later, and you are still doubting evolution and the age of the earth, despite my 4.5 billion posts and links on the subject in here.
Very sad.
Phil P
And here you are, about 1.5 years later, and you are still doubting evolution and the age of the earth, despite my 4.5 billion posts and links on the subject in here.
Very sad. Phil P
O
Orogeny
Guest
Chris W:
Regarding how important that first sentance is, I would suggest that it is not overly important because the document does not disagree with the science. If the paragraph had gone on to refute the science, it would have been an important phrase. I do think it is important to note that the document very specifically did not refute that position.
Peace
Tim
You are welcome.
Regarding how important that first sentance is, I would suggest that it is not overly important because the document does not disagree with the science. If the paragraph had gone on to refute the science, it would have been an important phrase. I do think it is important to note that the document very specifically did not refute that position.
Peace
Tim
C
Chris_W
Guest
Lets not turn this into personal attacks, Phil. The evidence you pose is inconclusive. At the same time I do understand why you perceive a perponderance of evidence, and I know you have studied this stuff in depth. Yet you have to agree that reconciling Catholicism and ToE is a challenging task that you yourself have not been able to accomplish (at least the last time we discussed it).ChrisW << C’mon Barbarian, that’s a pretty important preface to the paragraph don’t you think? >>
And here you are, about 1.5 years later, and you are still doubting evolution and the age of the earth, despite my 4.5 billion posts and links on the subject in here.
Phil P
My objection to Barbarian’s quotation is that it was obviosly given in an attempt to assert that what was quoted is the Church’s position, which is simply not the case. The paragraph was explaining the “widely accepted scientific account”. To leave that important fact out is a misrepresentation of the facts and can lead to others thinking that’s what the Church herself teaches, which is not the case.
C
Chris_W
Guest
You are entitled to your opinion, Orogeny. I would argue that it is important because without it the impression is the Church whole heartedly accepts the ToE, which is not the case.
The fact that the Church does not “disagree with the science” is not the same thing as saying the Church agrees with the conclusions of evolutionists. There is other information contained in that document which does seem to contradict what Catholic evolutionists seem to say.
For example, that man evolved and God just inserted a soul at some point, thus having made man in the image of God. But that document says we cannot consider man in a dualistic way (a body separate from a soul) because it is both together, created together. In fact, it even describes how God creates a soul and forms matter around it, which seems to flatly contradict the notion posed by Catholic evolutionists. That is merely my interpretation, but my point is, the document is far from a general approval or rejection of the theory.
All I’m saying, in objecting to Barbarian’s quote (which he/she is not alone in making) is that the Church does NOT officially approve of ToE, and to say otherwise is wrong, and can lead to the error of others who may not know better.
I think evolutionists would object if creationists took quotes out of context (as I’m sure has been done before) thus giving the false impression the Church oficially rejects ToE. Likewise we should object to the out of context quotations that give the false impression the Church officially approves of ToE as well.
We all bear a certain responsibility I think to be sure we are not misrepresenting Church teaching. We can debate what is not explicity taught, and have some freedom in doing so, but we shouldn’t say the Church teaches something it hasn’t.
C
Chris_W
Guest
Oh…and I prefer to think of it as a thoughtful skepticism
BTW, I’m going to give your link on the Schonborn lecture about Creation and Evolution a read on my lunch break today…I haven’t seen that yet.
See ya,
Chris
C
Chris_W
Guest
The Barbarian:
The paragraph immediately preceding the quoted text you supplied says:
(commenting on a quote from LaPlace) "Such is the notion that God is a superfluous hypothesis, a crutch for the infirm, incapable of standing on their own feet. Increasingly, human beings win their freedom from ancient dependencies, no longer needing God as an explanation or perhaps in any way at all."
Immediately following, he discusses Darwin, “As he [Darwin] said himself, his concern was to find theory which, for the development of the species from lower to higher, did not require increasingly perfective creative acts but rather relied exclusively on coincidental variations and the ‘survival of the fittest’. Here was thus the notion that we have found a means for dispensing with individual acts of creation”.
Then comes your quoted text. This is hardly an expression of what the author believes. As was the case with my previous objection, the author is most certainly describing the view of others. And he follows it up by saying in the paragraph immediately following the text you quoted “What is certain is that many saw Darwin’s The Origin of the Species as an alternative to what Darwin himself called ‘the theory of independent acts of creation’.” and that "…it is a conception of creation that in the realm of theology we call ‘Deism’."
And all of these texts were preceded by the sentence in which he gives the reason he’s even discussing such things. He was discussing the preceived conflicts between faith and science and desceibes the problem "Questions that were previously elucidated in supposedly ‘primitive supernatural’ terms can now be treated in ‘naturalistic’ terms, and that generally means resorting to purely material causes."
This is **NOT ** a general endorsement of the theory of evolution.
The Barbarian:
I look forward to Schonborn’s continued lectures on the subject. Hopefully he will answer such questions.
Having now read the lecture posted in Phil’s post, I’m going to have to object again, Barbarian to another out of context quote.
The paragraph immediately preceding the quoted text you supplied says:
(commenting on a quote from LaPlace) "Such is the notion that God is a superfluous hypothesis, a crutch for the infirm, incapable of standing on their own feet. Increasingly, human beings win their freedom from ancient dependencies, no longer needing God as an explanation or perhaps in any way at all."
Immediately following, he discusses Darwin, “As he [Darwin] said himself, his concern was to find theory which, for the development of the species from lower to higher, did not require increasingly perfective creative acts but rather relied exclusively on coincidental variations and the ‘survival of the fittest’. Here was thus the notion that we have found a means for dispensing with individual acts of creation”.
Then comes your quoted text. This is hardly an expression of what the author believes. As was the case with my previous objection, the author is most certainly describing the view of others. And he follows it up by saying in the paragraph immediately following the text you quoted “What is certain is that many saw Darwin’s The Origin of the Species as an alternative to what Darwin himself called ‘the theory of independent acts of creation’.” and that "…it is a conception of creation that in the realm of theology we call ‘Deism’."
And all of these texts were preceded by the sentence in which he gives the reason he’s even discussing such things. He was discussing the preceived conflicts between faith and science and desceibes the problem "Questions that were previously elucidated in supposedly ‘primitive supernatural’ terms can now be treated in ‘naturalistic’ terms, and that generally means resorting to purely material causes."
This is **NOT ** a general endorsement of the theory of evolution.
The Barbarian:
Of course that is true. The whole question then, is, what are the proper bounds? Is it proper for evolutionists to assert that mankind evolved?
I look forward to Schonborn’s continued lectures on the subject. Hopefully he will answer such questions.
C
Chris_W
Guest
I agree with you. This is good stuff that hopefully will settle your and my differences.
I have a quetion though, Phil. You seem to look at my position on evolution with disdain, yet this document (which you seem to happily endorse) confirms my position:
He says faith and science (even evolution if understood properly) must be able to agree since both will point to the same truth. But he closes saying** “my common sense cannot be shut out by the sceintific method. Reason tells me that plan and order, meaning and goal exist, that a time piece does not come into being by accident, even less so the living organism that is a plant, and animal, or above all, man.”**
He says the same thing our new Pope said (which you and I discussed early on in this thread) and which I’ve been arguing all along in these forums, when he quoted the First Vatican Council "Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason…"
So where the ToE seems to contradict the teaching of the Church, I MUST conclude the conclusions of scientists are in error somehow…until the Church explains the proper understanding that allows for the two to be reconciled.
What is your objection to my position here? You mentioned jokingly “how sad” that I continue in my rejection of evolution, but I guess I don’t understand why such a position is deficient in some way. Am I missing out on some graces that will lead me to Heavin? Am I somehow leading less than a good Catholic life because of my position? What is it exaclty that you disapprove of?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Chris W:
To me, the most important sentence regarding evolution in that pararaph is this (including the preceding sentence for context sake):
Peace
Tim
Well, that sentence was a lead in to the discussion of the origin of the universe, not specifically evolution.
To me, the most important sentence regarding evolution in that pararaph is this (including the preceding sentence for context sake):
That sentence is a pretty strong statement from the Church’s point of view.
Which is completely consistent with my views - until both the body and soul are present, there is no human.
I would disagree with your interpretation, but the point of the document is not to approve or reject the theory of evolution, but to show that Catholics do not need to reject the science based on theology. That is why I love to use it as a reference.
I would agree with that. In fact, the Church does not officially approve of any scientific theory that I am aware of.
You would be correct that creationists (or, as I would prefer to refer to them as anti-evolutionists) have at times taken quotes out of context. I will reiterate what I wrote before - the portion of the paragraph that was omitted does not change the meaning of the paragraph, especially since that sentence was directed at the discussion of the origin of the universe and not ToE specifically.
Peace
Tim
S
steveandersen
Guest
Chris W:
How can you be an “evolutionist” and not assert that something evolved?
Huh?
How can you be an “evolutionist” and not assert that something evolved?
- Status