Ignorance and evolution

[Wolseley]

I am finished debating this subject in these forums. But thanks for the offer, I am sure you will find one willing soon enough.

You, my friend, are a very, very smart individual.

More people should follow our lead and do the same.

 

[edwest2]

No. Let’s stick to the subject.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[SoCalRC]

“false information” ?

Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. I gave you the reference to show that statement is true.

No, you gave us an article written by a member of the laity.

Which, seemingly do not understand. We are not permitted to believe in atheistic evolution, that is, we cannot reject a creator. FROM THE ARTICLE YOU CITE:

“Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.” (emphasis added)

Just a tip, but normally it is a good idea to cite something that supports your postion, not refute it. If you bother to read HUMANI GENERIS, you will see that Pope Pius XII did put a restriction, he was concerned about “Polygenism”. This is because of our teaching regarding original sin. In his 1993 statement, Pope John Paul II clarified this. Polygenism may have been involved in the development of our bodies, but not with our ensoulment.

Interestingly, current DNA research seems to prove this out. It seems all of us are, in fact, descended from a sub-Saharan ‘Eve’, but that ancestor may have been the result (biologically) of polygenism.

 

[SoCalRC]

so we have the big bang producing all the planents and stars, chemical evolution becomes necessary in this process so as to produce by some unknown natural means…

Stephen Hawking (physicist) was granted an audience with Pope John Paul II. In writing about it, he recounts the Pope asserting that the Big Bang is, in fact, the moment of creation (A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME).

The universe remains well outside the limits of human understanding. Take Ed and his bouncing ball gravity ‘proof’. Assuming that he takes that experimentation and develops Newtonian physics, he has a dilema. When we look to the heavens, what we see does not obey those rules, unless there is a great deal of stuff we cannot see. Using relativity and the measurable bending of light, we can even map it, it is a frame work that holds all that we perceive as reality (ordinary matter) together.

About 3/4 of the Universe is something we cannot see and have yet to touch or identify. All that we can see is being hurled apart by a force we have yet to experience…

Seems to me that there is plenty of room for God, provided we stop trying to force His magnificent creation, not just down to human scale, but to a size that can fit the narrowest of minds…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

speciation does not prove macroevolution, it only demonstrates at best micro evolution as in variation within kind. Yet all of biology uses micro evolution as their support for macroevolution, believing that micro can be extrapolated into macroevolution, I will maintain that is not necessarily so. You cannot demonstrate macro, you cannot even make it happen in a lab under control circumstances, and yet all people are suppose to believe that nature can do what we cannot demonstrate as a reality there in lies the rub. or is it rubbish???

Yes the old story, the scientists are wrong and I am right. Which conspiracy theory do you adher to ? Atheists, secularists, Communists, or just scientists in general for purely mean reasons?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

nope I beg to differ speciation is of the same kind, such as wolf is species separate from dogs in general but would be a type of dog, just as fox, or coyote would be of the same kind or a dog type, but different species. Macroevolution needs to show a natural order from reptile to bird or reptile to mammel, this cannot be shown to be true in nature, nor can it be done under lab conditions selected by man. As far as redefining macro evolution so as to take to long to observe, labatory would solve this probelem, but there is not any way to even make that one work. Therefore speciation is an example of microevolution not macroevolution. Another example that a lab should be able to demonstrate: Evolution teaches life from nonlife. Man cannot do this in the lab, why in the world should anyone believe that nature did it on its own. No oberservation, no demonstration no reproducability makes this outside of science but ones belief system and it is wrong to claim this as fact, wrong to teach as theory without the counterpoints. It is brainwashing. This is irrational. Even if Man could somehow make life from non life all it would prove then is that it took intelligence to create life, it still would not prove that nature did it on its own. There in lyes the rub or is it all rubbish???

Well I may not know a lot of science but I sure know that evolution does not teach life from nonlife. That is not true. Evolution only explains how life changes over time, not how life began. That is the realm of abiogenesis. Your’re reading creationist literature. Why? There are tons of stuff available from every reputable science organization in the world. You wish to debunk evolution because? I suspect because it threatens your faith. That is not the fault of evolution but of your faith I’m afraid.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

simple darwinism is no longer taught, look at the biology text books evolution crosses all scientific fields and is must to eliminate the necessity of a creator, so we have the big bang producing all the planents and stars, chemical evolution becomes necessary in this process so as to produce by some unknown natural means all the chemical of the periodic table from hydrogen up the ladder, and to take all of the chemicals and have life evolve from non life. Non of it observable, testable, demonstrateable. as stated before if man cannot mix the chemical of life and produce a lifeform from non life in a testtube then this all is a belief system outside of real science since it is non observable, based on speculations and extrapolations which cannot be proved.

Can you try to clean this up and make it understandable? I think you are trying to make a point, but I’m not sure what it is. "biology text books evolution crosses all scientific fields and is must…?

 

[RACJ]

When I was in school, abiogenesis was incorporated into evolutionary study. But the fact is that evolutionary theory is no more founded upon scientific principle than abiogenesis. It is merely speculation. Those sketches of “embryos” that were and are used in textbooks should cause any evolutionist pause. They are all so fraudulent! But they led duped students into thinking that all life forms are really the same in origin. None of the naturalistic rubbish should be taught in schools. More than any other reason, the hoax of evolution under the rubric of “science” is responsible for unbelief amongst our young people today.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The same old nonsense. Here is the Church’s position which is not what evolutionists are stating:

From Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 64:

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 folllowing 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.

Get it right, please. Catholics are not allowed to believe in an evolutionary theory, including neo-Darwinism, that explicitly excludes God’s role.
Ed

Ed he never said otherwise. You are not reading carefully. And we have already been through your quote and how you have misunderstood what that means as well. The Church of course does not adopt any theory that purports to exclude God. Goodness Ed you are the one who quoted the pope as telling science not to make claims about God since it was not their rightful province. Now you suggest it should defy the pope and do so, just of course as Ed would dictate it no doubt. Your faith is the issue Ed…not the science.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi Tim,

Just visit the Library at this site and you’ll learn that Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. I can’t think of what else the Church might be referring to other than the secular, public school textbooks already in existence.

Read the last line in the section titled “The Catholic Position.”
catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
Ed

So this all comes down to you making the leap that because the Church rightly condemns an evolutionary definition that excludes God, you have concluded that that logically means that they must be “referring to . . . secular public school textbooks”? Oh good grief Ed. Why would that be the first logical conclusion to you?

BTW…do you ever think that perhaps there might be other sources for information on Catholic teaching than a laity-based apologetics site? I see you site very little else for Church authority.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

“false information” ?

Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. I gave you the reference to show that statement is true. Unless the Church is referring to some bizarre, atheists only form of evolution that is used only by atheists, then it is referring to the current, secular, public school version of evolution being taught.
Ed

Ed nobody needs a cite that says the Church teaches that evolution absent God is wrong. We all know that. You are claiming that textbooks contain statements that God is not necessary because of evolution. You have been asked to prove that by citing one textbook that says that. You say…well the Church is against evolution without God, and the only thing that atheists use is no-God evolution, so if schools are secular this is the books they are using. You have failed at least 2 ways to make this a logical conclusion. First you have not proved that atheists have their own textbooks which say that God is not necessary to explain the world. Second yuou have not proved that these books "if they exist, are what are used in public schools…You are way out there on this one Ed.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No, I don’t get it. Sorry.

The point is, what is being taught in schools right now does not assign to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life. True statement
Ed

Point is, you supplied us with the citation and the quote wherein the Pope said that science has no business commenting on just what role divine providence plays in the development of life. The Church reserves that right to herself. …true statement.

You wilfully change your position once a week. Just say you need to believe in a literal genesis. YOu are just continually contradicting yourself.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

When I was in school, abiogenesis was incorporated into evolutionary study. But the fact is that evolutionary theory is no more founded upon scientific principle than abiogenesis. It is merely speculation. Those sketches of “embryos” that were and are used in textbooks should cause any evolutionist pause. They are all so fraudulent! But they led duped students into thinking that all life forms are really the same in origin. None of the naturalistic rubbish should be taught in schools. More than any other reason, the hoax of evolution under the rubric of “science” is responsible for unbelief amongst our young people today.

Of course you are right. Its just a bunch of hooey…150 years and perhaps several millions scientists in disparate fields of study have all joined in this massive conspiracy to make God a lie. They’ve done so well that only a few creationists have been able to figure it out and are busy exposing them for their faulty science by promoting pseudo-science in its place as refutation.

Why do you need evolution to be wrong?

 

[The_Barbarian]

When I was in school, abiogenesis was incorporated into evolutionary study.

Nope. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life. If God did it by magic, rather than as He says in Genesis, it would make no difference to evolutionary theory.

But the fact is that evolutionary theory is no more founded upon scientific principle than abiogenesis. It is merely speculation.

Someone’s had a little fun with your trust in them. Natural selection, for example, can be and is tested in college biology classes by undergraduates. Common descent is documented by a very large and diverse body of evidence. Would you like to learn about it?

Those sketches of “embryos” that were and are used in textbooks should cause any evolutionist pause. They are all so fraudulent! But they led duped students into thinking that all life forms are really the same in origin.

Actually, textbooks now use photographs of embyros for that purpose. It works just as well as the drawings.

None of the naturalistic rubbish should be taught in schools. More than any other reason, the hoax of evolution under the rubric of “science” is responsible for unbelief amongst our young people today.

So atheism didn’t exist before Darwin? How silly. Evolutionary theory was proposed by two theists, and is considered to be true by our Pontiff. Perhaps you should get a few facts, first?

 

[The_Barbarian]

The micro/macro split is a fallacy

That’s right.

How big can a “micro” get?
How small can a “macro” be?

In the case of ring species, it can get very confused. Ring species are populations divided into a series of geographic subspecies, in which neighboring ones can successfully interbreed, but more distant ones cannot. Gene flow continues through the population, keeping it a single species. But if a critical intermediate population should die out, we have two separate species, and microevolutionary change becomes, retroactively, macroevolution.

That should be more than enough to make it clear that there is really no difference between the two.

 

[RACJ]

(1)Sorry, Barbarian, but the theory that life initially emanated from non-life WAS incorporated into a big stew in my biology classroom.
(2) Natural selection has zilch to do with macro-evolution. And if you call “descent” “ascent”, which evolutionists believe, the whole theory is transparently crazy.
(3) The phony sketches, which are still used in some texts, purport to suggest common origin. The photos make it clear that all the embryos are starkly different.
(4) I never suggested that atheism did not exist before Darwinism. This straw man example is what is silly!
Oh, Spirit Meadows, I don’t remember talking “conspiracy”. I do know that scientists who dare to challenge the status quo of naturalism are ostracized. Evolutionists fear true debate!
One last thing: If Darwinism is not hostile to the Christian faith, why is it that proponents believe that God is not NECESSARY for life in its present forms to have transpired? Just ask any biology teacher whether there is any point at which you must believe in God for “evolution” to have proceeded. EVEN in the pre-biotic world in which abiogenesis occurred. Their resposes would be negative or agnostic. RACJ

 

[SpiritMeadow]

=RACJ;3205926 Oh, Spirit Meadows, I don’t remember talking “conspiracy”. I do know that scientists who dare to challenge the status quo of naturalism are ostracized. Evolutionists fear true debate!
One last thing: If Darwinism is not hostile to the Christian faith, why is it that proponents believe that God is not NECESSARY for life in its present forms to have transpired? Just ask any biology teacher whether there is any point at which you must believe in God for “evolution” to have proceeded. EVEN in the pre-biotic world in which abiogenesis occurred. Their resposes would be negative or agnostic. RACJ

You cannot claim that evolution is patently silly and transparently so and still maintain that out of millions of scientists over 150 years only a mere handful with no science background for the most part, step forward to make this claim. You posit that millions even to be fair to you only hundreds of thousands have wasted their entire careers doing what they knew was faulty science. Are you serious? Scientists are like everyone else, they like to do something important and be recognized for it. What you posit is absurd on its face. I would agree that oddball scientists are not well received, yet if they have the science, they will prevail. Yet, so far they have not, but have been repudiated by every reputable scientific organization in the world to date.

Proponents of evolutionary theory are all over the place in terms of their personal beliefs. Some are atheists, some agnostics, some Christians, some buddhists, some hindu…etc…there is no statement in science about God.

I cannot speak to what some arbitrary “teacher” personally feels about evolution and God. That would be a personal opinion and not controlling in any fashion to anything.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(1)Sorry, Barbarian, but the theory that life initially emanated from non-life WAS incorporated into a big stew in my biology classroom.

I’ve been reviewing textbooks for a long time, and I have yeet to get any that say it’s part of evolutionary theory. Please let me know the publisher and title if you can. It will be quite a find for me.

Natural selection has zilch to do with macro-evolution.

The evidence, say from the evolution of horses or mammals generally, refutes that belief.

And if you call “descent” “ascent”, which evolutionists believe, the whole theory is transparently crazy.

Evolutionary theory calls it “common descent”, but it really doesn’t mean anything but descent in the meaning of ancestry.

(3) The phony sketches, which are still used in some texts, purport to suggest common origin. The photos make it clear that all the embryos are starkly different.

Odd then, that modern texts use photos to show that they look alike.

I never suggested that atheism did not exist before Darwinism.

So Darwinism isn’t the cause of atheism, now? Imagine that.

Oh, Spirit Meadows, I don’t remember talking “conspiracy”. I do know that scientists who dare to challenge the status quo of naturalism are ostracized.

That would make it very hard to explain how Stephen Gould willingly accepted a YE creationist (Kurt Wise) as a doctoral candidate. On the other hand, write to the ICR graduate school and see if you can get accepted without submitting a loyalty oath to creationism. Scientists tolerate dissent; creationists ostracize dissenters. This is one of the major differences between science and creationism.

Evolutionists fear true debate!

We seem to be doing well here. And as you just learned, they even accept creationists into their schools.

One last thing: If Darwinism is not hostile to the Christian faith, why is it that proponents believe that God is not NECESSARY for life in its present forms to have transpired?

Many, perhaps most of us do. We just don’t have to use God to explain it. Plumbers don’t need God to explain hydraulics, either. For the same reason.

Just ask any biology teacher whether there is any point at which you must believe in God for “evolution” to have proceeded.

There’s no point in which you have to believe in God for a hurricane to have developed either, or a seed to germinate. No need to believe in God for electrons to flow in a wire. So all of this is false? How silly.

 

[inthecloud]

Proponents of evolutionary theory are all over the place in terms of their personal beliefs. Some are atheists, some agnostics, some Christians, some buddhists, some hindu…etc…there is no statement in science about God.

I yet have to meet a non theist creationist.
Lest face it, is not science, is religion.

 

[reggieM]

(1)Sorry, Barbarian, but the theory that life initially emanated from non-life WAS incorporated into a big stew in my biology classroom.

I find it amazing that this sort of thing is denied by people here on a daily basis.

 (2) Natural selection has zilch to do with macro-evolution. And if you call "descent" "ascent", which evolutionists believe, the whole theory is transparently crazy.

I would say that it’s transparently crazy even if you can figure out the difference between descent and ascent. It’s actually laughable to see the tangle of confusion with terminology and concepts – complete reversals and contradictions appear every year.

 (3) The phony sketches, which are still used in some texts, purport to suggest common origin. The photos make it clear that all the embryos are starkly different.

That is clear and obvious proof of the dishonesty that was behind the Darwinist campaign. Someday, people will just openly recognize that a fraud was perpetrated on a naive and gullible public.

 (4) I never suggested that atheism did not exist before Darwinism. This straw man example is what is silly!

Cancer existed before there were any cigarettes. Therefore, cigarettes do not cause cancer. Yes, “silly” is a nice word for it.

One last thing: If Darwinism is not hostile to the Christian faith, why is it that proponents believe that God is not NECESSARY for life in its present forms to have transpired?

That is the problem, indeed. Even many evolutionists who claim to believe in God have reduced His role to “perhaps” creating some laws and nothing else.

Just ask any biology teacher whether there is any point at which you must believe in God for “evolution” to have proceeded. EVEN in the pre-biotic world in which abiogenesis occurred. Their resposes would be negative or agnostic.

That is correct.