Ignorance and evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
You and The Barbarian are engaging in the clear use of misinformation amd emotional tactics to defend something that is against Church teaching. To suggest Cardinal Schoenborn said too much is to place yourself at the level of the Cardinal. I believe he knew precisely what he was saying. Both you and the Barbarian are engaging in classic psychological tactics to confuse, but it will not work.

Cardinal Schoenborn has spoken clearly, and not out of ignorance. He has spoken with the knowledge given to him by God and the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church. I respectively ask that both of you consider what you are doing.

The position of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn, is clear. God did it. Pope Benedict is not a satisfied evolutionist. Cardinal Schoenborn stated quite clearly that neo-Darwinian evolution is not true.

I understand the Cardinal. I understand the Church.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Identify who you are referring to Ed. Barbarian we can see, and he will answer undoubtedly. Who is you?
 
edwest2 said:
From Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 64:

“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.”
Ed
Click to expand...
reading correctly helps a lot here Ed. Notice it says: “those of A” neo darwinian…That doesnt mean simply neo darwinian…it means a type of neo-darwinianism. We have straightened you out on this exact issue before. Please try to read carefully.

What he is saying is that any form of darwinism that denies a causal role to God is incorrect. That is a correct statement that any and all believers adher to. You have given us the cite yourself wherein the Church stated that science had no such right to make statements about God. This is but a restatement of the obvious.
 
reggieM said:
SpiritMeadow – You’re more honest than your comrade, Barbarian. For that I commend and salute you. Certainly, I know you disagree with much of what I’ve posted but at least you’re open-minded and fair enough to recognize some potential problem in that text.

And yes, I do get concerned about impressionable minds at the high school level. It’s not like that book was directed at adults.

Thank you for that.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure you understand me. I do not agree that on its face, the statement must be taken to mean that evolution requires no God. What I meant is that it is ambiguous enough that those who have an agenda to take God from the mix could use this statement to their advantage. For that reason, it is better to eliminate it. But that has zero to do with the efficacy and validity of the theory itself. It remains untouched by the emotional controversy engendered by those who feel threatened in their faith by recognition of this “fact” of existence. But if you think I am open-minded…yay I say!
 
Impressionable minds at the high school level. I am against promoting atheistic naturalism. Human beings are not just like salt crystals. It should be pointed out that the theory of evolution was embraced by atheists because it works without God. I will not accept it. I encourage others to not accept it.

Cardinal Schoenborn does not accept it as written in biology texts. But outside of how the Catholic Church defines it, it is only fit for atheists. Pope Benedict is not a satisfied evolutionist, and the Catholic Church has not acquiesced to the theory.

Peace,
Ed
 
reggieM said:
A little under 1% of the American population identifies itself as atheist.

In this study by Nature magazine, over 70% of scientists are atheist.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Thus, atheism is disproportionately represented in science.
Click to expand...
I fail to understand what you think this means? Suppose 65% of all the armed forces believed that bubble gum was the best dessert how does that effect how to clean a rifle? Are you actually trying to argue that they are purposely doctoring the data in order to be mean to you? Again, you by definition, posit a conspiracy of silence, of gigantic proportions existing over a century. Please explain how this was done. And why then you cannot trust your doctor, astronomer, geologist, anthropologist, marine biologist, etc because they are overly represented in the atheist sphere?

PS…most atheists like to think of themselves as intellectually honest, I suspect its why they gravitate to the sciences. You make an analogy and then ask us to leap to what you perceive is an obvious conclusion. It’s simply not logically correct on its face. Do you have some documentation that atheistic scientists are more prone to lie about what they do?
 
reggieM said:
Evolutionary theory denies God’s role in the creation of the universe as well as in the creation of life and of human beings.

This is what the Cardinal and the Pope declared, clearly.

I believe you’re starting to accept what I’ve taught you. That’s a very good start, although in your above comment you’re wrong. Perhaps you’re a bit confused.
Click to expand...
Evolutionary theory denies nothing about God…It does not refer to God. It is science. You are so thoroughly wrong on your next statements as to require no further statement. You clearly have not read one word of what any pope has said.

We really don’t care if you are compelled emotionally to believe in YEC and creationism. You will not be allowed to claim it as teaching of the Church of course, since it is clearly not the teaching.
 
anthony022071 said:
SpiritMeadow;3215926:
My credential is I know how to reason.
The theory of evolution suggests that life forms evolved through chance and necessity,that mankind metamorphosized from irrational animals through chance and necessity. But irrationally does not beget rationality. Irrational matter does not organize itself into moving patterns or laws of nature which make life sustainable,and creatures which are inherently irrational don’t gain rationality over the centuries. Irrational creatures may gain in
adaptability and cunning,but that is not a gain in rational thought.
The idea that life forms evolved out of chaos,chance,or necessity is itself an irrational idea. The natural tendency of irrational matter and a chaotic environment is toward continued irrationality and chaos. The theory of evolution discounts the necessity of an intelligent being which creates,orders,and directs nature.
So all that is left is a literal-minded interpretation of scraps of bones and fossils pieced together into a modern myth.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see you have no credentials…Do you really want to live in a world where decisions are made because they appear obvious in the use of YOUR intellect? We dont’ do business usually on what appears irrational to somebody. We tend to demand facts and proof. Happily evolutionary theory supplies both by the bucketload. Those who reject it do so because they have issues with their faith.
Click to expand...
 
anthony022071 said:
Where is the evidence that the theory of evolution does include God’s role in creation? The god that lies behind the theory of evolution is Chaos,Chance,Necessity.
Click to expand...
There is none Anthony, for the simple reason that science does not investigate supernatural events, which God certainly is. Secondly it doesnt because the Church has told scientists that it is improper for them to make any such statement about God. The science is neutral, as it should be. Evolutionary theory is not a relgion, it is a science and responds to scientific principles,not metaphysical ones.
 
freesoulhope said:
Notice the word “in”

Such is the atitude of those who take life for granted, and believe that all of reality can be explain by one simple equation. Evolution is simply a process by which certain “aspects” of reality arise; It does not explain reality as a whole; and niether does it wholly explain the “potentialities” which exist within nature—without those potentialites, evolution would not occur.
To think that human beings could ever trully comprehend everything in terms of Science, is quite simply a naturalistic fantasy, and an irresponsible one at that.

Evolution does not show evidence for or against the existence of God. Evolution provides a superficial shallow excuse to disbelieve; nothing more.
Click to expand...
agreed! 👍
 
The Church makes statements about science all the time. I’m sure that Cardinal Schoenborn does not have an emotional need to reject neo-Darwinian evolution:

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0060.html

“… defenders of neo-Darwininian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least the acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with the Christian faith. But this is not true.”

Quite clear.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Impressionable minds at the high school level. I am against promoting atheistic naturalism. Human beings are not just like salt crystals. It should be pointed out that the theory of evolution was embraced by atheists because it works without God. I will not accept it. I encourage others to not accept it.

Cardinal Schoenborn does not accept it as written in biology texts. But outside of how the Catholic Church defines it, it is only fit for atheists. Pope Benedict is not a satisfied evolutionist, and the Catholic Church has not acquiesced to the theory.
Ed
Click to expand...
Clearly Ed you have rejected your own stance. Now you have fallen in love with the term “satisfied evolutionist”…Why did you therefore say 19 times…that you accepted AS DID POPE BENDICT****some form of evolution as long as it was guided by God." Why Ed, were you not telling us the truth those 19 times? Or are you just so angry now, that you have wilfully decided just to abandon the entire topic and entrench yourself with creationists and YEC’s in stubborn refusal to accede to the Clear position of your Church?
 
edwest2 said:
The Church makes statements about science all the time. I’m sure that Cardinal Schoenborn does not have an emotional need to reject neo-Darwinian evolution:

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0060.html

“… defenders of neo-Darwininian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least the acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with the Christian faith. But this is not true.”

Quite clear.

Ed
Click to expand...
You parse the document so it says what you have now decided is your new position. You have no right to so mislead people Ed for you have stated the very opposite yourself here 19 times…You tried to textbook ploy…that didnt work so you have decided to retreat to a position you know is incorrect because you cant conform the world to your needs.
 
freesoulhope said:
Why do you reject Evolution.?
Click to expand...
Because Ed is afraid if he accepts it, it will be the first step in a series for him that will end in loss of faith. He can’t let God be God, but must conform God into the God he believes in.
 
edwest2 said:
Your argument is with Cardinal Schoenborn, not me.
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Evolution Contradicts Church teachings? Why does the Church say its okay to accept Evolution so far as we accept that God is the cause of Evolution and the human soul?
 
edwest2 said:
Did you read what Cardinal Schoenborn wrote? The Catholic Church has not acquiesced to this theory. Pope Benedict is not a satisfied evolutionist. It is quite clear.
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
What is an Unsatisfied Evolutionist? The Pope Needn’t Believe in Evolution as an accurate scientific account, but i think that it has been made clear that the Church Does not reject the theory as heresy
 
edwest2 said:
Did you read what Cardinal Schoenborn wrote? Yes or no?
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
No. I tend to take notice of higher levels of authority, such as the Pope. But i will give it a quick read.

What is so important about the opinons of Cardinal Schoenborn on the matter of evolution? If you want to believe in design, then believe in design. I believe in evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top