Ignorance and evolution

[anthony022071]

No. There were other species of humans before us.

There could only be one species of human being – the kind that has a rational mind,reason,love,and which is capable of contemplating his Creator. Humans are not rightly defined by their physical attributes – that’s how other creatures are defined. No-one speaks of “ape-beings”. God is “Being”,and mankind is made in God’s image,and so are called human beings.

It would have been impossible for science to progress if scientists could not reason.

Until about the mid-1800’s,the sciences were founded upon the assumed principle that the world was rationally ordered with laws (thereby making the scientific study of nature possible) and that there was a God who did it.
That is how science was able to progress since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers. But now the sciences disregard the principle of God,and so the basis of the sciences is undermined. If there is no belief in God,then the sciences make a god out of chance or necessity or chaos,as if rationality,order,laws came naturally out of irrational matter.

The scientific method is one of the most effective ways to reason.

Scientific methods are just techniques of reason,and they can lead to pathologies of reason.

Because scientists aren’t limited to science.

When scientists theorize about evolution,they are limited to the scientific method,which discounts the belief in a Creator.
The sciences have limited themselves by disregarding metaphysics,and the belief in a God who reasons and creates from reason. The theory of evolution is not the product of a science which believes that life forms came from a rational mind,but rather from irrational matter,chance,necessity,chaos.

 

[Wolseley]

Interesting that he had to remove that. It appeared in the book for the first four editions spanning over 7 years of publication and republication. Then he eventually removed it.

Of course, Miller lied about this event as it is easily seen.

But more importantly, the book he co-wrote had this support for atheism in it. This is a very serious sin, in the Catholic understanding of it. How many souls were corrupted by this false teaching?

Perhaps even you won’t think you have to take any responsiblity for defending the promulgation of atheistic texts as you smugly defend such things on a daily basis.

Perhaps you believe that God really won’t mind that you give tacit and sometimes open support for atheistic teaching which sends impressionable souls to Hell.

Well, at least Miller finally had that false text removed from his book — thus proving yet again how much has been wrong and dangerous in evolutionary teaching.

For a sin as serious as Miller committed, by approving the outright evil teaching that is found in that book … well, he seems to walk away without an apology and without any sense of repentance.

That is not the way of the Saints – far, far from it.

You’re absolutely correct, reggie; very far from it.

If I were a “Christian Darwinist”, who staunchly defended the teaching of this stuff in schools in the name of “truth”, I would reflect on Matthew 18:6 and tremble in terrible fear.

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

 

[Deconi]

Cough

 

[itinerant1]

This Pope is seeking to maintain continuity. Humani Generis, 1950, the Latin Mass. This is the direction the Church is going.

Man was a bit of slime, then an aquatic creature, then a land dwelling creature, then a hominid, and then, at some undefined point, a human being. The Church has not infallibly ruled on the age of the earth.

I have decided to get my statements about evolution from the Catholic Church. The science of origins is too important to be left strictly in the hands of scientists. Of course, there were atheists in the past, evolution is just one more recruitment tool.
God bless,
Ed

“Of course, there were atheists in the past, evolution is just one more recruitment tool.”

I do not see that the statement above is necessarily true. Oftentimes, people treat “evolution” and Darwinism or neo-Darwinism as they were synonymous. There are non-Darwinian theories of evolution. This fact necessitates that your statement be properly qualified.

It’s interesting to note just how long evolutionary ideas have been around. We find basic evolutionary ideas held by certain pre-Socratic philosophers (eg. Empedocles). St. Gregory of Nyssa taught basic evolutionary ideas. And so did St. Augustine from a theological perspective. Consider his doctrine of rationis seminales.

At the present time the natural sciences have presented an abundance of evidence supporting the relatively new science of evolution. In light of the history of biblical exegesis, and the advances modern biblical scholars have made, a literal only reading of Genesis 1 is hard to justify. St. Augustine was noted for his allegorical interpretation. His approach left open the possibility of evolution.

Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas maintained that a direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture.

Of course, there is much to say about the findings of modern biblical scholarship, especially in regard to ancient Near Eastern literary genres and how they work.

Regardless, the debate continues as if evolution necessarily excludes belief that God created the universe. Pope Benedict was right on track when he called the debate “an absurdity”:

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said*. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”*

(Continue reading this article)

Considering all of this, it seems that the literal only interpretation of Genesis 1 ought to be considered retrograde, a sort of de-volution.

Peace,

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[itinerant1]

A response to Cardinal Schönborn’s attack on science
by Alec MacAndrew
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

Great link! Alec does a good critique. However, I would not advocate the Modern Synthesis as he does. There are major philosophical problems with neo-Darwinism, which neither Alec and Cardinal Schönborn may have considered. A careful analysis of the concept of species as employed by neo-Darwinism shows that neo-Darwinism actually destroys the very concept of species itself. Darwin himself, as well as certain leading modern evolutionists, have been rightly troubled by the concept of species as it relates (or, rather fails to relate) to their version of evolution.

Ultimately, “species” is not consistent with a the neo-Darwinian version of evolution. The problem is a critical one.

My statement is just a teaser.

Actually, I will explain this problem when I have more time, and if anyone is interested. Just PM me if you are interested in hearing my heretical spiel on species. I never like talking just to hear myself talk.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[The_Barbarian]

“Species” is the only taxononic ranking that has an objective existence. The others are just lines drawn for convenience, where descent has been marked enough to consider the populations to be new general or families or whatever.

However, since species evolve, there will always be cases where the call is difficult. Are Albert and Kebab squirrels two separate species? Polar bears and Brown bears? Some species can still interbreed in some cases, even if they normally don’t.

I’d be interested in your philosophical ideas about species. Tell us about them.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

(Barbarian notes that Miller eventually convinced his co-author to remove a statement from the book that was not consistent with evolutionary theory)

His co-author eventually agreed with him and removed it.

Yep. But he got it done.

Nope. It’s gone.

No, it merely said that science did not support religion. Which is true, but it said it in a way that suggested it refuted religion.

You get kinda mean when your back is to the wall, um? In fact, as you saw earlier, your position has been responsible for many people seeing atheism as the only reasonable conclusion. In my years of teaching, I have seen that creationism is a powerful atheist-maker. Did you not see the testimony of Glenn Morton, a former creationist, who almost fell into atheism because he thought creationism was part of Christian doctrine?

You might be upset and angry, Reggie, but try to at least be honest with yourself. When you put that kind of false witness on the board, you not only corrode your soul a little more; everyone here sees it, and draws conclusions about you.

For which you assailed him as a liar. Shame on you.

More to the point, he eventually persuaded the publisher to remove it.

I think this is again coming down to a simple problem of illogic. Science is misused by some, so lets attack the science, instead of course the true culprit, those who misuse it. I agree, the statement was essentially correct, but could be interpreted as a statement refuting the necessity of God by those who are inclined to do so. It seems some here are just interested in “protecting” those who are too stupid to think for themselves.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Here is the truth:

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0060.html
Ed

Did you even bother to read the other that I submitted? or is this simply about your stubborness? Shoenborn has been quieted, since he spoke improperly and said way too much. The church has no desire to get stuck in the ID conflict

And of course you miss that he endorses evolution, just not unguided which no one who is a believer doesnt agree with as well. You Ed are dissembling again, are you back to guided evolution again? that would make it 20 1/2 times now.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Go to certain forums like the crevo part of some forums and you will discover that most of the militants atheist that push evolution were raised as “Bible Believing Christians” ™ and of course as YEC.
When some of them grew up and dicovered they were feed lies about the world, they turned their anger towards toward their childhood beliefs. Some of the luck ones kept their faith in Jesus and remined in their old churches keeping their beliefs on evolution private, some of them converted into the CC or the EOC or the AC or Lutheranism. But most of them became rabid militant atheists.
Is not casual that the new brand of militant atheists come from english speaking countries were fundies push creationism.

Creationism is inmoral because involves liying to children. And risking loosing their faith in God.

So true, and a cursory stop at any christian forum site will provide you with a plethora of sad mothers all lamenting that their children have foresaken the faith and always you find these same women and men espousing the stilted fumdanentalist rhetoric of YEC and creationism. It is so sad, there is no reason for this, and it is a true shame that any Catholic would promote these same lies to their children. It is the danger of right wing evangelicals, their furvor causes them to make a lot of compromises with the truth in the name of saving souls. They sadly lose more I fear than they save.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Barbarian;3194392:

< Men were always human beings. We just evolved from other animals. >

Non-sequitur. It would be helpful if scientists first learned how to reason.

Can’t. It’s a scientific question; God has given the Church no way to put a date on the Earth.

How would scientists know about that? That’s a religious question,like the question of the origins of life.

< I’m pleased to hear you now accept common descent of all living things. >

The common descent of all living things is a living Creator who gives life to what has been created.

The hook, of course, is that in order to make any changes in the theory, you have to understand it first. And for that, you have to be a scientist, or at least know as much as we do.

The theory of evolution is just that –
a theory. It’s a creation of men who discounted the question of a Creator,which is at the root of understanding the origins of things.
The theory has no proper principle – and all sciences must have a proper principle as a basis.
The theory of evolution is a study of process and effects made in ignorance of the ultimate cause.

I suggest that you travel on down to the nearest science lab you can find and start telling them immediately. Apparently they don’t know this yet. I am as usual amazed at the arrogance to disclaim the mental abilities of millions of people. Your credentials please?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

“Of course, there were atheists in the past, evolution is just one more recruitment tool.”

I do not see that the statement above is necessarily true. Oftentimes, people treat “evolution” and Darwinism or neo-Darwinism as they were synonymous. There are non-Darwinian theories of evolution. This fact necessitates that your statement be properly qualified.

It’s interesting to note just how long evolutionary ideas have been around. We find basic evolutionary ideas held by certain pre-Socratic philosophers (eg. Empedocles). St. Gregory of Nyssa taught basic evolutionary ideas. And so did St. Augustine from a theological perspective. Consider his doctrine of rationis seminales.

At the present time the natural sciences have presented an abundance of evidence supporting the relatively new science of evolution. In light of the history of biblical exegesis, and the advances modern biblical scholars have made, a literal only reading of Genesis 1 is hard to justify. St. Augustine was noted for his allegorical interpretation. His approach left open the possibility of evolution.

Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas maintained that a direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture.

Of course, there is much to say about the findings of modern biblical scholarship, especially in regard to ancient Near Eastern literary genres and how they work.

Regardless, the debate continues as if evolution necessarily excludes belief that God created the universe. Pope Benedict was right on track when he called the debate “an absurdity”:

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said*. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”*

(Continue reading this article)

Considering all of this, it seems that the literal only interpretation of Genesis 1 ought to be considered retrograde, a sort of de-volution.

Peace,

itinerant1 :tiphat:

We all forget the incredible strength that the emotional pull of fundamentalism has on the ability of the mind to think clearly.
It is truly amazing if it were not so sad. To think that one can actually claim one knows more than tens of thousands of scientists. I can only assume these people do not see doctors. One certainly can’t trust science in ANY respect if such a massive conspiracy of scientists has gone on for over a hundred years and they have all protected that lie. Of course, I have no idea why they are doing it, but clearly they are. So doctors are out…That is scary for their kids. Hopefully the courts will step in if one of their children is seriously ill and force them to accept treatment, even as they scream that anti-biotics are nothing but an atheistic ruse to kill christians.

 

[edwest2]

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

 

[The_Barbarian]

You and The Barbarian are engaging in the clear use of misinformation amd emotional tactics to defend something that is against Church teaching.

The game is up, ed. You have seen the evidence which supports evolution, and even Shoenborn admits it’s a fact.

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.

We accept the Magesterium of the Church. Even the Pope acknowledges that our common descent from other organism is a virtual certainty.

The position of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn, is clear. God did it.

The difference between the Catholic position and your position, is that we also accept the way He did it.

Pope Benedict is not a satisfied evolutionist.

That’s OK. Neither am I. There’s much more to explore in evolution.

Cardinal Schoenborn stated quite clearly that neo-Darwinian evolution is not true.

He said it’s not true if it denies God’s role. But feel free to show us where in the Modern Synthesis (neo-Darwinian theory) it says that God wasn’t involved.

I understand the Cardinal. I understand the Church.

Apprently not. You seem to be dissenting from both of them.

 

[edwest2]

Obfuscation, nothing more. Evolution, the neo-Darwinian variety, is not true.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

It’s too late to try hand-waving. You need some evidence, or at least some way to explain the evidence for evolution. As you know, the Pope has acknoweldged the fact of evolution, as did his predecessor.

Isn’t it time you at least accept what the church teaches about it?

 

[edwest2]

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.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

I I agree, the statement was essentially correct, but could be interpreted as a statement refuting the necessity of God by those who are inclined to do so.

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.

 

[reggieM]

Obfuscation, nothing more.

Yes, I agree. Not interesting or enlightening at all either.

 

[reggieM]

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.

 

[The_Barbarian]

“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.”

You’ll be pleased to know that evolutionary theory doesn’t deny God’s role in anything.

Will you now accept the teaching of the Church on this matter?