Ignorance and evolution

[SpiritMeadow]

Catholics are taught to not believe in atheistic evolution. You seem to be promoting atheistic evolution.

“ID Superstar”? Who is this person and why should anyone care? He is promoting a false view of human origins.
Ed

YOU seem not to be ever telling us who you are talking to Ed.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And another one bites the dust…

At the rate all of the “Creationists” (whether we are or aren’t) are getting fed up with the arrogance and condescention of the Darwinists and dropping out of these evolution threads, pretty soon the Darwinists will be the only ones left, all talking to themselves, amongst the chirping crickets.

Must be “natural selection” at work.

UHUH…and the one’s “Left” of course are the survivors…duh…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

God is more important than science. Your assertions are simply your own beliefs. What is an IDer? I see no one walking around with badges proclaiming their personal beliefs to the world (Leftist, Liberal and so on).
Ed

Who are you talking to Ed?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow;3229739:

You are stating a theological belief not a given.

It had better be a given,if scientific theories are not to fall into logical absurdities.

Have no clue what you are talking about. When you superimpose something about God onto a scientific theory you are in error. The Vatican has said so. I believe it is correct. Statements about God are theological in nature and not science.

You are confusing the two. Science investigates the natural world and properly takes no notice of the supernatural at all, simply because it is not the subject of empirical evidence.

The evolution theories are not merely a matter of observing empirical evidence,but of interpreting

the evidence in such a way that effectually makes Chance a divinity,or Nature its own divinity – creating life forms on its own through selection,or choice. All of nature is subject to death,and yet we are to believe that nature is self-sufficient and originates its own species.Science cannot “prove” anythng about God since it has no tools to do so. They are connected WE believe exactly because we are believers.

If science can’t prove anything about God,then why do theistic evolutionists believe that God creats life in the way that the scientists propose?

Theistic evolutionists are just people who believe in God and evolution. Science proposes no way in which life is created…that is another thing altogether, its called ambiogenesis. Evolution deals with the change over time of living creatures. You’re very confused I think about all of this. Particularly about science.

Good choices. But I was referring to something Ed posted thinking it meant something else, which said very specifically that Science cannot and should not speak to the issue of God, that was reserved for the Church. If you understand this, then I don’t understand why and how you want God inserted into science. ?

The quote actually comes directly from “In the Beginning,” and is quoted by Org. in the above post. I an confused then again, why you are going contrary to benedict if you have read “In the beginning”

Please explain.

I’m not going contrary to the pope – I’ve been using some of his arguments as a point of departure for my own. The pope was not making an argument for the reasonableness of evolution theories.
He was being “generous” for the sake of intellectual engagement,just as he is generous with the ideas of dissident theologians and atheistic philosophers.

“But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical,unscientific,and even mythical fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence,and they do so more luminously and radiantly than ever before.”

(“In the Beginning”,page 56)

Your personal interpretation that the Pope is somehow playing along for politeness sake is unfounded as you know. It’s just absurd. The Pope believes in evolution, He tells science that any claim by some that evolution means that God is unncessary, has ventured too far and he may not speak for science in doing so. We all agree. If 25 people read something one way and you don’t, perhaps you’re NOT READING IT RIGHT!!!

 

[anthony022071]

Herein lies your problem. You I think believe that science chooses not to add God into its investigations. It chooses not to because it has no tools to investigate the supernatural.

But when scientists investigate the origins of life,they are investigating the supernatural,because life is supernatural.
Life,or spirit,is the only thing that permeates nature that completely separates from the physical elements.

Of course the Vatican has made it very very clear that they are correct in this and has stated they have no right to speak as to God. I thnk the Church is correct. I see you don’t but wish science to add God into its work. Do you require this in geology, anthropology, paleontology and other science disciplines or just biology?

Any theory that investigates the origins of life or existence without
reference to a creating intelligence is going to end up making
chance and the elements into the originators of the world,which
is unreasonable and absurd. The sciences should be grounded upon reason,not mere method.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The pope didn’t say in that quote that science should not speak to the issue of God.

Science should at least admit that the world is rationally structured.

“Natural science,which has built a new world,rests upon a philosophical foundation whose origin must be sought in Plato. Copernicus,Galileo,and even Newton were Platonists. Their basic assumption was that the world is mathematically and rationally stuctured and that,starting from this assumption,we can decipher it and by experiment can make it equally comprehensible and useful.”

…“All our ideas about natural science and all practical applications are based on the assumption that the world is ordered according to rational,spiritual laws,is imbued with rationality that can be traced out by our reason.”

…“The Logos,Wisdom,about which the Greeks spoke,on the one hand,and the Israelites,on the other,has been taken back into the material world and cannot be addressed outside of it. Within the specific path followed by natural science,this limitation is necessary and right. If,however,it is declared to be the absolute and unsurpassable form of human thought,then the basis of science itself becomes contradictory;for it is both proclaiming and denying the power of reason. But above all,a self-limiting reason is an amputated reason.”

…“science becomes pathological when it takes leave of the moral order of human life,becomes autonomous,and no longer recognizes any standard but its own capabilities.”

(Truth and Tolerance,pages 157-158)

All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

Is that clear? that is what he said.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow;3223771:

Herein lies your problem. You I think believe that science chooses not to add God into its investigations. It chooses not to because it has no tools to investigate the supernatural.

But when scientists investigate the origins

of life,they are investigating the supernatural,because life is supernatural.
Life,or spirit,is the only thing that permeates nature that completely separates from the physical elements.

NO NO NO…That is what you believe…It does not exist as an independent proof. It is your personal theological belief. It is mine as well, but it is not objectively true.

Of course the Vatican has made it very very clear that they are correct in this and has stated they have no right to speak as to God. I thnk the Church is correct. I see you don’t but wish science to add God into its work. Do you require this in geology, anthropology, paleontology and other science disciplines or just biology?

Any theory that investigates the origins of life or existence without
reference to a creating intelligence is going to end up making
chance and the elements into the originators of the world,which
is unreasonable and absurd. The sciences should be grounded upon reason,not mere method.

Well I don’t know what to tell you…Has the NAS responded to your concerns? Or the Vatican for that matter? I’m sure all would benefit from your personal evaluation of the situation. Your assumptions are based on your faith, not on objective truth. You cannot seem to grasp that. Everyone else has, most especially the Vatican .

It is no different than the Big Bang…Science speculates to be sure, but has no evidence and perhaps will never have any evidence about what was before. Theists of all types believe of course that God was there. Science doesn’t say yes or no, it has no way to test the proposition. It acknowledges at best that God could be there, no more.

 

[anthony022071]

.

Is that clear? that is what he said.

I have the book right in front of me. The book is an argument in favor of Creation,not the theory of evolution. The pope ssid that the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments,not that the theory is right in its conclusions.

 

[anthony022071]

Ed you are all confused on who you are talking to. I"m in black the red is anthony. I have not a clue what you are talking about but the usual science won’t tell the world that God exists and it makes me mad and I"m gonna say science is garbage! so there!

He was talking to me.

 

[edwest2]

I know no one who left high school with a fondness for their textbooks. Among the public, everything is a matter of perception and degree. Pope Benedict is well aware of how perceptions can color the view the human being has of himself. How popularized ideas do not challenge but often seek to obscure real truths. That some in the world have allowed themselves to think they are like protozoa or salt crystals. Natural, not made. In the Homily at his inaugural Mass, he addressed this point:

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

boston-catholic-journal.com/inaugural_address_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI.htm

In the midst of a Western culture that preaches nihilism and “entertainment” in the form of dysfunctional human beings, compounded by an abandonment of right and wrong and moral absolutes, the Pope speaks directly to a popularized misconception. Think of that when the “salt crystal” in your life tells you he loves you.

God bless,
Ed

 

[anthony022071]

Have no clue what you are talking about. When you superimpose something about God onto a scientific theory you are in error.

I’m not superimposing my belief about God onto the theory of evolution because I don’t even believe in the theory. I don’t believe that chance,necessity,natural selection or genetic mutation originates life forms. I know the difference between origin and process. In the theory of evolution,processes of nature are mistaken as the very origin of life and of species.

Your personal interpretation that the Pope is somehow playing along for politeness sake is unfounded as you know. It’s just absurd. The Pope believes in evolution,

He believes in Creation,and is emphatic about it as the only reasonable explanation of origins.

 

[itinerant1]

A lot of us are wondering why you keep trying to bring it up. No one else seems to be interested in atheistic evolution.

Michael Denton. His book “Evolution, a Theory in Crisis” is cited by Michael Behe as his inspiration. I thought you knew.

Not according to the Pope. But, of course, you don’t accept that.

Intro
I have not kept up the with the posts in this thread, so I thought I would jump back in by randomly choosing a post to respond to. Of course, my choosing was not “random” in the absolute sense, since intentionality was in involved in deciding to make a “random choice”, and again when I pointed my finger and naturally selected a post to respond to. Perchance there is some lesson here about randomness, chance, and necessity. In any case, barbarian’s post has been randomly selected. Now, the question remains as to what will survive and what will be eliminated by this process of random, natural selection. Barbarian now wonders whether having his post selected indicates good or bad luck.

Natural science and metaphysics
I suppose everyone understands that the natural sciences do not have anything to say about metaphysical reality. Science, as naural science, studies the natural world and cannot address or prove the existence or non-existence of God, or any subject that involves metaphysical or supernatural being. Much confusion results when one does not accept the proper limitations and scope of the natural sciences. Does anyone here disagree with this?

Darwin and atheistic evolution
What I am leading up to is the statement that atheistic evolution is not stictly science. A theory of evolution that precludes the existence of God, is going beyond the province of science. A good example of this is Darwin’s *Descent of Man. *He makes the philosophical assumption that all reality is material or physical. This assumption of philosophical materialism determines how he formulates his theory about man. His theory pretends to be a complete account, or at least in principle can be a complete account, of man’s origins. Under philosophical materialism man is conceived strictly as a physical being who, in principle, can be totally explained in terms of natural science.

Of course, philosophical materialism eliminates the existence of God and all non-physical reality. Scientists can argue about whether Darwin’s scientific ideas are accurate, but Darwin’s theory is not strictly science.

Theistic Evolution
By the same token theistic evolution is not strictly science if it says anything about metaphysical reality. Theistic evolution is great, but we should not assume that it is strict natural science.

Intelligent Design
Likewise, I.D. is not strictly natural science. Any theory that addresses theological or philosophical matters should not be taught as if it were strictly science. Now the main problem with I.D. is not that it goes beyond science, but that it is based on bad philosophy. Whoever is familiar Thomistic concepts of causes should be able to understand that I.D. confuses ultimate or remote causes with proximate causes. The import of this problem is that I.D. is unsupportable and fails as a theory.

Father Edward Oakes addresses I.D.‘s confusion about causality in a ZENIT interview. When reading this interview, note that Fr. Oakes’ reference to primary and secondary causes are the same as my remote and *proximate *causes, respectively, which referred to in the above paragraph. See Evolution in the Eyes of the Church (Part 2)

Pope Benedict, I.D., and I.P.
I have not seen anything to show Pope Benedict has approved of I.D. If my observations in the above paragraphs are correct, then we cannot expect a papal blessings on the theory. Pope Benedict spoke about an “Intelligent Project”. Should I call this Benedict’s I.P. speech? I.P. is not I.D. The speech was in the context of rejecting those assertions that say life originated by chance and natural selection alone. An explanation of the universe demands a Creator and recognition of an “Intelligent Project”. This is not an endorsement of I.D.

Summary
There are multiple theories of evolution, some acceptable and some not. In an explanation of the unviverse and life, theology, philosophy and science each have their particular part to contribute.

Conclusion
I.D. is a scientifico-philosophic theory that remains unacceptable due to its conflation of causes.

~The End~

 

[anthony022071]

Natural science and metaphysics
I suppose everyone understands that the natural sciences do not have anything to say about metaphysical reality. Science, as naural science, studies the natural world and cannot address or prove the existence or non-existence of God, or any subject that involves metaphysical or supernatural being. Much confusion results when one does not accept the proper limitations and scope of the natural sciences. Does anyone here disagree with this?

It’s true that the natural sciences cannot address or prove the existence of God,but the natural sciences,historically,are based on the assumption that the world is rationally ordered with laws,and is imbued with rationality,and that therefore nature can be fruitfully studied.
Now if the world is rationally ordered then there must logically be a rational being that ordered it.
The natural sciences need not address the existence of God,but they must recognize that the world is rationally ordered if they are to have their basis. Aristotle wrote that “no science proves its proper principles but they are postulated as self-evident”.
This is true of logic itself. The underlying assumption of logic,like the other sciences,should be that there is rationality in the world.
But modern logic,like the other modern sciences,disregards the metaphysical altogether,and so contradicts itself internally.

Darwin and atheistic evolution

What I am leading up to is the statement that atheistic evolution is not stictly science. A theory of evolution that precludes the existence of God, is going beyond the province of science. A good example of this is Darwin’s *Descent of Man. *He makes the philosophical assumption that all reality is material or physical. This assumption of philosophical materialism determines how he formulates his theory about man. His theory pretends to be a complete account, or at least in principle can be a complete account, of man’s origins. Under philosophical materialism man is conceived strictly as a physical being who, in principle, can be totally explained in terms of natural science.

Of course, philosophical materialism eliminates the existence of God and all non-physical reality.

Yes,the pope has written about this problem in his books “In the Beginning” and “Truth and Tolerance”. It goes back to the denial of the metaphysical in philosophy and the natural sciences that began during the Enlightenment. If the metaphysical is denied in the sciences,then God is denied. And when God is denied,then Creation and the truth that man is made in the image of God is denied,and man is seen without soul,inherent dignity,and inherent rights.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Atheistic evolution is not science at all, for the same reason that ID isn’t science.

They make assumptions about supernatural things, to affirm or deny them.

Theistic evolution is true, but not science, either. It’s a religious doctrine.

 

[edwest2]

So, if a scientist says that man is as natural as salt crystals, that’s acceptable? But when the Pope states that man is not some meaningless, casual result of evolution, that is not factual?

The Pope is identifying the source of the dignity of the human being. The evolutionists claim we’re just a collection of chemicals, formed naturally.

That is not science but ideology. And please do not repeat one of your pat claims, since they are your own only.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

So, if a scientist says that man is as natural as salt crystals, that’s acceptable?

Your guy said it. Denton is an ID’er.

But when the Pope states that man is not some meaningless, casual result of evolution, that is not factual?

We’ve been trying to get you to understand that. Man is not merely his body. There is an immortal soul that science can’t test or even say whether or not it exists.

The Pope is identifying the source of the dignity of the human being. The evolutionists claim we’re just a collection of chemicals, formed naturally.

You’ve gotten confused again. Our bodies are produced naturally, but our souls are not.

That is not science but ideology.

It is your ideology that prevents you from accepting what the Church teaches about it.

 

[edwest2]

Nice try. Now that I understand that the Pope’s words are not mere words or somehow theoretical, I will stick with the source of truth.

There is no such thing as science. It is simply a label given by men who investigate the world. It is incomplete and misleading because it assigns to itself truth and does not consider openly the other form of reason that Pope Benedict has spoken about. This is Catholic Answers not Secular Answers.

God bless,
Ed

 

[anthony022071]

It is your ideology that prevents you from accepting what the Church teaches about it.

The Church doesn’t teach the theory of evolution. The Church wants to redirect the conversation about evolution back onto the necessary belief in Creation.

 

[anthony022071]

Theistic evolution is true, but not science, either. It’s a religious doctrine.

It isn’t a religious doctrine. It has’nt been made into one by the magisterium and it is not part of the Church’s deposit of faith.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian
Theistic evolution is true, but not science, either. It’s a religious doctrine.

It isn’t a religious doctrine.

It has’nt been made into one by the magisterium and it is not part of the Church’s deposit of faith.

Until fairly recently, neither was infallibility of the Pope ex cathedra. But it was a doctrine and a true one, even if not part of the Church’s deposit of faith.