In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

[Farsight001]

I am.

There is a point of no return.
When the stream is not a stream anymore.

We know there’s a point of no return. We didn’t ask if there was. We asked for a definition of stream and of river that will nail down the exact and precise millimeter at which one turns into another. Providing such a definition is impossible, and yet there are still streams and rivers - human constructs to help us categorize different types of water flow. And this is the point - a perfect definition is impossible, or at the very least so mind bogglingly complicated that it would take a book to write the definition and a thousand years of precisely studying every instance of natural and regularly flowing water on the face of the planet to cover every outlier. Steeper flowing water flows faster, but there might be less water to flow. And at what angle do we just call it a waterfall? And what about underground flow? Or water that flows on the surface, then goes underground, and pops back up later? What do we call that? And how about a flowing body of water that splits off, with a large flow one way and a weak flow the other, and then it joins back up into one flow? And what about rocks and stuff in the flowing water that alters the rate of flow? And what happens in a flood? Can a stream temporarily turn into a river and then back to a stream when the water subsides? This is just the tip of the iceberg of the questions you have to answer to come up with a complete and all encompassing definition of stream and river.

I’m trying to get you to understand that your request for basically a perfect and flawless definition is a ludicrous and completely unfair request.

 

[tomarin]

No, it is a valid question.

If you cannot explain the steps to go from point a to point b, how can you be certain there is a path at all?

The animals who were transitional forms are extinct so you can’t see them physically but their remains have been discovered in fossilized forms. I’m not a professional paleontologist or a cetologist but I have no doubt they could explain all the ins and outs of how it occurred. Even if they had never been discovered however the fact that cetaceans breath air and are mammals and have vestigial bones where their hind limbs used to be all suggest very strongly that their ancestors were terrestrial.

I don’t even know what your alternative view is, since you haven’t explicitly stated it. As far as I can tell it’s that whales have always lived in the sea and their ancestors were exactly like modern whales. Which is incoherent and uninformed because this isn’t borne out by the fossil record (modern whales only appear at a certain point in time) and it doesn’t explain why a mammalian species would be marine or the vestigial hind limb bones.

 

[Farsight001]

I am assuming nothing.
I am observing events.
When I was in school, they taught that species were differentiated when they no longer can breed with the parent species in any meaningful fashion (viable offspring).

This presented problems because examples of this were very hard to come by (actually, they had nothing at all).
And evolutionary theory could not work with that in place.

Now I see we have a ‘species problem’ in which the definition is fluid and we don’t know when one species becomes another.

That seems awful convenient.

So we have a concrete definition…what is it?

I don’t know when you were in school, but the definition of species that you were given is essentially the same as it is today and the species problem has been talked about for several decades, and have had examples of speciation for several decades. High school biology class it just a basic overview. It rightfully would not go into such detail about this stuff. Why are you acting like if you weren’t taught something in school, scientists couldn’t possibly have known it?

Before you accuse me falsely, you may want to actually present evidence.
You have made these statements before and were asked for sources.
Having yet seen you come up with anything, I am gaining in my confidence that you have nothing.

Frankly, you’re being kind of a jerk with this statement. I said it would take time. I, unlike most people, have a desire for proper research, not random weblinks, especially since random weblinks, in my experience, get me mockery and more doubt from Creationists, but proper research takes time and I just got back from being away from home for a month. I have catching up to do in my personal life that takes priority over doing a random stranger on the internet a favor.

Your response to my inability to provide sources at this exact moment is really quite insulting. I said there were sources and I’ll get sources. Try some patience. Or Christian charity.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Actually from a strictly scientific, materialist view point, you are correct. It is very sad to think that even if we mitigate climate change at this point (which is a gigantic IF), then within a billion years the sun will become so hot on its way to self destruction that it will cause runaway warming and total death to all life on earth. It is also very sad to think the universe is expanding and winding down thru entropy, and that long after life on earth dies, even the atoms will disintegrate and break down – death and dissolution.

My thoughts exactly. As you have demonstrated, even the way everything else will end is absolutely boring. If not, boring. It’s painful. You’d think you’d get an epic end of the world like what they show in Evangelion or The Avengers but no. We all just die cuz the sun blows itself up. Grand. No aliens. No giant monsters. No demons coming out of netherworld portals. Simply put: BOOOOORING. :yawn:

Which is why I’m so glad I’m a firm believer in God, Heaven, and the spiritual dimension, which is (at least) analytically separate from the material universe. We don’t know much about it, only what Jesus and the prophets have told, and maybe from our own mystical glimpses. But I believe the man who calmed the sea, walked on water, raised the dead, and came back to be with us after his own death (and the simple, sincere peasants who related these stories) even more than I believe the scientists.

Agreed. Besides, He was both fully divine and fully human. If there’s any proof that there’s more than this world ruled by dead-pan laws of science, it’d be Him. He broke those rules but at the same time, He never did so frivolously. It makes me wonder how long have these laws actually been in place and why He doesn’t just give the whole universe a make-over. One would think He’s no more keen to prove OT literalists right than we are.

Now if science were ever to find out that evolution is totally untrue and in fact God did a presto-chango thing turning dirt suddenly into man, and making woman out of Adam’s rib, then I’d have to go along with that. I do believe in miracles – in fact I believe all is miracle; some miracles have scientific explanations, and some do not…yet.

Don’t forget, there could also be a lot of macro-psychological effects if all the people in the world realized the world set up by the laws of science has been the real sham. You want the worst case scenario? People might even go back to worshiping the pagan gods. Why? Because it could also mean that those ‘gods’ really were rule-breakers themselves. The result? They wage war all over again and our world becomes its own MMORPG. Our religion is going to be nothing more than a silly participant in the whole “My god is better than your god. Have at thee!” debate.

The real damage though comes with false hope. I bet right now that a lot of people would like to live in a world I just described above. But guess what? That’s the false hope. They’re banking on living their lives based on something that is still only a fantasy.

Our God is not the god of false hopes. Satan is. That is why I refuse to believe that God had changed our world from a land of myth and legend to a land of cubicles and office routines. It sets up a false hope that He could turn it back just as easily and I don’t like to live my life based on such delusions.

My apology. You are right. I really didn’t understand. Most likely, it is because I have some different views of creationism, Catholicism, and the evolution model when it comes to the first three chapters of Genesis. To me, the rest of Genesis is not in the same category as human origin.

Well, my view is simply that people are either literalists or they’re not. The literalists are on a flat surface, never going up and never progressing. They allow no compromise. Once you do, you’re on the slope and forever you’ll be struggling to go back up and down because that’s how everyone has been in trying to figure out how the world came to be.

If the world is 6000 years old when did the dinosaurs live?

Oh boy, you wouldn’t want to see me in that debate. Here’s a hint: Dragons weren’t the first big scaly things I was fascinated with.

 

[St_Francis]

If I suspect that the other person is willfully avoiding looking these things up, which I do, then why would I bother with a link? … So there’s really no point.

I see what you are saying.

Yes. There’s also ring species, where species A and B and interbreed and are thus the same species, B and C can interbreed and are thus the same species, C and D can interbreed and are thus the same species, but A and D cannot interbreed and are thus not the same species. In sort, A=B, B=C, C=D, but D/=A.

Now, this is of great interest I will look into it.

They use technical speech. It’s not funny. It just requires study and education to grasp fully. The Catholic Church “talks funny” too, which is why the rest of the world so easily misunderstands.

I find it frustrating, because the “technical speech” used to describe all this is very anatgonistic to God.

…What do you mean moving upwards?

I meant changing in a direction to increased complexity, to increased capability. That’s not the way things normally work.

Nothing in evolution moves “upwards” or to an ultimate end.

This is a good example of what I was talking about wrt how advocates of evolution talk. *We don’t know that. *If species did evolve at God’s bidding, under His guidance, or as per His design, then I am sure that there were ends involved. To say what you said just shows that evolution reduces creation to random pointlessness.

That’s theistic evolution, not intelligent design, though. Intelligent Design specifically denies the existence evolution.

It seems that they deny only a-theistic evolution. They write in answer to the question whether evolution and ID are incompatible: *It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory… *

Macro-evolution, in a scientific context, is simply nothing more than lots of little micro-evolutions added up. Think about the prefixes for a minute. You learned them in math class didn’t you? A macrometer is nothing more than a bunch of micrometers added together. Those prefixes denote scale and by definition, a lot of micros add up to a macro. If you add enough micros together, you will eventually get a macro every single time, no matter how much you may not want to.

Macro-evolution, which according to the creationists I typically discuss with, is one species poping out another in one generation, is a false definition and, as I explained before, would disprove evolution outright, not lend support to it.

So you are saying that the ring species could show how the change in species could occur without having the offspring of one set of a species be incompatible mating-wise.

Using the term “imposition” suggests to me that your reading and hearing have been all from creationist sources. I mean what makes you think you understand evolution better than the scientists, not how much creationist literature have your read.

Actually, I have not read that much creationist stuff. I was referring to things that I have read, or quotes that I have seen or heard, written by people at the time.

This is the interesting thing - the classification system we use today is based heavily on a system created by a young earth creationist (whose name escapes me unfortunately) a few centuries ago - before Darwin was even born.

So evolution is not really *necessary *for biologists to function?

As for claiming something has been proved when it hasn’t - but it HAS been proven. There are literally tens of thousands of cases of speciation successfully predicted in the fossil record, hundreds, if not thousands, observed in the wild, and nearly a hundred recreated in laboratory settings. It happens and we know it happens. Scientists study to figure out and better understand exactly HOW it happens.

Right. Can you please link to some of these cases? Was it you who linked to the Pakitecean (I know I got that wrong…) --it is not really what you are suggesting here scientists have observed. I mean, observation implies something they have seen *happen, *in the case of the land-based cetacean, all scientists have *observed *are the bones.

ETA: You made some other comments to which I did not reply because I have to look into some stuff first. Didn’t want you to think I was ignoring them.

BTW, you explain things very well.

 

[buffalo]

A=B, B=C, C=D, but D/=A. This shows loss of function over time. In any case, it is most probable that a better definition of species will be found in the epigenetic/genetic areas. The tree of life has already fallen and is now a bush.

 

[vz71]

It does have a concrete definition, it’s just that due to the severe complicatedness of life, not every animal neatly fits that definition.

And yet when asked for this concrete definition…

Providing such a definition is impossible, and yet there are still streams and rivers - human constructs to help us categorize different types of water flow. And this is the point - a perfect definition is impossible, or at the very least so mind bogglingly complicated that it would take a book to write the definition and a thousand years of precisely studying every instance of natural and regularly flowing water on the face of the planet to cover every outlier. Steeper flowing water flows faster, but there might be less water to flow. And at what angle do we just call it a waterfall? And what about underground flow? Or water that flows on the surface, then goes underground, and pops back up later? What do we call that? And how about a flowing body of water that splits off, with a large flow one way and a weak flow the other, and then it joins back up into one flow? And what about rocks and stuff in the flowing water that alters the rate of flow? And what happens in a flood? Can a stream temporarily turn into a river and then back to a stream when the water subsides? This is just the tip of the iceberg of the questions you have to answer to come up with a complete and all encompassing definition of stream and river.

I’m trying to get you to understand that your request for basically a perfect and flawless definition is a ludicrous and completely unfair request.

So which is it?

 

[vz71]

Yes. There’s also ring species, where species A and B and interbreed and are thus the same species, B and C can interbreed and are thus the same species, C and D can interbreed and are thus the same species, but A and D cannot interbreed and are thus not the same species. In sort, A=B, B=C, C=D, but D/=A.

Are there any examples of this which do not eventually lead to a non-viable species?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gcharles,

This is a perfect example of your ramblings and evasions. Any one can quote anything from the Bible - even Satan as he tried to ensnare Christ in the wilderness (Matt 4:1-11) - but, unless you stay on topic and focus on an actual response to questions asked, then you are just wasing time and really not accomplishing anything. This is where the evasion comes in.

How we got here according to Catholic Chruch teaching - again, something you have yet to respond to - except to claim the Chruch has ‘watered down’ the Word of God! - is the issue. As Catholics we can not believe in the Atheistic approach that eliminates God from the process. As Catholics we can believe anything we wish - as long as we acknowledge God was responsible for all of creation. You really have a problem with that - and you have yet to explain why - but all you do is call others names when you are challenged to come up with a reason. And, please, the Genesis account is wide enough to embrace all approaches - except the Atheistic model.

Actually, it is the THEORY of Evolution we have - not the FACT of Evolution. There is scientific evidence of a long term Creation event totally directed by God. And, there have been enough references previously given to establish this. There are also those who believe in a very short term Creation event - totally directed by God - and this is also acceptable. The conclusive ‘proof’ does not exist - but, there are many bits of data that seem to lead in a particular direction. But, there is no final response to this question of HOW God created everything.

Richard Dawkins is a fool. He has made a lot of money and generated a lot of attention - but, seriously, how does anyone prove a negative: “There is no God” is totally unprovable. It is a statement, an assumption or a boastful challenge - but it is not proof.

The only questions I have is when you stay on topic, answer the questions that have previously addressed to you without evasion and begin to respond in a civil manner without impuning the integrity of others by calling them names? Try those three for starters if you want questions.

By the way, as a strictly technical observation, you do not have to copy and paste a previous post and then respond to it on another post. You can put your responses on the same page as a previous post (this is an example).

God bless

So quoting from the bible is rambling. As Solomon has askwed what’s new under the sun? This is what the chuirch fathers believed. Do you believe you evolved from a monkey? Do you even know what empirical evidence is? As I asked where is any empirical evidence that there is speciation evolution. Please inform us. I’m sure Richard Dawkins would appreciate it. List your questions one by one. I believe you need to get off the baby milk. Catholics are the ones who approved books to go into the bible. What else in the bible don’t you believe in? Tell me are you a Progressive Catholic?

 

[samiam1611]

I am.

There is a point of no return.
When the stream is not a stream anymore.

If we really wish to apply this to evolutionary theory, then we must follow it through…
The stream eventually becomes a river…but the river does not turn back into a stream.
Of course, I can look at that ands specify a given flow rate.
At one flow rate we have a stream, at another a river.

And since it cannot go back, then the river must have a larger flow then a stream.

So at what point is a species no longer a given species, and how exactly do you define it such that it does not turn back (rivers turning back into streams)?

It seems to me that there are a number of answers being provided.
I haven’t heard one that seems adequate yet.

I am not 100% sure what you are asking but the following quote might answer it:

"Scientists also have gained an understanding of the processes by which new species originate. A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species. The split of one species into two often starts because a group of individuals becomes geographically separated from the rest.

So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed.

The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time—of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies. That is, amphibians will not appear before fishes, nor mammals before reptiles, and no complex life will occur in the geological record before the oldest eucaryotic cells. This prediction has been upheld by the evidence that has accumulated until now: no reversals have been found."

This links directly to the page that quote is from.
nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=14
You may be particularly interested in reading pages 9-22, that is the section titled “Evidence supporting biological evolution”

If this did not answer your question, perhaps you could reword it for me and I’ll take another shot.

 

[buffalo]

I am not 100% sure what you are asking but the following quote might answer it:

"Scientists also have gained an understanding of the processes by which new species originate. A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species. The split of one species into two often starts because a group of individuals becomes geographically separated from the rest.

So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed.

The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time—of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies. That is, amphibians will not appear before fishes, nor mammals before reptiles, and no complex life will occur in the geological record before the oldest eucaryotic cells. This prediction has been upheld by the evidence that has accumulated until now: no reversals have been found."

This links directly to the page that quote is from.
nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=14
You may be particularly interested in reading pages 9-22, that is the section titled “Evidence supporting biological evolution”

If this did not answer your question, perhaps you could reword it for me and I’ll take another shot.

The fossil record consistently shows:

1. Abrupt appearance
2. Stasis
3. Variation within

 

[lynnvinc]

Dear Friend and Fellow Catholic,
I can see how you might be enchanted by the story of the Big Bang and a grand rollout of the Universe over billions of years. But since there is no evidence for it, as nobody was there to see it, it is only mere speculation and fantasy, robed in scientific language, to give it respectability. One could just as easily say that the universe flew out of a cosmic monkey’s behind, but it is still a fantasy and has no basis in reality or provable science.

The primary problem with evolution is that the assumption going in is: “There is no God”. Therefore, some kind of fantastical explanation had to be invented to allow us to exist without a Creator. They chose time as the magical agent allowing impossible changes to happen, in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy). That is, order arising from disorder, when the opposite is true (a LAW). When you propose theistic evolution, you are really saying that God used the means proposed by those who think it happened without Him.

Just because something can be explained by natural laws, it does not follow there is no God. There is absolutely no way science can disprove (or prove) God, since science is extremely limited to the finite, material, empirical world – that which is known or knowable thru the senses. Religion takes us to the “seen and unseen,” the “known and unknown.”

God and the spiritual are well beyond science. As John of the Cross said, our faith comes only thru one sense – our hearing of the Gospels. It is a matter of accepting thru faith, not scientific proofs. If we have some mystical experience that “spill all the beans” about God and the spiritual realm, then we don’t need faith. If we have whatever we want, then we don’t need hope. In Heaven we do not need faith and hope; in this mortal life we do, if we are to believe in God and His heavenly provisions.

Having said that, science is very good (but not perfect and definitive for all times) for what it can do – tell us about the material, empirical world.

My education started out in the “pre-big-bang” times and I learned something different about the universe…something that actually fit better with Hindu theology/myth. Of course, science cannot do experiments on the creation of the universe to tell us whether it was the big bang or something else. It is just a hypothesis, but I think based on some good (tho not perfect) science.

Our religious beliefs ultimately require pure faith. I’m thinking it actually takes much more grace and faith to believe not only the seen and known, but also the unseen and unknown. We tell ourselves in the Creed that we believe, but do we believe, and do we always believe at the same level – I’m thinking it actually fluctuates a bit, and we often tend to operate in the empirical, material world, without much thought to Divine Economy or God continuous working in our lives. For me God not only created the natural laws through with evolution and other natural phenomena happened, but was intimately IN EVOLUTION as it unfolded. For me, there is no concrete separation of God and evolution (or anything else), tho analytically we can “keep God constant and substract Him from the equation” to understand things from a scientific (material/empirial) view. (Science does that all the time – selecting only several factors to study, and ignoring all others.) But that does not in any way mean God does not exist, or is not intimately in and involved in ALL.

See, we have 2 eyes – one we can see things scientifically, one we can see God in all.

I suppose we should feel sorry for the agnostics and atheists, who just are unable (or unwilling) to take that “leap of faith,” but are stuck in the material universe. They are really missing out.

St. Therese of the Child Jesus spent her last year in complete dryness, with only the experience of how atheists would experience the world. She lived in pure faith, without spiritual consolations or inner spiritual solace, I think as a God-given penance/grace for the sake of those who do not have faith. Only in her last moment did she seem (from her radiant face and speaking directly to God) to experience the bliss and glory of God.

 

[grannymh]

I am not 100% sure what you are asking but the following quote might answer it:

"Scientists also have gained an understanding of the processes by which new species originate. A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species. The split of one species into two often starts because a group of individuals becomes geographically separated from the rest.

So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed.

The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time—of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies. That is, amphibians will not appear before fishes, nor mammals before reptiles, and no complex life will occur in the geological record before the oldest eucaryotic cells. This prediction has been upheld by the evidence that has accumulated until now: no reversals have been found."

This links directly to the page that quote is from.
nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=14
You may be particularly interested in reading pages 9-22, that is the section titled “Evidence supporting biological evolution”

If this did not answer your question, perhaps you could reword it for me and I’ll take another shot.

Regarding the 46% who hold creationist view of human origins.

Coincidentally, I am in London studying the display “Our Place in Evolution” in the Natural History Museum. Thus, your individual link which includes “Common Structures” is very interesting because I am part way through the Museum’s display section on homologies in regard to the origin of human nature which is the topic of this thread.

Since I am using a hotel computer with a different browser, etc., than mine, I am not sure what I am doing so reading the pages 9-22 will have to wait.

Nonetheless, in general, the issues regarding bats, mice, (see illustration on link) dogs, wolves, whales, dinosaur birds, etc., do not really address the issue of human origin. In the final analysis the human body’s relationship to a bat wing is minor compared with the relationship of humans to their nearest living relatives chimps and gorilla’s depending on which scientist and which recent common ancestor one follows. The end of the line (humans and their non-human relatives) in the basic cladistic system will continue to be debated because of current genetic technology.

Please note that I used living relatives. Fossils show that humans also share some homologies with extinct human-like archaic beings. These extinct beings are also classified into different species depending on their homologies.

It is obvious that humans did not directly descend from apes. The link’s reference to common descent actually refers to a common ancestor of primates which may or may not be the most recent one regarding the human species. When one looks at human origin solely from a natural science viewpoint, there are a lot more questions than answers. For example, one should consider the purpose of the human person. Where is the human being going? Is there more to life than natural science?

 

[lynnvinc]

My thoughts exactly. As you have demonstrated, even the way everything else will end is absolutely boring. If not, boring. It’s painful. You’d think you’d get an epic end of the world like what they show in Evangelion or The Avengers but no. We all just die cuz the sun blows itself up. Grand. No aliens. No giant monsters. No demons coming out of netherworld portals. Simply put: BOOOOORING. :yawn:

I think the Norse have a end-world belief (after all the dragons and Thor’s battle, and all that exciting stuff) that is pretty close to the scientific view, which to you is boring and to me very sad.

Agreed. Besides, He was both fully divine and fully human. If there’s any proof that there’s more than this world ruled by dead-pan laws of science, it’d be Him. He broke those rules but at the same time, He never did so frivolously. It makes me wonder how long have these laws actually been in place and why He doesn’t just give the whole universe a make-over. One would think He’s no more keen to prove OT literalists right than we are.

Remember Jesus in the desert when the devil tempted, and his response…

My thinking is God figures his natural world and natural laws, which we can know thru science, are pretty darned spectacular in themselves. Maybe even more spectacular than “miracles” (those happenings without scientific explanations) like what happened at Fatima, etc. It’s our problem if we fail to perceive the miraculous in the everyday, not God’s.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I think the Norse have a end-world belief (after all the dragons and Thor’s battle, and all that exciting stuff) that is pretty close to the scientific view, which to you is boring and to me very sad.

I don’t know man. I play a fantasy game that’s actually based (heavily at that) on the Norse apocalypse (google Ragnarok Online ). Out of all the world’s mythologies, Norse is my favorite. If the world is going to end, I don’t know how the sun blowing up is going to look anything close to what I’ve read.

I mean, where are all the dragons? Monsters? The Fenris wolf? When I hear ‘exploding sun’, all I imagine is a big, hot, fiery gas ball blowing up and taking all the planets with it.

Remember Jesus in the desert when the devil tempted, and his response…

My thinking is God figures his natural world and natural laws, which we can know thru science, are pretty darned spectacular in themselves. Maybe even more spectacular than “miracles” (those happenings without scientific explanations) like what happened at Fatima, etc. It’s our problem if we fail to perceive the miraculous in the everyday, not God’s.

Meh, I’m a fantasy nerd. Sometimes even ‘real’ miracles are not all spectacular to me either. I take more interest in a world where I can travel freely and face its dangers with a simple gesture of hands, a short incantation, and the might of the elements crashing down on my foes. I actually don’t think that as miraculous at all even (seeing as how it’s easily replicated while real miracles cannot). However, it certainly is fantastic.

Now, if only the literalists would stop insulting my fantasy by patronizing me with their delusions. It’s bad enough I know the world I dream of can never be realized without them trying to fill my head with poisonous false hopes. -.-

 

[gcharles]

Here is a statement from Hugh Owen at the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. "In the final analysis, the primary purpose of our apostolate is the salvation and sanctification of souls, and the protection of souls from evolutionary errors that weaken and often extinguish the Faith. On my recent trip to Estonia on the western border of Russia, one of my hosts told me of a young Catholic boy at a local school who had just announced to his mother that he was not going to go to church any longer—he had studied enough evolutionary “science” to know that the Christian account of creation and the Fall was a “fairy tale”! How sad it is that all over the world, millions of young people renounce the “sacred history” of Genesis, for what the great philosopher and critic of evolution Larry Azar rightly called “a fairy tale for adults.” I absolutely believe speciation evolution is a salvation issue. As you will read speciation is an error. That is a nice word used by the Catholic Church for an outright lie in this case. You can see in my case evolutionary science affected my belief. By the way Kolbe Center is Catholic.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gcharles,

I guess I just have not communicated my position too well.

But, one of the first things we need to do is to make a clear distinction from anecdotal information (e.g., publications from the Kolbe Center, and pronouncements from young Eastonia boys) and authorative statements from the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

As I see it Hugh Owen is totally right in the first part of his statement - and while making a correct statement in the second part - has somehow managed to misapply it! We all have as our primary apostolic purpose the salvation and sanctification of souls - and, we usually do this within the context of our vocation in life. Yes, there are serious errors in the Athesistic model of evolution because it totally disregards God. The Catholic Church is quite clear about this - and if Mr. Owen would be content with that - I would have no problem. To claim, however, as you have done in the past - that the Creationist model is the only model that acknowledges God is simply wrong.

And, really, while I am sure that the Kolbe Center being Catholic might mean somethime to some people - it truly is not the criteria I would use for anything today. The reason for this is that today we find so-called world-class universities like Notre Dame Univ. in Indiana giving honorary doctorates to the most abortion promotiong president in history, Jesuit universities allowing Planned Parenthood activities on campus, failing to promote Catholic teachings on contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthansia. In brief, there are many so-called Catholic groups that are clearly marching to the sound of their own drummer and not the teachings of Christ’s Church.

Have you noticed that after repeated efforts on my part to have you address this issue - and the fact that the Catholic Church has NOT watered down Scripture - you have simply rambled on? If not, take this post as yet another effort to point out this evasion.

God bless

Here is a statement from Hugh Owen at the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. "In the final analysis, the primary purpose of our apostolate is the salvation and sanctification of souls, and the protection of souls from evolutionary errors that weaken and often extinguish the Faith. On my recent trip to Estonia on the western border of Russia, one of my hosts told me of a young Catholic boy at a local school who had just announced to his mother that he was not going to go to church any longer—he had studied enough evolutionary “science” to know that the Christian account of creation and the Fall was a “fairy tale”! How sad it is that all over the world, millions of young people renounce the “sacred history” of Genesis, for what the great philosopher and critic of evolution Larry Azar rightly called “a fairy tale for adults.” I absolutely believe speciation evolution is a salvation issue. As you will read speciation is an error. That is a nice word used by the Catholic Church for an outright lie in this case. You can see in my case evolutionary science affected my belief. By the way Kolbe Center is Catholic.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Grannymh,

Oh, I am so sorry I missed that! My wife just got back from London and had gone to the Natural History Museum - where a marble scuplture of Charles Darwin sits on a chair overlooking the front door. I got as far as the whale… and my feet just gave out! We’ve been marrie for 41 years and she still has better feet than mine! Now, on to the topic.

Yes, the quip about descending from apes needs to be permanently shelved … and it would be if it were not some easy to wave while attempting to inject emotional elements along with intellectual bias into a discussion. A common descent is a more accurate approach in my view.

By the way, do you plan on leaving London for the Olympics. I have only heard horror stories about the traffic congestion (already present) actually getting worse with some groups going to the games and some groups actually trying to get to work to make a living? The cab driver we took to Paddington Station told us he was taking a 2-week vacation for the Olympics…

God bless

Regarding the 46% who hold creationist view of human origins.

Coincidentally, I am in London studying the display “Our Place in Evolution” in the Natural History Museum. Thus, your individual link which includes “Common Structures” is very interesting because I am part way through the Museum’s display section on homologies in regard to the origin of human nature which is the topic of this thread.

Since I am using a hotel computer with a different browser, etc., than mine, I am not sure what I am doing so reading the pages 9-22 will have to wait.

Nonetheless, in general, the issues regarding bats, mice, (see illustration on link) dogs, wolves, whales, dinosaur birds, etc., do not really address the issue of human origin. In the final analysis the human body’s relationship to a bat wing is minor compared with the relationship of humans to their nearest living relatives chimps and gorilla’s depending on which scientist and which recent common ancestor one follows. The end of the line (humans and their non-human relatives) in the basic cladistic system will continue to be debated because of current genetic technology.

Please note that I used living relatives. Fossils show that humans also share some homologies with extinct human-like archaic beings. These extinct beings are also classified into different species depending on their homologies.

It is obvious that humans did not directly descend from apes. The link’s reference to common descent actually refers to a common ancestor of primates which may or may not be the most recent one regarding the human species. When one looks at human origin solely from a natural science viewpoint, there are a lot more questions than answers. For example, one should consider the purpose of the human person. Where is the human being going? Is there more to life than natural science?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Buffalo,

I guess I missed it - were you agreeing or disagreeing with the post you responded to?

There is probably room for a few more … How about this one:

1. Mass extinction

God bless

The fossil record consistently shows:

1. Abrupt appearance
2. Stasis
3. Variation within