B
- Status
S
steveandersen
Guest
Very much so, unfortunately. I’ve a degree in chemical engineering and I can make deadly dull dinner conversation.
While some of the mechanism can be complex, the underlying principles are fairly simple.
Elegant and robust are adjectives that are commonly used in describing/comparing scientific theories. They have particular meanings when used in this context.
B
buffalo
Guest
A book worth reading:
**Modern Physics and Ancient Faith
Another review
**
One thing to note: Quantum Physics due to its probabilistic nature needs and observer from an outside frame. This ultimately moves towards consciousness.
It is very well explained in this book.
He also deals with the anthropic principles.
**Modern Physics and Ancient Faith
Another review
**
One thing to note: Quantum Physics due to its probabilistic nature needs and observer from an outside frame. This ultimately moves towards consciousness.
It is very well explained in this book.
He also deals with the anthropic principles.
E
Evan
Guest
It is usually attributed to Monsignor Ronald Knox, and Father Edward T. Oakes quotes it in his discussion of brain and consciousness in the forthcoming issue of FIRST THINGS:
Code:
There was a young man who said “God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there’s no one about in the Quad.”
“Dear Sir, your astonishment’s odd;
I am always about in the Quad
And that’s why this tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by . . . Yours faithfully, God.”
U
urban-hermit
Guest
Well, I probably don’t believe evolution to be as measurable, known, and demonstrate-able as you might. As I have participated sporadically in Evolution-related threads here over time, I have become more and more solidified in a Creationist view. OTOH, if the Church were ever to say that evolution for sure did happen, I would adapt my thinking accordingly. Basically, I figure whenever any “scientific conclusion” contradicts what the Church says is true, that scientific conclusion is either a mistake or a limitation of finite human science. That said, I do believe along with what JP2 has said, that there can never be any real contradiction between faith and reason. These previous posts of mine might reveal some method to my madness:urban-hermit:
No disrespect but I’m curious how you reconcile your belief with measurable, known, demonstrateble quantities?
or is it simply not an issue?
Original Justice
Did God “speed up” time during Creation?
evolution AFTER Adam and Eve
Depending on which variety of evolution you believe in, it might indeed contradict one or more of the truths that the Catholic Church requires her members to accept.
U
urban-hermit
Guest
Heads up!
The upcoming Catholic Answers Live radio show scheduled for Wed Feb 15 will deal with “The Growing Dissent from Darwinism” as well as “Darwinism and its Social Consequences”.
The upcoming Catholic Answers Live radio show scheduled for Wed Feb 15 will deal with “The Growing Dissent from Darwinism” as well as “Darwinism and its Social Consequences”.
S
steveandersen
Guest
It would be interesting to hear just how there can be decent or consequences from observations 
By coincidence, yesterday was Evolution Sunday when over 10,000 clergy promised to preach that there was no conflict between science and religion in honor of the 197 anniversary of Darwin’s birthday
By coincidence, yesterday was Evolution Sunday when over 10,000 clergy promised to preach that there was no conflict between science and religion in honor of the 197 anniversary of Darwin’s birthday
P
PhilVaz
Guest
urban << The upcoming Catholic Answers Live radio show scheduled for Wed Feb 15 will deal with “The Growing Dissent from Darwinism” as well as “Darwinism and its Social Consequences”. >>
Yeah, I mentioned this in a couple of our January evolution threads. I very much look forward to Berlinski and Chapman trying to explain little things like Project Steve, The Clergy Letter Project, the original scan of the "Wedge Document", Judge Jones 2005 Dover ID Trial Decision, and the song "Overwhelming Evidence" by female singing sensation The Mutations.
Phil P
Yeah, I mentioned this in a couple of our January evolution threads. I very much look forward to Berlinski and Chapman trying to explain little things like Project Steve, The Clergy Letter Project, the original scan of the "Wedge Document", Judge Jones 2005 Dover ID Trial Decision, and the song "Overwhelming Evidence" by female singing sensation The Mutations.
Phil P
S
steveandersen
Guest
Doh! dissent DISSENT
Sorry, I type too fast sometimes
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
Probably the least convincing argument I’ve ever heard.urban << Wouldn’t it be fun to see a timeline, or better yet a computer animation, of how the eyeball evolved? It could be like the defragmentation program on my computer, except a lot less boring to watch. “eyeball 32% complete, 4 million years remaining …” >>
Been done. It took a few hundred thousand years.
Evolution of the Eye
Here are the people who figured it out
Lund Vision Group
Your computer model is here
More links on eye evolution
urban << But anyway I’m just going to continue to believe in Catholic Creationism until they work it all out. >>
I wouldn’t recommend that, or I’ll add you to my list
Phil P
E.g. I can ‘morph’ a chair into a hat in any animation prog., but it doesn’t mean that is how the hat came to be.
They say that the eyes are the windows to the soul, and it is true in so far as the soul animates the body of the creature.
The creature’s soul is, in a strange sense, the creature itself.
Souls are created not evolved things.
The animating principle of a cabbage, for example, would be of no use to the body of a chicken.
There are other complications too.
The human body is designed for binocular vision, the human brain designed for human vision. The part of the brain dealing with vision is designed to work with the rest of a human type brain.
If the eye evolved, the entire creature, physical as well as intellectual must also have evolved sympathetically with the eye.
And, if the eye evolved the human soul did not ‘know’ its final form.
But Christ did not evolve; his soul always existed and was always a human soul, as we are also always created in His image and likeness. The physical human form best expresses the nature of the divine.
So random mutation and natural random selection are dubious and problematic explanations.
IMO
M
masterjedi747
Guest
EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD SHOULD READ THIS BOOK:
journeywithjesus.net/BookNotes/Kenneth_Miller_Finding_Darwins_God_sm.jpg
It was recommended to me here, and now I’m returning the favor. I cannot emphasize how excellent this book is. Everyone who hasn’t should pick up a copy and start reading it now.
journeywithjesus.net/BookNotes/Kenneth_Miller_Finding_Darwins_God_sm.jpg
It was recommended to me here, and now I’m returning the favor. I cannot emphasize how excellent this book is. Everyone who hasn’t should pick up a copy and start reading it now.
S
steveandersen
Guest
I Leatherman:
I Leatherman:
Saying that eyes evolved does not equate with saying souls evolved.
While “the eyes are the window to the soul” is a wonderful bit of poetry, the eyes are actually organs for sight, nothing more nothing less.
I Leatherman:
I Leatherman:
We had eyes before we had big brains and before we had binocular vision.
why is that a complication
I Leatherman:
you wouldn’t suggest that someone with damaged or missing eyes has a damaged or missing soul would you?
I Leatherman:
I Leatherman:
Besides you know very well that much of the process is deterministic and not random. The process of conception is probably far more random than evolution. Do you find that problematic?
Do you have a better/alternate explanation?
I Leatherman:
You lost me there.
Saying that eyes evolved does not equate with saying souls evolved.While “the eyes are the window to the soul” is a wonderful bit of poetry, the eyes are actually organs for sight, nothing more nothing less.
I Leatherman:
You lost me again.
I Leatherman:
Yes of course they evolved together, things don’t evolve in a vacuum.
We had eyes before we had big brains and before we had binocular vision.
why is that a complication
I Leatherman:
Did it have to? By your account the eyes are the windows of the soul not the soul itself. The soul would be unaffected whether it was looking out a porthole, a double casement, or a jalousie window.
you wouldn’t suggest that someone with damaged or missing eyes has a damaged or missing soul would you?
I Leatherman:
An omnipotent, eternal transcendent God can do anything and take any form He wills. Issues such as before and after and the time it took to reach their current form really aren’t important.
I Leatherman:
Perhaps but they are the only explanations that fit the preponderance of the evidence.
Besides you know very well that much of the process is deterministic and not random. The process of conception is probably far more random than evolution. Do you find that problematic?
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
Actually I have an idea, but whether its better or worse I dont know.
The soul is not an abstract idea. It is real. It is fed through the senses of the body. The body is designed for the soul, in a sense, and the body is contained in the soul.You lost me there.
While “the eyes are the window to the soul” is a wonderful bit of poetry, the eyes are actually organs for sight, nothing more nothing less.
The idea of a body randomly evolving into a fit state for the human soul seems to be getting things backwards.
Likewise creating a God who is subject to time and is forced by natural laws to hang around twiddling his thumbs until man came up to speed doesnt sound completely necessary for an omnipotent creator God.
No. The body is contained in the soul.
Evolution, as most people would commonly understand it means an accidental arrival at the human form.
Which contrasts with this idea:
Humans have human souls, which take their pattern from Christs soul.
So there cannot be any accident in the human form.
Yes, But, ‘in the beginning was the Word…and the Word was made flesh’.
The human form was chosen from the beginning,
Always apparently, to us, random.
The person who made everything said that he was the ‘hidden God’, I would not count on finding conclusive proof which might betray, conclusively, his hand in anything.
P
precious_roy
Guest
Apologies for entering in the middle of this debate (I might be able to provide some insight later), but I do have a question/concern with intelligent design:
Reserving comments for now about its validity as a strict scientific theory, what additional testable/predictive/verifiable/falsifiable claims does it make on top of evolution? I have these two theories, evolution and intelligent design (which fills in evolutions gaps); what MORE is intelligent design adding? Just curious as I am not that knowledgeable about ID (I have read a few excerpts and some texts of Behe and Dembski).
Reserving comments for now about its validity as a strict scientific theory, what additional testable/predictive/verifiable/falsifiable claims does it make on top of evolution? I have these two theories, evolution and intelligent design (which fills in evolutions gaps); what MORE is intelligent design adding? Just curious as I am not that knowledgeable about ID (I have read a few excerpts and some texts of Behe and Dembski).
M
masterjedi747
Guest
P
precious_roy
Guest
Man, you love that book don’t you?Well, then you’re missing out. Kenneth Miller destroys Behe in: Finding Darwin’s God
I have heard it was good from a few others. And I honestly don’t like Behe that much; he comes off as smug and some of his arguments seem to have serious flaws.
M
masterjedi747
Guest
I Leatherman:
I Leatherman:
If anything, it’s the other way around. The soul is the “animating force” of the body.
I Leatherman:
I Leatherman:
I Leatherman:
I Leatherman:
I Leatherman:
I Leatherman:
precious_roy:
And if you’re interested, you can check out an excellent interview with the author here.
That’s great. I don’t think anyone here disagrees with you.
I Leatherman:
This is getting a little weird…the body is contained in the soul?
If anything, it’s the other way around. The soul is the “animating force” of the body.
I Leatherman:
Not at all. Whatever makes you say that?
I Leatherman:
God isn’t subject to time, and He isn’t forced by natural laws to do anything. God CREATED time, and He CREATED the natural laws that He KNEW would eventually create the exact human being which He desired to infuse an immortal spiritual soul into. And since He exists outside of time, the whole “millions of years” we see from our perspective take absolutely no time at all for Him…no “hanging around and twiddling thumbs” required.
I Leatherman:
Again, what in the world is that supposed to mean? Where are you getting this from?
I Leatherman:
That’s an atheistic philosophy being misapplied to a biological process. That’s wrong. We know that humanity was intentionally created by God…from all eternity, He intentionally chose the create a universe that He KNEW would result in the emergence of humanity.
I Leatherman:
Chirst took a human nature upon Himself…what’s your point?
I Leatherman:
There isn’t. It was. But again, this is philosophy, not science.
Yes. I really do. Please, read it. (Maybe I’ll just put that link in my signature…) EDIT: DoneMan, you love that book don’t you?
And if you’re interested, you can check out an excellent interview with the author here.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
master << It was recommended to me here, and now I’m returning the favor. I cannot emphasize how excellent this book is. Everyone who hasn’t should pick up a copy and start reading it now. >>
I agree, Catholic biologist Ken Miller’s book is very detailed and aggressive in prosecuting Creationism and Intelligent Design as non-science. I was blown away when I first read the book. He even has chapters against Dawkins and others who argue for atheism from evolution.
Some say Ken Miller is overbearing in his rhetoric in the book, but that’s my style and why I like him. Actually the entire Dover ID Trial transcripts are even more detailed than Miller’s book.
A second excellent book is evangelical geologist Keith Miller’s (no relation) Perspectives on an Evolving Creation which actually has more evidence for evolution than Ken Miller’s book does. Miller’s book specifically answers young earthers (Henry Morris, Duane Gish), then Phil Johnson (Darwin on Trial), then Mike Behe (Darwin’s Black Box).
Phil P
I agree, Catholic biologist Ken Miller’s book is very detailed and aggressive in prosecuting Creationism and Intelligent Design as non-science. I was blown away when I first read the book. He even has chapters against Dawkins and others who argue for atheism from evolution.
Some say Ken Miller is overbearing in his rhetoric in the book, but that’s my style and why I like him. Actually the entire Dover ID Trial transcripts are even more detailed than Miller’s book.
A second excellent book is evangelical geologist Keith Miller’s (no relation) Perspectives on an Evolving Creation which actually has more evidence for evolution than Ken Miller’s book does. Miller’s book specifically answers young earthers (Henry Morris, Duane Gish), then Phil Johnson (Darwin on Trial), then Mike Behe (Darwin’s Black Box).
Phil P
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
St. Irenaeus: attributes a certain “corporeal character” to the soul; he represents it as possessing the form of its body, as water possesses the form of its containing vessel.
Plotinus: prefers to say that the body is in the soul rather than vice versa: and he seems to have been the first to conceive the peculiar manner of the soul’s location as an undivided and universal presence pervading the organism (tota in toto et tota in singulis partibus).
St. Augustine:
Like Aristotle he makes the soul the final cause of the body. As God is the Good or Summum Bonum of the soul, so is the soul the good of the body.
St. Thomas:
The rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienne of 1311;
The soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i. e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature.
Catholic philosophy (anticipating positive science) had taught for centuries. Man is two and one, a divisible but a vital unity.
Vs.
Descartes
Confines it [the soul] to a single point – the pineal gland – from which it is supposed to control the various organs and muscles through the medium of the “animal spirits”, a kind of fluid circulating through the body.
There is no difference in saying that than in saying God created man in his present form from the beginning.
We are not the result of random mutations or accident.
Our personal differences are these:
You think man evolved over hundreds of millions of years,
I think man is man because he is both, and inseperably, human body and human soul.
Man was always man from the beginning because man is both body and soul.
And the soul does not evolve.
And you cannot get a man by putting a human soul in a monkeys body.
The human body was created for the human soul.
And the human body could not exist without the human soul.
O
Orogeny
Guest
I Leatherman:
Believe it or not, I actually support your right to believe that humans bodies were created and not evolved. I don’t think it will affect your salvation one iota. There are some on these forums, however, that would not say the same about my position.
Peace
Tim
I would agree that man is man because of both the body and soul.
Man has been man since the body and soul were joined.
I don’t recall from any of the seemingly endless threads about evolution anyone claiming that the soul evolved.
No, but you can get a man by placing a human soul in an ape’s body.
That is not in conflict with an evolving body. You claim it is created. I claim that the body evolved. I have physical evidence for my claim. For your claim, you have to interpret a book of the bible literally and ignore the evidence. The Church allows me to accept an evolved body. Unless the Church is willing to allow me to believe in error, I would suggest that the Church also accepts an evolved body.
Believe it or not, I actually support your right to believe that humans bodies were created and not evolved. I don’t think it will affect your salvation one iota. There are some on these forums, however, that would not say the same about my position.
Peace
Tim
- Status