Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church must be adamant it is correctly reasoned science. She should be suspicious of reasoning that won’t “let the Divine foot in the door” ever.
 
I’ve already posted some obvious flaws with evolution that make it factually impossible.
Really? You have posted six times on this re-iteration, but I’ve not spotted any “obvious flaws”. You have made a lot of unsupported assertions - is that what you meant?
This, and the ToE, much like the Big Bang Theory, offer no obstacles to the Church in reality. It may be more difficult for many of the “old-timers” to accept these, but the Church cannot and should not try and stop scientific progress and some tough debates, imo. If the Church were to try and stop scientific analysis, I, as a scientist, would leave in a heart-beat, much like I left my fundamentalist Protestant Church roughly 50 years ago.
I think you’re in safe hands, Metis1. The Catholic Church has been the theological face of Reason for hundreds of years, and there is no dsnger of recidivism.
 
I guess that shows me.
You found a club foot.

Of course this is not exactly a new species that is not suited to the environment.

Where are they?

In the entire history, can you find me one wrong move? Randomness should provide examples.
An intelligence however…
 
I’d like to see proof that a Archaeopteryx ever had offspring that weren’t Archaeopteryx.
And no transitional fossils for… penguins,ostriches,vultures,peacocks,sparrows,toucans, hummingbirds,ducks,parrots,pelicans…
 
I don’t think you know what “theory” means in the context of science.
 
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen." Richard Lewontin Evo Biologist
 
Last edited:
Nice quote, but science isn’t a religion, and it does not require dogma.
 
Empirical science is not religion. Once one leaves empirical science they move into philosophy. Evolutionism is philosophy. Dogmatically held, some refer to it as a religion. Religion though means “to bind oneself to God”,
 
Of course this is not exactly a new species that is not suited to the environment.
I asked this question a while back, all the extinct animals we know of today was just because man encroached on their environment, not because of a genetic flaw.
 
Nobody is dogmatic about evolution, and nobody refers to it as a religion except religious people.
 
Yes, I did, because I know what the word “dogma” means, and I know that evolutionary Theory is not dogma.
 
Thanks! 😉

The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism

The Similarity Between Science and Magic
  1. Science as religion
  2. Science as credulity
  3. Science as power
Evolution is an alternative religion

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top