Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Life After Death: The Evidence

Unlike many books about the afterlife, Life after Death makes no appeal to religious faith, divine revelation, or sacred texts. Drawing on some of the most powerful theories and trends in physics, evolutionary biology, science, philosophy, and psychology, D’Souza shows why the atheist critique of immortality is irrational and draws the striking conclusion that it is reasonable to believe in life after death. He concludes by showing how life after death can give depth and significance to this life, a path to happiness, and reason for hope.

Loading…

www.amazon.com
 
As far as I know, all scientists will admit the limitations of science. Science is essentially a process of observation and interaction with that part of the world which we share, i.e. material.
 
I don’t think any of the things you’re saying are known to be true, or even knowable.
 
That’s a good point; let’s see what physics actually says:

Entropy is a measure of randomness. The universe tends toward increased entropy, i.e. an increase in disorder. Any spontaneous change occurs with an increase in entropy of the universe. It is this fact that gives time a direction.

But with life on earth, we see the opposite, a greater complexity has arisen in time.

To remind ourselves, the Christian God is not deistic, having created the universe and letting it go its own way. He is initmately involved in His creation as loving Father, guiding us to our eternal Home in Him.

As things fall apart physically, a reminder that we are not God, we participate in our own creation as eternal beings, through our actions. We exist as a now within the trajectory of the arrow of time, surrounded by an unchangeable past that includes what we have done, and a future of potential challenges and choices.

I would imagine that this psychospiritual change towards potential maturity that accompanies our physical degeneration, is projected out onto nature and understood as evolution. But, this happens because there is there is a causal agent involved. The same is true in the case of nature, which includes us and the capacity to enter into such considerations. It is unreasonable to think that this is all chance.
 
Last edited:
This is not known or knowable. You choose to believe so, but you do not have sufficient evidence to merit your belief.
 
Aloysium said:
What is referred to as the social sciences includes sociology, psychology, economics, political science, history, anthropology, archeology and linguistics, among others. There is also medicine and particularly psychiatry that deals with the person and our ailments.
Click to expand...
Sure social sciences are soft sciences and follow the scientific method less directly but still follow thr scientific method to validate truth, and unfortunately no science has proved that soul or spirit is detectable from the scientific method.
Aloysium said:
The quest for truth should not be limited by arbitrary restrictions.
Click to expand...
I agree, but the scientific method wouldn’t be such a knowledge producer if it didn’t have limits.
Aloysium said:
As it is, evolutionary theory is a way to sneak in a materialistic philosophical doctrine
Click to expand...
The Church condemns hijacking evolution for errant philosophy or heresy. Just like a car could be hijacked to run into people, it doesn’t make the car bad in itself.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
That’s a good point; let’s see what physics actually says:

Entropy is a measure of randomness. The universe tends toward increased entropy, i.e. an increase in disorder. Any spontaneous change occurs with an increase in entropy of the universe. It is this fact that gives time a direction.
But with life on earth, we see the opposite, a greater complexity has arisen in time.
Click to expand...
This is a common misapplication of the principle of entropy. Properly stated, the principle is that in the universe as a whole (or in any closed system within the universe), entropy always increases. This is true of inanimate matter. It is also true when life is involved. Life is not a contradiction to the principle of increasing entropy because when you look at life, you have to consider a closed system in which the life form exists. When looking at a growing plant taking energy from the sun, the apparent entropy of the plant is going down (meaning more organization and concentration of energy). But this decrease in entropy of the plant has occurred at the expense of the much greater concentration of energy in sunlight. You cannot consider the plant in isolation because it is getting its energy from the sun, which was more concentrated there than in the plant. So the total entropy of the system has increased. Similarly, when cows eat the plants and put fat energy on their bones, they decrease their entropy while increasing the entropy of the plant material that they eat. Again, total entropy of the system goes up. In short, living things appear to decrease entropy in themselves, but they do so by increasing entropy in the things around them.

One of the reasons this principle is misapplied is that the definition of entropy, as it relates to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is only about energy capable of doing work. It is not about organization or fuzzy concepts of complexity. There is no such law in physics that says the shoes in your closet must always tend to get separated, or that crystal lattice structures must always become less crystalline.
 
Last edited:
Consider, before the fall, if the 2nd law was suspended what the universe would be like.
 
Religion isn’t the enemy of science: it’s been inspiring scientists for centuries

Take notice of any debate in the media and you’ll see that science and religion are, and always were, at loggerheads. Science is about evidence-based fact, religion is about faith-based belief.

But repeating statements endlessly in the media doesn’t make them true. The actual entanglements of religious tradition and the development of science are far more interesting than the superficial conflict common today – and far more important. And rethinking how we view the relationship between science and religion could help give scientific thinking the wider public support it needs.

The history of scientific thought is closely linked to that of religious thought, and with much more continuity than discontinuity.

Loading…

theconversation.com
 
To see what? That Krsna created the cosmos? That Cronos did? What, exactly, does one have to be humble to see? The truth that your Holy book is 100% right, while those of maybe 2 dozen other religious full of their respective faithful members and wise leaders, are wrong?
 
Last edited:
To see God,

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.1

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. *hus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10
 
Last edited:
Catholics have the “fullness of truth”. We share many common truths with the others. Yes, some are wrong. Those with diametrically opposing views cannot both be right.
 
A very good article, and it is the way things should work regarding religion and science. Pope John Paul II spoke of a dialogue between science and religion. I think not just those in the pews but the public at large should have a greater understanding of science, but a look at what the media is telling people rarely touches upon science, but on things that are bad for society or issue advocacy. The term “damaging denials” is not explained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top