G
Glark
Guest
So how do you explain the fact that so many scientists are obsessed with a theory that has no practical scientific use?
- Status
A
anon65111186
Guest
Where is this embellishing? Fact check it then.
What criteria are you using for advancing science or serving mankind?
Wow, you actually like some science? What about all that talk about the atheist cult society otherwise known as the scientific community? Forget talking about that? I can get the quote if you want.
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
Let’s imagine for a moment, incorrectly though, that you’re right about evolution not benefiting modern biological studies.
Even then evolution would serve our knowledge of how the human body came about. We’re naturally curious as a species as to origins. Learning what ancient culture were like won’t change my day-to-day activities, but history is still useful to further my knowledge of where humanity has been and sates a desire for knowledge. So too, at the least, does evolution offer insight to our biological past.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
How can a story that can’t be verified as factual, about what might have happened millions of years ago help us “understand” animals and fossils? How can a non-fact help us “understand” anything at all?
Some of your comments make it obvious that you know little about the scientific process in general, or about the scientific study of evolution specifically. There’s really not much I can say to someone who so willfully ignores the Truth that God has writ so consistently throughout the world and through its geologic history.
That you think your ignorance is an act of faith is troublingly ironic. Obviously, faith requires a sincere pursuit of truth, and the consideration of truth requires an open and careful consideration of the evidence at hand. Covering your ears and shouting “La la la” over and over isn’t an act of faith-- it’s evidence that your faith may be much weaker than you’d like it to be.
A true and existent God doesn’t need your kind of faith. But you, if you want understanding that might help you be more useful in serving your God, might want to consider opening your eyes a little more.
[/quote]
A
anon65111186
Guest
Talk about faith Glark, why don’t you have faith in the Popes, in the Church, instead of lambasting them? You of great faith have little faith in Saint John Paul II, Benedict or Francis. Where is your faith in them? Do they not hold the keys to the kingdom? Are they not the Vicar of Christ on earth? Is not Vatican II a valid and Holy Spirit inspired council?
Would you obey them if they asked you to believe, as a matter of faith, that God was behind evolution? Even if your conscience wasn’t certain?
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
In fairness to Clark with that quote, Benjamin is the one that actually said that. Clark had a formatting error when he quoted it that only made it appear he was no longer quoting Ben. (You can double check by following the link to Ben’s post. I also thought Clark was saying it the first time I read it.)
Edit: And autocorrect thought Glark should be Clark. Thanks technology.
Edit: And autocorrect thought Glark should be Clark. Thanks technology.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
A theory that can’t be tested and verified can’t help us understsnd anything at all.
This is a vacuous argument. Please don’t use it again. We’re talking about a practical, scientific use - it’s got nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible.
Here’s on thing you can tell me: Give me an example of a practical use for the theory/information that all life on earth evolved from microbes. Come on! … how hard can it be? We’re talking about the one of the greatest “discoveries” (as the Catechism calls it) in the history of science! Surely there must be thousands of uses for this “knowledge” (as the Catechism calls it).
That you think your ignorance is an act of faith is troublingly ironic. Obviously, faith requires a sincere pursuit of truth, and the consideration of truth requires an open and careful consideration of the evidence at hand. Covering your ears and shouting “La la la” over and over isn’t an act of faith-- it’s evidence that your faith may be much weaker than you’d like it to be.
[/quote]
I
IWantGod
Guest
It gives us insight into the origin of species…oh, i get it now. You simply cannot accept anything that conflicts with a literal interpretation of genesis.
That’s your personal issue. Its not the problem of the Catholic Church.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
After Part Three of this thread, I am convinced more than ever that evolution is indeed a viable and sound theory. At first I had my doubts, but the opposite position (thanks guys) really did it for me.
After their grandest efforts, and their best arguments, I found that the anti-evolutionary stance doesn’t hold water, and in fact can lead you to a position which puts you in opposition to Holy Mother Church, and the entire scientific community. Obviously the second wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the fact that there are many faithful Catholics within its ranks.
I really wanted them to prove me wrong, show me some bit of information I missed so I could confirm my doubts. Instead I found most of my doubts lifted, and saw that evolution is actually most compatible with our faith and God’s creation.
The real conclusion is that God used what was before our eyes, creation, already existing material, to bring us about, and left clues for us to discover that we are related. God is truly the God of evolution.
After their grandest efforts, and their best arguments, I found that the anti-evolutionary stance doesn’t hold water, and in fact can lead you to a position which puts you in opposition to Holy Mother Church, and the entire scientific community. Obviously the second wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the fact that there are many faithful Catholics within its ranks.
I really wanted them to prove me wrong, show me some bit of information I missed so I could confirm my doubts. Instead I found most of my doubts lifted, and saw that evolution is actually most compatible with our faith and God’s creation.
The real conclusion is that God used what was before our eyes, creation, already existing material, to bring us about, and left clues for us to discover that we are related. God is truly the God of evolution.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
B
benjamin1973
Guest
The irony. It burns!
B
benjamin1973
Guest
You don’t get to piggy-back your opinion onto a question about scientific goals.
Scientists are interested in learning more about the world. They find that the theory of evolution explains so much, and that there is so little evidence against it, that it is highly useful-- in learning more.
As for “No practical use,” I’ve defined practical use in terms of knowledge, and said so about 10 times now. If you keep parroting that science has no practical use, then I’ll have to ask YOU to define what “practical” means in the context of science, given that “science” comes from “scire”, which is the Latin verb meaning “to know.”
If not to know things, what else would be the use of science?
Scientists are interested in learning more about the world. They find that the theory of evolution explains so much, and that there is so little evidence against it, that it is highly useful-- in learning more.
As for “No practical use,” I’ve defined practical use in terms of knowledge, and said so about 10 times now. If you keep parroting that science has no practical use, then I’ll have to ask YOU to define what “practical” means in the context of science, given that “science” comes from “scire”, which is the Latin verb meaning “to know.”
If not to know things, what else would be the use of science?
A
Aloysium
Guest
The problem is our splitting up the physical from the metaphysical, the body from the spirit, the creation of dichotomies to make things understandable and then taking the ideas to be the reality and confusing ourselves.
Now outside Eden, our relationship with God injured by our usurping His position, in our fallen state, it is very difficult to communicate reality.
Eden was a physical place as it was created for humanity, with God at its ontological Centre, represented by the two trees of knowledge and life. The very ground is transformed in the presence of holiness; peace abounds and the air is filled with heavenly fragrance. We cannot return to that state of innocence; the flaming sword of time prevents that. But, we can move forward. This is our second chance to be gods, this time with God, in and through Jesus.
This is heaven, as a wondrous journey when we are with Christ - in prayer, contemplation of the Word, when we participate in the mass and the Eucharist, when we love our neighbour. The more we give ourselves to Him, to one another, the clearer it becomes, as we are freed from the shackles of sin.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Just to make sure we’re talking about the same thing if we are to engage in a dialogue, I would require some acknowledgement that you do understand that the qualifications imposed by the Church on any theory of evolution, make the current scientific “theory”, that which is being taught in the schools, incompatable with our faith.Aloysium:
Can you define Darwinistic mythos? Do you just mean materialism? Materialism is a problem, but that isn’t what Darwinism is about, that there is only material.
Why isn’t Darwinistic mythos condemned if it is such a thing?
Anyhow, the thread topic is “Is Darwin’s Theory of Evolution True?” My claim is yes, it is true. The Church affirms it is more than a theory, and has a lot of evidence to support it, and it can help us to praise God. The last three Popes subscribed to it with qualifications, so in that way, they also affirm it is true, at least to a certain extent.
I beg to differ that materialism is not at the heart of Darwinism. Rather than pretending it isn’t what it is, propose your own theory, I’ve got many myself all with God as Creator, it sounds like you are distorting the truth, allowing a lie to enter as a possibility by masking it by simply saying that God did this.
The mythos is that chemicals came together to form the first life forms in a primordial soup. From there, through random chemical reactions resulting in mutations of the DNA which had been formed along with the proteins and other elements to reproduce itself, life became ever more complex - plants, fish, dinosaurs, mammals and Homo sapiens. Natural selection, the survival of the fittest, or perhaps fittingest, is the scalpel that determined the diversity we see.
It is vague enough and spoken enough that people accept it.
As you say elsewhere in this thread, the more you have thought and written about it, the more you believe Darwinism to be true. You may wish to explain your vision of our creation.
No one has argued that all life has been made from the dust of the earth, which was created by God. You would not be disagreeing with any of the creationist positions. There might be on occasion, a difference with respect to the rather trivial, compared to the central tenet that all is brought into existence by God, of the timeline.
I’m sure we agree with the actual science - the world has been around for a long time and consists of an ever changing environment consisting of individual organisms. However, creation and not evolution is required to jump what could be understood as different levels of being - atoms, cells, plants, animals, mankind. The transformation from one kind to another is illusory, the distortion occurring when we neglect the reality of individual representations of each particular level - a carbon atom, a paramecium, a daisy, a lion, you yourself.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
This would be exactly what people mean when they claim that its sole purpose is to feed an atheist agenda. The knowledge that you speak about is essentially your atheistic creed which is being proclaimed as fact.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Genesis is literally true, but just as with everything we read, it requires interpretation. Your point might be better stated as “misinterpretation of Genesis” or “literalistic interpretation”, or more accurately I think, “traditional interpretation”.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
No, it’s not. I’m not atheist, I don’t have a creed, and nothing is being proclaimed.
People who say that science is useful do so because they want to connect the things they are capable of learning about into a bigger picture. For example, everyone knows that stuff falls. But with enough observations, we can learn what about matter (it’s mass) makes things fall toward each other, and establish some useful relationships.
Saying that God made man, so evolution didn’t make man is a lot like saying gravity didn’t make the apple fall, because God made the apple fall. It’s trying to create a false dilemma where there is none in actuality.
The truth is that if God is omnipotent, everything else serves as a proxy for His will. The apple fell because God wanted the Universe to be such that massive bodies are attracted toward each other. The gravity is an expression of God’s will.
People evolved because God wanted the Universe to be such that physical patterns could persist over time, inevitably leading to you and I existing in it. ALL the things required: birth and death of stars, the formation of the Earth, the moon crashing into the Earth, the genesis of life, the evolution of species, the invention of the internet: ALL of those things are necessarily proxy agents for God.
I’d put it this way-- science is the art of cataloging and organizing observations; it is not in the business of answering deep philosophical questions.
People who say that science is useful do so because they want to connect the things they are capable of learning about into a bigger picture. For example, everyone knows that stuff falls. But with enough observations, we can learn what about matter (it’s mass) makes things fall toward each other, and establish some useful relationships.
Saying that God made man, so evolution didn’t make man is a lot like saying gravity didn’t make the apple fall, because God made the apple fall. It’s trying to create a false dilemma where there is none in actuality.
The truth is that if God is omnipotent, everything else serves as a proxy for His will. The apple fell because God wanted the Universe to be such that massive bodies are attracted toward each other. The gravity is an expression of God’s will.
People evolved because God wanted the Universe to be such that physical patterns could persist over time, inevitably leading to you and I existing in it. ALL the things required: birth and death of stars, the formation of the Earth, the moon crashing into the Earth, the genesis of life, the evolution of species, the invention of the internet: ALL of those things are necessarily proxy agents for God.
I’d put it this way-- science is the art of cataloging and organizing observations; it is not in the business of answering deep philosophical questions.
M
mVitus
Guest
So you want us to acknowledge God’s role in creation but don’t like when say God did it? I don’t understand your objection. To me it’s like the apple and gravity example Ben mentioned.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
I guess that’s why Catholic Schools teach the scientific theory of evolution and not your theories, and guess what…the Pope isn’t saying a thing about it. He hasn’t called it a lie. He hasn’t called it materialistic. He said the evidence supports it.
Why can’t you just be honest about the facts instead of misleading people into thinking that the scientific theory of evolution is not compatible with the Church? If it wasn’t, the Pope would have said so. Unless of course you really don’t understand what the scientific theory of evolution is?. The qualifications that were made in regard to the theory of evolution were not revisions of the theory itself but rather it was a rejection of the materialistic interpretations added by atheists.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
As written Genesis contains scientific errors. It has the earth in existence before the sun and other stars. It has birds before land animals. It may be theologically true, but in scientific terms it has the level of knowledge expected from Iron Age scribes on the fringes of the major civilisations. For example, both the Egyptians and Babylonians were aware of more of the planets than are mentioned in the Bible.
rossum
- Status