Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church teaching is not explicitly against evolutionary thought, and this is asking for proponents of ID and not Catholics in general, as Catholics are free to hold a variety of beliefs concerning the origins of man.
 
I am not denying that.
I don’t like the complacency of some in biological sciences though.
 
Last edited:
Cross-breeding occurred long ago. A sterile offspring will not reproduce. There is no evolutionary explanation. The cross-breeding was mainly encouraged by men. Just like splicing a pear branch and fixing it to an apple tree branch. This is mentioned in the Bible as grafting.
 
Kei said:
One would hope that modern scientists would synthesize both, but sadly many are neo Darwinists and stuck in a mindset that doesn’t extend beyond the basics of Darwinism beyond what was originally posted by the man himself (this is especially true of the mass populace).
Click to expand...
You are badly misinformed. Mendelian genetics was merged with Darwin’s original theory in the 1920s. The result was called the “Modern Synthesis”.

rossum
 
Ask the common person on the street who believes in evolution and ask them about it. I think you will be surprised!

I realize it may sound like when I say many I mean scientists but I mean in general.
 
Maybe, but it is for sure only religious people who hold ID to be true and evolution not to be, and this is a Catholic forum.
 
rossum said:
Same reasons. If the x.1 version is an improvement then it will catch more of the available prey. Being the x.1 version then t almost certainly hunts the same prey. Standard natural selection will ensure that the more efficient predator has more offspring, so those genes will overwhelm the earlier genes by, effectively, compound interest.

rossum
Click to expand...
Evolution doesn’t happen overnight.The creatures that didn’t get the mutation improvement would still be out there reproducing and surviving.Are you try to say after millions of years of improvements this new creature will come along and eat up their food supply?
 
Last edited:
That’s my issue. The average student was told it was true in school and just believed his teacher, and went his way. But ask the man on the street for an explanation. I doubt details were stored.
 
My understanding is that ID means that God created all creatures in their final and fully complete state, and that any adaptations are variations on that complete state-- with no possibility of new species being created via evolution.
 
That isn’t what I understand it to mean. It simply means intelligent design, which implies an intelligence behind the creation of animals and man. This intelligent agent can even be an alien if you’d like, and doesn’t imply that all creatures are created in their current state, though it could, simply that some intelligence has monkeyed around with biology.
 
That’s actually a very serious problem. When you believe in capital-S “Science” as an institution, and have the mindset “well, those are the guys who get stuff like this, I just need to know the results,” then you’ll end up believing in nonsense.

Two examples are badly-performed scientific studies: the one that shows vaccines may lead to autism, and the one that shows that being close to high-voltage power lines leads to increased risk of brain cancer.

In the first case, the study was just not done correctly, and was basically garbage. In the latter, there was in fact a correlation between location and cancer, but that’s due to socioeconomic factors: diet, lack of healthcare and so on. Because rich people don’t like to live next to ugly power lines. I think nobody will be surprised to find that poorer people have poor mortality numbers.

I myself got caught by this in this thread, with regard to the moth study, which I heard about in the past but didn’t know was suspect. Luckily for me, someone had followed up and confirmed the results, but I didn’t know that when I made my first post.
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand what you are trying to say and how that replies to what I have said.
 
I was saying that the average person, who claims to believe in something but hasn’t taken the time to understand it, is pretty foolish, whether their beliefs are the same as mine or not. (it was a previous post you made to someone else, not the one you just made while I was typing)
 
It could mean that, but I would assume that to most Catholics, the intelligence is God’s, and the moment of Design is as described in Genesis.
 
I tend to agree that one should research their opinions on what they believe.

I personally have put in research to the question of evolution but do not have any definitive answers so stay pretty agnostic on the subject of if evolution occurred.

To Catholics who are IDers, then yes. But if you want to say only religious are IDers, this is different from saying only religious are Catholic IDers. See? The last one is obviously a truthism.
 
Last edited:
Evolution for sure occurs if it means adaptation, even if you are 100% Catholic and believe in Adam and Eve. If all people came from one source, but now they are a rainbow from bright white to ebony black, then adaptation is clearly in effect. If a black couple move to Canada and have a baby, it will be black-- which means that their DNA is different at least in that regard than a white or Asian couple’s.
 
I’m acknowledging where I am right now. If I’m going to debate about ID, it’s going to be ID as I understand Catholics to mean by that term, unless someone else wants to introduce a different definition.
 
What? All human beings can interbreed. I don’t understand the message here.
 
I don’t think anyone denies that.

In fact, if you asked me to breed a dog that has fluffy fur, I sure could. Or a dog that has long claws. But things become less clear if you ask me to give you a dog with wings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top