Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church has been very clear. And there is no seriousness attached to this matter. None. Only those who want to say God did nothing are the primary promoters, followed by the Science is God group.
 
I’ve read more than enough. Science is not as important as Divine revelation which the Church has the sole ability to interpret correctly. The Church has the final say, not science.
 
edwest211 said:
The Church has been very clear. And there is no seriousness attached to this matter. None. Only those who want to say God did nothing are the primary promoters, followed by the Science is God group.
Click to expand...
You are wildly wrong, and the quotes from the Church that have been posted by others speak for themselves. Go fish out the quotes and refute them. Call the Vatican and ask to speak to someone. That is where your beef lies, not here.

and the other thing is, your quote above wildly misrepresents what others are saying to you. You have to misrepresent what others are saying then:
  1. you don’t understand it (or you have ill will with intent to deceive)
  2. your argument is empty.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Since God is the living Truth itself, any account that seeks to explain who we are, why we are and how we got here, but does not include Him at its centre, will be absurd.
Click to expand...
Evolution does not seek to address the why of existence. That is in the realm of the metaphysical. And if today’s account of how there comes to be such diversity of life on earth appearing over time as the evidence suggests, and how it might be related (or not), were adjusted to incorporate God - it would cease to be science. Is it ok to practice science?
 
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
That’s the mythos if these modern times. The truth is something other.
Click to expand...
So, you have no scientific evidence favouring your God over Vishnu or Durga etc.

What about showing some property of the Multiverse that matches your God, but not Shiva, say?

I am not Christian, so I do not share some of your assumptions about the universe. You cannot just assume that science agrees with your assumptions, you have to show the evidence.

Generally it is easier to leave the material aspects to science, where science is strong, and leave the theological aspects to the theologians.

rossum
Click to expand...
The evidence for the Divine is within a relationship with the Source of all relationships. All mankind is oriented towards God each person in their own way as participants within their own culture. In this light we can understand Vishnu as both an aspect of the Divine and the connection by which the person through prayer and contemplation engages in that dialogue which offers the Truth, the Reality which transcends all understandings such as that which science offers.

Whether we analyze bones in the dirt or a pattern of nucleotides in a genome, the information is cast into a story. Secular society imagines currently material objects interacting in accordance with their inherent properties. It sees them coming together haphazardly and ultimately, in man, manifesting themselves with such qualities as story-telling, art, music and mathematics. From a religious perspective Existence, One, eternal and infinitely creative, brings all into being. The spirit-body unity that is the person, complex in its relational oneness is an image of the Triune Godhead. The mechanism whereby this occurred requires an act of creation. Science will ultimately fill in the blanks as far as this is knowable. Current research is headed in that direction, but old ideas like random-mutation/natural-selection like bad habits, are hard to break.
 
edwest211 said:
I’ve read more than enough. Science is not as important as Divine revelation which the Church has the sole ability to interpret correctly. The Church has the final say, not science.
Click to expand...
This is all very true. But the part you left out was the fact that the Church does not say or teach that evolution of species including our own could not have happened as science describes. You cannot validly wrap that claim in the mantle of binding Church teaching. Address that issue before wasting any more time proclaiming things that are not disputed.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Emotion words. Standard practice in psychological warfare.
Click to expand...
Is this an irrelevant observation (that “fear” - one of 35 odd words in the relevant post - is an emotion) or do you say that I am conducting psychological warfare?
 
Last edited:
An assertion with no scientific foundation, at odds with the overwhelming majority of professional scientists. It would seem you stray from science here.

At least you acknowledge that science will not be discussing God.
 
Last edited:
This is all pointless since I know various threads touching on this topic will continue to appear. Purpose: to deny God had any causal role in the development of life. Those that care about only about science should post on science only message boards. Don’t mix religion with science here.

"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
 
Rau said:
An assertion with no scientific foundation, at odds with the overwhelming majority of professional scientists. It would seem you stray from science here.

At least you acknowledge that science will not be discussing God.
Click to expand...
The assertion that an unprovable hypothesis is good or bad science is beyond the scope of empirical research. It is philosophical and has to do with truth. Generally speaking those statements which cannot be validated are considered less powerful than those which can.

That an animal hominid species became mankind is irrational considering what each represents. It also cannot be validated by any means neither in the lab nor in nature.

Straying from the consensus is how science progressed.

Where did I say science will not be discussing God. I thought I said the converse, that without the Truth, it will recede further into illusion.
 
edwest211 said:
See post 603. Finding Design In Nature.
Click to expand...
The quote there says “…evolution in sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in neo-Darwinian sense–unguided, unplanned process of random variation and…”

This can indeed be used against what Cardinal Schonborn is calling “neo-Darwinism.” But it cannot be used against the concept of common ancestry. The Cardinal even says as much.

The most limited form of the theory of evolution only claims common ancestry. As for the concepts of “unplanned vs planned,” these are concepts outside the domain of strict science. Science should not and does not take a position on these philosophical issues.

Note that the arguments presented here in this thread against evolution are overwhelmingly against even the notion of common ancestry. So it is a bit of a cheat to now take a more extreme version of evolution (“neo-Darwinism”) and focus only on that as a proxy for evolution in general, which the Church does not condemn.

I’m all too willing to admit that those that attempt to use evolution to deny God’s role in creation are dead wrong. Now can we move on past that point?
 
Aloysium said:
That an animal hominid species became mankind is irrational considering what each represents
Click to expand...
Not really.

For example, the Chad fossil of 6 million years b.p. has so many ape and human characteristics that we have had a hard time classifying it as either, and this is what we should expect to happen as we get closer to where the ape/human split likely occurred.
 
edwest211 said:
Purpose: to deny God had any causal role in the development of life.
Click to expand...
Are you confusing the science with the purposes to which a person may seek to apply it? Is this the same issue as confusing the meaning of “atheist” with “scientist”.

It seems you believe that the theory of evolution is in itself an atheistic manifesto. I think that so underestimates God and denigrates science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top