E
edwest211
Guest
Are you being flippant ? 
- Status
If we are to believe God created it all, then it would follow that every bit would be designed.
G
Glark
Guest
āLet no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.ā - 2Thess 2:3-4.
There is a Christian school of thought that suggests this usurpation of God is the theory of evolution.
There is a Christian school of thought that suggests this usurpation of God is the theory of evolution.
I
IWantGod
Guest
How physical reality and its processes have developed in history is the domain of science. But we will do it your way
So your suggestion is that we ought to read genesis (how the earth and life was created in genesis) as a literal historical event? Funny, the Catholic authority doesnāt agree with you.
So your suggestion is that we ought to read genesis (how the earth and life was created in genesis) as a literal historical event? Funny, the Catholic authority doesnāt agree with you.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
"Vienna - EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was āmore than just a hypothesis,ā defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance ā or at least acquiescence ā of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
"But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
āEvolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense ā an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection ā is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.ā
Cardinal Christoph Schƶnborn
"But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
āEvolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense ā an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection ā is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.ā
Cardinal Christoph Schƶnborn
G
Glark
Guest
Since science is limited to human intelligence, it canāt only scratch the surface of reality.
G
Glark
Guest
The curious case of āClmateGateā proves that scientists are capable of flat-out lies.
E
edwest211
Guest
I
IWantGod
Guest
I think you should make it clear to people when you are writing something in your own words because it can be misleading.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the followingā¦
( II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD
31 Created in Godās image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of āconverging and convincing argumentsā, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These āwaysā of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.
32 The world: starting from **movement, becoming, contingency, and the worldās order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.** )
ā¦First of all it rejects the possibility of knowing God through science, so thatās Intelligent design out the window.
Secondly nowhere does it talk about intelligent design theory or irreducible complexity. It does not speak against the idea of secondary causes in the world. It does not speak against the natural theory of evolution. It does speak about movement, becoming, contingency, and the worldās order and beauty, most of which are covered by Aquinas.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Imagine that: Scientists losing their jobs for opposing a theory that is not only untestable, but is utterly useless. Such an irrational phenomenon is characteristic of a fanatical cult.
I
IWantGod
Guest
History is filled with liars but your conclusion still doesnāt hold up. There are Christian biologists who agree with and support the theory of evolution. Are they lying too? Perhaps they are atheists in disguise.
Please! Spare me the conspiracy theories and show me something real.
Please! Spare me the conspiracy theories and show me something real.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Cardinal Schoenbornās name was not visible to you?
B
buffalo
Guest
Government funded science is ripe for fraud. Science must be independent of a master.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
But we would not discuss the designing of Radium by God in a science class, would we?LeafByNiggle:
If we are to believe God created it all, then it would follow that every bit would be designed.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Sorry, i didnāt see that. Since this is the word of Cardinal Schoenborn my rebuke lays firmly at his doorstep. All nicely wrapped. lookā¦ i even put a little bow on topā¦
I
IWantGod
Guest
A school of thought that is not very popular with the Catholic Authorityā¦
R
Rau
Guest
Everything subject to a paymaster is prone to fraud. Any other gems of wisdom?
R
Rau
Guest
No, thatās whatās wrong with science these days.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Let me clarify first that Iām not Catholic or even Christian. But some of the physical results could definitely be interpreted as requiring precognition on the part of the universe, as well as the capacity to interact with conscious agents (i.e. people). If the entire Universe is watching us watch it, then Iād say that might provide not evidential support but at least a decent reason to suspect that thereās something there.
I mean, thatās one of the things that separates God from some philosophical principle which might allow for a Big Bang-- sentience.
I mean, thatās one of the things that separates God from some philosophical principle which might allow for a Big Bang-- sentience.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Well it depends on what you mean by evidence.
If you mean natural selection leading to changed physical traits, thatās easy to prove and is proven all the time. If you mean abiogenesis starting in a primordial soup, then thatās a lot harder; theyād probably have to demonstrate that new life can be created in the lab, which they havenāt. If you mean speciation, then because youāre working with a few fossils spanning maybe a billion years, you have to make a lot of inferences. Scientists, however, have laid out all the evidence they consider, and much of it can easily be found online.
Iād counsel against discarding evidence unless youāve done as thorough a job as possible of investigating it, and please donāt be insulted, but it doesnāt seem that you have done that yet.
If you mean natural selection leading to changed physical traits, thatās easy to prove and is proven all the time. If you mean abiogenesis starting in a primordial soup, then thatās a lot harder; theyād probably have to demonstrate that new life can be created in the lab, which they havenāt. If you mean speciation, then because youāre working with a few fossils spanning maybe a billion years, you have to make a lot of inferences. Scientists, however, have laid out all the evidence they consider, and much of it can easily be found online.
Iād counsel against discarding evidence unless youāve done as thorough a job as possible of investigating it, and please donāt be insulted, but it doesnāt seem that you have done that yet.
- Status