Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Objection noted, but utterly irrelevant. Evolution is being taught everywhere including the catholic educational system. The Pope supports it. You have already lost the war.

If there is a conspiracy involving the educational system, science and big government, then you are falling miserably in doing anything about it.
 
Last edited:
As our understanding of science and history as it has evolved, so has the church’s teachings on the basic ToE. Like with psychology, our understanding of how the mind works has evolved since Freud. Like with biology, our understanding of evolution has evolved since Darwin.

Therefore, our understanding should reflect a greater understanding as to how we and all life forms have changed over the centuries. To not reflect these greater understandings over the centuries would have left us with a Dark Age mentality. Any religion that does not recognize the basic truth of change has to be a bogus one as the Truth cannot be relative.

Fortunately, the CC has adjusted to these greater understandings even though it’s taken time-- just ask Galileo.
 
IWantGod said:
Objection noted, but utterly irrelevant. Evolution is being taught everywhere including the catholic educational system. The Pope supports it. You have already lost the war.
Click to expand...
The issue is not with evolution per se, but with its mechanism. The real question is whether it is directed or whether it occurs by blind chance.
 
You are misinformed. The Pope supports consistent Church teaching, which appears to carry zero weight here. An appeal to religious authority itself carries zero weight as far as science is concerned. No scientists call the Pope to get his approval regarding anything. Your argument has no bearing on science. And who cares if nonsense has been foisted on Catholic schools? Nobody blindly accepting this theory will have it change their lives in any practical way. I applaud those who homeschool so that this nonsense is placed in its proper context.

No disrespect intended, but the key message I’m getting is only science is the only source of truth/knowledge. Religion, God/gods, etc. Who needs that?

I study the history of technology and make regular contributions to further that knowledge to other researchers. Things don’t evolve, people make changes. Technology has many hands guiding it, especially military related research, which, as I expand my research, is controlled to make money as much as it is for national defense.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t say that “science is a god,” so why are you arguing against that idea? I said that if God made the Universe, then any sincere attempt to understand the Universe is an attempt to better understand God’s design and plan. And that is why many of the top scientists in history have been Christian.

We all know that things change. Why should it be uncomfortable for us that God might have given life the capacity to adapt to change?
 
If it occurs, it is guided. Blind chance is just that, blind. It has no decision making abilities. The environment is dynamic, not static as in a lab. Fires, volcanic eruptions, flooding, a new predator moving in… There is not enough time time to adjust to an optimal physical condition.
 
The Blind Watchmaker? I reject that out of hand. And the development of novel organs to say, go from water to land? Even mechanical design would have to be fully guided to make an amphibious vehicle much less a living thing. This has nothing to do with feelings. I’ve studied very complex mechanical designs and one wrong or incorrectly executed spec. and the whole thing breaks down as an effective vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Why would you accept anything that would require you to think a little harder?
 
Natural, meaning “non-God” evolution? No. No Catholic can support that.
 
That’s an interesting philosophical question. We know how babies are made: one of a couple hundred million sperm finds its way into an egg, and their DNA is combined. That means the odds of me being just as I am were astronomically small.

But is it chance? Maybe not-- the sperm didn’t hold a lottery to see which one got to reach its goal. I think maybe “chance” is really codeword for “so complex that we can’t process it, so we must treat it statistically.” In that case, nobody should be surprised that if God is involved in everything, a lot of things appear to be chance-- obviously the Creator of all existence, and all the things He brings about, would be beyond our ability to observe and comprehend.

I personally, though, think it’s dangerous to refuse to consider science. Surely any sincere pursuit of understanding and truth must (whether the person making the pursuit realizes it or not) bring mankind close to a better understanding of the Lord.
 
Last edited:
I do a lot of hard thinking. That’s what I do. All of my friends roll their eyes when they look at my library. Hypersonic airflow? Got it. Devices based on bio-mimicry, got way too much of that.
 
No. Natural as in it happened naturally and not supernaturally. This is being taught in Catholic Schools and the Pope supports it.
 
That is simply not true. Atheistic evolution is to be rejected. Again, an appeal to a religious leader is not a good argument.
 
Natural evolution is not Atheistic evolution…and the Pope supports it, and the Catholic education system supports it. At this rate everyone that supported Intelligent design will go extinct.
 
Last edited:
That’s a bit off topic. A lot of sperm are deposited in the right place and it doesn’t matter which one reaches the egg. This has no bearing on the topic.
 
Who said anything about a Blind Watchmaker? Is not God capable both of creating a system which can adapt to its environment, AND completely controlling that environment to make sure every organism that comes out of it is according to His plan?
 
God is not a scientific concept, so therefore natural evolution is atheistic evolution?

By that reason all of science is atheistic not just evolution… There is nothing inherently atheistic about acknowledging the existence of a natural world and God is not an object of the scientific method, so its stands to reason that God is kept out of the equation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top