Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

[edwest211]

Uh… yeah. Another example of storytelling to provide any explanation required to keep the ball rolling.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

anon65111186:

As a layman, I wouldn’t know, and unless you are a trained paleontologist, neither would you.

It was a little boy who yelled “The Emperor has no clothes!”

I prefer not to take scientific guidance from nursery rhymes.

You are relying on the word of paleontologists to tell you what is human and what isn’t.

To my eyes it looks human too.

Of course, it isn’t possible that although the vast majority of the world’s most influential paleontologists are almost certainly atheists, their judgement would be skewed by any a priori committment to evolution.

“Conspiracy theory!” The last resort.

 

[Glark]

That’s the great thing about junk science - you can just make it up as you go along. In the mad, sad world of evolution, a good story is as good as a fact.

 

[MLowe75]

Darwin’s theory posited natural selection as the driving force behind the evolution of species. It was dropped once we discovered more facts about genetic mutation. So now random mutation along with natural selection are the two driving forces.

The problem with calling the second theory ‘true’, or any theory that deals with past events for that matter, is that even the definition of the species can only be framed after millions of years. At least, that is the theory.

I think at the most all you can say is that the theory is probable, given what paltry evidence we do have. If one is truly objective about said evidence, it’s hard to say it’s even that. The prejudiced, reputation-driven quests for missing links seems to be an object lesson of sorts - sometimes you wish so hard for something to be true - whether to give you fame or release your conscience from a God-created universe -that you will triumphantly hold aloft the tooth of a pig found in some Nebraskan dirt.

 

[Glark]

I’ll ask you, too … Do you believe in the existence of Satan (aka Lucifer) and other demons?

 

[PickyPicky]

That’s if by “the Church has calculated” you mean the Church of Ireland and the Church of England. Archbishop Ussher and Dr Lightfoot were both Anglican priests and distinguished scholars, Ussher particularly so. But this was the 17th Century. And they were applying historical method based on the understanding of the time. Today science is used to supply a more solid basis for dating events in the distant past.

 

[Aloysium]

I think we can agree that

Sorry, no. How about:

1. God is Existence; Existence is Love.
2. God brings all nature into existence and allows the forms of being He creates to act as He has made them.
3. God leaves natural laws to run their course because they do His will; but it’s complicated (the room fills with morning sunlight at the moment of a sister’s death)
4. The Magisterium and the Catholic Church teach the fullness of the truth in regards to faith and morals
5. Evolution is a manifestation of the tower of Babel effect. I use it in accordance with its basis in organic chemistry, and from that perspective it is not compatible with Catholicism)
6. Theologians and Scientists are human beings and are driven to know who and what they are through their area of expertise
7. Evolution is a story which creates the facts (raw sensory data is interpreted and experienced through
   a worldview, which God sometimes turns upside down) that support it

Something like that anyway

 

[Aloysium]

So now random mutation along with natural selection are the two driving forces.

It’s all so clear now: things change because they change and things that survive, survive.

There’s a picture in this thread of the emperor and his new clothes.

 

[IWantGod]

And will in the future have to acknowledge that was a mistake. But, it will still persist for while.

I doubt that Evolution will be replaced by a better theory, but even if it did turn out to be in error and all the animals of today are identical to animals living millions of years ago , it still would not be wrong for catholic schools to teach science according to the best available evidence.

 

[buffalo]

Philosophy belongs in philosophy class. Only empirical science belongs in the science classroom.

 

[IWantGod]

I agree that science belongs in the science classroom. That’s why intelligent design theory isn’t being taught in science classrooms.

 

[buffalo]

Sure they uses radiometric dating and dated Mt St Helen’s new lava at 350,000 years old. Take 4 billion years and divide by the error of 350,000 and you get around 11,000 years.

In New Zealand the lava flows that were 50 years old dated yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!

 

[buffalo]

Right, remove evolutionism and teach both in philosophy.

Actually, teaching of the Origin of Species should not be allowed in science classroom either since God is not allowed.

 

[IWantGod]

Why would god be allowed in a science classroom?

 

[buffalo]

He used to be. Modern science was based on the intelligibility of the universe and worthy of study. It is natural to investigate the intelligence.

 

[IWantGod]

Science is the study of physical systems and their behavior. It is a study of physical nature. This is the goal of the natural sciences. Theology and philosophy is the domain of religion and philosophy…

 

[buffalo]

Science used to be called natural philosophy.

 

[IWantGod]

Use to be. Things have evolved since then. Pun intended.

 

[buffalo]

Ha. They sure have. Imagine the advances we could have made to science and medicine it we stuck to it. How many unnecessary appendix and vestigial organ surgeries would have been avoided and their cost?

Now we are making strides through biomimicry, copying the designs found in nature.

I submit Darwinism took us backward.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sure they uses radiometric dating and dated Mt St Helen’s new lava at 350,000 years old. Take 4 billion years and divide by the error of 350,000 and you get around 11,000 years.

In New Zealand the lava flows that were 50 years old dated yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!

You are trying to discredit an entire branch of science using arguments that could only be refuted by an expert in radiometric dating. Since I am not such an expert I cannot possibly believe your argument and will have to defer to the real experts who say it works.