Is evolution a fact?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am not playing!!!

I have asked lots of questions.

That is what I was taught to do in science classes–ask questions, gather data, evaluate the data, and draw conclusions. Publish the results.

Have you ever seen inanimate being move to animate being on its own?

Do you know what came first in the chain of life?

Do you believe what came first in the chain of life?

Concerning the origin of being: Does science allow God in the discussion?

Concerning evolution: Does science allow God in the discussion?

The limits set by science exclude GOD, does it not?

I am not talking about their personal life.

I am talking about their academic endeavors.

I know that scientists go to synagogue, mosque, temple and church.

Will science address God as the creator in the scientific and academic worlds?

Can one talk about God and evolution in the scientific world?

When scientists put forth their opinions on the origins of the universe, are they allowed to bring God into the theory?

Can you show me the theories published by scientists for the scientific communities that allow God in their discussions?

When science talks about evolution with fellow scientists, GOD IS NOT ALLOWED!

GOD IS REJECTED.

Religion is rejected by science!!

Science rejects religion.

Could scientists change the limits?

God has no explanatory function to perform.​

If Christians or other theists wish to think that the planets are moved by angels, there is nothing to stop them so doing - but such a notion is not scientific. It explains nothing, because it resorts to an explanation of the phenomenon of planetary motion which is as obscure as the motion that is the puzzle in the first place.

To account for the motions of planets, explanation by mathematical models and doctrines of celestial mechanics have been not only elegant, but also much less logically vicious - it is unsound logic to account for the obscure by the more obscure, as explanation by angels does. And God is as obscure as angels. Eclipses, precession, rotation, & suchlike things can be observed - unlike God or other beings not apprehensible by the senses, even indirectly.

Observation of the universe around us allows for explanations, hypotheses, & for these to be corrected or otherwise improved; which would not be the case if God were given a part in the sciences - He can, self-evidently, not be observed. To involve God in scientific endeavour is to forget that “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” - God is not necessary for science.

From a theological POV, it is a mistake to explain things by appeals to God, because this is to pass from science to theology. It also implies that God is the same in status as causes & phenomena within the world. This makes the error of treating God as a thing, an object, no different in principle from gravity or light or diffusion or any other process that comes within the sciences. One might as well analyse a saint to locate his holiness, as invoke God to explain the phenomena in creation. But Christians don’t expect to weigh or locate the holiness of saints, any more than they expect to locate God on Alpha Centauri or anywhere else in the universe: & just as God cannot be located in His creation, so neither can He be employed as an explanation of anything - He cannot be given any place, not even the place of an explanatory mechanism. To try doing that, is to reduce God to a not-God, an idol - whereas He is the Holy One, the God Who cannot be related to His creation in any way at all, unless He so Wills. He is Holy, the One Who is “Wholly Other” - therefore, He utterly transcends the function people want to give Him.

That is why God has no place in science.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Here is the information you are looking for:

catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

Allow me to highlight a few parts by quoting them:

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis I as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

It is equally impermissable to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2-3) as a fiction.

The acount of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

God bless,
Ed

Ed are you going to drag out the same tired old and totally discredited arguments again? This is not 1959, and Vatican II did happen.

 

[edwest2]

The “arguments” as you call them, come from the Library of this very site. You are wrong and continue to practice deception in violation of the statements I have quoted. Vatican II reaffirmed all of this. I am against the deception of Evolution.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PhilVaz]

spiritmeadow << Ed are you going to drag out the same tired old and totally discredited arguments again? This is not 1959, and Vatican II did happen. >>

Macroevolution is a fact. And these too are Catholic dogmas:

God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
God has created a good world. (De Fide)
The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

The difficulty comes in the reconciliation of the two which I guess is why we are still resurrecting long extinct creation-evolution threads in here.

Cardinal Schonborn’s new book Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith becomes available TODAY. Just thought I’d warn you all.

Phil P

 

[wildleafblower]

Phil, thanks for bringing this ‘warning’ to our attention. You are too funny!. Where have you been hiding!!? Did you skip out of town on a honeymoon? LOL!

My library already consists of over a thousand books. I’ll have to read and add your highly recommended book to the section I’ve designated as THEOLOGY.

 

[Sllick]

To me, evolution is nothing but a theory thought up by humans who can’t except faith alone and must have answers. Instead of praying they tamper with God’s laws and try in essence to be God. The one reason i know that evolution is not a fact is because we (humans) can’t even explain why an atom acts like it does. This is why the current atomic theory is the quantum mechanics theory, which is just what its called, a theory. This proves that scientists themselves aren’t even sure of their answers as everything they do is a theory just like evolution. Personally, just ask God and trust your faith…you’ll know the right answer.

 

[Orogeny]

To me, evolution is nothing but a theory thought up by humans who can’t except faith alone and must have answers. Instead of praying they tamper with God’s laws and try in essence to be God. The one reason i know that evolution is not a fact is because we (humans) can’t even explain why an atom acts like it does. This is why the current atomic theory is the quantum mechanics theory, which is just what its called, a theory. This proves that scientists themselves aren’t even sure of their answers as everything they do is a theory just like evolution.

So you don’t believe in atoms? And that invalidates evolution? Great argument .

Personally, just ask God and trust your faith…you’ll know the right answer.

I did and I do. Evolution is the answer!

Peace

Tim

 

[SpiritMeadow]

To me, evolution is nothing but a theory thought up by humans who can’t except faith alone and must have answers. Instead of praying they tamper with God’s laws and try in essence to be God. The one reason i know that evolution is not a fact is because we (humans) can’t even explain why an atom acts like it does. This is why the current atomic theory is the quantum mechanics theory, which is just what its called, a theory. This proves that scientists themselves aren’t even sure of their answers as everything they do is a theory just like evolution. Personally, just ask God and trust your faith…you’ll know the right answer.

Oh gosh, silly us! Hehe, I’m thinking you came to this discussion a bit late. We’ve already done the theory thingie…You might want to look that up and see what it means in science. But you go on and believe what makes you happy…That thing between your shoulders?..its just extra storage space when you go camping.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So you don’t believe in atoms? And that invalidates evolution? Great argument .I did and I do. Evolution is the answer!

Peace

Tim

Faith is useless as an academic tool. That’s why it’s not used. Faith is no use as a guide to the difference between a cone and a triangle, Greek & Aramaic, the authorship of the book of Isaiah, or the difference between visions & hysteria disguised as faith.​

That is why it is irrelevant to scientific methods in any every discipline. Faith never yet cooked an egg - that requires some elementary scientific knowledge. Faith is an existential attitude - it is relevant there; but as an instrument for learning, it is valueless, because it is too vague. And it’s vague because the attitude can be applied to anything; from faith in a doctor, to faith in a child’s ability to ride a horse, or to faith in Christ as the only Saviour.

Science requires scientific tools & methods - not religious faith, & not faith in the supernatural. Not even Christian Fundamentalists insist that Christians must believe in Hindu miracles such as the ingestion of milk by images of the god Ganesha, despite their complaint that those who don’t invoke supernatural explanations as scientific tools are “ignoring the supernatural”. The entire appeal to the supernatural for such purposes is ill-considered & incoherent, as well as superstitious.

 

[edwest2]

Science and academics are incomplete without the reason of divine revelation. This place is called Catholic Answers.

Man cannot exalt himself above God, which some who cling to science seem to do (I’m not referring to you, but in general).

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Science and academics are incomplete without the reason of divine revelation.

Not so. Science is sufficient unto itself (as is most academic study other than theology). You don’t have to believe in divine revelation, or indeed in any divinity whatsoever, to be a good or even great scientist. Science is one of those rare human endeavours that rises above personal religious belief. And those of us who deplore the strife and violence wrought by sectarian beliefs are thankful for that.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Sllick]

Oh gosh, silly us! Hehe, I’m thinking you came to this discussion a bit late. We’ve already done the theory thingie…You might want to look that up and see what it means in science. But you go on and believe what makes you happy…That thing between your shoulders?..its just extra storage space when you go camping.

I forgive you and I pray for you. I pray that you may learn to humble yourself and not need bring others down in order to raise you up. I pray that you learn to bring something consturctive to the forum or bring nothing at all. God bless you.

 

[freesoulhope]

Faith is useless as an academic tool.​

People have some element of faith in an idea before it is proven as a scientific fact; otherwise people would give up on all hypothesis, and science would be no more. We would fall into an age of invinsible scepticism.
Science is an extention of philosophy; not the otherway round.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Not so. Science is sufficient unto itself (as is most academic study other than theology). You don’t have to believe in divine revelation, or indeed in any divinity whatsoever, to be a good or even great scientist. Science is one of those rare human endeavours that rises above personal religious belief. And those of us who deplore the strife and violence wrought by sectarian beliefs are thankful for that.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

​

• Religion as a method - for science as a study: valueless, irrelevant, totally out place
• Religion as a method - for theology as a study: valueless, irrelevant, totally out place
• Religion as an existential position - involves the whole of life
• Atheism as an existential position - involves the whole of life
  Which is why a discipline is not the whole of life; & why the function of one’s existential position is related to one’s life in one way, & to one’s study or discipline in a different way. One & the same man may be an astronomer & a Christian - but the all-inclusive character of his faith as & Christian does not oblige him to talk of nothing but astronomy. So

Faith in the Blessed Trinity

• 1. belongs to one’s existential position as a Christian of a certain type (not all Christians are Trinitarian)
• **2. **will not help a Trinitarian Christian as (say) an editor of a Patristic text - taken as an editor of a text, his convictions are irrelevant; his task is to be a good editor, regardless of his convictions. So an Arian & a Trinitarian, an Anglican or an Orthodox or a Catholic, should be equally reliable as editors of texts. Which is why an Anglican edition of St. Irenaeus can be used by Catholic Patrologists.
• **3. **will not help one to study the Bible scientifically - for that, one needs to academically equipped.
  Pasteur was a great scientist - but his being a practicing Catholic, admirable as it may be from a Catholic POV, is of no importance to his proficiency as a biologist. There is no Catholic biology, or Lutheran astronomy, or Evangelical mathematics: there is only biology, astronomy, mathematics. Being Catholic is of itself no qualification for biology; which is why only those people trained it - no matter what their own existential position - need apply to teach it

And the same goes for the academic study of the Fathers & the Bible. Which is why it is of no importance that X is a Lutheran, Y is a Catholic, or Z is a Jew. What matters to Biblical scholarship as an academic study is their scholarship, not their existential position. Which is (BTW) why the Pontifical Academy of Sciences includes scientists who are not Catholics; if the Pope can do include them, then Biblical scholarship can profit from the studies of Catholics, other Christians, non-Christians, & non-theists.

Faith is never irrelevant existentially - but it is no help as an instrument or a method.

Fundamentalism confuses existential positions with techniques - to the harm of Christian faith as an existential position, & of Christian theology as a properly scientific pursuit. (Which is not to say that all who confuse them are Fundamentalists, Christian or otherwise)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

People have some element of faith in an idea before it is proven as a scientific fact; otherwise people would give up on all hypothesis, and science would be no more. We would fall into an age of invinsible scepticism.
Science is an extention of philosophy; not the otherway round.

• As a preconception prior to the investigation of the validity of the conception, yes;
• but as a tool or method or instrument within the investigation of the conception*, *no
  A hunch or an intuition are not the same thing as, & don’t have the same status as, the investigation of them.

Even the study of philosophy needs methods proper to it.

I don’t think we disagree.

 

[cpayne]

Gottle of Geer;2856334[*:

Religion as a method - for theology as a study: valueless, irrelevant, totally out place

I’d qualify this. Depends on the type of theology. Dogmatic or sacred theology, for example, begin with certain religious assumptions in place and proceed from there.

Also (yikes, I feel like I’m throwing a random grenade here just to see where it might explode ), I agree with you in principle about the comparative reliability of any honest believer, non-believer, anti-believer, etc., in academic study. However, IN PRACTICE and in my experience—Christian academics are much less biased and more impartial in their scholarly activities than are those opposed to religious belief. I’m not talking about people who are simply non-religious, but people who are anti-religious. It doesn’t matter what the putative subject matter seems to be, when I hear an anti-religious academic speak, he or she always seems to drag in some irrelevant excuse to attack some straw-man Christianity.

Others’ experiences might be different, of course.

 

[hecd2]

However, IN PRACTICE and in my experience—Christian academics are much less biased and more impartial in their scholarly activities than are those opposed to religious belief. I’m not talking about people who are simply non-religious, but people who are anti-religious. It doesn’t matter what the putative subject matter seems to be, when I hear an anti-religious academic speak, he or she always seems to drag in some irrelevant excuse to attack some straw-man Christianity.

Others’ experiences might be different, of course.

Perhaps they are responding to centuries of religious academics dragging in some irrelevant excuse to support the idea of the existence and goodness of a Deity.

It’s time that believers accepted that today those who are most familiar with the natural world overwhelmingly use the evidence they find there to reject theism, which conclusion is no more or less philosophically acceptable than the believers’ long-standing reliance on the teleological argument. The majority of science-based academics use their knowledge of the natural world to reject the existence of a personal God based on the evidence they are intimately familiar with; a significant minority of those conscientiously conclude that religious belief is harmful to humanity and society and express that opinion publicly and forcefully. What on earth can be wrong with that?

People like Christoph Schoenborn, utterly ignorant of both the scientific method and the content of modern scientific theories, claim that scientists overstep their “authority” when they argue for their atheistically existential position. I would reply that there is no such thing as “authority” in this field - Schoenborn wishes to claim that his and Catholic teaching on the existence or non-existence, on the nature of God and man’s relationship to Him is authoritative. I say that there is no reasonable way to distinguish between the disparate opinions of believers of different hues, and that the opinion of atheistic scientists carries at least as much weight and authority as his does. No-one is “authoritative” when it comes to religious belief or disbelief.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’d qualify this. Depends on the type of theology. Dogmatic or sacred theology, for example, begin with certain religious assumptions in place and proceed from there.

St. Thomas Aquinas had to be able to function as a properly trained theologian before he became a professor of Theology: so while​

• his existential position was important
  it was not of itself enough to let him become
• a professor of Theology.
  This second stage is the one at which Pasteur’s being Catholic is irrelevant, & his ability as a biologist is all important.

Similarly, complaints on these fora about Father Raymond Brown are usually against the quality of

• his existential position - as a Catholic (position 1)
  because of
• how he worked - as a scholar (position 2)

Also (yikes, I feel like I’m throwing a random grenade here just to see where it might explode ),

I know the feeling ​

I agree with you in principle about the comparative reliability of any honest believer, non-believer, anti-believer, etc., in academic study. However, IN PRACTICE and in my experience—Christian academics are much less biased and more impartial in their scholarly activities than are those opposed to religious belief. I’m not talking about people who are simply non-religious, but people who are anti-religious. It doesn’t matter what the putative subject matter seems to be, when I hear an anti-religious academic speak, he or she always seems to drag in some irrelevant excuse to attack some straw-man Christianity.

Others’ experiences might be different, of course.

Thanks for making me think more clearly ​

I’m not sure about this - atheists can be as biassed as Christians, granted: I wouldn’t choose to read Richard Dawkins, any more than I would choose to read Harry Crocker. At least, not on matters which either is tempted to misrepresent, or is ignorant of.

I would have no qualms about reading a book on Church history by an atheist - however zealously anti-Christian - as long as the anti-Christian zeal was not allowed to get in the way of an honest, competent, intelligent, fair-minded, perceptive, well-informed account of the subject. I’d far rather read an atheist with those virtues (virtues which narrative historians - & others too ? - ought to have) on that subject, than read an ignorant & one-sided hatchet-job by a practicing Catholic on this or that “baddy” in Church history. Faith is important - but it cannot do duty for, it cannot substitute for, lack of ability in a discipline; not even theology: whatever the kind.

So I agree partly with you, partly with buffalo, & partly with hecd

 

[wildleafblower]

**InterAcademy Panel (IAP) **BROADCASTED AT 10:00 EDT ON WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE 2006
**National science academies sign joint statement on teaching of evolution **

"A statement urging parents and teachers to provide children with the facts about the origins and evolution of life on Earth was published today (21 June 2006) by 67 members of the Inter Academy Panel (IAP), representing the world’s national science academies. The Executive Board of ICSU(International Council for Science) has also endorsed the statement.

"The statement points out that “within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science”.

"It continues: “We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.”

"The IAP statement highlights that “evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines”, and that “even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results”.

"In listing the facts, the statement indicates that the Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago and that life appeared on the planet at least 2.5 billion years ago. On evolution, it states: “Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical
sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision”. The statement continues: “Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin”.

"The statement acknowledges that “human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope” and that “a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political – contribute to it”. It adds: “These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations”.
Notes for editors

1. Launched in 1993, the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) is a global network currently consisting of 92 science academies. IAP operates under the administrative umbrella of TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world. The panel’s secretariat is located in Trieste, Italy.
2. There are 67 signatories to the statement:"
   (continued- Part 1 of 2)

 

[wildleafblower]

(Part 2 of 2)

InterAcademy Panel (IAP) BROADCASTED AT 10:00 EDT ON WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE 2006
National science academies sign joint statement on teaching of evolution . . .
2. There are 67 signatories to the statement:" [The statement is found in Part 1 of my msg. 255.]

1. Albanian Academy of Sciences
2. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
3. Australian Academy of Science
4. Austrian Academy of Sciences
5. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
6. The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
7. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
8. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
9. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
10. RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
11. Academia Chilena de Ciencias
12. Chinese Academy of Sciences
13. Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
14. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
15. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
16. Cuban Academy of Sciences
17. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
18. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
19. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
20. Académie des Sciences, France
21. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
22. The Academy of Athens, Greece
23. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
24. Indian National Science Academy
25. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
26. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
27. Royal Irish Academy
28. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
29. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
30. Science Council of Japan
31. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
32. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
33. Latvian Academy of Sciences
34. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
35. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
36. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
37. Mongolian Academy of Sciences
38. Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
39. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
40. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
41. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
42. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
43. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
44. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
45. National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
46. Polish Academy of Sciences
47. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
48. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
49. Singapore National Academy of Sciences
50. Slovak Academy of Sciences
51. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
52. Academy of Science of South Africa
53. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
54. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
55. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
56. Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
57. Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
59. Turkish Academy of Sciences
60. The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
61. The Royal Society, UK
62. US National Academy of Sciences
63. Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
64. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
65. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. TWAS, the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World
    ICSU Executive Board has also endorsed the statement.
    interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/244/Evolution_press%20release%20June06.pdf
    http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/244/Evolution_press release June06.pdf