Is Evolution really Intelligent Design?

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Can we know God through science without His grace? My position is that without the grace of God, we will not, in fact cannot, know Him. All the reason and senses in the world won’t do the trick.

Peace

Tim

**155 **In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.”

**2022 **The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom.

So our reason asents to the divine truth. We can know Him through His works.

 

[Orogeny]

**155 **In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.”

**2022 **The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom.

So our reason asents to the divine truth. We can know Him through His works.

I think those two passages are in agreement with my statements. Grace is the key to both passages.

Peace

Tim

 

[freesoulhope]

mircro evolution and a species abillity to adapt does not prove macro evolution, and certainly doesnt prove accidental evolution, in a sense of, chemicals and other solutions coming together to forming life out of nothing. cleaver storys have beeen developed to push science in to having a point of veiw, to go in a certain direction, there is an agenda. Accidental life or evolution was made to satisfy the motives of those who want to be free of God, and to infuence the world arena to agree. Some science is based on faith and coiecidence. the problem is they have no way of knowing if thier wrong, they are blind bats in a cave. They bump in to things and make discoverys then find away of fuesing it with an already predominant idea. but that doesnt mean that evolution and natural selection should be taken in just becuase they find simmerla pattens of gennetic code in other creatures. Scientist fill in blank spaces with speculation. if theres a supernatural cause anywhere down the line, there not gonna find it, because there not looking for it, there trying to explain how life came about “NATURALY” you have to make the presumption that at no time did any super natural cause bring in to reality any species. Based on that assumption, all animals would have to come out of the sea. Am i suposed to believe this? i eccept adaptive evolution.
what do you think?( remember im not a scientist this is just my opinion from what i read about evolution)

 

[Orogeny]

freesoulhope:

what do you think?( remember im not a scientist this is just my opinion from what i read about evolution)

You need to do some more reading, this time try scientific sources.

Peace

Tim

 

[freesoulhope]

I feel that, if you say that the supernatural is not a matter science then isnt that a denial. if the supernatural is the foundation of nature its self, then what do we hope to achieve by just picking at the top layers?they are both science. if you assume nothing supernatural happened, after the big bang, in the sense that god guided it with his hands rather then letting nature take its natural course, then fine, you have evolution. If you believe that everything is guided by his hand, then you could still have evolution, but thier would be an underlying supernatural cuase to the genetic mutations that would have to occur for a creature to morph in to a completely different animal. What science will do, is, they will ignore that groth by supernatural causes and find a natural cause to replace it. in other words they make up a convincing story and then look for evidence to surport it. but they might find somthing that “seems” like it supports it, but only by a convicing story, not neceraly because of any evidence. thus missing the point. but then again i could be missing the point to.

 

[Orogeny]

freesoulhope:

I feel that, if you say that the supernatural is not a matter science then isnt that a denial.

No, that is a statement of fact.

if the supernatural is the foundation of nature its self, then what do we hope to achieve by just picking at the top layers?

On what basis do you assert that the supernatural is the foundation of nature? Your faith, right?

If you believe that everything is guided by his hand, then you could still have evolution, but thier would be an underlying supernatural cuase to the genetic mutations that would have to occur for a creature to morph in to a completely different animal. What science will do, is, they will ignore that groth by supernatural causes and find a natural cause to replace it.

That’s because science is the study of nature. Doesn’t it make sense that science would look for a natural explanation?

in other words they make up a convincing story and then look for evidence to surport it. but they might find somthing that “seems” like it supports it, but only by a convicing story, not neceraly because of any evidence. thus missing the point. but then again i could be missing the point to.

Well, “they” includes quite a few folks on these forums. I for one take exception to your accusation that “we” make things up. Science is based on evidence. No evidence, no science. It is not like faith. You seem to have a very poor understanding of science.

Peace

Tim

 

[freesoulhope]

yes evolution is based on evidence, but it is the human mind that interprets it. so what i have really, is human interpretation of evidence. how is that evidence?

 

[freesoulhope]

Which came first, the theory or the fact? did we find evolution through reaserch, or did it begin as an idea, that was later reasearched?.

 

[PhilVaz]

free << Which came first, the theory or the fact? >>

Darwin goes on Beagle (the boat not the dog), finds facts.

Thinks about it for 30 years.

Writes Origin of Species on the fact and theory of evolution.

Oh yeah Cardinal Schonborn has another catechetical lecture that has been translated into English here. This one for December 4, 2005, and he says this:

“Darwin’s main work is called The Origin of Species, which I repeat is an epoch-making work, a classic, even if there is much in it that can be criticized…This is the dramatic situation in which Darwin went public with his ideas and had tremendous success with them. Many say today that his theory is no longer just a theory but rather a fact. Some react in an overly sensitive and irritable way if anyone calls Darwin’s theory into question or even just asks questions about it. The debate of the last months has shown clearly that there is still plenty of room for questions and that it is necessary to allow questions to surface. It has also shown that critical questions are raised not only by quarrelsome folks or ‘narrowminded fundamentalists,’ but also by serious scholars probing and searching for truth. In doing this they are performing a real service to the objective issues, for nothing is worse for science than to prohibit questioning and searching.” (“He created each thing according to its kind” – Third catechesis by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn on December 4, 2005 in the cathedral of St. Stephan in Vienna)

Help Alec Help! We’re losing another one to the Discovery Institute! Hope Bruce Chapman sees this, he’s on Catholic Answers Live today. Maybe I’ll call in and ask quarrelsome and probing questions about the infamous "The Wedge Document" (PDF of original scan)

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

freesoulhope:

yes evolution is based on evidence, but it is the human mind that interprets it. so what i have really, is human interpretation of evidence. how is that evidence?

Gravity is based on evidence. The human mind interprets that evidence. I wouldn’t suggest you walk off of a building based on your idea that there is no real evidence for gravity.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

freesoulhope:

Which came first, the theory or the fact? did we find evolution through reaserch, or did it begin as an idea, that was later reasearched?.

First comes observation. Then comes a hypotheses to explain those observations. More observations are made. Hypothesis is adjusted. More observations are made. This goes on until it becomes clear that the observations can be explained with a very large amount of confidence. At that point it is considered a theory.

The fact is what is being observed.

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

freesoulhope:

mircro evolution and a species abillity to adapt does not prove macro evolution,

You can’t just be a little bit evolved either the process happens or it doesn’t
Otherwise you would have to propose a mechanism that limits the “micro” changes so that they don’t add up to a “macro”

freesoulhope:

and certainly doesnt prove accidental evolution, in a sense of, chemicals and other solutions coming together to forming life out of nothing.

abiogenesis, the origin of life, is a separate topic from evolution, the common decent of life.

freesoulhope:

cleaver storys have beeen developed to push science in to having a point of veiw, to go in a certain direction, there is an agenda. Accidental life or evolution was made to satisfy the motives of those who want to be free of God, and to infuence the world arena to agree.

By whom?
I seemed to have missed that meeting

freesoulhope:

Some science is based on faith and coiecidence. the problem is they have no way of knowing if thier wrong,

Well for something to qualify as a scientific theory it has to be falsifiable, i.e. they have to have criteria to judge whether or not they are wrong.

………. if theres a supernatural cause anywhere down the line, there not gonna find it, because there not looking for it, there trying to explain how life came about “NATURALY” you have to make the presumption that at no time did any super natural cause bring in to reality any species.

Science by its nature is limited to natural explanations. You can’t put God into a test tube. Miraculous events are…miraculous. There is no repeatable pattern and no mechanism so they can’t be reduced to equations and probabilities and they can’t be reproduced.
Complaining that the natural sciences don’t look at the supernatural is like complaining that the landscaper doesn’t fix the roof.

freesoulhope:

Based on that assumption, all animals would have to come out of the sea. Am i suposed to believe this?

it is supported by the preponderance of the evidence

freesoulhope:

i eccept adaptive evolution.

All evolution is adaptive
I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make

freesoulhope:

what do you think?( remember im not a scientist this is just my opinion from what i read about evolution)

PhilVaz’s links may be a great place to start.

 

[freesoulhope]

isnt there any possibility at all that scientists are wrong about evolution? and if not explain how i can adapt this to my faith? how do i know that evolution has a fault that people are not seeing right now.

 

[buffalo]

freesoulhope:

isnt there any possibility at all that scientists are wrong about evolution? and if not explain how i can adapt this to my faith? how do i know that evolution has a fault that people are not seeing right now.

You really don’t. There are assumptions that underpin macro evolution. They could be wrong and only time will tell. Data can and has been interpreted wrongly in the past.

You cannot adapt atheistic evolution to the Catholic Faith. They are irreconcilable. A debate is still taking place as to the other evolutionary theories.

Good reads -

Why Human Evolution can never
become part of the Deposit of Faith


Evolution and the Magisterium

The Difference it Makes:
The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation

 

[freesoulhope]

thanks for the links man! im starting to seriously doubt the scientific work of creationists. but they seem so sure that they have evidence that contradicts evolution, even an old earth! for instance, they found up side down trees that horizontially run through the sediment layers. are these layers ment to tell us the age of the earth?

 

[buffalo]

freesoulhope:

thanks for the links man! im starting to seriously doubt the scientific work of creationists. but they seem so sure that they have evidence that contradicts evolution, even an old earth! for instance, they found up side down trees that horizontially run through the sediment layers. are these layers ment to tell us the age of the earth?

One has to be very careful. Evidence that does not fit with current theories should not be discarded. The evidence has to harmonize with the theory. If it doesn’t then there is an explanation for the evidence or the theory has to be rethought.

 

[freesoulhope]

so, does that mean your open to creationist science!

 

[buffalo]

freesoulhope:

so, does that mean your open to creationist science!

I am open to any discovery made by anyone that is true. If a caveman accidentally trips over a rock and it leads to a greater understanding I do not really care.

 

[freesoulhope]

why is creationist science represed by the church?

 

[Orogeny]

freesoulhope:

isnt there any possibility at all that scientists are wrong about evolution?

Yes, it is possible. Extremely improbable, but possible. However, if evolution is wrong, another, probably very similar mechanism has to be occuring. All the data that supports evolution will still have to be accounted for.

and if not explain how i can adapt this to my faith? how do i know that evolution has a fault that people are not seeing right now.

I don’t have a problem reconciling evolution and my faith. I don’t understand why you would.

Peace

Tim