Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[The_Barbarian]

There is not a lot of disagreement within the scientific community that the theory of evolution probably is faulty and incomplete. That’s why we keep working it out.

Like everything humans do, science is faulty and incomplete. But on the other hand, it works. This is why creationism is out of gas, and science keeps on going.

 

[goofyjim]

Why can’t we let everyone decide for themselves? No theory should be mandatory. I believe that God created the world through an evolutionary process. That does not deny the existence of God or the redemptive action of Christ.

 

[elt1956]

Amen, amen, amen.

 

[Namesake]

The bible “says” they were called Adam and Eve. Boy, I sure know how to get myself into the soup.

Do you suppose that if God could create Adam from dust and Eve from a rib that the same God could create humans from monkeys?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Odd then, that two Christians first discovered it. And odd that Pope Benedict considers common descent to be virtually certain. But maybe you understand theology more fully than he does.

The Barbarian first made the false claim the Pope said evolution was “virtually certain” on Feb 19 and has repeated it 18 TIMES or more.

C’mon, Phillipp, you know better. Admit it. You know that Cardinal Ratzinger chaired that commission, and approved the report they put together.

That’s an old propaganda trick used by proponents of evolutionism for decades Tell a falsehood or hkalf truth many times and pretty soon everyone starts believing it.- The claim is a description of modern science beliefs, not that of the Pope.

So your claim is that he didn’t read it before he approved it? Or are you claiming he didn’t believe it, but was forced to approve it? Either way seems completely unbelievable. You know it. What makes you think anyone else would buy stories like that?

The paragraph was truncated to hide that fact.

In fact, several paragraphs of text were presented, with the document URL from the Vatican site, where it is presented as a statment from the Church. Everyone knows that, too. Did you think they forgot?

The statement is from the PAS, inserted into the ITC document w/o attribution.

So why does the Vatican site have it there, in that form?

Whenever the ITC makes any statement about modern(ist) science we know immediately that it is mere opinion – out of their scope. Who would cede these wayward theologians any science credentials at all, when even their theological credibility is highly suspect?

Ratzinger is a very well-regarded as a theologian. Your characterization of the commission and its members is insulting to him and the others who prepared that statement.

The Pope’s approval of the document – including the ‘virtually certain’ section # 63 – accepts the PAS insert as a summary of modern science beliefs, not as his beliefs necessarily.

Ah, “he approved it, but he doesn’t really believe it.” That’s why it’s on the Vatican’s website. Do you have any notion of the way your story sounds to other people?

The Pope has no authority or credibility in science.

I have to say, he seems to know a great deal more about it than you do.

Like the last popes he prefers to get his science from the secular subjective speculation of the PAS atheists, agnostics and theovolutionists.

Too bad you’re not there to set him straight on faith, um?

I wonder what group or person in the vatican appoints such people to the PAS. That would be an exellent research project for an enquiring reporter. Just because many have received Nobel prizes in physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy or cosmology does entitle them to tell Catholics why they should abandon their core beliefs and chuck Christ and the church fathers down the sewer.

You think that’s what the Pope did? You think accepting evolution “chucks Christ and the church fathers down the sewer?” I have to tell you, Phillipp, that sounds more than a just little crazy.

Evolultionism causes its proponents to be ever so subtle and calm while they twist their belief icons into falsehoods that they call “facts.”

Keep in mind, that scientists don’t accept evolution because they dearly want it to be that way. They do it, because that’s where the evidence leads. So it’s not quite symmetrical, and we don’t have the need to rant and make crazy accusations.

The Pope said that evolution belief is OK.

Virtually certain, actually.

There is no sin.

Well, that statement is no crazier than the one about sewer chucking. There’s a reason no one responded to that email. Can you guess what it was?

 

[elt1956]

Not talking about monkeys, just names.

 

[Namesake]

Not talking about monkeys, just names.

OK, so maybe you are one of those people that believes that Genesis is factually true? That Lucy couldn’t have been the name of the first woman?

 

[anthony022071]

And odd that Pope Benedict considers common descent to be virtually certain. But maybe you understand theology more fully than he does.

He said that it is virtually certain,not that he is virtually certain. What he is absolutely certain about is that man is God’s special creation. Those two beliefs are fundamentally irreconcilable.

The pope also doesn’t believe in natural selection,because in that document he points out that God is not only the first cause but the cause of causes. The document says: “God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce.”

If God is activating and sustaining all secondary causes,then there is no room for any rules of “natural selection”. Everything that happens in Nature is contingent upon God.

Keep in mind, that scientists don’t accept evolution because they dearly want it to be that way. They do it, because that’s where the evidence leads.

Where is the evidence for natural selection?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes that the Pope says that common descent is virtually certain.

He said that it is virtually certain,not that he is virtually certain. What he is absolutely certain about is that man is God’s special creation. Those two beliefs are fundamentally irreconcilable.

Not to a Catholic.

The pope also doesn’t believe in natural selection,because in that document he points out that God is not only the first cause but the cause of causes.

As the last three popes have pointed out, there is no conflict between these. It’s a Protestant delusion that God’s creation is at odds with science. And even most Protestants know better.

The document says: “God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce.”

Yes, God does most things in this world by natural means.

If God is activating and sustaining all secondary causes,then there is no room for any rules of “natural selection”.

I can’t believe you’re serious. Pope John Paul II said:
"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusions. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its Creator."

Barbarian on why scientist seem so calm and creationists so frantic:
Keep in mind, that scientists don’t accept evolution because they dearly want it to be that way. They do it, because that’s where the evidence leads.

Where is the evidence for natural selection?

Direct observation. For example, one sees it happening in Africa right now. Elephants are being shot for their ivory, and an increasing number of male elephants are born tuskless. Natural selection is now favoring those without tusks.

Studies of fish in mountain streams shows how different levels of predation affects the colors of these fish, with a trade-off between mating ability and avoidance of predators.

Barry Hall’s work with E. coli showed natural selection producing a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system.

Lots more, if you need more. Even YE creationists generally admit natural selection is a fact.

 

[Ender]

I do not know what Dr Chen means by “new animal groups”, but he is probably wrong, or has been misreported. Tetrapods are a “new animal group” which emerged after the Cambrian - all land animals and plants have developed after the Cambrian.

I would imagine he’s talking about phyla - different structural body plans.

If Dr Chen means phyla, then he is also wrong. There are phyla whose date of emergence we do not know, because we have no fossils, only living representatives. Other phyla have good fossil records starting well after the Cambrian.

The fossil record shows a rapid proliferation of new body plans, 70-80 show up in the late Precambrian and early Cambrian. That’s not all of the phyla, some appeared earlier and a few later, but the great majority first appear in a remarkably short period of time.

It is theorized that this is an artifact of the fossil record, that the Cambrian explosion was not so much an explosion of new body plans as it was an explosion of fossilization. Reconstruction of the origin of animal phyla using the molecular clock method yields far earlier origins than the fossil record indicates.

It may well not be accurate for the reason mentioned but the fossil record as it exists for the Cambrian period, with the proliferation of new body plans, supports evolution but is not much help at all to Darwinism.

Ender

 

[rossum]

I am not showing ANY knowledge in human evolution and I am NOT trying to impress anyone either. Its a common expression that man came from monkeys, I just borrowed it from others. I know where I came from and I don’t need anyone to “improve my effectiveness”. I seem to be getting the very effect I wanted.

This is at least in part a discussion about science. Science is very picky about accuracy. You will do better in a science discussion if you are more accurate.

rossum

 

[elt1956]

Namesake. Are you talking to moi?

 

[Memaw]

Of course evolution theory is devoid of reference to the supernatural. Science by definition does not address the supernatural. Science is about facts. Religion is about belief. The two must remain separate.

Oh YA, Maybe you need to let God know that, I think he had different ideas.

 

[Memaw]

OK, so maybe you are one of those people that believes that Genesis is factually true? That Lucy couldn’t have been the name of the first woman?

Her name was Eve, read the WORD OF GOD!!! Meaning “Mother of ALL?”
Maybe the monkeys evolved from us, now thats a thought, Some people even act like it.

 

[elt1956]

I just can’t keep from jumping in. Does anyone besides me think that neither creationism nor evolution are absolutes? Creationism, I think, comes from the belief that Genesis is factually true (possibly began with an oral tradition) and Evolution is scientifically true as far as it has been studied. Creationists depend upon absolute belief/faith in the stories in the Bible while Evolutionists depend on faith, but give evolution some breathing room. I for one don’t see that evolution as studied by honest scientists has a detrimental effect on my faith. In fact, I think the study of evolution is fascinating. It keeps one searching and the mind, heart and soul expanding.

 

[elt1956]

Although the name Eve makes sense as Mother of All, I wonder what language God was speaking when Eve was named?

 

[rossum]

I would imagine he’s talking about phyla - different structural body plans.

I agree, Dr Chen is probably talking about animal phyla. Plant phyla are very different as my figures showed.

The fossil record shows a rapid proliferation of new body plans, 70-80 show up in the late Precambrian and early Cambrian.

If there are “70-80” then you are not talking about phyla, as there are only about 30-35 animal phyla. In the Cambrian everything lived in the sea. There were no land animals and no land plants. Every land-living organism at the sub-phylum level you are talking about must have originated after the Cambrian.

That’s not all of the phyla, some appeared earlier and a few later, but the great majority first appear in a remarkably short period of time.

Here I disagree. I gave figures showing that nine out of 33 animal phyla appeared in the Cambrian. Nine out of thirty three is not a “great majority”. The Cambrian is undoubtedly important, but it seem to me that you are overstating your case.

It is theorized that this is an artifact of the fossil record, that the Cambrian explosion was not so much an explosion of new body plans as it was an explosion of fossilization. Reconstruction of the origin of animal phyla using the molecular clock method yields far earlier origins than the fossil record indicates.

Agreed. Hard parts like shells first appeared in the Cambrian (possibly due to chemical changes in the oceans) and shells fossilise very easily. It is noticeable that those phyla with no fossil record are all lacking hard parts - soft and squishy as I said.

It may well not be accurate for the reason mentioned but the fossil record as it exists for the Cambrian period, with the proliferation of new body plans, supports evolution but is not much help at all to Darwinism.

The fossil record does indeed support evolution. I am not sure what you mean by “Darwinism” here.

rossum

 

[Memaw]

Like everything humans do, science is faulty and incomplete. But on the other hand, it works. This is why creationism is out of gas, and science keeps on going.

Thats what you think, you just wait for the “REAL” BIG BOOM, the end of the world, your’s, mine and or everyones. Then you’ll see whose “out of gas”.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The fossil record shows a rapid proliferation of new body plans, 70-80 show up in the late Precambrian and early Cambrian. That’s not all of the phyla, some appeared earlier and a few later, but the great majority first appear in a remarkably short period of time.

In fact, in that time, there were no trees, no bears, no grass, no birds, no bats, no dinosaurs, no moss or ferns, no lobsters, or any of a myrad of other living things that didn’t exist until long, long, after the Cambrian. The “rapid proliferation” was stretched out over millions of years, land represents only a tiny amount of the diversity of living things we have today.

What happened was that many of the basic phyla showed up in the first billion years of Earth’s history, and a remarkable amount of divergence within each phylum followed over time. There was, in the early Cambrian, perhaps a few vertebrates, which only someone trained in comparative anatomy would call a vertebrate.

All the rest came later.

It is theorized that this is an artifact of the fossil record, that the Cambrian explosion was not so much an explosion of new body plans as it was an explosion of fossilization.

More properly, the evolution of whole-body exoskeletons. In the Precambrian, there are all sorts of sclerites showing that there were soft-bodied organisms which had some hard body parts. Unfortunately, soft-bodied organisms leave few traces in most conditions, so we don’t know how diverse they were, or when most of the phyla actually evolved. The Cambrian “explosion” was largely the filling of niches after armored bodies made a variety of new lifestyles possible. This, in Darwinian terms, is “disruptive selection.”

Reconstruction of the origin of animal phyla using the molecular clock method yields far earlier origins than the fossil record indicates.

Yes, but it should be remembered that the “molecular clock” is statistical and depends on the idea that random mutation is regular and the same in all lineages.

It may well not be accurate for the reason mentioned but the fossil record as it exists for the Cambrian period, with the proliferation of new body plans, supports evolution but is not much help at all to Darwinism.

Other than fitting Darwinian models of evolution, of course.

 

[Memaw]

Although the name Eve makes sense as Mother of All, I wonder what language God was speaking when Eve was named?

Why don’t you ask HIM? HE is in every Catholic Church, go visit HIM. Spend some time with HIM. You may even be surprised at how HE touches us there.