Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[ricmat]

Or must we assume that God miraculously moved the Anglo-Saxons to Britain, because we don’t know how many boats did it, and how many people were aboard?

Barbarian, you know that this has nothing to do with God of the gaps. You’re just trolling for arguments.

Wolseley hit the nail on the head in this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3417540&postcount=690

Where he said the following about the radical evolutionists:

If they don’t want to listen, they won’t. It’s more edifying to break off further contact with evolutionists who claim to be Christians, but whose arrogance, condescention, selective quoting of Vatican texts, and utmost glee in running others down belies the title of the Savior they claim to serve. There are those here who do serve a god, but the god is not Christ: the god is Love of Argument. They will argue simply for the sheer joy of arguing, and to denegrate anybody else who does not agree with them.

And I think that Wolseley forgot to mention the second god in the evolutionist pantheon, the God of Pride.

 

[Church_Militant]

It baffles me how some of you seem to think that any acceptance of evolution is a moral failing and against the church.

That is categorically not the case.

The Church tells us that so long as science does not cross into the realm of religion (where it is unqualified to speak), especially in denying God as creator, then the theory of evolution does not conflict with faith.

In the same way, (as Cardinal Schonborne said on CA Live) the church takes issue with those who try to cross religion over into the field of science (where it is unqualified to speak) such as the “young earth” adherents.

The church doesn’t teach us that we cannot accept evolution, only those theories of evolution that deny God as Creator.

Frankly, I don’t see what all the heat is about because I don’t see any believers here asserting that they believe evolution precludes God from being the creator. To the best of my knowledge, no Catholic theologian or magisterial authority has taught anything remotely like atheistic evolution.

 

[elt1956]

It baffles me how some of you seem to think that any acceptance of evolution is a moral failing and against the church.

That is categorically not the case.

The Church tells us that so long as science does not cross into the realm of religion (where it is unqualified to speak), especially in denying God as creator, then the theory of evolution does not conflict with faith.

In the same way, (as Cardinal Schonborne said on CA Live) the church takes issue with those who try to cross religion over into the field of science (where it is unqualified to speak) such as the “young earth” adherents.

The church doesn’t teach us that we cannot accept evolution, only those theories of evolution that deny God as Creator.

Frankly, I don’t see what all the heat is about because I don’t see any believers here asserting that they believe evolution precludes God from being the creator. To the best of my knowledge, no Catholic theologian or magisterial authority has taught anything remotely like atheistic evolution.

Oh thank you soooooo much. What a relief to find some sanity in a posting that accepts the possibility of evolution. A breath of fresh air. Peace.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So you seem to be claiming that evolution is a one step process…

No. In fact, I’m pointing out that the migration of Anglo-Saxons (actually Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) to Britain was gradual. It wasn’t an overwhelming invasion, but a more or less gradual and continuous process.

I thought evolution was a science of gradualism.

Um, no. It can be. But sometimes, it can go in spurts or even rapidly (in geologic terms).

If your claim were instead that the ancient Japanese migrated to Hawaii, by means of overland trek through China, Persia, Turkey, Greece, Italy France, England, Ireland, across North America, and then by boat to Hawaii…I would expect there to be evidence in all of these places. That’s not unreasonable.

No, and we have such evidence, for example in the evolution of vertebrates. It’s a long story, of course, but interesting. Do you want to learn about it?

The demand for every mutation is as absurd as the demand that one will not accept the migration of Anglo-Saxons, without a list of every boat and occupant.

It is no more absurd to claim that God miraculously moved the Anglo Saxons, than it is to claim that God stepped in and set aside His laws of nature to make evolution work.

 

[Memaw]

You want a literal interpretation of the flood story. For such an interpretation to be credible, you have to answer questions about hydrology, manure disposal, how to provision for 60 million animals for 150 days on one boat, how to regrow the vegetation after the flood so as to keep the animals alive, and how to account for biogeographical dispersion after the flood. None of these have you done.

You give me far, far to much credit. I don’t have to answer those questions, God will. I’m willing to wait till I get to Heaven, that way I will KNOW the TRUTH.

 

[Memaw]

Oh thank you soooooo much. What a relief to find some sanity in a posting that accepts the possibility of evolution. A breath of fresh air. Peace.

It all depends on what you mean by evolution. I believe the Horse evolved from a smaller horse. but if you think I swallow that thing about man came from ape, your really stretching it. Science has NEVER proven that one species can change into another species. Whatever has happened in all creation, God has done it and it is NO accident. My faith is in HIM and NOT scientist that can’t seem to tell fact from fiction sometimes. That my friend IS sanity.

 

[Memaw]

No. In fact, I’m pointing out that the migration of Anglo-Saxons (actually Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) to Britain was gradual. It wasn’t an overwhelming invasion, but a more or less gradual and continuous process.

Um, no. It can be. But sometimes, it can go in spurts or even rapidly (in geologic terms).

No, and we have such evidence, for example in the evolution of vertebrates. It’s a long story, of course, but interesting. Do you want to learn about it?

The demand for every mutation is as absurd as the demand that one will not accept the migration of Anglo-Saxons, without a list of every boat and occupant.

It is no more absurd to claim that God miraculously moved the Anglo Saxons, than it is to claim that God stepped in and set aside His laws of nature to make evolution work.

So now you have GOD setting aside HIS laws of nature to fit your story. My, MY how far will you go. Miracles are Supernatural, God may go above nature but He doesn’t go against it.

 

[rossum]

The sun is approx. 93 Million miles from Earth. If the Earth was just 10 miles closer to the sun, we would burn up, life could NOT exist. and if we were just 10 miles farther away from the sun,we would freeze.

This is complete and utter rubbish. You have been badly misinformed by your creationist source. The earth’s orbit round the sun is an ellipse, not a circle. Because it is an elipse the distance betwen the earth and the sun varies during the year. At its closest (perihelion) the earth is about 91,405,436 miles miles from the sun. At its furthest (aphelion) the earth is about 94,511,989 miles from the sun. That is a difference of about 3,106,553 miles, far more than the ten miles you have quoted. The argument you have given is complete rubbish, the distance between the earth and the sun varies by over 3 million miles during a year. Your source’s ten mile figure is wrong by about six orders of magnitude.

Your creationist source is misinforming all its readers. You naively believed what they said and accepted it without checking the facts. As a result you have posted a foolish argument. This does not do your cause any good at all. In future I suggest that you mistrust whatever source you used and always check any arguments you see in that source.

rossum

 

[Memaw]

On the contrary a moral sense is both necessary and valuable. Huh? where did you get that from? This is muddled. If you think that your genetic make-up has no influence on your behaviour, you are demonstrably deluded.

If you think that accepting the fact that your genetic make-up has an influence on your behaviour leads to the conclusion that there is no right or wrong, then you are committing a basic error in moral philosophy.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

How do evolutionists explain the free will or the memory? What did they evolve from???

 

[Memaw]

And you know what? Learned “men” of the Church at one time believed the Sun rotated around the Earth. Do we still believe that?

The Bible never told them the earth rotated around the sun, but the Bible does tell us God flooded the earth and destroyed all life except what was on the Ark.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So now you have GOD setting aside HIS laws of nature to fit your story.

No, I was pointing out that it would be absurd to suppose that He did set them aside as creationist assert. Why would you suppose that He didn’t do it right the first time? And yet, anyone who supposes that God stepped in and did miracles from time to time to make it work, is doing just that.

My, MY how far will you go.

Some people will deny even God’s omniscience, to keep their belief in creationism. However, many of them don’t realize that this is what creationism calls for.

Miracles are Supernatural, God may go above nature but He doesn’t go against it.

Walking on water goes against nature. So does being dead for days and then rising again. God does set aside nature from time to time, but it’s to teach us something, not because He has to.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on the notion that we can’t accept evoution, unless we know every mutation:
Or must we assume that God miraculously moved the Anglo-Saxons to Britain, because we don’t know how many boats did it, and how many people were aboard?

Barbarian, you know that this has nothing to do with God of the gaps.

Never said anything about God of the gaps. I merely applied your argument to the case of Saxons coming to Britain. I used your same standard of evidence.

You’re just trolling for arguments.

Rather, you’re just a little upset to see how your argument works in a case in which you don’t have an emotional investment.

And this quote:

If they don’t want to listen, they won’t. It’s more edifying to break off further contact with creationists who claim to be Christians, but whose arrogance, condescention, selective quoting of Vatican texts, and utmost glee in running others down belies the title of the Savior they claim to serve.

In which I deleted “evolutionist” and inserted “creationist”, shows that a simple generic insult is hardly a well-reasoned argument. It’s just venting.

And I think that Wolseley forgot to mention the second god in the creationist pantheon, the God of Pride.

See, I did it again. Someone on the other side, could say that just as well, and no one would know the difference. Generic and pointless insults are not the way to go. They might feel good at the time, but they do you considerable damage.

 

[buffalo]

You want a literal interpretation of the flood story. For such an interpretation to be credible, you have to answer questions about hydrology, manure disposal, how to provision for 60 million animals for 150 days on one boat, how to regrow the vegetation after the flood so as to keep the animals alive, and how to account for biogeographical dispersion after the flood. None of these have you done.

I believe others have tackled that already and show how it was possible.

The real issue is whether or not we will see evidence in the record for the flood.

Here is a real interesting site - Ancient Chinese Characters.

 

[Philipp]

THE BARBARIAN SAYS: Well, let’s take a look at your claims…
Quote:
Diamonds only contain trace impurities of anything, much less nitrogen. Most diamonds have virtually no N14 . About 1 part per thousand, at most – from the first reference.
There are two problems for you in that statement. First off, it’s simply wrong:

The most common impurity in diamond is nitrogen, which can comprise up to 1% of a diamond by mass.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal…cts_in_diamond

PHILIPP: 1. First we are told the N14 impurities are in ppm (parts per million) in the first reference. (adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987GeCoA…51.1227D )
More desperate bottom fishing on the Net dredges up a 1% N14 impurity. What’s next… Diamonds with 100% N14 ??
2. This is all irrelevant to the issue: All diamonds tested by AMS have detectable C14, whether they have .01 or .000000000001 N14. The N14 impurity is just a distraction, dear CAF member. Don’t be deceived.
This logical fallacy is called ‘ignoratio elenchi’…. Missing the point. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing from “science buffs” who believe in macroevolution and the long ages needed to support their new religion.
THE BARBARIAN continues: Second, even if you were right, it wouldn’t help you any. Even in the upper atmosphere, C-14 is less than one percent of the total carbon. And if you got a reading of 50,000 years, the C-14 left would be only about 0.23% of that. So you’re talking about 0.0023 percent C-14, less than even your erroneous estimate of nitrogen in diamonds.

PHILIPP: More irrelevancies. According to mainstream physics, diamonds are primordial abiotic carbon structures that have never been part of the Libby process… Their carbon was formed in supernova explosions many billions of years ago- they are carbon dead. Which is why MS science never bothered to C14 test the diamonds or the dinosaurs for that matter]. So what is Carbon 14 doing in ALL diamond, ALL dinosaur bones, ALL amber and ALL fossil wood including coal supposedly 40,000,000 to 100’s of millions of years old.

Diamonds taken from pre-Cambrian strata ( along with granite and calcite) all test positive for C14. asa3.org/ASA/topics/Physical%20Science/RateConference.html
So why the concern about atmospheric C14??? Distraction from the issue? Spread confusion?

Bible history is Isn’t macroevolution then a fairy tale for science buffs and tenured theology professors?

 

[ricmat]

And this quote:

If they don’t want to listen, they won’t. It’s more edifying to break off further contact with creationists who claim to be Christians, but whose arrogance, condescention, selective quoting of Vatican texts, and utmost glee in running others down belies the title of the Savior they claim to serve.

In which I deleted “evolutionist” and inserted “creationist”, shows that a simple generic insult is hardly a well-reasoned argument. It’s just venting.

And I think that Wolseley forgot to mention the second god in the creationist pantheon, the God of Pride.

See, I did it again. Someone on the other side, could say that just as well, and no one would know the difference. Generic and pointless insults are not the way to go. They might feel good at the time, but they do you considerable damage.

Yes, you did it again. Thank you for telling us that you did it this time.

 

[ricmat]

Barbarian,

There are obviously many opinions here, but we all seek the truth. So I welcome you especially, and all the other posters to join me in prayer, so that we may all find the truth and have it set us free.

"Blessed are you Lord, God of all Creation. Heaven and Earth are full of your glory. We seek your help in determining the truth of those things we discuss here, especially with regard to the works of your hands and how your works came to be.

We ask you, Lord, to enlighten us, especially with your gifts of knowledge and wisdom, and wonder and awe, and to fill us with the Holy Spirit.

May the most just, the most lovable, and the most high Will of God be done, be fulfilled, be praised and exalted in all things forever, Amen."

 

[wildleafblower]

There is no guidance in the world of genetics. Genes have been randomly mutated and naturally selected to perform a function. This function is all that matters, scientificaly speaking. Nothing else is important.

I do recall that Alec and I did earlier touch base on this topic with you, Ed. It’s extremely important for everyone, you and other curious minds to explore, learn, and hopefully further discuss Genes, Environment, and Human Behavior. It was funded by the Department of Energy in 2000 as **Curriculum Development > High School 9-12 > Human Genome Project Curriculum Supplements > Genes, Environment, and Human Behavior **.

“This curriculum supplement explores how scientists investigate the genetics of human behavior. The curriculum, BSCS’s fourth module related to the Human Genome Project, includes background information on the methods and assumptions of behavioral genetics and five student activities. Students are introduced to the complexity of the interactions of genetic, developmental, and environmental phenomena on human behaviors. It helps them realize that neither genes nor environment tells the whole story. Intelligence is used as an example of a complex human behavior, as is novelty-seeking behavior. The nature of human behaviors is contrasted with other human traits that exhibit simple inheritance patterns and with complex physical traits such as adult height. Students learn to understand human behavior in terms of genes and environment as they explore techniques used by behavioral geneticists. An important goal of the module is to develop among the students an appreciation of the potential impact of this emerging knowledge on public policy.” (1)

The BSCS (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study) is a leader in the field of science education because of our support for the teaching of evolution, our comprehensive approach to improved science teaching and learning, and our development and implementation of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model. The pdf has a wealth of information and extensively discusses a wide range of topics:

What Is Genetics?
What is meant by single-gene inheritance?
The multifactorial nature of complex human diseases
S o u rces of genetic variation
Genetics and evolution
The history of behavioral genetics
An illustrative problem from modern human behavioral genetics
The impact of genetics on society
What Is Behavior?
Why should we be interested in the biology of behavior?
What factors contribute to individual differences in behavior?
Behavior is influenced by genes and enviro n m e n t
Behavior can be influenced by development
How do we measure behavior?
Methods and Assumptions of Research in Behavioral Genetics
Methods using principles of genetic epidemiology
Methods using molecular genetic technology
Animal studies
Some interesting re s u l t s
Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Behavioral Genetics
Explanation and prediction in behavioral genetics
F reedom and re s p o n s i b i l i t y
Particular ELSI topics
B i o l o g y, human nature, law, and public policy
bscs.org/pdf/behavior.pdf
bscs.org/pdf/behavior.pdf

1. bscs.org/curriculumdevelopment/highschool/humangenome/behavior/
   http://bscs.org/curriculumdevelopment/highschool/humangenome/behavior/

However, Jesus Christ, who is true God and true man, is the cornerstone. The Son of God. The way, the truth and the life. He wants to have a relationship with each one of us. God bless,
Ed

YES! Absolutely, the truth! You know I love Jesus more than mere mortal words can express. The Holy Spirit always moves me toward the many TRUTH’s about life. Now Ed, please read that PDF that contains answers you’re confused about. And may God bless you with new knowledge, more truth, and an endless stream of love for your fellowman/woman whether they be religious on non-religious. Always keeping in mind what I wrote on another topic…

Above All—Charity

25
To conclude this Prologue, it is fitting to recall this pastoral principle stated by the Roman Catechism:
“The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.”

 

[Alethios]

An appropriate epigram for this thread:

**Truth - forever on the scaffold,

Lies - forever on the throne.**

James Lowell​

 

[The_Barbarian]

**"Blessed are you Lord, God of all Creation. Heaven and Earth are full of your glory. We seek your help in determining the truth of those things we discuss here, especially with regard to the works of your hands and how your works came to be.

We ask you, Lord, to enlighten us, especially with your gifts of knowledge and wisdom, and wonder and awe, and to fill us with the Holy Spirit.

May the most just, the most lovable, and the most high Will of God be done, be fulfilled, be praised and exalted in all things forever, Amen."**

Amen, indeed. I’ve set aside time, and said your prayer, which is most appropriate and good for all of us to hear and say.

God still expects us to do our part in understanding, of course.

A man was once trapped on top of his house in a flood. A boat came by but he said “No, I’ll trust the Lord to save me.” Unfortunately the water rose and he drowned.

Entering Heaven, he asked God why.

“I sent you a boat.” God replied. “All you had to do was get into it.”

God has given us the mind and senses to understand His creation. All we have to do is get into the boat.

 

[wildleafblower]

An appropriate epigram for this thread:

**Truth - forever on the scaffold,

Lies - forever on the throne.**

James Lowell​

Alethios, what you have written is distasteful. Please allow me to inform you of the TRUTH.

THE FOUR-HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 1603-2003, The Commemorative Session of 9 November 2003, ADDRESS OF **JOHN PAUL II **TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL, ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

“Our gatherings have also enabled me to clarify important aspects of the Church’s doctrine and life relating to scientific research. We are united in our common desire to correct misunderstandings and even more to allow ourselves to be enlightened by the one Truth which governs the world and guides the lives of all men and women. I am more and more convinced that scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful.”