Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[The_Barbarian]

And you’d be a lot more personable if you tried to reign in some of your arrogance. Again, read the book.

If you don’t understand it well enough to tell us what it says, what makes you think it’s right?

 

[Philipp]

Today, 10:58 am
drpmjhess
Senior Member Join Date: August 27, 2007
Posts: 1,094

Re: Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestedsmith
Evolution DENYS the existence of Original Sin, because if evolution were true, man would have to have been dying WELL before Original Sin came to be.
Deluge Geology, which is AMAZINGLY logical, and reasonable, heavily damages Modern Geology and cripples, both MG and the theory of evolution…

(1) Evolutionary biology is not incompatible with the doctrine of original sin. Many Catholic theologians have written on this topic, from John Haught to Archbishop Zycinski to Cardinal Schoenborn.

(2) “Deluge geology” is no more useful than are astrology, alchemy, and Galenic medicine. That’s why there are no working geologists today who practice deluge geology. Try to find one in any functioning geology department in any university apart from crackpot institutions like the Institute for Creation Research.

---

Geology departments teach only what academia allows namely evolutionary geology which is part of their uniformatarian assumptions [a few cm/year rate of deposition of sediments, Officer, 1996, The Great Dinosaur extinction Mystery]. There is no room for the type of cataclysm noted by Moses, Christ, the apostles after him and all the church fathers including St. Lawrence of Brindisi of the 16th century, [made a doctor of the church by the late Pope John 23d because of how well he explained Genesis 1-11.] They do allow for publishing of excellent articles on the 150 or so asteriod/comet impacts in the “sedimentary rocks” of the earth which fits nicely in what one writer calls “deluge geology” [great term-never heard that one before - thanks infestedsmith]

Cutting edge research on the other hand is performed at such
“crackpot Institutions” as ICR or By Guy Berthault of France and many others who has shown that sediments can form very rapidly in moving waters by density and particle size and not as a function ot time. Dr Snelling has even recently Radiocarbon dated fossil wood from a Colorado Gold mine obtaining an RC date of 41,260 +/-540 years BP whereas those trained at those mighty universities obtained an age of 32 million years BP for magma material surrounding the wood in the mine using the controversial K/Ar isotope method icr.org/article/3623/ ]. Even diamond has been RC dated in the range of 64,000 +/- 400 to 80,000 +/- 1000 RC years BP thought to be "many 100’s of millions of years old [100 % carbon in case you didn’t know]. Coal thought to be part of “deluge geology” dates around 48,000 RC years and all dinosaur bones RC dated so far by different licensed labs are reported to be in the range of 17,000 to 31,000 RC years BP.

The above is just a little of the “hard data” that is now being published on both sides of the origin debate so to speak. You need to get on board the boat before you drown in your own last previous century assumptions [16th to 20th and outdated references]

Oh Yes and I might add that NASA has made an interesting discovery that maybe our “fossil fuels” may not have come from dinosaurs after all: esa.int/esaSC/SEMCSUUHJCF_index_0.html

Now please answer my previous question Mr. Senior member: Is the Person who revealed to Moses about that little old cataclysm that happened many years before Moses time some sort of nut case also?

Genesis 7: 1-24 [11-12], In the six hundredth year of Noe’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that very day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights----------.

 

[Wolseley]

If you don’t understand it well enough to tell us what it says, what makes you think it’s right?

I understand it quite well, B. The issue isn’t comprehension, it’s volume—and I see no reason for me to clog up cyberspace by re-writing the book when it’s easier to simply tell you to go pick up a copy of the book and read it. You can buy the full, unabridged version used on Amazon for around $25.00, $30.00.

So: you go get the book and read all 900 pages, every last word, and then we’ll talk.

Cheers.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I understand it quite well, B. The issue isn’t comprehension, it’s volume—and I see no reason for me to clog up cyberspace by re-writing the book when it’s easier to simply tell you to go pick up a copy of the book and read it.

In other words, you don’t understand it. So why should anyone buy it?

Unless you’re getting a kickback from the publisher, there’s no other reason you’re being so shy about telling us what it says.

you go get the book and read all 900 pages, every last word, and then we’ll talk.

Got a better idea. You present the argument, with the evidence here. If you can’t or won’t… well, you know.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Um, there are lakes of methane on Titan, because it’s so cold, methane is a liquid there. There’s hydrogen, too. Why not on Earth? Because it boiled off a long time ago; the Earth is a lot hotter than -200 degrees C. The only methane we know about on Earth is biotic.

 

[Wolseley]

In other words, you don’t understand it. So why should anyone buy it?

Unless you’re getting a kickback from the publisher, there’s no other reason you’re being so shy about telling us what it says.

Got a better idea. You present the argument, with the evidence here. If you can’t or won’t… well, you know.

I have an alternative explanation, B: I think you’re afraid of this book, because you suspect it just might blow your little well-ordered evolved world right out of the water. Ergo, you aren’t going to go anywhere near it.

Probably just as well. If you can’t handle the challenges to Darwin’s delusions, then it’s best that you stay away from the facts.

Best of luck to you.

 

[reggieM]

Another good one is amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Unabridged-Michael-Cremo/dp/0892132949/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203490820&sr=1-1, which examines the vast body of evidence against evolution that the Darwinists threw away because it contradicted their pet theory. (Convenient, that----if the evidence doesn’t line up with your idea, ignore it! Problem solved.) And nobody can accuse the authors of being Christian creationists, since they both happen to be Hindus.

That looks like an interesting book. Thanks for posting it.

 

[PhilVaz]

From Cremo’s www.HumanDevolution.com

Forbidden Archeology documented a massive amount of evidence showing that humans have existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years. “If we did not evolve from apes, then where did we come from?” Human Devolution is author Michael A. Cremo’s definitive answer to this question. “We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit,” says Cremo. He bases his response on modern science and the world’s great wisdom traditions, including the Vedic philosophy of ancient India.

====

What we can get out of this: Cremo is definitely a kook.

If you want to read what modern science says which does have good amounts of evidence, try my books again:

Bones, Stones, and Molecules: “Out of Africa” and Human Origins by David W. Cameron and Colin P. Groves (Elsevier, 2004)
The Human Fossil Record (volume 1, forthcoming in 4 volumes) by Schwartz / Tattersall (John Wiley and Sons, 2002)
The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells (2002)
Extinct Humans by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Westview Press / Perseus Books, 2000)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution edited by Steve Jones, Robert Martin, David Pilbeam (Cambridge Univ Press, 1992)
The Search for Eve by Michael H. Brown (Harper and Row, 1990)
Guide to Fossil Man by Michael H. Day (Univ of Chicago Press, 1986, 4th edition)
Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey (Simon and Schuster, 1981)

All of these I’ve found at our local university library (U.S.F. in Tampa/St. Pete).

As for Christian-Catholic books that reconcile human evolution with faith, try

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller (several chapters)
Origin of the Human Species by Dennis Bonnette, a Catholic philosopher
In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict
Chance or Purpose by Cardinal Schonborn

These 4 books conclude along with modern science:

– Modern homo sapiens date back 100,000 to 200,000 years
– Our hominid ancestors date back several million years (e.g. Australopithecines) not hundreds of millions of years
– We evolved from ape-like ancestors several million years ago (not “devolved from pure spirit” since we are both body and soul/spirit)
– Our brains evolved, but our souls do not evolve (this is a little controversal and beyond the realm of science, note other views found in John Haught’s books on Darwin, science and theology)
– finally, the Catholic Church has no problems with any of this correct science (see also Catechism paragraphs 159, 283-284 again)

In the Beginning by the Pope, some excerpts

Adam/Eve and the Hominid Fossil Record, some excerpts from Keith Miller and Dennis Bonnette

What I’d like to see in here: a defense of Michael Cremo’s Vedic-Hindu-New Age ideas (whatever they are). You can’t very well be an orthodox Catholic and defend them. Although I haven’t read his books, I’ve seen enough of his ideas to make me think: “Definitely Art Bell / George Noory territory.” I’ll take Pope Benedict’s endorsed theology of creation over Michael Cremo, thank you.

The Evidence for Evolution and the Age of the Earth is here, summarized from various sources

Phil P

 

[jphod]

I just scanned thru this thread (or whatever you call it.) I have to admit that I have lost very little sleep over the theory of evolution. I first learned about Evolutionary theory in the sixties at Saint Canicus Elementary school. of course all the evidence presented at that time was fabricated. in undergrad on my final exam in environmental biology after giving the pat answer i called into question the necessity of evolution theory to answer the posed dilemma. My easy A became a C. I was told by my prof (by letter) that my grade was derived from test scores and class participation, since the class consisted of over 250 students i really doubt he expected everyone to join in discussion during his auditorium lectures. Lectures that presumed evolution to be more than theory. So my interest in the theory has been somewhat tainted.
If i was stranded on an island with a varied group of professionals, it is my heartfelt belief that the evolutionary biologist would be the first one we would eat.
That said I am neutral on the issue of whether or not evolution is an acceptable theory … i am wary of wedding myself and my beliefs to any theory.
I must admit I am absolutely unread on the issue because it has so little bearing on my life but it still peaks my curiosity now and then.
It was mentioned somewhere that scales could be produced in place of feathers by suppressing a gene. (it could have been the other way around there were a lot of posts to scan) I would be very interested in being directed to more information on where and how this experiment was performed and what were the final results, was a new species created in the laboratory or was the end product just funny looking bird…
It was also implied that evolutionary biology has led to great advancements in such things as pharmaceuticals etc (i don’t remember exactly what was listed) I am a healthcare provider and i really don’t see were evolutionary theory is necesssary to my practice or was necessary in the attainment of these so called advances, though i am open to having my mind changed on the matter, examples would be helpful.

 

[Wolseley]

What we can get out of this: Cremo is definitely a kook.

Well, if the evidence he presents flies in the face of accepted Darwinian orthodoxy, then “obviously”, he must be. He dares to question Darwinism? Well, then, piff! he’s obviously a kook. Pay no attention. Or else it’s “Heresy! Burn him at the stake!”

Of course, it’s always easier to simply dismiss what one has to say because it disagrees with what the Standard Party Line says than it is to actually examine the evidence that’s presented at face value, isn’t it?

And that’s one of Cremo’s major points: that any evidence considered to be “anomalous” is simply thrown out, a case of only accepting evidence that fits your theory, instead of allowing all the evidence to shape your theory.

As for the Hindu religious aspect, the “realm of pure consciousness” etc., that is not present in Forbidden Archeology, which deals strictly with “anomalous” archaeological evidence that the Darwinists threw away. Cremo’s other books deal with his philosophical and religious ideas, but not this one, which is limited to straight information that was ignored, dismissed, and in more than one case, suppressed—all because it contradicted standard Darwinian theory.

And I’m not defending Cremo’s religious ideas one way or the other, Phil. As I said, they don’t even enter into this book at all. If you’d read it, you’d know that.

Read the book. Then we’ll talk.

 

[jphod]

the answer to the threads title question … Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview … is a resounding yes if one acepts that the modern world view is that there is no God. Evolution theory with certain qualifications can be compatible with Christianity but if it were replaced by a new theory christianity wouldn’t miss a beat. But a godless view of creation can’t seem to stand without it. Because I am a Catholic i can be open to wherever science leads whether it proves or disproves evolution, and this carries over into any branch of science, unfortunately there are scinetists who are so certain that God does not exist they work to make sure their theories will leave no room for a God, thus the atheist makes for a poor scientist because he hae already closed his mind to some possibilities. We seek to understand the marvels of God’s creation, they strive to learn more and more about a universe that in the end based on their own beliefs like they themselves, is without any real meaning. why do they even bother?

 

[reggieM]

“Many people today are very sensitive and as if hurt – even aggressive – whenever anyone doubts the theory of evolution. The debate has proven, however, that there is still a good deal of room for questions, and that we do need to leave that place for questions. People who are questioning and inquiring do a good service, for nothing is worse for science than forbidding questions and inquiries.” – Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, Chance or Purpose

 

[reggieM]

What we can get out of this: Cremo is definitely a kook.

If you want to read what modern science says which does have good amounts of evidence, try my books again:

You recommended books written by atheists.

 

[Wolseley]

You recommended books written by atheists.

He’s also critiquing the wrong book. He’s basing his criticisms on the ideas presented in Human Devolution, which has nothing to do with the book I recommended, Forbidden Archeology.

Of course, Phil admitted he hasn’t read either one of them, so the point is really more or less moot.

 

[drpmjhess]

Do you deny the reality of the Great Flood? Why wouldn’t most scientist deny Deluge Geology? Most of them are atheist, who’s “God” is science!!

The Great Flood was a real event in the cultural memory of the Hebrews. Most civilizations have stories of great floods, because most found their start in river valleys. But a little basic knowledge of hydrology will show you that all the water in the world could not cover Mt. Everest at 29,035 feet. There could never have been a flood that covered every part of the Earth. It’s a wonderful myth, and I love hearing it in our darkened cathedral during the Easter Vigil.

 

[PhilVaz]

Wols << He’s also critiquing the wrong book. He’s basing his criticisms on the ideas presented in Human Devolution, which has nothing to do with the book I recommended, Forbidden Archeology. >>

Let’s see, same author wrote both books. Let me try again, from his own site:

---

Cremo: Forbidden Archeology documented a massive amount of evidence showing that humans have existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years.

---

My response to Cremo: False. Fact 1: Homo sapiens go back 100,000 to 200,000 years, not hundreds of millions of years. And the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

---

Cremo: “If we did not evolve from apes, then where did we come from?” Human Devolution is author Michael A. Cremo’s definitive answer to this question. “We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit,” says Cremo. He bases his response on modern science and the world’s great wisdom traditions, including the Vedic philosophy of ancient India.

---

My response to Cremo: False. Pseudo-scientific nonsense, and incompatible with Catholic faith. We are body and souls/spirit (Matt 10:28; 1 Thess 5:23), not pure spirit, or not essentially pure spirit. That is Hindu (or Vedic) in philosophy, and not compatible with Catholic faith. God is not all (pantheism), and we are not God (Deut 6:4; Num 23:19; Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 43:10; John 4:24; etc).

The books I recommend are pure science books, mainly published by reputable university publishers, and perfectly compatible with Catholic faith. They present the physical scientific evidence in great detail that we (homo sapiens) evolved from ape-like ancestors (or hominids) several million years ago. The scientific evidence is in the bones, stones, and genetics, not in Vedic or Hindu scriptures (nor in the Bible, for that matter).

Cremo presents kooky pseudo-science, along the same lines and categories of “authors” who have “massive evidence” for the Lost City of Atlantis, have “massive evidence” there are people living in the center of the earth (or on Mars, etc), and have “massive evidence” that Jesus went to India, studied with the Hindu gurus, was married to Mary Magdalene, fathered 7 children, and taught “reincarnation” to the apostles which was expunged from the Bible at a later Council to support the “Church’s power.”

Yep, that’s my opinion of Cremo after reading his own site, and reviews of his books. But I am not afraid of any book. In fact, I might order his books through www.AbeBooks.com for $1, write a detailed review, utterly demolishing his anti-Catholic books.

You know I am known to do things like that. Hee hee.

Phil P

 

[The_Barbarian]

"Many people today are very sensitive and as if hurt – even aggressive – whenever anyone doubts the theory of evolution. The debate has proven, however, that there is still a good deal of room for questions, and that we do need to leave that place for questions. People who are questioning and inquiring do a good service, for nothing is worse for science than forbidding questions and inquiries." – Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, Chance or Purpose

Perhaps the Cardinal is unaware that there are dozens of scientific journals dedicated to airing questions about the theory of evolution. I’m pleased that he seems to now realize that there are not several competing theories of evolution.

What mystifies and annoys scientists are the foolish “questions” from IDers whe assume that genetics or chemistry, or geology are false and unreliable. There are quite a number of good and important questions about evolution, but you won’t see them in the religious doctrines of the Discovery Institute.

 

[PhilVaz]

Wols << Well, if the evidence he presents flies in the face of accepted Darwinian orthodoxy, then “obviously”, he must be. He dares to question Darwinism? Well, then, piff! he’s obviously a kook. Pay no attention. Or else it’s “Heresy! Burn him at the stake!” >>

OK, the challenge is on, the gauntlet has been thrown down.

GIVE ME ONE SCRAP OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FROM MICHAEL CREMO’S BOOKS (any of them) THAT HUMANS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR "HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS."

Thank You. We’ll shoot for evidence of human activity and existence 100,000,000 years ago. That’s his “alternative” to “Darwinian theory.” And he describes his evidence as “massive evidence” so this should be no problem for you.

Also that we evolved (or “devolved”) from “pure spirit” but I’ll ask for “evidence” of that later, and what he means by that.

Phil P

 

[The_Barbarian]

It was also implied that evolutionary biology has led to great advancements in such things as pharmaceuticals etc (i don’t remember exactly what was listed) I am a healthcare provider and i really don’t see were evolutionary theory is necesssary to my practice or was necessary in the attainment of these so called advances, though i am open to having my mind changed on the matter, examples would be helpful.

You should know that antibiotic protocols are written, based on evolutionary theory. Indeed, some are now based on research that has predicted the evolution of new resistance in bacteria.

I’ve only met one other “health care provider” who didn’t know this, and she was an aromatherapist.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that Wolseley doesn’t know enough about his recommended book to tell us what the best argument in it is)

I have an alternative explanation, B: I think you’re afraid of this book, because you suspect it just might blow your little well-ordered evolved world right out of the water. Ergo, you aren’t going to go anywhere near it.

(I was right; he doesn’t know enough about it to explain the arguments in it)

How about you spend a little time trying to figure it out, and then tell us what you think the best argument is?

Has anybody read this, who can explain what it says?