Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[PhilVaz]

Ric << Yes, there is close similarity between chimp and human genes. The Oldsmobile and Buick have almost exactly the same parts, so one must have evolved from the other, just as evolution predicts. >>

You need to read that article (“Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics”) I linked earlier. The copying or similarity is not just in the genes, but in the pseudo-genes which are non-functional.

A better analogy than yours would be to consider one car, say Car A, then we have two other Cars, Cars B and Cars C, while they both look somewhat like Car A, it is Car C that not only copies the outside and inside, but also the design MISTAKES and FLAWS in Car A.

Or take Book A, then another Book B that copies not only the words of Book A but the exact SPELLING MISTAKES in book A. We can conclude the author of Book B plagiarized Book A, and Book A is its “common ancestor” (as are those who copy A’s and B’s same mistakes later).

That’s what pseudo-genes are. They are mistakes or non-functional genes that are still copied through and passed forward. And that’s how we know humans and chimps had a common ancestor (i.e. through macroevolution) since we have not only almost identical DNA, but identical COPYING MISTAKES in our DNA. These MISTAKES are created by random mutations, but are still passed through during the copying process. At least that’s how I understand it.

See my summary of Theobald’s evidence which I turn into questions here.

molecular sequence evidence

Why is a full 45% of our genome composed of transposons, which serve no known function for the individual except to cause a significant fraction of genetic illnesses and cancers? Why are 21% of the human genome pseudogenes which serve no function? Why in humans is there one functional GDPH gene, but there are at least twenty GDPH pseudogenes? Why in mice are there approximately 200 GDPH pseudogenes, none of which are necessary?

Why do humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence, when the chance occurrence of this is conservatively less than 1 out of 10^93 ? Why do human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by only about 10 amino acids from all other mammals, when the chance occurrence of this in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 1 out of 10^29 ?

Why is bat cytochrome c much more similar to human cytochrome c than to hummingbird cytochrome c? Why is porpoise cytochrome c much more similar to human cytochrome c than to shark cytochrome c? Why does the phylogenetic tree data constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulate the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data?

Why are the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans exactly identical? Why do the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only one base, a 0.3% difference, even though there are 10^49 different sequences that could code for this protein?

Why are there very many examples of shared pseudogenes between primates and humans, with one hemoglobin, the ψη-globin pseudogene shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that render it nonfunctional? Why do chimps and humans both share the same eight bp deletion in the steroid 21-hydroxylase pseudogene that renders it nonfunctional?

The correct answer to these questions: we are related by descent with modification and share common ancestors with all of life (i.e. macroevolution is true).

Phil P

 

[The_Barbarian]

The chart showing the supposed evolution of the whale to other species is based on morphology. One shape looks like another and has similar features.

Shared apomorphies are very good indicators of common descent,a finding which has been confirmed by DNA and genetic testing which for example confirms that whales and ungulates had a common ancestor. And we know that works, because it is used to demonstrate human relationships, which can often be tested to show it works.

The supposed parallel evolution of the DNA structures of these creatures does not align with the similarity of shape.

See above. They lied to you again, Reggie. When are you going to wise up?

One would assume that since one whale type looks like the supposed descendent of another, that the DNA will show similar developments from one species to another – but the DNA does not show that. Far from it.

The lied to you about that, too…

Mysticete (baleen whale) relationships based upon the sequence of the common cetacean DNA satellite
Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 9, 1018-1028
U Arnason, S Gretarsdottir and B Widegren
Department of Molecular Genetics, Wallenberg Laboratory, University of Lund, Sweden.

Simple charts showing animals that look like one another, minus the DNA differences, are really lacking the substance of what is needed to “prove” these evolutionary paths.

Sometimes. But it’s a moot point, now that you know the truth.

 

[Wolseley]

I love these quotes but keep in mind that we are trying to educate them not not so much to debate them as they think they are trying to do with us. Both sides are convinced of their rational. We try and educate Darwinists with hard scientific data or try to reason with them but they have the same attitude as Cardinal Schoenborn and probably most of the modernist Catholic bishops; they were educated in seminaries by modernist theologians who pride themselves to think that they know more than Christ, the church fathers and us poor dumb commoners who they are trying to brainwash on this thread. It’s called pride. St. Athanasius went into exhile several times before he, with the help of the Holy Ghost turned things around. Just keep the faith of our fathers and plug away. I’m told it was a commoner, non-priest, who went after Nestorius regarding I think it was the virginity of our Lady. Heresy and heretics are not subdued overnight.

(sigh)

I know, Philipp, and I agree with you, but one eventually reaches a point where it’s best to simply recognize an exercise in futility and just walk away from it. You see how things go on these threads with these people. They refuse to listen to any other opinion than their own, and even when you do recommend a source that can explain things better than you can, all they do is ridicule it, deride it, mock it, and flatly refuse to even consider looking at it. They then proceed to slap you with whatever labels they consider cute, and dismiss you.

You cannot educate a closed mind. You cannot debate a closed mind. You cannot even agree to disagree with a closed mind, because they won’t allow you to hold any opinion other than theirs.

I’ve done this before. I did it on other boards with Protestant Fundamentalists who were rabidly anti-Catholic, trying to explain Catholicism to them. They did the same thing the evolutionists do here: they skip over what you had to say, called you a fool, and then picked right up where they left off, with the exact same argument, even if that argument had already been gone over in detail, as if they’d never heard you. And they probably didn’t.

Then it was politics for a while…trying to talk to pacifist liberals about the necessity of national defense. Waste of time. I eventually got burned out on that one, too.

I’ve been sucked back into this argument too many times already (just like I did with those other topics—glutton for punishment, I guess), and unfortunately (just like dealing with the Fundies and the liberals), it has proved detrimental to my sense of Christian charity; and I have, as we used to say in the Air Force, pegged my B.S. meter. Rather than try to discuss this further, or try to recommend any other sources to them, I’m throwing up my hands and walking away.

If they don’t want to listen, they don’t want to listen; I have other things to do. If they only want to hear themselves talking, let them; it’s easier that way. I have more than enough stress at work dealing with lunatics and armed criminals—I don’t need to put up with it here.

Thanks for your post, however; I appreciate your courtesy.

 

[PhilVaz]

Wols << If they don’t want to listen, they don’t want to listen. I have other things to do. If they only want to hear themselves talking, let them; it’s easier that way. I have more than enough stress at work dealing with lunatics and armed criminals—I don’t need to put up with it here. >>

You’re the guy advocating Krishna Kreationism by pushing Forbidden Archaeology as a reputable science text. It is not. That was taken care of about 10 pages back in this thread by myself, Barbarian and others in the various reviews linked and quotes directly from the authors (Cremo/Thompson). What else you got?

I have recommended plenty of science books, both Christian and non-Christian, and links in here. I have been here since May 2004 discussing this topic. All is takes is a click or a visit to a university library to get educated about the evidence for evolution. I don’t understand all the science, but at least I try. Some of you guys aren’t even trying. Closed minds indeed.

Phil P

 

[The_Barbarian]

The human brain seems not to have changed one single bit since the first appearance of homo sapiens 150,000 years ago.

You’ve been misled about that:

Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

H. sapiens is a lot older than you’ve been led to believe, and the early examples are intermediate between late H. erectus and more modern-looking humans.

 

[The_Barbarian]

They did the same thing the evolutionists do here: they skip over what you had to say, called you a fool,

You seem outraged that people here checked out your sources and what they had to say. And I don’t remember anyone here calling you a fool. What’s that about? You have a need to feel persecuted? Are you really surprised that you’d get criticized for endorsing a Krishna Consciousness approach to biology on a Catholic Board? Or that you’d be criticized for not being forthcoming about who was behind it?

 

[edwest2]

Adam and Eve were our first parents. Fact.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PhilVaz]

Ed << Adam and Eve were our first parents. Fact. >>

Back to that again. And here is how that might work:

Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record

No need to deny human evolution. Neither does Cardinal Schonborn, neither does Pope Benedict. Fact.

Audio Fact: Cardinal Schonborn MP3 from BookTV

Phil P

 

[Wolseley]

You seem outraged that people here checked out your sources and what they had to say. And I don’t remember anyone here calling you a fool. What’s that about? You have a need to feel persecuted? Are you really surprised that you’d get criticized for endorsing a Krishna Consciousness approach to biology on a Catholic Board? Or that you’d be criticized for not being forthcoming about who was behind it?

This post is a classic case in point, Barbarian. I have repeated, over and over and over again, that this book has nothing to do with Krishna Consciousness. It does me utterly no good. You don’t listen. You merely repeat what you said before, as if I hadn’t even said a word. You act as if you know all about this book, even though you admit you haven’t read it, and I have.

(shrug) Whatever. I’m done.

The other night, when I said I was going to pray for the two of us, you and me, I was serious; I was not being facetious. You and I apparently seem to bring out the not-so-good in each other, and I am just as much to blame for that as you are. So, please allow me this opportunity to formally apologize to you for any and all provocative, unkind, or uncharitable comments I may have made to you. It was un-Christlike of me and uncalled for, and for that I am truly sorry.

This is Lent, a time when I’m supposed to be trying to draw closer to Christ instead of behaving in a manner that puts up barriers between myself and Him, regardless of whatever behavior from others I am confronted with.

Therefore, I am withdrawing from further exhange with you and with these evolution threads. I do not believe that continuing contact is beneficial for the spiritual health in either of us, so I am going to forego the pleasure henceforth.

Please be advised that any further exchange from you to me will not be acknowledged from this point forward; I don’t believe that continuing contact between us is healthy, and I will conduct myself accordingly; I will appreciate like consideration from you.

I hope the remainder of your Lent is productive for you; be assured of my continued prayers fro your good health and well-being, and have a nice life.

Blessings and peace,
—Wolseley.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This post is a classic case in point, Barbarian. I have repeated, over and over and over again, that this book has nothing to do with Krishna Consciousness.

Other than promoting the cosmology of the Krishna faith.

It does me utterly no good. You don’t listen.

Rather, I don’t agree with you that such a promotion isn’t religious. As others have documented here, even the author admits his motivation and purpose for the book.

You are, BTW, already forgiven for anything you might have done. I have no resentment against you, and did not expect an apology or think there was a need for one.

 

[reggieM]

No need to deny human evolution. Neither does Cardinal Schonborn, neither does Pope Benedict. Fact.

On the contrary, we must deny “evolution” depending on what that term means (there is no scientific proof that the term means what you say it does). From the link posted:

the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.

Strange to hear some Darwinists here claim that evolutionary theory does not explicity “deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe”.

This document, supported by Pope Benedict, supposedly showing his approval for “evolution” clearly states that some evolutionary theory is incompatible with the Catholic faith and explicitly denies a role for divine providence.

I’ll just add this to the growing list of disingenuous comments and attempts to manipulate the topic that I’ve seen over the past several months.

There is a very strong warning given in that text.

But we’re told by the Darwinists here that evolution is as “God-neutral” as plumbing and auto-mechanics.

The magisterium has warned us several times that “some forms” of Darwinism are dangerous to the faith. This is not plumbing or auto-mechanics but something poisonous and damaging enough that the Magisterium of the Church has warned against it.

We would all do well to heed that warning and not try to cover-up the dangers of Darwinian theory.

 

[reggieM]

Heh, Reggie thinks that people who express a belief in a creator are “atheists.” That explains a lot of things.

This is a childish comment that is entirely lacking in substance or truth. I don’t know if you’re an adult. I had assumed that you were over the age of 18 since you said you were married for a while – but I don’t know. In any case, even if you are a teenager there is a certain level of quality that one should expect in the discussion by this point. I fully understand that this issue (like plumbing for some people) is so important that you need to ridicule a person based on an unjust interpretation of what was said.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Heh, Reggie thinks that people who express a belief in a creator are “atheists.” That explains a lot of things.

This is a childish comment that is entirely lacking in substance or truth.

Funny, when you were reminded that Darwin attributed the origin of life to a Creator, you said:

This is then used as a “proof” that Darwinism is not atheistic.

What you say has consequences, and people draw inferences from it, Reggie.

I don’t know if you’re an adult.

Adult enough to know better than to do what you just did. One, it wasn’t very smart to deny the fact, and two it was even less smart to pretend you hadn’t done it.

It’s very poor judgment, when someone calls you on something like that, to accuse them of being a child. If your argument can’t carry your case, resorting to schoolyard taunts will just make it worse for you.

 

[reggieM]

Wolseley,

If it’s any consolation, I could see very clearly what was going on with all of that.

(sigh)
I know, Philipp, and I agree with you, but one eventually reaches a point where it’s best to simply recognize an exercise in futility and just walk away from it.

In many ways, I agree. But I think it’s also good to offer this painful experience to Our Lord – He sees the difficulty and He can change things. You were right to offer prayers. It’s only by grace that light will reach some minds.

You cannot educate a closed mind. You cannot debate a closed mind. You cannot even agree to disagree with a closed mind, because they won’t allow you to hold any opinion other than theirs.

All of this is true. But I think we can also benefit by observing the nature of the closed mind. Not in arguing with it – because that is futile, as you said. But by questioning it and probing the closed mind to try to find out why it has attached itself to things that are false, and with such passion that it cannot move. Why the cover-ups of significant flaws in evolutionary theory? Why the fear of admitting the problems? Why the intense knee-jerk defenses and the attacks, ridicule and unChristian attitudes?

I think part of it comes from people who have an irrational hatred of Protestant fundamentalism. Perhaps there are converts to Catholicism who wanted to be free from rigid fundamentalist views on science. So anything that even hints at their old faith is considered hateful and the subject of ridicule.

Perhaps others want to be considered sophisticated Catholics. They want to be praised by atheistic scientists, who they secretly admire because they’re “so intelligent” and “witty”, etc.

But there are other reasons why minds are closed against any doubts about evolutionary theory. Personally, I think it’s good to explore those reasons. Why do people adhere to this theory with such an intense passion – while at the same time claiming that it is as benign as ideas on plumbing?

I think some people also think that science will come to a halt if “creationists” win a battle and silence evolution (if that were even remotely possible). Perhaps they think that scientists have used evolutionary theory to invent cures for sickness – and all of this is threatened by doubts about evolutionary theory. Of course, there are many arguments that refute these fears, but the point is – minds will be closed, and usually fear is a good means of keeping them closed.

I’ve done this before. I did it on other boards with Protestant Fundamentalists who were rabidly anti-Catholic, trying to explain Catholicism to them. They did the same thing the evolutionists do here: they skip over what you had to say, called you a fool, and then picked right up where they left off, with the exact same argument, even if that argument had already been gone over in detail, as if they’d never heard you.

Exactly. I’ve seen it many times. The more erroneous they are in their belief, the more ridicule and animosity they spew out.

Then it was politics for a while…trying to talk to pacifist liberals about the necessity of national defense. Waste of time. I eventually got burned out on that one, too.

I’ve tried that also and found it to be even more impossible than fundamentalists.

Rather than try to discuss this further, or try to recommend any other sources to them, I’m throwing up my hands and walking away.

My interest here was in the hope that there would be much more common ground. I can argue with atheists about evolution any day of the week – endlessly. But there’s no common agreement on our Creator at all so it’s all skepticism and ridicule of even the most basic concepts that we understand through faith.

So, I assumed that discussions with fellow Catholics would at least not end in the sophistry and ridicule that one would find among non-believers.

But such is not the case.

If they only want to hear themselves talking, let them; it’s easier that way. I have more than enough stress at work dealing with lunatics and armed criminals—I don’t need to put up with it here.

Again, agreed – but I hope you’ll be back.

 

[edwest2]

On the contrary, we must deny “evolution” depending on what that term means (there is no scientific proof that the term means what you say it does). From the link posted:

Strange to hear some Darwinists here claim that evolutionary theory does not explicity “deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe”.

This document, supported by Pope Benedict, supposedly showing his approval for “evolution” clearly states that some evolutionary theory is incompatible with the Catholic faith and explicitly denies a role for divine providence.

I’ll just add this to the growing list of disingenuous comments and attempts to manipulate the topic that I’ve seen over the past several months.

There is a very strong warning given in that text.

But we’re told by the Darwinists here that evolution is as “God-neutral” as plumbing and auto-mechanics.

The magisterium has warned us several times that “some forms” of Darwinism are dangerous to the faith. This is not plumbing or auto-mechanics but something poisonous and damaging enough that the Magisterium of the Church has warned against it.

We would all do well to heed that warning and not try to cover-up the dangers of Darwinian theory.

Thank you for posting this. It is what I’ve been trying to say for a while. It is not a neutral issue and figures into the “culture war” quite prominently. We are currently witnessing the attempted popularizing of sin through all media and hateful words against Christianity. Tolerance is a one-way street regarding Christian beliefs. In other words, it’s all OK except Christianity.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Strange to hear some Darwinists here claim that evolutionary theory does not explicity “deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe”.

Not so strange, considering that Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

This document, supported by Pope Benedict, supposedly showing his approval for “evolution” clearly states that some evolutionary theory is incompatible with the Catholic faith and explicitly denies a role for divine providence.

You’re rebelling against the Church’s teaching on this. The Pope said that the central tenet of Darwinism was “virtually certain.” Morever, Popes as far back as Pius XII have clearly stated that evolutionary theory is not incompatible with Christian faith.

"The Church does not forbid that…research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

In this and other ways, you rebel against the Magesterium. The Pope has criticized those who would try to apply science to religious questions, just as we have criticized you for that. Science cannot do that.

But we’re told by the Darwinists here that evolution is as “God-neutral” as plumbing and auto-mechanics.

And the Pope’s words, if you bothered to read them, would tell you why that has to be. Isn’t it time you accepted his guidance and admitted the truth?

 

[Namesake]

That’s like saying a computer is an essential component of a computer program. The hardware is necessary for the software to manifest itself but it is not a component of it. A sufficiently complex electronic device is necessary to play a CD but that doesn’t make it part of the CD.

Ender

With arguments like that how can anyone not believe what you say? /sarc

 

[reggieM]

What you say has consequences, and people draw inferences from it, Reggie.

Yes, people draw false inferences from things and then use that as a means of ridicule. As in this statement:

Heh, Reggie thinks that people who express a belief in a creator are "atheists.

Basically, that’s just a lie about me that you posted on this public forum. This is what teenagers do all the time – make up something about the person that “looks bad” and then laugh (“Heh”) about it.

Adult enough to know better than to do what you just did.

Ok, I still don’t know how old you are. I could excuse your attitude and behavior somewhat if you were under a certain age.

As we mature we should also develop a deeper sympathy with other people and better understanding of what the other person is trying to say.

If you’re mistaken about what I said (you were) and about what I was trying to say (you were), normally I would think that you’d be interested in learning about what I really said and what I really meant.

But for you, apparently, it’s enough to laugh and ridicule the other person based on your own misunderstanding of what I said.

You don’t seem to be interested in the point I was making, but rather only in trying to make me look bad in some ways.

 

[reggieM]

Barbarian writes:

In this and other ways, you rebel against the Magesterium. The Pope has criticized those who would try to apply science to religious questions, just as we have criticized you for that. Science cannot do that.

You’re hiding from the text that I posted. You’re not responding to it at all. You’re trying to change the topic, dodge, run away from the facts in this text which are as clear as can be. Let’s try again:

the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is **specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins **and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.

Again, in contradiction to your repeated claims, this Magisterial text says that there are theories of evolution that are incompatible with the Catholic faith because they explicity deny to divine providence any causal role.

This Magisterial text warns about those theories. Those theories exist. You have claimed that they don’t exist. You have claimed that evolution does not deny divine providence – but the papal magisterium says clearly that some theories of evolution do.

You have been shown to be very wrong about this serious matter. If someone had actually believed your continually repeated assertions that evolution does not deny divine providence, then they would fall into the error that this official church document warns about.

Your argument is with this document. It explicity refutes the notion that you’ve posted countless times here.

You’re still denying what this document says. You’ve now tried to attack me as a means of getting away from the truth of what this statement said.

It was PhilVaz who posted this link, so I wonder if he will deny what the text says also. Perhaps he will support you, Barbarian. I don’t know. I would find that really interesting. Perhaps PhilVaz will agree with you that the document doesn’t say that there are theories of evolution which are incompatible with the Catholic faith. Or perhaps he will just reject this – as it appears you are doing.

The document said that there are theories of evolution that are incompatible with the Catholic faith. This is an idea that you have ridiculed quite constantly.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Again, in contradiction to your repeated claims, this Magisterial text says that there are theories of evolution that are incompatible with the Catholic faith because they explicity deny to divine providence any causal role.

The point of the Pope’s statement, which you rebel against, is that evolutionary theory is virtually certain. Darwinism, as you learned , does not deny divine providence. Indeed, Darwinism attributed the origin of life to God.

And as the Pope says, God can use even contingency to his purposes.

This Magisterial text warns about those theories. Those theories exist. You have claimed that they don’t exist.

No, you made that up. They might exist, but they are contrary to evolutionary theory as it is in science. Indeed, modern evolutionary theory makes no claims at all about such things.

You have claimed that evolution does not deny divine providence

It can’t. It is part of divine providence.

but the papal magisterium says clearly that some theories of evolution do.

The one used by scientists does not. Which is why the Pope acknowledges that it is virtually certain.

You have been shown to be very wrong about this serious matter.

In fact, you made up a story to support your rejection of the Church’s teachings. For example, the theory of evolution you invented here denies God’s providence. But that is not evolutionary theory as it is in science.

If someone had actually believed your continually repeated assertions that evolution does not deny divine providence, then they would fall into the error that this official church document warns about.

I can believe you, or I can believe the Pope. Not much of a choice is it.

Your argument is with this document. It explicity refutes the notion that you’ve posted countless times here.

Let’s take a look…

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage…hus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

So Ed. Be a man. Tell us whether you agree or disagree with this statement. That’s what Pope Benedict XVI says. Are you with him or not?

You’re still denying what this document says. You’ve now tried to attack me as a means of getting away from the truth of what this statement said.

We’ll know that when we get a straight yes or no from you. Do you agree with him on this or do you not?

Perhaps PhilVaz will agree with you that the document doesn’t say that there are theories of evolution which are incompatible with the Catholic faith.

It might be that you’re so angry that your rage has overcome your integrity. I can think of no other reason why you would lie about what I said.

The document said that there are theories of evolution that are incompatible with the Catholic faith.

The one you invented, for example, is that. But the scientific theory of evolution is not, and cannot be inconsistent with God’s creation.

So what will it be? Will you agree that the Pope is right in the above statement, or will you deny it? Or will you continue to dodge the question?

Your choice will tell us all we need to know.