Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[mathematician]

Tell that to those MILLIONS of dead babies, I have a sticker on my car that says, “Pro-choice, thats a lie, babies don’t choose to die.”

So you have a sticker in your car; that still doesn’t make science the same thing as morality, and it is certainly irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

 

[Memaw]

So you have a sticker in your car; that still doesn’t make science the same thing as morality, and it is certainly irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

I thought science was supposed to help mankind, not figure out ways to destroy it. what effects the body, effects the soul and what effects the soul, effects the body, Can’t separate them, We are both Body and Soul.

 

[mathematician]

I thought science was supposed to help mankind, not figure out ways to destroy it. what effects the body, effects the soul and what effects the soul, effects the body, Can’t separate them, We are both Body and Soul.

The function of the physical sciences is to try and discover how the physical universe works. What stupid and sinful human beings do with the discoveries of science is another matter.

 

[steveandersen]

I thought science was supposed to help mankind, not figure out ways to destroy it. what effects the body, effects the soul and what effects the soul, effects the body, Can’t separate them, We are both Body and Soul.

science is not normative
it is not its place

don’t blame a screwdriver for not being a hammer

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian points out that the facts show an improvement in many aspects of society in the last few decades, such as a reduction in the number of abortions, less drug use, and less violent crime)

I’m not sure if you are a Catholic or not but if you are, you should spend more time studying into your Catholic faith than all that nonsense.

Two points here: First they are demonstrable facts, and important ones. Second, Catholicism is not opposed to the truth. Indeed, it is truth, as God is. If you are truly a Catholic, you should not be afraid of the truth.

The body goes where the soul goes and I suggest you get in closer touch with your Maker and Savior, and what HE teaches.

Perhaps, if you did study Catholicism, a bit more, you’d find it isn’t as far from God as you assume.

Don’t you ever get tired of spreading lies about the Catholic Faith.

I quoted the Pope. I’m pretty sure he is more cognizant of the truth in that regard than you are.

Study into the TRUTH of its history and you will see that the Church is what gave dignity to women.

Indeed. I pointed out that the Church tried to improve the dignity of women, who were, in the Middle Ages, treated by society as property of their husbands or family.

As I said before, science has its place but when it thinks it knows more than God or can do without God, or go against God’s Natural law its way off track.

Notice that the scientists here have been reminding people that science cannot comment on God. I’m pleased that you admit it; why not accept all of the Church’s teaching in this regard?

 

[Memaw]

The function of the physical sciences is to try and discover how the physical universe works. What stupid and sinful human beings do with the discoveries of science is another matter.

When sinful and stupid so called scientist try to push their atheistic unproven theories on us, thats scientist trying to make false sound like truth. Like my mom used to say," It’ll all come out in the wash."

 

[Sideline]

*]Women were regarded as chattel, and the Church strove to help them by limiting the size of stick a husband might use to beat them

I have heard this mentioned scores of times, but never with a reference or citation.

Do you have any evidence to support that the the Church tried to limit the size of the stick? Where, when, how was it done?

I know that this is off topic, but I’d really like to find out where this idea comes from.

 

[mathematician]

When sinful and stupid so called scientist try to push their atheistic unproven theories on us, thats scientist trying to make false sound like truth. Like my mom used to say," It’ll all come out in the wash."

Some of those “so called” scientists have got FRS after their name if they are British, or “American Academy of Sciences” if they are American. You do not pick up those kinds of distinction by being “so called”.

 

[edwest2]

(Barbarian points out that the facts show an improvement in many aspects of society in the last few decades, such as a reduction in the number of abortions, less drug use, and less violent crime)

Two points here: First they are demonstrable facts, and important ones. Second, Catholicism is not opposed to the truth. Indeed, it is truth, as God is. If you are truly a Catholic, you should not be afraid of the truth.

Perhaps, if you did study Catholicism, a bit more, you’d find it isn’t as far from God as you assume.

I quoted the Pope. I’m pretty sure he is more cognizant of the truth in that regard than you are.

Indeed. I pointed out that the Church tried to improve the dignity of women, who were, in the Middle Ages, treated by society as property of their husbands or family.

Notice that the scientists here have been reminding people that science cannot comment on God. I’m pleased that you admit it; why not accept all of the Church’s teaching in this regard?

Why don’t you admit that you are not here to promote Church teaching but to promote Darwin? And defend him?

That you are a propagandist whose job here is to repeat the same tired lines in praise of the theory of evolution?

Why don’t you recognize that the Catholic Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences? Or that it has a body that examines miracles that happen today and calls upon secular scientists, as well as religious and other people, to examine these events?

Or that you use the same carrot and stick approaches of classic propaganda? Denounce and belittle people when they disagree with you and offer them praise when they are leaning toward agreeing with you?

Please stop it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Sideline]

The more the scientific field leaves God out of science, the worse our society gets. With every kind of artificial birth control possible, (and most of them harmful to our heath), Abortion killing millions of innocent babies worldwide a year, euthanasia, infanticide embryonic stem cell research etc. is destroying our society and will have devastating effects on the future of our country.

You know, the only thing on you list that is anyway the direct cause of scientific enquiry is stem cell research.

People have been attempting to use birth control since time immemorial. Ancient Egyptians made pessaries out of camel dung. You don’t think that was probably harmful for their health?

Abortions aren’t anything new. Hippocrates was against them which certainly suggests that such a thing was not unheard of. Neither was infanticide, which goes up, shockingly, when abortions are unavailable.

Euthenasia is hardly a scientific invention. Or I should say, if it is a scientific invention, it’s a neolithic one.

Stem cell research is a new one. But try as I might I can’t figure out why anyone would have a problem with seeking out a cure for disease. No one is proposing that babies be killed for stem cells. They are mearly suggesting that the babies that don’t make it to birth can help save people who did.

 

[edwest2]

The Catholic Church protects the rights of human beings from conception to natural death. This is a non-negotiable Church teaching. Everyone reading this began life as an embryo.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Memaw]

I have heard this mentioned scores of times, but never with a reference or citation.

Do you have any evidence to support that the the Church tried to limit the size of the stick? Where, when, how was it done?

I know that this is off topic, but I’d really like to find out where this idea comes from.

Yes and we want scientific proof.

 

[Memaw]

You know, the only thing on you list that is anyway the direct cause of scientific enquiry is stem cell research.

People have been attempting to use birth control since time immemorial. Ancient Egyptians made pessaries out of camel dung. You don’t think that was probably harmful for their health?

Abortions aren’t anything new. Hippocrates was against them which certainly suggests that such a thing was not unheard of. Neither was infanticide, which goes up, shockingly, when abortions are unavailable.

Euthenasia is hardly a scientific invention. Or I should say, if it is a scientific invention, it’s a neolithic one.

Stem cell research is a new one. But try as I might I can’t figure out why anyone would have a problem with seeking out a cure for disease. No one is proposing that babies be killed for stem cells. They are mearly suggesting that the babies that don’t make it to birth can help save people who did.

But those tiny babies have to be KILLED to do it, what don’t you get about KILLED. thats DEAD

 

[The_Barbarian]

Why don’t you admit that you are not here to promote Church teaching

Ed, I have asked you repeatedly to submit the magesterium of the Church regarding it’s teaching that evolution is not objectionable to Catholic belief. You have refused to do it, and even by implication suggested that the Holy Father is not honest in asserting that common descent is virtually certain.

but to promote Darwin? And defend him?

Actually, Darwin was wrong about some things in his theory; that’s why the Modern Synthesis differs from his original theory in some ways. However, his basic five points have been repeatedly tested and verified. The truth matters. It should matter to you, Ed.

Why don’t you recognize that the Catholic Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences? Or that it has a body that examines miracles that happen today and calls upon secular scientists, as well as religious and other people, to examine these events?

Scientists are called on to say whether or not the putative miracle has a natural explanation. For the same reason that doctors are called on to examine cases of putative possession to be sure that there is not a natural cause in those cases. The Pope has said however, that if scientists try to make statements about God, they have left their proper path. You have repeatedly denied this truth, and the teaching of the Church in this regard.

Denounce and belittle people when they disagree with you and offer them praise when they are leaning toward agreeing with you?

This is why you have denounced and belittled those disagreeing with you, and praised those who agree with you? Ed, we all knew that.

Please stop it, Ed. Not only have you repeatedly denied the teaching of the Church, you have slandered your fellow Catholics. If you want to fight science, do so. Get some evidence and go for it. But don’t make it into a religious crusade against the Church or it’s followers.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The “rule of thumb” was referenced in at least four legal cases from 1782 to 1897, and in each of the known cases it was referred to only to state its invalidity, with one judge calling it "…a barbarous custom which modern authorities condemn.
Wikipedia.

Ironically, the Church, in insisting on the rule, was attempting to limit the force a man could use, not approving the practice of beating. Remember, in old Anglo-Saxon culture, the oldest male had complete power over all the members of the family, and could beat or even sell them into slavery if he chose.

The Church’s role was to moderate this culture, not to support it.

 

[Memaw]

Ed, I have asked you repeatedly to submit the magesterium of the Church regarding it’s teaching that evolution is not objectionable to Catholic belief. You have refused to do it, and even by implication suggested that the Holy Father is not honest in asserting that common descent is virtually certain.

Actually, Darwin was wrong about some things in his theory; that’s why the Modern Synthesis differs from his original theory in some ways. However, his basic five points have been repeatedly tested and verified. The truth matters. It should matter to you, Ed.

Scientists are called on to say whether or not the putative miracle has a natural explanation. For the same reason that doctors are called on to examine cases of putative possession to be sure that there is not a natural cause in those cases. The Pope has said however, that if scientists try to make statements about God, they have left their proper path. You have repeatedly denied this truth, and the teaching of the Church in this regard.

This is why you have denounced and belittled those disagreeing with you, and praised those who agree with you? Ed, we all knew that.

Please stop it, Ed. Not only have you repeatedly denied the teaching of the Church, you have slandered your fellow Catholics. If you want to fight science, do so. Get some evidence and go for it. But don’t make it into a religious crusade against the Church or it’s followers.

Look who’s talking.

 

[Memaw]

(Barbarian points out that the facts show an improvement in many aspects of society in the last few decades, such as a reduction in the number of abortions, less drug use, and less violent crime

Two points here: First they are demonstrable facts, and important ones. Second, Catholicism is not opposed to the truth. Indeed, it is truth, as God is. If you are truly a Catholic, you should not be afraid of the truth.

Perhaps, if you did study Catholicism, a bit more, you’d find it isn’t as far from God as you assume.

I quoted the Pope. I’m pretty sure he is more cognizant of the truth in that regard than you are.

Indeed. I pointed out that the Church tried to improve the dignity of women, who were, in the Middle Ages, treated by society as property of their husbands or family.

Notice that the scientists here have been reminding people that science cannot comment on God. I’m pleased that you admit it; why not accept all of the Church’s teaching in this regard?

**

 

[Sideline]

But those tiny babies have to be KILLED to do it, what don’t you get about KILLED. thats DEAD

I understand the process quite well. I think you might be a little unclear on the concept.

Even in a world without abortion, 20% of babies do not make it to term. Many of those, already dead, babies have to be removed from the uterous. This material is thrown away. This material, could save lives.

No one is murdering the little babies if they are already dead.

Many people do have abortions. These babies were killed. They will die whether you like it or not. They are also thrown away. How is better to throw them away than let science use them?

The important point that you seem to be missing is that science isn’t responsible for any of the things you listed, except trying to use the bodies of deceased infants to save lives.

Everything else on your list can be achieved in a really unscientific way.

 

[Sideline]

The Catholic Church protects the rights of human beings from conception to natural death. This is a non-negotiable Church teaching. Everyone reading this began life as an embryo.

And this little tidbit is entirely irrelevant to the point.

 

[Sideline]

The “rule of thumb” was referenced in at least four legal cases from 1782 to 1897, and in each of the known cases it was referred to only to state its invalidity, with one judge calling it "…a barbarous custom which modern authorities condemn.
Wikipedia.

Ironically, the Church, in insisting on the rule, was attempting to limit the force a man could use, not approving the practice of beating. Remember, in old Anglo-Saxon culture, the oldest male had complete power over all the members of the family, and could beat or even sell them into slavery if he chose.

The Church’s role was to moderate this culture, not to support it.

Sorry, I’m not seeing what the source of this rule is. Papal encyclical? Catechism? Church letters?

The earliest references to “rule of thumb” that I’ve ever come across came from books on sword play and meant “rough estimation” just as it does now. Where did the rule come from?