Keating, Catholic Answers take a swipe at evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Notice that the Popes have taken the time to learn about it, and disagree with you.

The first quote is from the paragraph that begins: 63. “According to the widely accepted scientific account,” So it is not an endorsement.

Everyone knows that you snipped that off of one sentence, (about the big bang), and appended it to another (about evolution). Not a good practice. If you can’t prove your point by what he actually said, it won’t help to edit things.

Barbarian suggests:
No. Verified predictions are the way theories are validated. One more time; learn what science is, and it will help you.

The predictions of evolutionary theory are besides the point of what the theory purports to explain.

No, that’s wrong. Verified predictions are the way theories are validated.

No one has verified a prediction that human beings will evolve from a common ancestor of apes.

But there are numerous predictions by which that can be tested. For example, when the function of DNA was discovered, it was predicted that the DNA of humans and apes should more closely match each other, than either would match any other organism. And that was validated. The prediction that there must have been organisms intermediate between humans and apes was validated by numerous examples found after the prediction. Even Darwin’s prediction that they would be found first in Africa was validated.

No one has brought tens of thousands of years of genetic mutations into a labratory to be tested.

Millions of years, actually. Genomes of various organisms can be compared to learn about when different mutations occured. It’s a very well-defined science in genetics.

The predictions are tangentical.

It is the way theories are validated. If this bothers you, I can only point out that it has been an extremely successful method.

Barbarian explains:
Every human has a genome that does not change. But each new human has a novel genome. And that is evolution.

All human beings are of the same genetic substance.

You’ve been badly misled about that. Each of us (except identical twins, of course) has a unique genome.

The uniqueness of genomes don’t amount to the theory of evolution,just inherent variation within human genetics.

You’ve been snockered on that one, too. Would you like to learn about some recent mutations that have become part of the genome of various groups of humans?

Barbarian observes:
No, that is evolution. Polygenism says that all humans descended from more than two people. That is not a requirement of evolution.

Polygenism means multiple first parents,or multiple sources,
of a species. It does not require that they be humans.

Neither does it require that humans descent from more than one pair of humans. They lied to you about that, too.

So the idea that humans evolved from another species is out of the question.

And now you know better. This is why Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

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.
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

You’re way outside the Church’s teaching on this one.

Barbarian on the idea that chance isn’t part of divine providence:
Let’s take a look…
**Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. ** (same source)

That quote talks about guided contingency,not the unguided chance that science proposes.

Perhaps you don’t know what “contingency” means. And science can’t say whether or not anything in nature is guided by any supernatural agent.

And if you really think that natural selection is not about chance,then you shouldn’t be concerned to uphold chance.

Natural selection is a non-random process. However evolution works by natural selection and random mutation.

That shows duplicitity…

No, just your failure to learn about the issue.

Barbarian observes:
God is a lot more powerful and effective than creationists are willing to let Him be.

So powerful that he can create a man from the earth in an instant,

He could. But He could (and did) do something much more amazing. Our God is the Creator; as St. Augustine wrote, He created the universe ex nihilo, with the seeds of all things to come in it, from which all things developed in time.

That is Catholic theology.

Natural selection is not a random process, since it is directed by specific factors in the environment and the population.

Then it is deterministic. That is unacceptable to the doctrine of Creation as well.

The speed of a ball rolling down a ramp is deterministic. Physics is unacceptable to the doctrine of Creation?

Barbarian observes:
Could an almighty Creator be able to do what an inferior deity might do? Of course. Would he? Evidently not.

What deity are you referring to?

The gods of the pagans who had to make each thing individually, because they were not the Creator of all things.

Barbarian observes:
This is the Catholic conception of creation, one in which evolution is a consistent part.

It isn’t consistent with the Catholic conception of Creation.

St. Augustine is a doctor of the Church, and a highly regarded theologian.

The theory of evolution only works if a Creator is out of it

Your Pope says otherwise. Sorry about that.

 

[buffalo]

Barbarian observes:
Notice that the Popes have taken the time to learn about it, and disagree with you.

Everyone knows that you snipped that off of one sentence, (about the big bang), and appended it to another (about evolution). Not a good practice. If you can’t prove your point by what he actually said, it won’t help to edit things.

Barbarian suggests:
No. Verified predictions are the way theories are validated. One more time; learn what science is, and it will help you.

No, that’s wrong. Verified predictions are the way theories are validated.

But there are numerous predictions by which that can be tested. For example, when the function of DNA was discovered, it was predicted that the DNA of humans and apes should more closely match each other, than either would match any other organism. And that was validated. The prediction that there must have been organisms intermediate between humans and apes was validated by numerous examples found after the prediction. Even Darwin’s prediction that they would be found first in Africa was validated.

Millions of years, actually. Genomes of various organisms can be compared to learn about when different mutations occured. It’s a very well-defined science in genetics.

It is the way theories are validated. If this bothers you, I can only point out that it has been an extremely successful method.

Barbarian explains:
Every human has a genome that does not change. But each new human has a novel genome. And that is evolution.

You’ve been badly misled about that. Each of us (except identical twins, of course) has a unique genome.

You’ve been snockered on that one, too. Would you like to learn about some recent mutations that have become part of the genome of various groups of humans?

Barbarian observes:
No, that is evolution. Polygenism says that all humans descended from more than two people. That is not a requirement of evolution.

Neither does it require that humans descent from more than one pair of humans. They lied to you about that, too.

And now you know better. This is why Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

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.
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

You’re way outside the Church’s teaching on this one.

Barbarian on the idea that chance isn’t part of divine providence:
Let’s take a look…
**Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. ** (same source)

Perhaps you don’t know what “contingency” means. And science can’t say whether or not anything in nature is guided by any supernatural agent.

Natural selection is a non-random process. However evolution works by natural selection and random mutation.

No, just your failure to learn about the issue.

Barbarian observes:
God is a lot more powerful and effective than creationists are willing to let Him be.

He could. But He could (and did) do something much more amazing. Our God is the Creator; as St. Augustine wrote, He created the universe ex nihilo, with the seeds of all things to come in it, from which all things developed in time.

That is Catholic theology.

The speed of a ball rolling down a ramp is deterministic. Physics is unacceptable to the doctrine of Creation?

Barbarian observes:
Could an almighty Creator be able to do what an inferior deity might do? Of course. Would he? Evidently not.

The gods of the pagans who had to make each thing individually, because they were not the Creator of all things.

Barbarian observes:
This is the Catholic conception of creation, one in which evolution is a consistent part.

St. Augustine is a doctor of the Church, and a highly regarded theologian.

Your Pope says otherwise. Sorry about that.

Human-chimp DNA difference trebled

We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA.
It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.

more…

 

[edwest2]

Barbarian observes:
Notice that the Popes have taken the time to learn about it, and disagree with you.

Everyone knows that you snipped that off of one sentence, (about the big bang), and appended it to another (about evolution). Not a good practice. If you can’t prove your point by what he actually said, it won’t help to edit things.

Barbarian suggests:
No. Verified predictions are the way theories are validated. One more time; learn what science is, and it will help you.

No, that’s wrong. Verified predictions are the way theories are validated.

But there are numerous predictions by which that can be tested. For example, when the function of DNA was discovered, it was predicted that the DNA of humans and apes should more closely match each other, than either would match any other organism. And that was validated. The prediction that there must have been organisms intermediate between humans and apes was validated by numerous examples found after the prediction. Even Darwin’s prediction that they would be found first in Africa was validated.

Millions of years, actually. Genomes of various organisms can be compared to learn about when different mutations occured. It’s a very well-defined science in genetics.

It is the way theories are validated. If this bothers you, I can only point out that it has been an extremely successful method.

Barbarian explains:
Every human has a genome that does not change. But each new human has a novel genome. And that is evolution.

You’ve been badly misled about that. Each of us (except identical twins, of course) has a unique genome.

You’ve been snockered on that one, too. Would you like to learn about some recent mutations that have become part of the genome of various groups of humans?

Barbarian observes:
No, that is evolution. Polygenism says that all humans descended from more than two people. That is not a requirement of evolution.

Neither does it require that humans descent from more than one pair of humans. They lied to you about that, too.

And now you know better. This is why Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

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.
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

You’re way outside the Church’s teaching on this one.

Barbarian on the idea that chance isn’t part of divine providence:
Let’s take a look…
**Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. ** (same source)

Perhaps you don’t know what “contingency” means. And science can’t say whether or not anything in nature is guided by any supernatural agent.

Natural selection is a non-random process. However evolution works by natural selection and random mutation.

No, just your failure to learn about the issue.

Barbarian observes:
God is a lot more powerful and effective than creationists are willing to let Him be.

He could. But He could (and did) do something much more amazing. Our God is the Creator; as St. Augustine wrote, He created the universe ex nihilo, with the seeds of all things to come in it, from which all things developed in time.

That is Catholic theology.

The speed of a ball rolling down a ramp is deterministic. Physics is unacceptable to the doctrine of Creation?

Barbarian observes:
Could an almighty Creator be able to do what an inferior deity might do? Of course. Would he? Evidently not.

The gods of the pagans who had to make each thing individually, because they were not the Creator of all things.

Barbarian observes:
This is the Catholic conception of creation, one in which evolution is a consistent part.

St. Augustine is a doctor of the Church, and a highly regarded theologian.

Your Pope says otherwise. Sorry about that.

Entirely misleading. Evolution as written allows for nothing supernatural. That is why it is so appealing to atheists. This form of evolutionary theory is atheistic. Catholics are not allowed to believe it as written.

Peace,
Ed

 

[anthony022071]

Everyone knows that you snipped that off of one sentence, (about the big bang), and appended it to another (about evolution). Not a good practice. If you can’t prove your point by what he actually said, it won’t help to edit things.

The “scientific account” in that paragraph includes both the Big Bang theory and evolution theory. If you want to deny that the evolution theory is not part of the “scientific account” like you did on the other thread,you’re position is really in trouble.

No, that’s wrong. Verified predictions are the way theories are validated.

It helps if the predictions relating to a theory actually validate what the theory explains,rather than side issues. A theory about gravity on earth can be directly validated by predictions,because gravity is there for anyone to test. But the reproductive histories of
species cannot be tested to validate the theory of evolution.

But there are numerous predictions by which that can be tested. For example, when the function of DNA was discovered, it was predicted that the DNA of humans and apes should more closely match each other, than either would match any other organism. And that was validated. The prediction that there must have been organisms intermediate between humans and apes was validated by numerous examples found after the prediction. Even Darwin’s prediction that they would be found first in Africa was validated.

Millions of years, actually. Genomes of various organisms can be compared to learn about when different mutations occured. It’s a very well-defined science in genetics.

The only way to determine when or if mutations occurred would be to have been there to observe them. If it can’t be observed,it is speculation.

It is the way theories are validated. If this bothers you, I can only point out that it has been an extremely successful method.

A theory can only be validated by predictions which are on topic.

Even medieval alchemy led to useful discoveries,but they did not validate the claims of alchemy.

You’ve been badly misled about that. Each of us (except identical twins, of course) has a unique genome.

Genomes,genes,and alleles are formations of given genetic material which has variability within itself. They don’t just come out of nowhere.

You’ve been snockered on that one, too. Would you like to learn about some recent mutations that have become part of the genome of various groups of humans?

Where do you think mutations come from? They occur within existing alleles. Mutations are not separate entities from the given genetic material. They draw from the contents of the alleles that they mutated from.

Neither does it require that humans descent from more than one pair of humans. They lied to you about that, too.

Who lied to me? If anyone says that humans have another genetic source than a human source,that is polygenism.
So descent from a prior species,or common with another species,is out of the question.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Everyone knows that you snipped that off of one sentence, (about the big bang), and appended it to another (about evolution). Not a good practice. If you can’t prove your point by what he actually said, it won’t help to edit things.

The “scientific account” in that paragraph includes both the Big Bang theory and evolution theory.

Let’s take a look:

• According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. …(much text)…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. *

You jumped several sentences, took a bit from one sentence, and grafted it onto another.

you want to deny that the evolution theory is not part of the “scientific account”

(of the Big Bang - Barbarian) like you did on the other thread,you’re position is really in trouble.

Turns out that evolutionary theory is not part of the Big Bang theory. If you learned what the theories actually said, you wouldn’t have these problems.

Barbarian observes:
No, that’s wrong. Verified predictions are the way theories are validated.

It helps if the predictions relating to a theory actually validate what the theory explains,rather than side issues.

As Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned a great body of evidence exists that validates the most sweeping claim of evolutionary theory; common descent of all organisms on Earth. Would you like to see some more of that?

A theory about gravity on earth can be directly validated by predictions,because gravity is there for anyone to test. But the reproductive histories of species cannot be tested to validate the theory of evolution.

As the Pope says, there are ways to directly validate the theory. One of the more persuasive ones is that genetic analyses (the same ones that determine paternity and other relationships) show that all organisms on Earth have a common ancestor.

Ironically, evolutionary theory is more robust than gravitational theory. We can observe both in action, but we don’t know why gravity works, while we do know why evolution works.

Barbarian observes:
But there are numerous predictions by which that can be tested. For example, when the function of DNA was discovered, it was predicted that the DNA of humans and apes should more closely match each other, than either would match any other organism. And that was validated. The prediction that there must have been organisms intermediate between humans and apes was validated by numerous examples found after the prediction. Even Darwin’s prediction that they would be found first in Africa was validated.

Millions of years, actually. Genomes of various organisms can be compared to learn about when different mutations occured. It’s a very well-defined science in genetics.

The only way to determine when or if mutations occurred would be to have been there to observe them. If it can’t be observed,it is speculation.

If so, forensics, geology, fire investigation, astronomy, etc. are all false. There’s no point in crime investigation, since we can’t know anything if we weren’t there to see it. How silly.

Barbarian observes:
It is the way theories are validated. If this bothers you, I can only point out that it has been an extremely successful method.

A theory can only be validated by predictions which are on topic.

Which is why Pope Benedict mentions all that evidence validating evolution.

Even medieval alchemy led to useful discoveries,but they did not validate the claims of alchemy.

Not every useful discovery is science. Alchemy eventually shed the philosophic and religious baggage, and became chemistry. It is notable that the great increase in knowledge of chemistry happened after it became a science.

Barbarian observes:
You’ve been badly misled about that. Each of us (except identical twins, of course) has a unique genome.

Genomes,genes,and alleles are formations of given genetic material which has variability within itself. They don’t just come out of nowhere.

Of course not. They are modifications of pre-existing genomes. That’s how evolution works.

Barbarian observes:
You’ve been snockered on that one, too. Would you like to learn about some recent mutations that have become part of the genome of various groups of humans?

Where do you think mutations come from?

Errors in existing genomes. That’s how evolution always works.

Barbarian observes:
Neither does it require that humans descent from more than one pair of humans. They lied to you about that, too.

Who lied to me?

Whoever told you that silly misrepresentation. Or perhaps they knew no more than you do.

If anyone says that humans have another genetic source than a human source,that is polygenism.

No. If anyone says that we are descended from more than one pair of ancestors, that is polygenism. Again, it’s important to know what terms mean. This is why the Church teaches that polygenism is wrong, but allows for the fact of evolution.

 

[edwest2]

“fact”? Evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory. We are not haphazard mistakes. Both of these from Pope Benedict.

Evolution is an ongoing story that rewrites itself. Its predictions are based on the following simple facts. All organisms were designed to live on the same planet, with the same gravity and the same atmosphere. I think anyone looking at an ape and a man would get that there is a similarity even without genetic information.

Finally, the science has only part of the answer. The Church has the audacity to say we are not haphazard mistakes. That is not a theological statement but the full truth based on divine revelation. This is information that needs to be known by every human being.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

“fact”? Evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.

Yes, evolution is a fact. What you are objecting to is the theory of how it occurs. After all, as the Pope says, the theory is not complete or scientifically proven. But it is a theory about something. It is not a partial theory about nothing, is it.

But then you knew that.

Peace

Tim

 

[anthony022071]

Of course not. It is the evidence (as the Pope says) that confirms the theory.

No,the pope didn’t say that the evidence confirms the theory,he said that the evidence seems to support some theory.

Oh, I see what you did. You took a few words from another sentence, and grafted them onto the one above, to make the meaning more acceptable to you. Here’s where it originally was placed:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since.

Entirely different sentence, with an entirely different subject. Same document, though.

Same paragraph,same “scientific account” under which both subjects fall.

**Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
con·tin·gen·cy /kənˈtɪndʒənsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-tin-juhn-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies.

1. dependence on chance or on the fulfillment of a condition; uncertainty; fortuitousness: Nothing was left to contingency.
2. a contingent event; a chance, accident, or possibility conditional on something uncertain: He was prepared for every contingency.
3. something incidental to a thing. **

Chance is not the “fulfillment of a condition”.

“Contingency” basically means “dependency”. It is a state where things are likely or liable to happen but not certain or necessary. It can also mean “determined by free choice”.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contingent
Chance is not determined by free choice.

The pope has said that we are not the products of chance,so that ought to be the end of the matter.

Barbarian observes:
As Pope Pius XII said, the Church has no objection to this fact.

Yep. That’s what he said. You may not like it, but that’s a fact.

You’re dancing around semantics. Won’t work.

No,he really did say that said that the Church does not forbid the inquiry of human origins,provided that the opinions unvavorable to evolution are taken into serious consideration.

< 36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, 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 - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. >

Maybe for some religions. As you see, that’s not true for Christianity.

What I said is true. The origins of creatures is a theological subject as well as a scientific one,which is why the Church is so concerned to publish it’s theological interpretation of the natural world.

It teaches that theories of evolution that do not explicitly deny divine providence are not objectionable.

No,that’s not what the Vatican document says. There is no statement about what theories are not objectionable,but those that are – Neo-Darwinian,materialist and reductionist.

Divine providence is explicity denied in the theory of evolution,because the theory is naturalistic,and methodological naturalism explicitly denies divine providence.

We were talking about evoutionary theory.

We were talking about science in general. You claimed that science doesn’t explain the origin of life. But abiogenesis does claim to explain the origin of life.

However, the church has no argument with abiogenesis, so long as it does not explicitly deny divine providence.

Abiogenesis does explicitly deny divine providence. It is a naturalistic theory which claims that chemical processes brought about life.

It has no problem with the idea that God created nature which then produced all things as he intended:

But science does have a problem with that idea,because science is methodologically naturalistic. And God’s creative activity is ongoing,not a one-time creation. That is what divine providence entails.

I know science. You don’t. So you’re baffled. Learn about it,and you’ll see.

How do you know I’m baffled? And if your knowledge of science is adequate,why can’t you win this argument?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Of course not. It is the evidence (as the Pope says) that confirms the theory.

No,the pope didn’t say that the evidence confirms the theory

Let’s take a look…

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.

Sure looks like it. You think he didn’t mean it?

Barbarian chuckles:
Oh, I see what you did. You took a few words from another sentence, and grafted them onto the one above, to make the meaning more acceptable to you. Here’s where it originally was placed:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since.(much text) 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.

Entirely different sentence, with an entirely different subject. Same document, though.

The pope has said that we are not the products of chance,so that ought to be the end of the matter.

He also says that God can use contingency (which includes chance) to His purposes. Contingency, in the sense that the Pope and scientists use it, means that it is not necessity. Things are either necessary, and must happen, or contingent and may or may not happen.

Barbarian observes:
As Pope Pius XII said, the Church has no objection to this fact.

Yep. That’s what he said. You may not like it, but that’s a fact.

You’re dancing around semantics. Won’t work.

No,he really did say that said that the Church does not forbid the inquiry of human origins,provided that the opinions unvavorable to evolution are taken into serious consideration.

Yep. He has no objection to the fact. He has no objection to other ideas being explored. Neither does science. Nor does science object to the idea that the soul is immediately given by God.

Barbarian observes:
It teaches that theories of evolution that do not explicitly deny divine providence are not objectionable.

No,that’s not what the Vatican document says.

That’s what Pope Pius XII said. So long as science doesn’t deny the facts of divine providence, the Church does not object.

Divine providence is explicity denied in the theory of evolution,because the theory is naturalistic,and methodological naturalism explicitly denies divine providence.

No, that’s wrong. It’s like saying plumbing denies divine providence because plumbing is methodologically naturalistic. How silly.

We were talking about science in general. You claimed that science doesn’t explain the origin of life.

I did? (Barbarian checks) Nope. I didn’t. You made that up.

Barbarian observes:
However, the church has no argument with abiogenesis, so long as it does not explicitly deny divine providence.

Abiogenesis does explicitly deny divine providence.

Perhaps you don’t know what “explicitly” and “deny” mean. Nothing whatever in abiogenesis does that or could do that. If it did, it would cease to be science.

BTW, the Pope’s opinion is:
**In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. 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. **

Clearly he doesn’t agree with you.

Barbarian obseves:
It has no problem with the idea that God created nature which then produced all things as he intended:

But science does have a problem with that idea,because science is methodologically naturalistic.

Perhaps you don’t know what “methodologically naturalistic” means. It means assuming that natural things have natural causes, without denying that there might be supernatural causes.

And God’s creative activity is ongoing,not a one-time creation. That is what divine providence entails.

Again, nicely consistent with science. If the rules are all being operated by God, the results are the same.

Barbarian observes:
I know science. You don’t. So you’re baffled. Learn about it,and you’ll see.

How do you know I’m baffled?

You don’t know what “methodologically naturalistic” means. You don’t know what abiogenesis says, and you don’t know what the Church’s position on these things are.

And if your knowledge of science is adequate,why can’t you win this argument?

You lost the argument a long time ago. I’m just patiently explaining it to you.

 

[dcdurel]

Doesn’t the Church officially teach intelligent design?
Thus, even if the theory of evolution could ever have be proven to be true, wouldn’t it have to be an evolution by intelligent design, and not by pure chance without God?

 

[anthony022071]

Barbarian on the idea that chance isn’t part of divine providence:
Let’s take a look…
**Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. ** (same source)

Pope Benedict denies the idea that we are the product of chance and evolution.

tldm.org/News7/PopeBenedictXVIinaugurationHomily.htm
“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

zenit.org/article-22144?l=english
“Yes, I believe that the world and my life are not the product of chance, but of eternal Reason and eternal Love, they are created by Almighty God.”

Perhaps you don’t know what “contingency” means.

It is a state of dependency where things are liable to happen but not necessarily.
Contingency can be guided by divine providence,chance cannot.

And science can’t say whether or not anything in nature is guided by any supernatural agent.

And for that reason,science explains natural history as if nature is all there is. So the Church cannot accept the naturalistic theory of evolution.

Natural selection is a non-random process. However evolution works by natural selection and random mutation.

If it is non-random,then it must be a matter of necessity or determinism. The Church won’t go for that.

He could. But He could (and did) do something much more amazing.

Your mechanistic idea of God’s creative activity is not more amazing.

Our God is the Creator; as St. Augustine wrote, He created the universe ex nihilo, with the seeds of all things to come in it, from which all things developed in time.

That is Catholic theology.

Quote the passage from Augustine. You have a history of taking theological viewpoints of Creation and making them sound like the mechanistic view of science,so I need to see Augustine’s words. Nature can only develop through the activity of God,who is the ground of all being and who sustains life.

The speed of a ball rolling down a ramp is deterministic.

More like gravity.

Physics is unacceptable to the doctrine of Creation?

The idea that physical processes originate creatures is unacceptable to the doctrine of Creation.

The gods of the pagans who had to make each thing individually, because they were not the Creator of all things.

Give some names.
What gods of the pagans were said to make each creature individually? And whoever said it was because they were not the Creator of all things?

God is the Creator of all things,and he creates each creature individually. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Creatures are individual beings,and have individual lives,so they are created individually.

The Vatican document says:
< 43. Every individual human being as well as the whole human community are created in the image of God. >

Your Pope says otherwise. Sorry about that.

Can you show me where the pope says that the theory of evolution works with a Creator as part of it?

 

[SFTor]

Doesn’t the Church officially teach intelligent design?
Thus, even if the theory of evolution could ever have be proven to be true, wouldn’t it have to be an evolution by intelligent design, and not by pure chance without God?

Introduce intelligent design into evolution research and you have effectively blinded yourself. Every inconsistency becomes divine intervention, every quandary ascribed to the inscrutable ways of the Lord.

Science does not work that way. Data are acquired, hypotheses formed to make sense of the data, theories are put forward and tested by peers, and survive for decades, centuries, or months. Nothing is ever proven, every theory can be falsified.

The only thing is, you can’t falsify a theory with faith or dogma. No way, no how. Doesn’t work.

Why is it so important to bend the world to the will of religion?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Let’s take a look…
Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. (same source)

Pope Benedict denies the idea that we are the product of chance and evolution.

He wrote “chance and error.” You just quote-mined the Pope. Nice going, Anthony.

Barbarian chuckles:
Perhaps you don’t know what “contingency” means.

It is a state of dependency where things are liable to happen but not necessarily.

If I roll a die, it is liable to happen that the number will be greater than 1, but that won’t necessarily happen. So rolls of dice aren’t by chance? If not, what can be by chance?

Barbarian observes:
And science can’t say whether or not anything in nature is guided by any supernatural agent.

And for that reason,science explains natural history as if nature is all there is.

And plumbing describes water moving through pipes as if nature is all there is.

So the Church cannot accept the naturalistic theory of evolution.

Good news. The Pope accepts evolution and plumbing. And the Church does not reject either. You’ve been led astray again, Anthony.

Barbarian observes:
Natural selection is a non-random process. However evolution works by natural selection and random mutation.

If it is non-random,then it must be a matter of necessity or determinism. The Church won’t go for that.

Turns out the Church acknowledges that nature includes both random and non-random processes.

Barbarian observes:
He could. But He could (and did) do something much more amazing.

Your mechanistic idea of God’s creative activity is not more amazing.

It’s the antithesis to “mechanistic.” It recognizes God’s creative powers to make the universe with all that is needed to be, inherent in that first creation.

That’s what St. Augustine said, and many Catholic theologians after him. You are not happy with the way your professed Church accepts God’s creation.

Our God is the Creator; as St. Augustine wrote, He created the universe ex nihilo, with the seeds of all things to come in it, from which all things developed in time.

That is Catholic theology.

Quote the passage from Augustine.

Learn about it here from a Catholic theologian:

**Ernan McMullin, professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and a Catholic priest, believes Saint Augustine’s ideas can help bridge the divide between scientific and theological explanations of how life began. The current animosity between the two sides of the debate is rooted in misunderstanding, McMullin maintains; if Saint Augustine were alive today, he would likely say that evolutionists need not be threatened by God any more than believers ought to feel their faith is under attack.

S&S: We tend to think these intellectual issues are brand new and that they mark a recent turn of events. In your writings on Saint Augustine, though, you show that he addressed biblical literalism 1,600 years ago in ways that sound very modern.
EM: Augustine, in his commentary on Genesis, has some sensible things to say about how to handle the issues of apparent conflict between the Bible and natural science. He also gives an extended discussion of the creation of the universe. Augustine is against the idea of a separate miraculous act of creation of each kind [or species], which is what you would get from reading Genesis literally.

Augustine saw this kind of literal creation as demeaning to the abilities of the Creator. Augustine insists that the universe is brought to be in a single act, and within that act, God places the seeds of all that will come later—all living things in particular, including the human body. Interestingly, Augustine excludes the human soul, but apart from that, the seeds of all else in the universe are in the original act of creation. The seeds will come to maturity when the conditions of earth and water are right, which is an extraordinary claim to make because it is so close to fact. What he was saying, is that God brought the profusion of living things to Earth in a natural way over time, possibly over very long stretches of time. This is what evolution turned out to be. I’m not saying Augustine has a theory of evolution like Darwin’s—Augustine did not say that one species comes from another—but he had a gradualist account of origins within which evolution would later fit. My argument, and the argument of others before me, is that from the Augustinian standpoint, an evolutionary scheme of origins is to be expected.**
science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=546

Barbarian observes:
The speed of a ball rolling down a ramp is deterministic.

Barbarian asks:
Physics is unacceptable to the doctrine of Creation?

The idea that physical processes originate creatures is unacceptable to the doctrine of Creation.

Better tell God. He says the earth brought forth living things.

 

[reggieM]

The only thing is, you can’t falsify a theory with faith or dogma. No way, no how. Doesn’t work.

Not true.

A theory proposes that an intelligent cause (God) was necessary in creating an Irreducibly Complex organism. The theory is based on analogies to other specified complex organisms which are only created by intelligence (language, complex computer software, machines).

This can easily be falsified by showing that the organism was created by blind, accidental forces.

The same is true of evolutionary theory. How can it be falsified?

Someone claims that an organism was created by natural selection. Even when there is no evidence of an evolutionary path of development, the theory remains. Even when contradictory data is provided, evolutionists will concoct any number of absurd “possibilities” on how the organism “could have evolved”.

Try to falsify that, when the default position is “everything evolved by Darwinian processes”.

 

[reggieM]

Doesn’t the Church officially teach intelligent design?
Thus, even if the theory of evolution could ever have be proven to be true, wouldn’t it have to be an evolution by intelligent design, and not by pure chance without God?

Yes and yes.

 

[Orogeny]

The same is true of evolutionary theory. How can it be falsified?

How about a primate fossil in Cambrian sediments?

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

How about a primate fossil in Cambrian sediments?

Peace

Tim

It’s evidence that primates evolved “more rapidly than we initially understood”.

 

[Orogeny]

It’s evidence that primates evolved “more rapidly than we initially understood”.

That wouldn’t be the response, but I like it!

Peace

Tim

 

[SFTor]

Not true.

A theory proposes that an intelligent cause (God) was necessary in creating an Irreducibly Complex organism. The theory is based on analogies to other specified complex organisms which are only created by intelligence (language, complex computer software, machines).

This can easily be falsified by showing that the organism was created by blind, accidental forces.

The same is true of evolutionary theory. How can it be falsified?

Someone claims that an organism was created by natural selection. Even when there is no evidence of an evolutionary path of development, the theory remains. Even when contradictory data is provided, evolutionists will concoct any number of absurd “possibilities” on how the organism “could have evolved”.

Try to falsify that, when the default position is “everything evolved by Darwinian processes”.

It is not faith or dogma that falsifies scientific theories, but new data or theories that fit the facts better, and have better predictive ability. This work is going on today in full force, not the least in evolutionary biology. Faith and dogma still have no place at the table, as they provide no independently verifiable and testable data.

And by the way: the concept of irreducible complexity is not scientific. It is a construct by the ID crowd, and is in and of itself irreducibly complex, and therefore false.

 

[edwest2]

Pope John Paul II outlined the correct relationship between science and faith, but what is usually mentioned here is only the science side. For Catholics who live in the full reality of the Living God, both science and divine revelation are linked. If (scientific) truth cannot contradict (divinely given) truth then there is no problem for the Catholic. The only problem that ever arises is the idolatry of the mind of man. As Pope Benedict stated, there are other areas of reason that we still need.

Science is limited by its own method, and therefore, can only reveal a narrow portion of reality. The Church can and does complete the picture.

God bless,
Ed