National Academies book on evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter surgei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
inthecloud said:
Neo Darwinism is not the same as Darwin Theory of Evolution.
The NeoDarwinists are atheistic or deistic by choice like Dawkins. They say evolution is totaly ramdom because there is no God to give it a purpose.
That do not disqualifies evolution per se. Is their philosophical ideas about evolition that are atheistic not evolution.
Click to expand...
Both Ed and Reggie and anyone else who makes these arguments have been told this more than a dozen times. Its well past the point of not understanding. These people understand perfectly well, but are intentionally pretending not to, sliding off half facts in some attempt to deride evolution because they are afraid their faith will fail along with their illusions of creationism. It is nothing but another agenda, for no reasonable person can read the very words of the people they quote and not realize they are mistaken. It is purely wilful mistatement and a grevious thing to see in folks who claim Christianity to dissemble so easily with this pretense that what is written in black and white is not really there.
 
edwest2 said:
So which is it? Fundamentalism leads to lots of death, a little death, or only maybe, occasionally sometimes?

Your appeal to emotion and fear, is not a rational response to the fact that a significant portion of the population of the United States does not believe in evolution. Your suggestion that all of them are psychologically needy or ready to kill someone is ludicrous.
Ed
Click to expand...
And you sir have stated the exact opposite of what you are today saying. You said that you accepted some form of evolution like Benedict suggested, created by God. Now you have decided to alter your position to a pure creationist position and are now in total disagreement with your new found friend Cardinal shonborn. If you deny you changed your position Ed, I will surely search the archives and retrieve every single time you have said otherwise and I have logged them at 19. So lets cut the stuff about ludicrousness. This is abject falsehood to promote some personal need.
 
If either of you had a degree in evolutionary biology, perhaps we might listen
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t.

The biologists have been wrong many, many times over. But that hasn’t stopped you from putting all of your trust in them.
 
Nobel laureate and Pontifical Academy of Sciences ACADEMICIAN Christian DE DUVE (1) of Christian de Duve Institute of Cellular Pathology participated in The Cultural Values of Science, Plenary Session, 8-11 November 2002, Vatican City, 2003 comment, Pg. 76: 5:

“The Theory of Evolution Is More than a Hypothesis- In those words, Pope John-Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in a solemn session, on 22 October 1996, expressed the acceptance of biological evolution by the Church. Considering the implications of this statement, the evidence that convinced the Pontiff must be truly decisive. And so it is. Actually, the Pope’s statement was overly cautious. Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, implicit in the common descent of all living organisms and established with the same degree of certainty. Thanks to the information provided by fossils and complemented by molecular phylogenies, we have a rough idea of the timing and manner in which evolution has proceeded. A schematic outline of its main steps is shown in Table 1. Bacteria were the sole representatives of life on Earth during more than one billion years. The first eukaryotes emerged around 2.2 billion years ago, probably as the outcome of a long evolutionary history of which no fossil trace has yet been found; they remained unicellular for more than another billion years. It is only after life had completed some three-fourths of its history on Earth that primitive multicellular plants, fungi, and animals first appeared, slowly giving rise to more complex forms.”
  1. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/archivio/s.v.105_cultural_values/part2.pdf
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...en/archivio/s.v.105_cultural_values/part2.pdf
I encourage everyone to read the entire document. THX:)
 
THE FOUR-HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 1603-2003, The Commemorative Session of 9 November 2003, ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL, ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

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

The two topics which you have chosen for your meeting concern the life sciences, and in particular the very nature of human life. The first, Mind, Brain and Education, draws our attention to the complexity of human life and its pre-eminence over other forms of life. Neuroscience and neurophysiology, through the study of chemical and biological processes in the brain, contribute greatly to an understanding of its workings. But the study of the human mind involves more than the observable data proper to the neurological sciences. Knowledge of the human person is not derived from the level of observation and scientific analysis alone but also from the interconnection between empirical study and reflective understanding.

Scientists themselves perceive in the study of the human mind the mystery of a spiritual dimension which transcends cerebral physiology and appears to direct all our activities as free and autonomous beings, capable of responsibility and love, and marked with dignity. This is seen by the fact that you have decided to expand your research to include aspects of learning and education, which are specifically human activities.

Thus your considerations focus not just on the biological life common to all living creatures but also include the interpretive and evaluative work of the human mind.*

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/archivio/acta17_anniversary/part1.pdf
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...cdscien/archivio/acta17_anniversary/part1.pdf
 
inthecloud said:
The NeoDarwinists are atheistic or deistic by choice like Dawkins. They say evolution is totally random because there is no God to give it a purpose.
Click to expand...
The deal of a round of poker hands is totally random. Does that mean the game does not have a purpose?

Petrus
 
The_Barbarian said:
Depends on who’s dealing. 😛
Click to expand...
True, Barbarian. But my point was that people who always reject randomness on the grounds that it implies absence of purpose must never have played games of chance. “Candyland” is a child’s game that involves chance in the throw of the dice. Our Catholic Fundies don’t seem to be able to ascribe to God greater creativity in designing evolution than they do to the manufacturers of Candyland! Then again, Fundies seem to have as little imagination as they have humor.

Petrus
 
Not a word from anybody about how Young Mr. Darwin came from a background of drug addiction, murder, adultery, and tyranny; how he beat a puppy in his youth just for the sheer feeling of power it gave him; how his highest enjoyment was shooting vast quantities of small animals and birds; how he got great sport on the island of St. Paul from smashing wild birds over the head with a geologist’s hammer, or how he thought it was a splendid thing that the native people of Argentina were slaughtered en masse, since it would make more room for raising cattle.

Interesting.

Either my link has remained unread, or has been ignored or dismissed, although one would think that at least one or two stray Darwinists would try to rise up and defend their Stainless Hero.

Evidently not.

Of course, the site will be airily dismissed as a “Christian Creationist site”, which is to be expected…but check the footnotes, since the examples I describe above all come from either Darwin himself, from the official logs of the Beagle expedition, from Darwin’s family members or close friends, or from legitimate biographers.

(shrug) As I said before, you can keep him. I frankly don’t see a whole lot to admire in a guy who came real close to being expelled from college because he’d rather party than study, and who got a huge kick out of butchering as many animals as he could just for the fun of it.

“The world’s greatest naturalist”, indeed. :rolleyes:
 
Wolseley said:
Not a word from anybody about how Young Mr. Darwin came from a background of drug addiction, murder, adultery, and tyranny; how he beat a puppy in his youth just for the sheer feeling of power it gave him; how his highest enjoyment was shooting vast quantities of small animals and birds; how he got great sport on the island of St. Paul from smashing wild birds over the head with a geologist’s hammer, or how he thought it was a splendid thing that the native people of Argentina were slaughtered en masse, since it would make more room for raising cattle.
Click to expand...
Einstein was an adulterer. That alone should invalidate his theory of relativity. Jefferson had mistresses – so much for democracy! Jesus showed up too late to cure Lazarus…
 
drpmjhess said:
Einstein was an adulterer. That alone should invalidate his theory of relativity. Jefferson had mistresses – so much for democracy! Jesus showed up too late to cure Lazarus…
Click to expand...
Worse, Jefferson OWNED some of his mistresses.

So… Darwin was accused of such. Immaterial to his scientific contribution.

Dr. Mengele was a whopper of a creep. But his frostbite experiments have saved many lives, despite their being unethical, immoral, horrific, and anti-semitic, not to mention, condemned by every right thinking medical ethicist… but they also point out that, since the data was collected, it would be even less ethical to let people die in ignorance of his well documented and exquisitely (but evilly) constructed experiments.
 
Aramis said:
Worse, Jefferson OWNED some of his mistresses.

So… Darwin was accused of such. Immaterial to his scientific contribution.

Dr. Mengele was a whopper of a creep. But his frostbite experiments have saved many lives, despite their being unethical, immoral, horrific, and anti-semitic, not to mention, condemned by every right thinking medical ethicist… but they also point out that, since the data was collected, it would be even less ethical to let people die in ignorance of his well documented and exquisitely (but evilly) constructed experiments.
Click to expand...
Tell me: how did whopping birds over the head with a hammer contribute to our overall pool of scientific knowledge?

I’m intensely interested.
 
Wolseley said:
Tell me: how did whopping birds over the head with a hammer contribute to our overall pool of scientific knowledge?
Click to expand...
How did having sex with slaves contribute to or detract from the theory of democratic rule? I’m interested.
 
Aramis said:
Dr. Mengele was a whopper of a creep. But his frostbite experiments have saved many lives, despite their being unethical, immoral, horrific, and anti-semitic, not to mention, condemned by every right thinking medical ethicist… but they also point out that, since the data was collected, it would be even less ethical to let people die in ignorance of his well documented and exquisitely (but evilly) constructed experiments.
Click to expand...
So, Aramis, suppose a YEC on Grand Canyon “field research” inadvertently contributed a huge piece of evidence to substantiate the dinosaur-bird descent. Should we accept it? Irony of ironies…
 
drpmjhess said:
So, Aramis, suppose a YEC on Grand Canyon “field research” inadvertently contributed a huge piece of evidence to substantiate the dinosaur-bird descent. Should we accept it? Irony of ironies…
Click to expand...
If the data is valid, the data is valid.

I wouldn’t trust any YEC proponent to publish the data; they would most likely not report it if they knew it for what it was… but further, I don’t really foresee any YEC types doing the needed expeditions.

YEC’s reject, as a whole, most of biology, all of genetics, most of geology, much of astrophysics and astronomy, and large chunks of archeology. I seldom expect people to publish in fields they have already decided are bunk, and am actually quite happy that the YEC crowd does reject these fields, since these fields data supports only a longer term of life, let alone the universe, than the YEC’s are willing to allow for.
 
though evolution doesnt have all the answers ,there is plenty of evidences. I.D. has zero evidences, Science really could care less if it is proven wrong at times. It is only interested in finding factual evidences. I.D. has no choice but to prove something true with nothing but wishful thinking,they go to extents that defy reason. Manipulation of truths, recently DISCOVERY INSTITUTE IS CAUGHT red-handed, stealing re-naming, a video from Harvard…all to further their cause…Why is this not surprising…if it were vice versa…a scientist stealing others work,he would be a laughing stock among his peers…but not in I.D. you hear very little of it…

pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/diexpelled-for.html
 
Wolseley’s site certainly could be labled “bad stuff about Darwin and his family.” Some of it appears to be fabricated, but there certainly were some characters in the family. The Wedgewoods, which seem to be among the worst were, BTW, devoted Christians.

I notice also that Capt. Fitzroy, who is recorded as gratuitously smashing the heads of birds with a hammer, was, and continued to be a rather emphatic creationist to the end of his days, when he cut his own throat.

It might be mentioned in passing that Darwin and Fitzroy had a whopper of a falling out over the question of slavery. Darwin opposed it, and Fitzroy thought it was a good thing.

I imagine Wolseley will not consider such things to be a reflection on creationism.
 
reggieM said:
I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t.

The biologists have been wrong many, many times over. But that hasn’t stopped you from putting all of your trust in them.
Click to expand...
The key word is THEM…I don’t trust a scientist, or even an organization of scientists. I believe ten of thousands of scientists in divergent fields and from dozens of prestigious scientific academies and societies. You assert that by some miracle you know more than not just all of them, but all that came before them as well.

Is it a clue at all that NOBODY on the PSA is a creationist? Have you seen the list of those who are members and who have been? Have you seen the list of nobel laureats who have sat or now sit on the Academy? Did you know S. Hawkings is a member? Or that Marconi was? or Max Plank? And I am to dismiss all these in favor of YOUR non-scientific cut and paste job? I rather doubt it my friend.

The question is: what happens to Reggies world if evolution is true? I’ve still waiting for an answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top