One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[HansTrappist]

Evolution is not random. ID explicitly denies that evolution happens AT ALL.

False and false:

1. Some evolution is random and some is not.
2. Intelligent Design as proposed by Michael Behe explicitly allows for random evolution up to a certain limit beyond which non-random evolution (design) is required.

And you actually think that evolution is incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church? You’re not SSPX, are you? Because several popes have explicitly said that it is not in contradiction with the Church.

Not one Pope has stated that the variety of “Evolution” proposed by Darwin and Dawkins is at all compatible with the Teaching of the Catholic Church. The form of “Evolution” proposed by Darwin and Dawkins is just Materialism pretending to be Science.

The Holy Fathers have allowed for the type of evolution proposed by genuine scientists like Michael Behe (who happens to be a practicing Catholic), not the type of “evolution” proposed by Darwin and Dawkins and other such militant materialists.

 

[Farsight001]

and no Pontiff has said we have to believe in evolution

I never said one did. But the user to which I was replying to said in no uncertain terms that Catholics CANNOT accept evolution.

 

[Farsight001]

How can where the organisms that supposedly evolved came from not be on topic???

I already explained that. That is abiogenesis, a different subject entirely. This is evolution, not abiogenesis.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

To sum up this thread so far:

1. Darwinian (aka Random) Evolution is not only incompatible with the empirical data but it is also incompatible with the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
2. Intelligent Design (aka Non-random Evolution) - as articulated by Michael Behe - is fully compatible with not only Catholic Teaching but also with the scientific evidence.

I don’t think that’s fair. First off, there is no evolution in Intelligent Design, every-
thing is as it has always been since the beginning according to the “Designer.”

Also, “Darwinian Evolution” as you define it is completely random, no room for
God to exist. That is not the case, but a Creationist implication imposed upon
“Darwinian Evolution” because it never said “God” in the first place, and they
will never allow God to become part of “Darwinian Evolution.”

Darwin was a theist, even a Creationist at first,
who would have credited all of Creation to the
Creator God, and of course it does not effect
religion at all.

Oh and I’m sorry, but since is “Darwinian Evolution” “incompatible with the empirical data”?
Also, in what way is “Darwinian Evolution” “incompatible with the Teaching of the Catholic Church”?

 

[Farsight001]

I am educated on the subject and have gone to college.

So do you have a BS or a BA in biology or geology? No offense, but I’ve seen too many people adamantly claim that they were educated on a subject they knew next to nothing about. Most often, it is an anti-Catholic claiming they are educated on Catholicism or a Creationist/IDer claiming they are educated about evolution.

All I’m seeing here, including in the past, is a recruitment program. If I verify my agreement, for example, the program continues until complete acceptance is achieved. This is part of Psychological Warfare 101, which I have studied.

If that’s what you’re seeing, then you’re not reading our posts properly or you’re seeing ulterior motives where there are none.

The correct approach, I think, is to present facts for and against, and once that is completed then people are free to accept or reject those facts. Nothing is served by presenting the information to total strangers and making any type of disparaging remarks.

Great. And since there are no facts against, that leaves a whole bunch of facts for.

I have a friend who told me the following: “I don’t believe in God, I believe in evolution.” He later changed his mind based on his own further study.

I know several ex-Catholics who became so after study. That doesn’t make Catholicism wrong or anecdotes any more relevant.

 

[Farsight001]

i would suggest you stop with the insults.

In what universe is suggesting that a person did not study evolution in college an insult?

 

[Farsight001]

False and false:

1. Some evolution is random and some is not.

Incorrect. None of it is entirely random. Evolution is promulgated by random mutation working together with natural selection.

1. Intelligent Design as proposed by Michael Behe explicitly allows for random evolution up to a certain limit beyond which non-random evolution (design) is required.

Behe didn’t propose ID.

Not one Pope has stated that the variety of “Evolution” proposed by Darwin and Dawkins is at all compatible with the Teaching of the Catholic Church. The form of “Evolution” proposed by Darwin and Dawkins is just Materialism pretending to be Science.

Yes they have. Francis, Benedict, JP2, and more have all said that evolution is not contradictory to the teachings of the Church. You want me to scrounge up their speeches? I would hope you are familiar with them already.

The Holy Fathers have allowed for the type of evolution proposed by genuine scientists like Michael Behe (who happens to be a practicing Catholic), not the type of “evolution” proposed by Darwin and Dawkins and other such militant materialists.

Behe is a biochemist - despite the name, a part of the field of chemistry, not biology. He is no more of an expert on the development and change of life than I am on what its like to have lady parts.

 

[Farsight001]

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps the ban has been lifted or the discussion has been more or less civil considering the length of the thread.

I would muse that it is a test-thread to see if we’re ready to have the ban removed, but really, what use is it to speculate.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

So I guess your answer would be you’ve gone to no college or university to get an education on the subject and that you don’t actually have one.

i would suggest you stop with the insults.

In what universe is suggesting that a person did not study evolution in college an insult?

I’m a little baffled too, unless it’s a distraction technique.

 

[HansTrappist]

Faced with the stark reality that Darwinian Evolution is a fairy tale requiring mathematical odds bordering on the impossible, Dawkins and his followers have responded with the fallacy of petitio principii. In* The God Delusion*, Dawkins assures us:

“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.”

Dawkins and company are assuming what they need to prove. We don’t know life exists on Earth by chance; that is what needs proving. As Michael Behe has noted, such a demonstration would have to overcome nearly incalculable odds on both a biological and cosmological level.

Interestingly, Dawkins doesn’t deny that Life appears to be designed. In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins says:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Since the odds are stacked heavily against a random origin of complex, intelligent biological life, and since common sense tells us that whenever we see design it is logical to conclude the presence of the Designer and given that even militant arch-atheists like Richard Dawkins must concede that complicated biological things at least appear to be designed by an intelligent being, then it would be foolish (until one had better evidence, which the Atheists do not have) to believe that they were not Designed.

 

[meltzerboy]

​

I’m a little baffled too, unless it’s a distraction technique.

It’s a simple misinterpretation. Farsight was saying that Ed did not get an education on evolution in college and this was misinterpreted because of the wording as meaning that Ed did not have any education.

 

[Farsight001]

Faced with the stark reality that Darwinian Evolution is a fairy tale requiring mathematical odds bordering on the impossible, Dawkins and his followers have responded with the fallacy of petitio principii. In* The God Delusion*, Dawkins assures us:

“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.”

Dawkin’s PERSONAL beliefs about the existence of God have nothing to do with whether or not evolution is real. This is a red herring.

 

[HansTrappist]

Incorrect. None of it is entirely random. Evolution is promulgated by random mutation working together with natural selection.

Nice story.

Unfortunately, there is not one shred of real scientific data to support your contention.

The best studies of Darwinian Evolution in action are the studies of HIV, Malaria and E.Coli.

What was observed? Evolution? Negative. Devolution was what was observed.

What Darwinian “evolution” can’t do with billions of simple organisms like HIV, Malaria and E. Coli it most certainly cannot do with large complex animals.

Michael Behe has demonstrated that there is a mathematical limit to Darwinian (aka Random) Evolution. Says Behe:

“We can conclude that animal design probably extends into life at least as far as vertebrate classes, maybe deeper, and that random mutation likely explains differences at least up to the species level, perhaps somewhat beyond. Somewhere between the level of vertebrate species and class lies the organismal edge of Darwinian evolution.”

So, you see Farsight, there is such a thing as Evolution - but it is not as simple has you would like to have it.

There is a Random (aka Darwinian) “Evolution” and Non-Random Evolution (as proposed by Michael Behe and others).

You are throwing the term “Evolution” around rather equivocally.

Which form of Evolution are you talking about?

Yes they have. Francis, Benedict, JP2, and more have all said that evolution is not contradictory to the teachings of the Church. You want me to scrounge up their speeches? I would hope you are familiar with them already.

Yes, very familiar with them.

I assume you are as well so then I would assume that you would be able to provide a citation for just where the Holy Fathers have stated that Darwinian Evolution is compatible with the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

Behe is a biochemist - despite the name, a part of the field of chemistry, not biology. He is no more of an expert on the development and change of life than I am on what its like to have lady parts.

This comment just exposed you Farsight has not having the slightest idea of that which you pretend to be an expert on.

Biochemistry is essential to understanding how evolution works. I guess you never heard of amino acids, DNA, genes, protein binding sites, shape space, etc.

 

[HansTrappist]

Dawkin’s PERSONAL beliefs about the existence of God have nothing to do with whether or not evolution is real. This is a red herring.

Ah, in your predictable rush to defend Dawkins, you made a tactical error: you failed to consider that Dawkins’ statement had nothing to do with God and everything to do with the emergence of Life on Earth by pure Chance.

 

[april32010]

It’s a simple misinterpretation. Farsight was saying that Ed did not get an education on evolution in college and this was misinterpreted because of the wording as meaning that Ed did not have any education.

this

 

[Farsight001]

Nice story.

Unfortunately, there is not one shred of real scientific data to support your contention.

Contention? it’s part of the defining characteristics of evolution itself, not a contention!

The best studies of Darwinian Evolution in action are the studies of HIV, Malaria and E.Coli.

false and irrelevant anyways.

What was observed? Evolution? Negative. Devolution was what was observed.

There is no such thing as devolution. Evolution is change over time. Changing in what you perceive to be the opposite direction is still change over time, and still evolution.

What Darwinian “evolution” can’t do with billions of simple organisms like HIV, Malaria and E. Coli it most certainly cannot do with large complex animals.

And yet it can produce change and I even provided an example of directly observed change from E. Coli to something else with the Nylon eating bacteria experiment.

Michael Behe has demonstrated that there is a mathematical limit to Darwinian (aka Random) Evolution. Says Behe:

He has not demonstrated anything. He claimed it and he was proven wrong a long time ago. We have been over this already in this thread.

So, you see Farsight, there is such a thing as Evolution - but it is not as simple has you would like to have it.

I think I’ll trust the actual biologists over the guy who doesn’t even know there’s no such thing as devolution in biology.

There is a Random (aka Darwinian) “Evolution” and Non-Random Evolution (as proposed by Michael Behe and others).

Again,real evolution is random mutation in conjunction with natural selection. You keep suggesting that it is entirely random. This is a lie.

You are throwing the term “Evolution” around rather equivocally.

No. I’m throwing it around correctly, as it has a correct definition.

Which form of Evolution are you talking about?

The real form. There is no other form, despite ID advocates trying to invent them for straw men to beat on.

Yes, very familiar with them.

I assume you are as well so then I would assume that you would be able to provide a citation for just where the Holy Fathers have stated that Darwinian Evolution is compatible with the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

wherever they speak of evolution. “Darwinian evolution” is not a real thing the way you are using it. Its just evolution.

This comment just exposed you Farsight has not having the slightest idea of that which you pretend to be an expert on.

Biochemistry is essential to understanding how evolution works. I guess you never heard of amino acids, DNA, genes, protein binding sites, shape space, etc.

Its crucial, hunh? That what Behe said? Funny that the actual evolutionary biologists don’t agree.

 

[Farsight001]

Ah, in your predictable rush to defend Dawkins, you made a tactical error: you failed to consider that Dawkins’ statement had nothing to do with God and everything to do with the emergence of Life on Earth by pure Chance.

I wasn’t defending him. I think the guy is a grade-A idiot. And you talked about his denial of the existence of God. It is patently obvious that you intended his statement in a context of denial of God. Please don’t try to play this game with me.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Faced with the stark reality that Darwinian Evolution is a fairy tale requiring mathematical odds bordering on the impossible, Dawkins and his followers have responded with the fallacy of petitio principii. In* The God Delusion*, Dawkins assures us:“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.”Dawkins and company are assuming what they need to prove. We don’t know life exists on Earth by chance; that is what needs proving. As Michael Behe has noted, such a demonstration would have to overcome nearly incalculable odds on both a biological and cosmological level.
Interestingly, Dawkins doesn’t deny that Life appears to be designed. In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins says:"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Since the odds are stacked heavily against a random origin of complex, intelligent biological life, and since common sense tells us that whenever we see design it is logical to conclude the presence of the Designer and given that even militant arch-atheists like Richard Dawkins must concede that complicated biological things at least appear to be designed by an intelligent being, then it would be foolish (until one had better evidence, which the Atheists do not have) to believe that they were not Designed.

Evolution is not an atheistic doctrine, so I’d appreciate it if you quit talking about atheists, arch-atheists, Dawkins, etc, etc, etc.
Of course there is an Intelligent Designer, a God, who created all things, but that is by far not the issue. As far as science can
tell, everything was by chance, which is a perfectly valid statement for science to make, seeing how it is limited to the physical
world. NOW we can explain WHY everything is the way it is because we can say that GOD did it. There is absolutely no need
of the dishonesty of Intelligent Design, saying Evolution isn’t true, GOD DID IT, how?, GOD DID IT, by what process?, GOD DID
IT, and so forth. If Creationists don’t like that Evolution doesn’t talk about God, Creator, Designer, Intelligent Designer, TOUGH !!!

 

[edwest2]

I will stick with Pope Benedict’s words about this theory:

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.

That’s it, my fellow Catholics.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

I will stick with Pope Benedict’s words about this theory:

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.

That’s it, my fellow Catholics.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory” is a far FAR cry from the statement “the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments…” So clearly you are not sticking with his words, but are preferring instead to add your own wild conclusions about his meaning.