One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Judas_Thaddeus]

It is this very same St Augustine who thought of prime matter. page 16

AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION
A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE

You’ll have to copy/paste what you read, sorry, only goes up to Chapter 3.

 

[livingwordunity]

The theory of evolution has zero relevance to my life.

 

[buffalo]

You’ll have to copy/paste what you read, sorry, only goes up to Chapter 3.

Try this one - www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/book_wood.pdf

 

[buffalo]

The theory of evolution has zero relevance to my life.

If you still have your appendix and tonsils.

 

[Farsight001]

ID does no claim everything is as it was and there has been no change. Where do you get this?

According to some of the inventors of ID, as they were forced to admit under oath at the Dover trial, it does, in fact, claim there has been no change.

Evolution itself has no voice. It is evolutionists who use it to deny God.

No one USES evolution to deny god.

Evolution is not observable, repeatable and predictable.

Except for that pesky fact where it has actually been observed, repeated, and predicted thousands of times.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

IDvolution is taking ID the science to the next step. Indeed it is philosophy. Note this last sentence: IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

Consider the following: where is the weak link? Arrows show information flow.

There is no “next step” because “ID the Science” in an oxymoron.
I’m glad you suggest that ID is a philosophy, but philosophy is not
a science either.

I can buy into the idea that Intelligent Design attempts to strive for
being consistent with the Church, though I don’t believe the Church
would approve if the “scientific study” of Intelligent Design.

The image you are using is weak.
Revelation leads to Faith, yes.
Science to Reason, Good.

Faith/Science overlapping, it doesn’t exist. It’s much like a square-triangle.
Creationists want it to work, they will even fool themselves into thinking it
works, just as I fooled myself back when I was a *syncretistic *Pagan.

 

[Farsight001]

Unlike malaria and HIV, which both have to fend for themselves in the wild and fight tooth and claw with the human immune system, the E. coli in Lenski’s lab were coddled. They had a stable environment, daily food, and no predators.

Behe actually thinks bacteria have predators? Lol.

But doesn’t evolution need a change in the environment to spur it on? Shouldn’t we expect little evolution of E. coli in the lab, where its environment is tightly controlled?

But they DID change the environment. A new food source was introduced.

Nothing fundamentally new has been produced.

Except, you know, the capacity to eat and process an entirely new food source. It’d be like humans developing the ability to eat and extract nutrients from hunks of sandstone.

After a while, beneficial changes from the experiment petered out.

Of course it would! If you cease changing the environment, there is no need to adapt to it, and so no new changes are likely to develop. That CONFIRMS evolution, not denies it.

 

[Farsight001]

Not true. That is the Church’s position. He is not a layman. Even the secular media gets that.

Doesn’t matter that he’s not a layman. JP2 once said that he thought Mozart was the best musician. Are we, as Catholics, thus required to believe that Mozart is the best? Of course not. Its a personal opinion. And as I pointed out, he didn’t even say what you claimed he did in the first place.

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis

Not even remotely relevant.

Here’s a more recent example:

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

Permission given for publication by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

And what, exactly, were JP2’s real words?

So, it’s all there. Ready for anyone with eyes to see that the Church can pronounce on issues of science directly. It is also quite clear that when the Church writes about this subject, it is not just from a theological perspective but with an understanding of what each of the theories is and which are incompatible with the Catholic faith.

It can pronounce all it wants. Its teachings are only binding on matters of faith and morals, not science.

 

[meltzerboy]

IDvolution is taking ID the science to the next step. Indeed it is philosophy. Note this last sentence: IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

Consider the following: where is the weak link? Arrows show information flow.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720

If this is what IDvolution believes, which includes G-d, revelation, and faith, doesn’t that make it philosophy or theology rather than science? What does it mean when IDvolution says it “considers” science: how does it consider science when it taps into G-d, revelation, and faith? Those elements are the weak link of the theory because they are not testable in any scientific sense. IDvolution does go beyond science, which means it is metaphysics, not science. It also appears to be agenda-driven, exactly the inverse of what evolution is accused of being. The agenda is to prove the existence of G-d and perhaps a particular Christian idea of G-d.

 

[Farsight001]

You have just made a case that science has just disqualified itself. Why then on earth should we limit ourselves to the limited scientific view you just admitted was lacking when including ID would enrich it? We could be so much further ahead.

How in the universe does that disqualify science? Its real simple. History is the study of the past. If a group came along and started complaining that historians don’t talk about the future enough, everyone would think they were nuts because history is, specifically, the study of the PAST. Likewise, science is the study of the natural world. If a group came along and started complaining that scientists don’t talk about the supernatural enough, everyone SHOULD think they’re nuts because science is, specifically, the study of the NATURAL WORLD.

 

[livingwordunity]

What would happen to me if I choose to reject the theory of evolution? I’m not saying what if I reject all of science. This question is limited to rejection of the theory of evolution.

 

[buffalo]

There is no “next step” because “ID the Science” in an oxymoron.
I’m glad you suggest that ID is a philosophy, but philosophy is not
a science either.

I can buy into the idea that Intelligent Design attempts to strive for
being consistent with the Church, though I don’t believe the Church
would approve if the “scientific study” of Intelligent Design.

The image you are using is weak.
Revelation leads to Faith, yes.
Science to Reason, Good.

Faith/Science overlapping, it doesn’t exist. It’s much like a square-triangle.
Creationists want it to work, they will even fool themselves into thinking it
works, just as I fooled myself back when I was a *syncretistic *Pagan.

Faith and reason cannot be opposed as our Pope said. Is your claim there exists no area where both are true?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Try this one - www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/book_wood.pdf

That worked better, thank you, but you will have to explain.
I DID READ IT, but I don’t see how it supports your position.
If what you brought forward has the validity to take down Evolution, words
of Saint Augustine, WHY HASN’T THE VATICAN PICKED UP ON THIS?!

Also, I don’t see either
how what you shared
refutes the following: “It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense
about such things , claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture . We should
do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see on-
ly ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”
– Still St. Augustine

 

[april32010]

What would happen to me if I choose to reject the theory of evolution?

nothing,zip,nada.

 

[Farsight001]

Darwinian Evolution is not the Church’s position.

Of course it isn’t. The Church’s position is decide for yourself.

You have to differentiate between Random/Godless/Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design (also known as Non-random Evolution).

As has already been established, you are not using those words properly. Please use the correct definitions accordingly. It saves us all a whole lot of confusion.

And I have yet to see an infallible document that DEFINES what exactly the Church MEANS by “evolution.”

Why would it have to define it? It already has a definition. The Church didn’t define a lot of words.

There is no room for equivocation in this debate and lets stop pretending that the Church has issued an infallible pronouncement on this matter when she clearly has not.

You’re the one who has repeatedly announced that we are required to reject evolution by the Church.

 

[edwest2]

According to some of the inventors of ID, as they were forced to admit under oath at the Dover trial, it does, in fact, claim there has been no change.

No one USES evolution to deny god.

Except for that pesky fact where it has actually been observed, repeated, and predicted thousands of times.

You missed Richard Dawkins?

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

If this is what IDvolution believes, which includes G-d, revelation, and faith, doesn’t that make it philosophy or theology rather than science? What does it mean when IDvolution says it “considers” science: how does it consider science when it taps into G-d, revelation, and faith? Those elements are the weak link of the theory because they are not testable in any scientific sense. IDvolution does go beyond science, which means it is metaphysics, not science.

Yes, it is philosophy. It considers science. You can see it in the IDvolution statement. Science is supporting the conclusion.

Revelation is certain. The weak link is human reasoning of our observations (science).

 

[buffalo]

That worked better, thank you, but you will have to explain.
I DID READ IT, but I don’t see how it supports your position.
If what you brought forward has the validity to take down Evolution, words
of Saint Augustine, WHY HASN’T THE VATICAN PICKED UP ON THIS?!

Also, I don’t see either
how what you shared
refutes the following: “It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense
about such things , claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture . We should
do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see on-
ly ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”
– Still St. Augustine

What is your take on the prime matter chapter.

 

[buffalo]

What would happen to me if I choose to reject the theory of evolution? I’m not saying what if I reject all of science. This question is limited to rejection of the theory of evolution.

Some people will call you ignorant, uneducated and foolish. They may even be on this forum. Go onto youtube and be plug your ears err I mean eyes. They will call you every name in the book.

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes, it is philosophy. It considers science. You can see it in the IDvolution statement. Science is supporting the conclusion.

Revelation is certain. The weak link is human reasoning of our observations (science).

So if the weak link is science, then IDvolution is NOT science, wouldn’t you agree? Further, if science is the weak link, then of what value is the fact that science supports the conclusion?