Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimR-OCDS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Empirical science is observable, repeatable and predictable.

Others, such as ID and Evo definitely fall into philosophy.
Click to expand...
You’re making a mistake in your definition. Archaeology isn’t repeatable - is it a science? Quantum physics is the definition of unpredictable - is it a science?

Empirical science is observable and testable.
 
Monkey1976 said:
You’re making a mistake in your definition. Archaeology isn’t repeatable - is it a science? Quantum physics is the definition of unpredictable - is it a science?

Empirical science is observable and testable.
Click to expand...
Overall science is the quest for knowledge. Technically everything branch that searches and gathers for knowledge falls under it. The conclusions, if not empirical will fall into philosophy.
 
buffalo said:
Overall science is the quest for knowledge. Technically everything branch that searches and gathers for knowledge falls under it. The conclusions, if not empirical will fall into philosophy.
Click to expand...
Then evolutionary biology is indeed a science - we have made predictions of forms that should be found in the evolutionary history of whales, and then later found creatures of both the right age and predicted form. That’s a successful test of an hypothesis. If such tests turned out to be wrong - as in the case of the “Piltdown Man” hoax - then the hypothesis is revised in the face of new evidence. 👍

Any evolutionary biologist worth the name would be ecstatic as the prospect of presenting solid evidence that overturns evolution - those are the names that are remembered for hundreds of years.

Everyone knows Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler - they overturned the Ptolemaic model of astronomy. I challenge anyone to find a college student who can name an astronomer that defended the Ptolemaic model without resorting to Google.
 
buffalo said:
Overall science is the quest for knowledge. Technically everything branch that searches and gathers for knowledge falls under it. The conclusions, if not empirical will fall into philosophy.
Click to expand...
There is tons of empirical evidence for theistic evolution I guess you just choose not to be bothered by it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This is in response to my comment that if evolution is a philosophy or a religion, so is geology, archeology and history? Then you think geology, archeology, and history are also religions?:eek:
Click to expand...
Philosophy and religion are not the same. But yes, Darwinism has risen to a religion.

Distinguish between the search and accumulation of knowledge and human conclusions.
 
Monkey1976 said:
You’re making a mistake in your definition. Archaeology isn’t repeatable - is it a science? Quantum physics is the definition of unpredictable - is it a science?

Empirical science is observable and testable.
Click to expand...
Archaeology is classified as an Art subject, at most universities.
 
Monkey1976 said:
Then evolutionary biology is indeed a science - we have made predictions of forms that should be found in the evolutionary history of whales, and then later found creatures of both the right age and predicted form. That’s a successful test of an hypothesis. If such tests turned out to be wrong - as in the case of the “Piltdown Man” hoax - then the hypothesis is revised in the face of new evidence. 👍

Any evolutionary biologist worth the name would be ecstatic as the prospect of presenting solid evidence that overturns evolution - those are the names that are remembered for hundreds of years.

Everyone knows Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler - they overturned the Ptolemaic model of astronomy. I challenge anyone to find a college student who can name an astronomer that defended the Ptolemaic model without resorting to Google.
Click to expand...
Since evo’s have a priori determined that outside of natural forces nothing can be invoked to explain evo then it is unfalsifiable. Evo is a fact and therefore every explanation must be explainable by darwinian thory, aka methodological naturalism. That is not science. True science allows all potential explanations.
 
pepipop said:
Archaeology is classified as an Art subject, at most universities.
Click to expand...
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
ar·chae·ol·o·gy noun \ˌär-kē-ˈä-lə-jē
: a science that deals with past human life and activities by studying the bones, tools, etc., of ancient people
Click to expand...
Oxford English Dictionary:
The study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains.
Click to expand...
Society for American Archaeology:
Archaeology is the study of the ancient and recent human past through material remains. It is a subfield of anthropology, the study of all human culture.
Click to expand...
 
tomarin said:
And you know this how?
Click to expand...
Catholic dogma is:


  1. *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
    *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
    *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
    *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
    *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
    *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
    *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
    *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
    *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
    *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
    *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
    *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
    *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
    *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
    *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
    *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
    *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
    *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
    *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
    *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
    *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)

    Here we see Adam and Eve had the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality, freedom of sickness, etc. They were genetically pristine. We are not. And now science is agreeing.
 
buffalo said:
Since evo’s have a priori determined that outside of natural forces nothing can be invoked to explain evo then it is unfalsifiable.
Click to expand...
That does not follow. In explaining evolution** in the context of a scientific theory** it would be inappropriate to resort to causes outside of nature because such causes are beyond the scope of evolutionary theory. However, as a scientific theory, it is certainly falsifiable by further physical evidence, in the same way that theories of history are falsifiable in the context of history by the discovery of previously unknown historical writings.
…every explanation must be explainable by darwinian thory, aka methodological naturalism. That is not science. True science allows all potential explanations.
Click to expand...
No, true science allows for all potential explanations that fall within the realm of science. Otherwise you are getting into philosophy.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That does not follow. In explaining evolution** in the context of a scientific theory** it would be inappropriate to resort to causes outside of nature because such causes are beyond the scope of evolutionary theory. However, as a scientific theory, it is certainly falsifiable by further physical evidence, in the same way that theories of history are falsifiable in the context of history by the discovery of previously unknown historical writings.

No, true science allows for all potential explanations that fall within the realm of science. Otherwise you are getting into philosophy.
Click to expand...
By its own defintion science has a limited say about the universe, limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. A glaring weakness is the human reasoning of the data.
 
Monkey1976 said:
40.png
Monkey1976:
QUOTE =Monkey1976:12452501}

All I can state is that universities I have worked with in the UK/Ireland and elsewhere Archaeology was a Department within the Art Faculty and not the Science Faculty. The qualifications awarded were a BA or MA, i.e.Arts qualifications not BSc, MSc, for example.

I can only assume in some instances it may be a Department within the Science Faculty of a university?

artandarchaeology.princeton.edu/

classics.berkeley.edu/programs/graduate/classical-archaeology
Click to expand...
 
boar2roar said:
Because belief in evolution means you believe in at best a blind, goal-less or ambivalent creator, and certainly wouldn’t make sense for an omniscient one. Evolution isn’t goal driven so humans are kind of a coincidence based on external factors that could have easily been completely different. I don’t see how you can be a traditional catholic (who emphasize gods relationship with man) and reconcile that. Only certain types of deists could make that case and you often see catholics like Kenneth R miller really have to take deist positions to reconcile the two.
Click to expand...
It may not actually be random or aimless to God. That’s the way I have come to see at least. What appears to us to be random and aimless probably is not. Maybe God is more like a Jazz musician than a pop artist.
 
franklinstower said:
It may not actually be random or aimless to God. That’s the way I have come to see at least. What appears to us to be random and aimless probably is not. Maybe God is more like a Jazz musician than a pop artist.
Click to expand...
That’s it exactly. If we roll a die 100 times, it looks random to us. God - being the Creator and Sustainer of everything - already knows what numbers that die will roll every time, so it’s not actually random. However, because we can’t plug God into an equation or put Him in a test tube, it makes sense to treat the die rolls as random. Anything else leaves the realm of science and dives into philosophy and/or theology.
 
buffalo said:
Catholic dogma is:

…

Here we see Adam and Eve had the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality, freedom of sickness, etc. They were genetically pristine. We are not.
Click to expand...
Catholic dogma says nothing about the genetic makeup of Adam and Eve. Nobody knew about genes until quite recently in human history. So it is quite amusing to see you claim that long-standing Catholic dogma implies anything at all about the state of Adam and Eve’s DNA
 
buffalo said:
By its own definition science has a limited say about the universe, limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. A glaring weakness is the human reasoning of the data.
Click to expand...
Here I can agree with you. Science all by itself is insufficient for a complete reasoning human being. We are made to know God too, and to know His law. And I am quite content to think of science as being limited as you say, for even within its limitations, science can say significant things about the physical universe - one of those things being the way in which life forms developed through time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top