B
buffalo
Guest
Evolutionists do exactly this.
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
― Theodosius Dobzhansky
- Status
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
― Theodosius Dobzhansky
E
edwest
Guest
Mr. Dobzhansky was stating a falsehood. Evolution is of no scientific value.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
A general comment to all of the “death-before-evolution” crowd. Why are you so keen on defending a literal interpretation of the Bible? Why is that so important to you? It’s certainly not the official position of the Catholic Church, and never has been. St. Augustine talked about metaphorical interpretation. It was common to have several levels of meanings throughout the Middle Ages.
Dei Verbum, a report of Vatican II clearly says:
“…the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”
And this is repeated in the catechism, pp. 32-33. It talks about the allegorical sense, the moral sense, and the anagogical sense. Clearly these are all based on the literal words–but that doesn’t mean that the literal words are “the truth with God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” Every story in the Bible is there to teach a lesson (= “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”). You don’t have to believe that a talking snake convinced Eve to eat a fruit. You have to believe she was tempted to disobey God. You don’t have to believe that Adam and Eve were running around naked before Original Sin. You have to believe they were ashamed of their sin. You have to believe that there was one original father of the human race who committed the Original Sin. You don’t have to believe that God created him–poof!–by a single command.
What has always intrigued me is that those who espouse a literal meaning to the Bible are simultaneously arguing that God is limited. Why? Because they insist that God only works directly, like the wizards in Harry Potter–say the word, wave your wand, and poof! Why do you insist that God cannot work indirectly: through 3.85 billion years of life on earth and evolution? Is God incapable of this? Is it too hard for him? If I create a machine–say, a lawn mower–that cuts my grass, am I less responsible for the fact that the grass gets cut? I have done it indirectly, by creating a machine, but I am nonetheless the one responsible, the “creator” if you will.
Assume you were a native of some isolated place that knew nothing about technology. Which would be more impressive to you: 1) I push a button and part of a mountain across the valley blows up. 2) I teach you about electricity, chemistry, radio waves, etc. so that you understand exactly how pushing a button over here causes an explosion over there. I know I would be much more impressed by #2: the complexity, the planning, the natural laws governing it all. Just like evolution.
Dei Verbum, a report of Vatican II clearly says:
“…the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”
And this is repeated in the catechism, pp. 32-33. It talks about the allegorical sense, the moral sense, and the anagogical sense. Clearly these are all based on the literal words–but that doesn’t mean that the literal words are “the truth with God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” Every story in the Bible is there to teach a lesson (= “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”). You don’t have to believe that a talking snake convinced Eve to eat a fruit. You have to believe she was tempted to disobey God. You don’t have to believe that Adam and Eve were running around naked before Original Sin. You have to believe they were ashamed of their sin. You have to believe that there was one original father of the human race who committed the Original Sin. You don’t have to believe that God created him–poof!–by a single command.
What has always intrigued me is that those who espouse a literal meaning to the Bible are simultaneously arguing that God is limited. Why? Because they insist that God only works directly, like the wizards in Harry Potter–say the word, wave your wand, and poof! Why do you insist that God cannot work indirectly: through 3.85 billion years of life on earth and evolution? Is God incapable of this? Is it too hard for him? If I create a machine–say, a lawn mower–that cuts my grass, am I less responsible for the fact that the grass gets cut? I have done it indirectly, by creating a machine, but I am nonetheless the one responsible, the “creator” if you will.
Assume you were a native of some isolated place that knew nothing about technology. Which would be more impressive to you: 1) I push a button and part of a mountain across the valley blows up. 2) I teach you about electricity, chemistry, radio waves, etc. so that you understand exactly how pushing a button over here causes an explosion over there. I know I would be much more impressed by #2: the complexity, the planning, the natural laws governing it all. Just like evolution.
E
edwest
Guest
False.
Humani Generis
“22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”
Humani Generis
“22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”
N
niceatheist
Guest
You do understand that from a “mechanical” point of view there is no difference between micro and macro evolution, right?
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
You seem to be a stickler for rules. So tell me, which would take precedence: A report of a general council issued with the approval of the pope, or a papal encyclical?
Humani Generis
- 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.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
There is a huge difference. Besides one happens, one does not.
R
rossum
Guest
Why do you persist in denying the obvious evidence for the macro-evolution of the marbled crayfish, buffalo? That is a new species that is reproductively isolated from other species.
Or are you back to your Humpty Dumpty argument and redefining “macro-evolution” away from its standard dictionary meaning – the evolution of a new species – and into some other meaning known only to yourself?
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying micro evolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro evolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No .” Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
The concept of atheist materialism has no place on a Catholic forum.
B
buffalo
Guest
The marbled crayfish is a defective crayfish losing an ability it once had. Because of this it will die off. If that is the definition you use for macro-evolution, I might be OK with it.
E
edwest
Guest
There are two birds in the United States that look identical but live on opposite coasts and can’t interbreed. I suspect neither will be dying off anytime soon.
N
niceatheist
Guest
There are no “just right” mutations. Evolution is fundamentally about differential reproductive success. A mutation or other means of introducing variation in allele frequency just has to be present. I’m
B
buffalo
Guest
Do you believe there are any limits to evolution? If so, what are they?
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
First off, sure it does. It’s an open forum. The rules say so.
Second, anything I present here is as a practicing Catholic. I am not and have never been an atheist.
Third, for the infinity number time: there is no conflict between the theory of evolution. Encyclicals say it, popes have said it in speeches, councils have said it. YOU haven’t said it, but frankly, you have no authority!
B
buffalo
Guest
There certainly is a conflict with certain parts of it.
E
edwest
Guest
Pope Benedict said it can’t be proven. Please don’t bring in the math analogy.
I have been reading threads like this for years. Conclusion: the sole purpose of these threads is to promote atheist evolution.
I have been reading threads like this for years. Conclusion: the sole purpose of these threads is to promote atheist evolution.
E
edwest
Guest
There certainly are problems. Thanks to your posts and others, I can say that reasonable doubt has been established.
R
rossum
Guest
There is no scientific requirement that a new species must gain abilities. Blind cavefish have lost their sight, and many parasitic species have lost functions compared to their free-living ancestors. Again you are redefining words, buffalo. Your personal idiosyncratic definition of “buffalo-evolution” is of no relevance to the wider science of evolution.
The marbled crayfish is a well defined species. It has gained the ability to propagate itself parthenogenically, which its predecessors did not have. That is a gain in function.
Are you telling us that the Dodo was not a “Tru-species™” because it died out? Again, there is no scientific requirement that a species cannot go extinct. Tyrannosaurus rex was a valid species, despite the fact that it is now extinct. Once again you have no real argument here, so you are resorting to redefining the words you use to your own personal meanings in order to suit your argument.
Your obvious Humpty Dumpty argument is very obvious here.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
This mutation will be the demise of the marble crayfish. It will die out.
- Status