Should Christians embrace evolution ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tjm190 said:
…so science isn’t doing it right unless every sentence in the bible is treated as it it were literal empirical fact?

Science is based on observation and analysis- it can make short run mistakes when an individual observation or several observations are extrapolated beyond their scope- luckily supposed explanations for natural phenomena require mountains of evidence before being named theories.
Click to expand...
You know better - Catholics interpret Scripture literally, that is what the author intended to convey.

Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is easy to stray from the truth.

The other issue is that evolutionism isn’t empirical science. Evolutionism is trying to best guess the history of the past.
 
buffalo said:
You know better - Catholics interpret Scripture literally, that is what the author intended to convey.
Click to expand...
Those are different.
Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is easy to stray from the truth.
Click to expand...
It is not- in fact, it is all but impossible. Science may miss that which it can not detect, but that’s about it.
The other issue is that evolutionism isn’t empirical science. Evolutionism is trying to best guess the history of the past.
Click to expand...
Evolution as a fact is empirical science. The theory uses the fact to explain a phenomena. (E.g. the law of universal gravitation vs. the theory of gravity)
 
tjm190 said:
Those are different.

It is not- in fact, it is all but impossible. Science may miss that which it can not detect, but that’s about it.

Evolution as a fact is empirical science. The theory uses the fact to explain a phenomena. (E.g. the law of universal gravitation vs. the theory of gravity)
Click to expand...
Science is provisional. It can be in error.

The fact of common descent?
 
buffalo said:
Science is provisional. It can be in error.

The fact of common descent?
Click to expand...
Of course- nothing can be proved 100%.
We can not say with complete certainty that if i throw a piece of paper in a fire that it will burn, we can not say with complete certainty that a pregnant cow is not going to give birth to a flying money, and we can not be certain that the moon is not made out of cheese 99%.

However, we can push things beyond reasonable doubt- common descent is among those things.
 
tjm190 said:
It’s the essence of all science- however, evolution has already passed it’s trial.
Click to expand...
I do not agree. The EES is an admittance of the issues. The odds and the storytelling go up immensely with this increment.
 
buffalo said:
Have you listened to Stuart Newman?
Click to expand...
Has he published his calculations? This would have to quite a large piece or work that I doubt could be accurately recounted and understood in audio form.
 
Catholic_Johnny said:
The point is that there is order in nature and there are no mutations from one species into another."
Click to expand...
Catholic Johnny, either you have to accept evolution of new species, or you have to fit thirty million species on one Ark. Which is it?
 
StAnastasia said:
You are orders of magnitude in error on the number of species on earth. Consult a biologist.
Click to expand...
Species are the key word. I am not articulate in the ark stuff, but it can readily be found online. Check it out for yourself. It might be good to read the literature.

By the way - play the Dawkins Mutation Challenge yet?
 
buffalo said:
Species are the key word. I am not articulate in the ark stuff, but it can readily be found online. Check it out for yourself. It might be good to read the “literature.”
Click to expand...
“When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things.” (1 Cor. 13:11)

To be quite frank, Buffalo, Young Earth Creationism and biblical literalism are manifestations of intellectual childishness. Although I love reading classic childrens’ literature to my own kids, I don’t have a lot of time for YEC childishness, as I have a lot of adult science, theology, history and philosophy to work through every week for teaching my courses. Life just doesn’t afford me me the luxury of time to read everything I might like to read.

StAnastasia
 
Some never face reality which is why they make their own problems
tjm190
Odds? Odds require calculations- I have yet to see one.
Evolution as a fact is empirical science.
Click to expand...
Dr Scott Hahn and Dr B. Wiker in Answering The New Atheism, 2008, show very clearly that the odds against life “evolving” from inanimate chemicals are so high as to be impossible. “Dawkins believes that the odds against a propitious string of DNA arising by chance are 1,000,000,000 to one. But **when we do the actual calculations **we find that the odds against it are a bit over 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to one.”
Dawkins best guess at the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years is just not enough time for such odds to be overcome. (p 24, 27-8).

The fact that Dawkins maths and science are so erroneous merely reflects his desire to cling to evolutionism at all costs, much like many others.

Evolution is not a theory of empirical science; it is a historical theory which uses data of empirical science in attempting to explain how the existing living species historically arose. But evolution has not used empirical data to establish any physical or chemical laws. In fact, the so-called laws of random mutation and the survival of the fittest are not evolutionary laws at all, since chance is the absence of all law and the survival of the fittest does not pertain to how the “fittest” came to be. [LT141 - REGARDING THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION]](LT141 - REGARDING THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION])

A philosopher of science, Karl Popper, had to admit that evolutionism is philosophy not science: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable scientific theories.” (Unended Quest, Fontana, 1975).

As Dr Behe points out: “The clear implication is that it [higher intelligence] should not be invoked whether it is true or not…The compatibility or lack of compatibility [with Catholicism] is irrelevant to the scientific question of whether Darwinian evolution of biochemical systems is true…. whenever science tries to explain a unique historical event, careful testing and replicability are by definition impossible…(but) science can see the effects that a designer has had on life.” Journal of Molecular Evolution, 34, 277 1992, summarising his views on science and religion. (Behe : *Darwin’s Black Box, *p 238-243].

This is an historical theory aimed at explaining how the concrete forms of biological life on Earth today actually arose. As an historical theory it is not called upon to be predictive of how new species will arise; it is only required to verify that this historical succession of events took place. [LT124 - Francis S. Collins and The Language of God - Part I: Random Change Versus Intelligent Design]](LT124 - Francis S. Collins and The Language of God - Part I: Random Change Versus Intelligent Design])
[My emphasis].
 
StAnastasia said:
“When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things.” (1 Cor. 13:11)

To be quite frank, Buffalo, Young Earth Creationism and biblical literalism are manifestations of intellectual childishness. Although I love reading classic childrens’ literature to my own kids, I don’t have a lot of time for YEC childishness, as I have a lot of adult science, theology, history and philosophy to work through every week for teaching my courses. Life just doesn’t afford me me the luxury of time to read everything I might like to read.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
So you are more mature than the Church? the Magisterium? Pride is the deadliest sin.
 
StAnastasia said:
Catholic Johnny, either you have to accept evolution of new species, or you have to fit thirty million species on one Ark. Which is it?
Click to expand...
Actually, I do not have to do anything but believe the Holy Spirit’s message through the inspired writers. Because it seems too hard for you that doesn’t mean it is too hard for God. The God I serve is able to divide the Red Sea and lead a million freed slaves across it on dry land and feed His people with manna from heaven. He made all that there is out of nothing. He raised His holy Son from the dead. Why should I stumble at so minor a feat as assembling representation all the major land animal groups into a massive multi-tiered freighter?
 
StAnastasia said:
“When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things.” (1 Cor. 13:11)

To be quite frank, Buffalo, Young Earth Creationism and biblical literalism are manifestations of intellectual childishness. StAnastasia
Click to expand...
:eek:
"Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Mt. 18:3
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
So you are more mature than the Church? the Magisterium? Pride is the deadliest sin.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, recent popes have not shared in the YEC childishness, although at least one American bishop does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top