Should Christians embrace evolution ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess you don’t realise that theories are often simplified for kids? :rolleyes:

Oh and you didn’t come form an ape, you ARE an ape. This is a biological FACT, those that think otherwise are just clueless about science.
Humans are apes? How did you come up with that one? It’s more erroneous than any over-simplification of evolution for kids.

What are the so-called biological facts you allude to?
 
This is offensive and without any substance whatever concerning Msgr John F McCarthy.

But that’s what results when some are confronted by reality – as William James so aptly expressed it – many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.
Aside from the accusation above that Msgr. John F. McCarthy is “ignorant, dishonest and vicious,” of which I know nothing, I object to Msgr. John F. McCarthy on other grounds.

McCarthy embraces “creation science”, which I think is quite incoherent in itself. McCarthy attempts to harmonize Genesis 1 with some kind of “empirical science.” In the process, what McCarthy presents is a profoundly clumsy interpretation of Genesis 1 mixed with pseudo-scientific claims.
 
Facing Reality with Msgr John F McCarthy

rtforum.org/lt/lt141.html

The confused assumption:
“26. Evolution is science; creation is religion.
Answer: This objection is based on the false Kantian notion of science. And, actually, evolution is not a theory of empirical science; it is an 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. On the other hand, creation science is an historical approach that uses empirical science and higher sciences to defend the historical truth of the biblical accounts of divine creation."
 
McCarthy embraces “creation science”, which I think is quite incoherent in itself. McCarthy attempts to harmonize Genesis 1 with some kind of “empirical science.” In the process, what McCarthy presents is a profoundly clumsy interpretation of Genesis 1 mixed with pseudo-scientific claims.
Clumsy interpretations like those made by Moses, Christ, the Apostles, the Fathers, the Doctors, and the beatified Popes, most recently Blessed St. Pius X. St. Basil the Great in his brilliant Hexameron crushes your novel contemporary theories on the basis of revelation.

People who dismiss Adam, Moses, the Prophets, the Christ, the Apostles, the Fathers, the Doctors and the beatified Popes and presume to instruct Christians on exegesis of Genesis 1-11 are not speaking for the Church. Are we to believe that for 6,000 years we all swallowed a bunch of hooey concerning the creation account until contemporary scientists animated by a militant atheism liberated us from our errors?
 
Facing Reality with Msgr John F McCarthy

rtforum.org/lt/lt141.html

The confused assumption:
“26. Evolution is science; creation is religion.
Answer: This objection is based on the false Kantian notion of science. And, actually, evolution is not a theory of empirical science; it is an 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. On the other hand, creation science is an historical approach that uses empirical science and higher sciences to defend the historical truth of the biblical accounts of divine creation."
This is where I think McCarthy is quite wrong. McCarthy has his own re-definition of the natural sciences, which is telling, but I can’t go into that here. He writes off the idea of evolution as science because he thinks it is based on the Kantian notion of science. However, what McCarthy conveniently omits to mention is that there can be a true ground for evolution science with science properly understood, and that includes the Thomistic division of the sciences.

Also, McCarthy mis-characterizes random mutation and survival of the fittest. Theodosius Dobzhansky more correctly states that “not even mutations are random changes, because what mutations can take place in a given gene is evidently decreed by the structure of that gene.”

We call it “random” because the fact of an occasional alteration at some point in the molecule, the time and place of the encounter, whether determinate or indeterminate on the part of the source, such as a gamma ray, was not determined by the structure of the DNA molecule. This randomness is enclosed within by design, and there are limits to this change beyond which the organism cannot survive.

To say as McCarthy does that, “chance is the absence of all law,” is not so in a correct philosophical perspective. Randomness and chance presuppose order and laws. Selection is not random. Selection preserves the phenotypes better suited for the environment. A few neo-Darwinists speak of more than passive selection. For example, Dobzhansky speaks of dynamic selection in “response” to an environmental change.

Natural selection involves law and chance. First there is the production of variation in which randomness may play some part such as mate choice, etc. And then there are the nonrandom factors of survival and reproduction, such as superior success of some phenotypes, non-random mate selection, etc.

John F. McCarthy says, “Creation science is an historical approach that uses empirical science and higher sciences to defend the historical truth of the biblical accounts of divine creation.” This may sound impressive until one unpacks it. His use of the empirical sciences is non-scientific. He rejects or ignores many modern advances such as in hermeneutics, cultural studies of ancient literature and peoples of the near east, archeology, and etc. that have contributed to the advances in Biblical exegesis.

He prefers to use older methods of Biblical exegesis, and thus forces an interpretation onto a text that he misidentifies as historical narrative. McCarthy has no sense of the genus litterarium of Biblical texts. His exegetical methods are profoundly naive and exceedingly strained.

McCarthy has truth and error so intertwined that unraveling many of his arguments is merely an exercise in futility.
 
Clumsy interpretations like those made by Moses, Christ, the Apostles, the Fathers, the Doctors, and the beatified Popes, most recently Blessed St. Pius X. St. Basil the Great in his brilliant Hexameron crushes your novel contemporary theories on the basis of revelation.

People who dismiss Adam, Moses, the Prophets, the Christ, the Apostles, the Fathers, the Doctors and the beatified Popes and presume to instruct Christians on exegesis of Genesis 1-11 are not speaking for the Church. Are we to believe that for 6,000 years we all swallowed a bunch of hooey concerning the creation account until contemporary scientists animated by a militant atheism liberated us from our errors?
No. What we are to believe is that you might not have any real clue at all as to what I am talking about, anymore than you know about Biblical exegesis and the Church. Surely you can do better than post a “bunch of hooey.”
 
. He rejects or ignores many modern advances such as in hermeneutics, cultural studies of ancient literature and peoples of the near east, archeology, and etc. that have contributed to the advances in Biblical exegesis.

He prefers to use older methods of Biblical exegesis, and thus forces an interpretation onto a text that he misidentifies as historical narrative. McCarthy has no sense of the genus litterarium of Biblical texts. His exegetical methods are profoundly naive and exceedingly strained.

McCarthy has truth and error so intertwined that unraveling many of his arguments is merely an exercise in futility.
No, you ignore the Tradition of the Church and the rules for exegesis set forth by Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu. The recent advances you cite do nothing to advance your modernist presuppsitions but rather more certainly confirm the Biblical record. The one forcing things here is you, itnerant1. The Hexamerons of the Fathers and Doctors firmly established the historicity of the creation account. You theistic evolutionists are trying to break down the Sacred Writ to fit your novel theories which remain as Pius XII said in Humani Generis, “unproven even in the profane sciences.” How audacious to disfigure the word of God to fit some contemporary theory that not only opposes divine revelation but remains hotly contested even among contemporary scientists!

Father McCarthy is safe ground here, not you friend:
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83 CCC
Father McCarthy’s exegetical methods are sound and venerable and free of the pernicious assertions of infidel modernists.

St. Pius X instructs in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:
To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labour to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, and adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their decision as to whether a thing is out of place or not. Judge if you can how men with such a system are fitted for practising this kind of criticism. To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men.
 
Sacred Scripture

Correct. Fr John McCarthy uses impeccable scriptural exegesis which is not susceptible to the errors so often found in the historical critical method used by Fr Raymond Brown which led him into many errors.

**What’s behind the attachment to evolutionism? **
See Msgr John F McCarthy:
rtforum.org/lt/lt100.html

'Surprisingly, although many Catholic evolutionists are aware of the lack of fossil evidence, they nevertheless accept evolution rather than direct creation. A priest–anthropologist, interviewed by Inside the Vatican, admitted that “there seem to be no intermediate forms …”, but then stated “I favor the idea of evolution”. Another noted priest-scientist, asked why he believed in evolution, replied “For metaphysical reasons.” And an American who writes frequently about evolution for Catholic journals, concedes that “the fossil record shows … species appear suddenly in a fully developed state,” but finds evolution preferable to creationism. As a result, there is a strange parallel between the thinking of the atheistic and theistic evolutionists. The atheist evolutionist disregards the lack of fossil evidence because he rejects the idea of a Creator. The Catholic evolutionist ignores the lack of fossil evidence because he rejects direct action by the Creator. Both rely upon personal preference rather than scientific data. To some extent, this attitude is also reflected in the next example of “Evidences for evolution.”

'What the Britannica describes as “structural similarities”, is presented in the Americana in these words: “Anatomical and other likenesses between groups of organisms could be explained as a heritage from a common ancestor.” Yes, but they could also be explained as part of the plan of an all-wise Creator. Merely because something “could be explained” in a particular way, does not mean that such an explanation is true. There is a world of difference between genuine scientific evidence and merely asserting that something “could be” true. This is not a case of scientific reasoning, but one of “personal preference”.

‘Similarly flawed reasoning can be seen in “evidence” number one given in the Americana. “The classification of organisms as a branching system which would result from evolution, but not from totally independent origins of species.” Note that this “classification” is done by evolutionist scientists, and therefore inevitably involves an obvious use of the fallacy of circular reasoning. First, the scientists assume evolution is true and that all organisms evolved from earlier ones in a branching pattern as suggested by Darwin. (See: Icons of Evolution (Jonathan Wells, Regnery Publishing, 2002, 338 pp.). Second, they arrange all organisms into a branching system so as to reflect an evolutionary relationship. Finally, when the diagram of branching relationships is completed, they use it to prove that evolution is true. Of course, the diagram of the branching pattern is their own creation, and based on the assumption that Darwin’s idea was correct. But when such diagrams appear in books, readers are led to assume that these relationships have been proven scientifically. Needless to say, they have not.’ [My bold].
 
Typical. When a scientist dissents on the basis of empirical evidence (Berthault’s experiments which disprove uniformitarian geology) then he is a crank.
Dr Berthault did some good experiments that showed interesting effects in certain specific circumstances of smooth fluid flow. His error was to then apply his results to other circumstances where either there was no fluid flow at all or where the fluid flow was turbulent rather than smooth. His initial work was fine and correct. His attempt to extend it beyond the boundaries of his experiment was incorrect. His claim to have falsified uniformitarian geology is ludicrous - there are many other experiments that support modern uniformitarian geology. He gets called a crank because he carries on making those claims in the face of much evidence to the contrary. His extended claims have about as much credibility as claims that the earth is flat.

rossum
 
Humans are apes? How did you come up with that one? It’s more erroneous than any over-simplification of evolution for kids.

What are the so-called biological facts you allude to?
This is an extract from a long talk.origins post by Aron-Ra:You are a mammal.
You are homeothermic [warm-blooded], follicle-bearing and have lactal nipples. And of course, not all synapsids are or were mammals, but all mammals are synapsid, implying common descent.

You are eutherian.
Or more specifically, you are a placental mammal, like most other lactal animals from shrews to whales. All eutherians are mammals, but not all mammals are eutherian. There are six major divisions in mammalia, only three of which still exist; those that hatch out of eggs like reptiles, (monotremes) Marsupials, that are born in the fetal stage and complete their development inside the mother’s pouch, and those that developed in a shell-like placenta and were born in the infant stage, as you were, and all the other animals you appear to be related to. Your own fetal development seems to reveal a similar track of development from a single cell to a tadpole-looking creature, then growing limbs and digits out of your finlike appendages, and finally outgrowing your own tail. Some would consider this an indication of ancestry. Especially since fetal snakes, for example, actually have legs, feet, and cute little toes, which are reabsorbed into the body before hatching, implying common descent.

You are a primate.
You have five fully-developed fingers and five fully-developed toes. Your toes are still prehensile and your hands can grasp with dexterity. You have only two lactal nipples and they are on your chest as opposed to your abdomen. These are pointless in males, which also have a pendulous penis and a well-devoloped ceacum or appendix, unlike all other mammals. Although your fangs are reduced in size, you do still have them along with some varied dentition indicative of primates exclusively. Your fur is thin and relatively sparse over most of your body. And your claws have been reduced to flat chitinous fingernails. Your fingers themselves have distinctive print patterns. You are also susceptible to AIDS and are mortally allergic to the toxin of the male funnel web spider of Australia, (which is deadly to all primates, but only dangerous to primates, which is why you’d be better beware of these spiders.). And unlike all but one unrelated animal in all the world, your body cannot produce vitamin-C naturally and must have it supplemented in your diet, just as all other primates do. Nearly every one of these individual traits are unique only to primates exclusively. There is almost no other organism on Earth that matches any one of these descriptions separately, but absolutely all of the lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, apes, you, and I match all of them at once perfectly, implying common descent.

You are an ape.
Your tail is merely a stub of bones that don’t even protrude outside the skin. Your dentition includes not only vestigial canines, but incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, and distinctive molars that come to five points interrupted by a “Y” shaped crevasse. This in addition to all of your other traits, like the dramatically increased range of motion in your shoulder, as well as a profound increase in cranial capacity and disposition toward a bipedal gait indicates that you are not merely a vertebrate cranial chordate and a tetrapoidal placental mammalian primate, but you are more specifically an ape, and so was your mother before you.
We are classified with the Hominidae (Apes) because we meet all the criteria for that classification.

rossum
 
Dr Berthault did some good experiments that showed interesting effects in certain specific circumstances of smooth fluid flow. His error was to then apply his results to other circumstances where either there was no fluid flow at all or where the fluid flow was turbulent rather than smooth. His initial work was fine and correct. His attempt to extend it beyond the boundaries of his experiment was incorrect. His claim to have falsified uniformitarian geology is ludicrous - there are many other experiments that support modern uniformitarian geology. He gets called a crank because he carries on making those claims in the face of much evidence to the contrary. His extended claims have about as much credibility as claims that the earth is flat.

rossum
For those interested in Dr. Berthault’s findings, this splendid documentary allows you to attend the experiments and judge for yourself.

As for uniformitarian geology, evolutionists don’t want you to see this or this. These studies prove uniformitarian geology, like evolution, is a philosophical position, and not a scientifically verifiable theory. See for yourself.
 
We are classified with the Hominidae (Apes) because we meet all the criteria for that classification.

rossum
Question?

How does the additional human criteria classify me? The criteria which Occam’s Razor removed.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.
 
Hi, Albert -

Sir, I’m operating with your definition of ape.

Why won’t you address my claim to exercise my freedom of choice by letting my God make me in His, and not in an ape’s, image? That’s my stand, on this. ie, people have the choices of being an ape, or in the image of our mutual Creator.
Dude you ARE an ape, a great ape just means a hominid, which is any member of the biological family Hominidae, WHICH CONTAINS HUMANS.
 
Question?

How does the additional human criteria classify me? The criteria which Occam’s Razor removed.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.
Answer, you are classified as homo sapiens sapiens (member of the APE:eek::eek: family)
 
What are the so-called biological facts you allude to?
I believe the biological facts are that when an evolutionist calls you an ape, then you are one. If you reject what evolutionary science teaches – then you’re ignorant and opposed to science. Evolution is more certain than gravity – thus, you are an ape. This is all very simple for those who accept the facts of science.
 
I believe the biological facts are that when an evolutionist calls you an ape, then you are one. If you reject what evolutionary science teaches – then you’re ignorant and opposed to science. Evolution is more certain than gravity – thus, you are an ape. This is all very simple for those who accept the facts of science.
Then by all means please enlighten us and tell us what a ape is.
 
Question?

How does the additional human criteria classify me? The criteria which Occam’s Razor removed.
The Family Hominidae includes all the existing Great Apes - Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans and ourselves. It also includes all the extinct ancestors of the current species back to when the Hominidae split from the Hylobatidae (Gibbons).

The other criteria, such as a very large brain put us in Genus Homo, rather than say genus Australopithecus. The formation of our noses, skull shape, mitochondrial DNA and other points indicate that we are Homo sapiens rather than Homo neandertalensis.

rossum
 
I believe the biological facts are that when an evolutionist calls you an ape, then you are one. If you reject what evolutionary science teaches – then you’re ignorant and opposed to science. Evolution is more certain than gravity – thus, you are an ape. This is all very simple for those who accept the facts of science.
What you are saying pertains to the “Family” taxon. Specifically, we are not biologically apes as far as Genus and Species are concerned; we are Homo sapiens. Biologically, man is related most closely to the apes, and is thus categorized in the corresponding Family, which is different than saying man is specifically an ape.

We can move to a higher taxonomic and say that man is an animal, since he is in the animal kingdom. Do you deny that man is an animal? Actually, here too, we need to make critical distinctions. What do we or should we mean when we say that man is an animal?

We can mean that man is a brute animal according to Charles Darwin’s evolution theory, and this is flat out wrong.

Or, we can mean that man is a rational animal according to a fundamentally more accurate classification of man in the evolutionary scheme. Then we must further distinguish correctly what rationality means as far as how it separates man from the anthropoid apes.

The problem is you pretend, or at least generally talk as if there is only one theory of evolution and only one conception of man among evolutionists. Hence come off as being cynical about science itself and evolution theory in general, while you have provided no justification for your provocative and undiscerning comments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top