The CC on Evolution: A Different Thread, I Hope

[Koru]

Pardon my improper word usage, i was thinking “devout” when writing “monk”. But there were a lot of Catholic monks that did in fact have serious parts in the founding and researching of the sciences.

All I was stating on the matter for the pHD and some random guy (which apparently, isn’t the case with this Kent Hovind… he seems pretty well known) is that true intelligence, knowledge, and experience in a field does not necessarily pertain to if you have a degree in the subject or not. There are many official pHD holders out there that are simply there for the money, political reasons, and/or to push their own personal bias on the nature of the sciences… but by no means am I stating that all or even the majority of scientists are in this for these reasons. Lots are truly after knowledge and to find out truths. So, partaining to the 100 question survey, the betting man would vote on the best odds (pHD certified) but this does not discredit or even prove that the other candidate won’t get an equal or even higher score than the previous. St. Peter was a fisherman, yet the first apostle to realize and acknowledge the Son of God as He truly is. No pHD required for that knowledge

Now, how geocentrism would disprove evolution (macroevolution). The teaching holds that, like stated many times in the bible and taught all up until the mid 16th century, that the earth is at the center of the universe and it does not rotate (no, the earth was never officially or correctly taught as ‘flat’).

This would effectively prove that we are here for a purpose (center of the entire universe), and athiestic evolutionists would have to abandon all origin theories that don’t include special creation. The reason being, history before evolutionary thinking has always taught special creation and they were, by no means, imbiciles or unlearned. Special creation is what is explained in the bible and by God and Christ state that through Adam’s sin, brought death into existence in the world.

Adam was the first man, and the world we live on is the center of the universe. There’s no room for death before man’s sin… God said that all was good when He finished creating the objects by His will, and there is no time that He says that death is “good”. At the end of the six days of creation and the day of rest, God said that all was good. If death, which was brought on by sin… the state of separation from God… was used as means to create all that was good (evolution requires death for advancement), I’d say that “he” is not the God I or any thoughtful Catholic worships.

 

[zian]

so, if evolution is true, then geocentrism must be false.

wow, this could be a whole nother thread …

 

[Koru]

so, if evolution is true, then geocentrism must be false.

wow, this could be a whole nother thread …

It’s widely believed that (other than the idea that Satan put into the minds of Man that they could become wise to good and evil by eating from the tree) Galileo’s theory of heliocentrism was the beginning of the idea that God did not create the world and universe for mankind and put macroevolution into the realm of possibilities. It put doubts in the official teachings of the Catholic Church regarding many issues. Keep in mind, the Church refuses to annul the doctrines and teachings of geocentrism… why would She have this is heliocentrism has been proven as true? Heliocentrism has not been proven, it’s simply another assumption used in the calculations of modern scientific study.

Heliocentrism was never proven, and all the science that goes into that theory also works perfectly equal to what geocentrism has to offer. This is why I’m 50/50 on the issue, I require more studying in the controversy.

Yes, geocentrism can be the topic of an entire thread… I’d participate

 

[steveandersen]

My notion, as you call it, is easily provable by going to any other Christian forum. My observations are consistent with post after post after post,

So let me get this straight
You are dismissing millions of man-hours of scientific work
And insulting millions of faithful Catholics
Based upon your anecdotal observations at web sites!?!?!?

all clearly showing a “Evolution - you religious people MUST believe it” bias.

Evolution is not a matter of faith. You don’t HAVE to believe it. It fact you can’t believe it; it is based upon observations.

I have never seen anyone here say you HAVE to believe in evolution. I have seen flimsy technical claims or misinformation challenged and shot down nothing more.

At first, I simply assumed good will on the part of those pushing evolution as a fact. Then I realized, over time, that this was not a friendly exchange, a “here’s the evidence, you decide” type thing, because if anyone “decided” “incorrectly,” there was hell to pay.

By whom?

You got your feelings hurt at a web site and it is science’s problem?

Which posts in this thread are examples of you being told that you had decided incorrectly?

The Bible was trampled, God was trampled, and the name calling: IDiot, cretard, the list goes on, began.

I doubt that any one on this forum called you any of those names and I have not seen anyone here trampling the Bible.
Therefore your argument of extrapolating from you specific experiences to a general assumption is flawed.

If you want to play out on unmoderated forms you should know that you will need a thick skin.

I’m sorry if someone called you names but it is not science’s fault.

Apparently, “disagreeing” with the evidence was not an option. Because if it were, everyone could go on with their lives in peace.

Instead I’m seeing the earmarks of a psychological warfare program.

God bless,
Ed

Well, since you are the one who has come here and made very inflammatory statements regarding the faith of some forum members how does that square with you wanting to go on in peace?

In fact in post # 140 you state that “whatever the evidence, the current promotion of evolution is not designed to align with Biblical truth.”

This is not merely “disagreeing with the evidence” this is an a priori rejection.
If you wish to challenge someone’s faith don’t be surprised if they challenge right back.

 

[edwest2]

The current “promotion” of evolution is more concerned about science taking away something from the Church. It is Evolution Marketing 101. I want people to realize that what they are getting here is not a free science education but an indoctrination program.

May I mention the best example of this is Richard Dawkins in his God Delusion, which received much praise from the atheist/secular community. He is in essence, saying to all believers, “Your god is a fake, right along with all the fake gods of history. So what once belonged to the Church (Creation) has now been taken away by Science.”

The entire program revolves around a particular type of “reason” and “evidence.” Not as Science presents it but as they (Harris, Dawkins, et al) popularize it to the public. Go ahead, look up Richard Dawkins’ Foundation. See what else he’s promoting. I’m interested in science but not a form that is used to promote the ends of atheists and secular humanists.

Those who know the truth already should not be bothered by what I have to say. I am exposing a deception that is being sent out among the people.

God bless,
Ed

 

[abu_kamoon]

What evolutionists who claim to be Catholic don’t understand is that science has its limitations. Science can explain a great deal about how the world operates. But there are areas that true science cannot comment on.

The origin of life, for example, the origin of the universe. No one was there to witness the acts. Any “scientific” theories are based on speculation and assumption, and that automatically disqualifies them as science.

I think the problem here is a definition of science. I think those of us who reject evolution, by and large, are as pro-science as the evolutionists. We see science as the search for truth, and THE TRUTH DOESN"T CHANGE.

We have all head about various “scientific” theories and beliefs that have become discredited over the years. It is my opinion that these theories and beliefs were never science. They were pseudo-science, or junk science. They were the products of scientists going off half-cocked, shooting from the hip.

We have all heard about the dust layer on the surface of the moon, how it was supposed to be many feet deep, rather than a few inches. “Science” was wrong. True science doesn’t change. Scientists need to keep their mouths shut when they don’t know what they are talking about.

Theories based on assumptions are not science in my book. I don’t want to hear some one else’s theories. I can come up with my own. I want to hear about real science, something that is provable.

Before someone starts in on the theory of gravitation, let me say that we all know that gravity exists. Nobody can actually explain it. That is as far as science can go at this point.

 

[Orogeny]

What evolutionists who claim to be Catholic don’t understand is that science has its limitations. Science can explain a great deal about how the world operates. But there are areas that true science cannot comment on.

Wow, thanks for the education. Your’e right, I didn’t understand that.

The origin of life, for example, the origin of the universe. No one was there to witness the acts. Any “scientific” theories are based on speculation and assumption, and that automatically disqualifies them as science.

Or, more accurately, evidence. From several scientific disciplines.

I think the problem here is a definition of science. I think those of us who reject evolution, by and large, are as pro-science as the evolutionists. We see science as the search for truth, and THE TRUTH DOESN"T CHANGE.

What makes you think you have a monopoly on that? Of course, scientists understand that.

We have all head about various “scientific” theories and beliefs that have become discredited over the years. It is my opinion that these theories and beliefs were never science. They were pseudo-science, or junk science. They were the products of scientists going off half-cocked, shooting from the hip.

Well, your opinion and $2 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. You don’t understand science or you wouldn’t have made such a statement.

We have all heard about the dust layer on the surface of the moon, how it was supposed to be many feet deep, rather than a few inches. “Science” was wrong. True science doesn’t change. Scientists need to keep their mouths shut when they don’t know what they are talking about.

Theories based on assumptions are not science in my book. I don’t want to hear some one else’s theories. I can come up with my own. I want to hear about real science, something that is provable.

Before someone starts in on the theory of gravitation, let me say that we all know that gravity exists. Nobody can actually explain it. That is as far as science can go at this point.

Bottom line is that you don’t have a clue what science is. You think it is a dogma and can’t change once accepted. It isn’t. Of course, we change theories based on new evidence. It’s a good thing, too, or else why develop antibiotics to treat infection? After all, the idea that microbes cause disease hasn’t always been accepted, but once the evidence supported it, the acceptance of that notion became widespread.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

The current “promotion” of evolution is more concerned about science taking away something from the Church. It is Evolution Marketing 101. I want people to realize that what they are getting here is not a free science education but an indoctrination program.

May I mention the best example of this is Richard Dawkins in his God Delusion, which received much praise from the atheist/secular community. He is in essence, saying to all believers, “Your god is a fake, right along with all the fake gods of history. So what once belonged to the Church (Creation) has now been taken away by Science.”

The entire program revolves around a particular type of “reason” and “evidence.” Not as Science presents it but as they (Harris, Dawkins, et al) popularize it to the public. Go ahead, look up Richard Dawkins’ Foundation. See what else he’s promoting. I’m interested in science but not a form that is used to promote the ends of atheists and secular humanists.

Those who know the truth already should not be bothered by what I have to say. I am exposing a deception that is being sent out among the people.

God bless,
Ed

Ed, you have made it clear you don’t like the way evolution is promoted. Fine. Do you have ANY scientific arguments against it? If not, what precludes it from being a valid scientific theory, other than it’s “marketing” or that you have been called names on other forums?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Yes, I have tried scientific arguments elsewhere but they have been rejected by an orthodoxy that only wishes to promote a belief.

I cannot stress enough, that what is being taught here is not strictly science but the promotion of a worldview. Specifically:

We are all animals, which means, not subject to a mythical god of any kind.

Since there is no evidence of a mythical god, all Christians should embrace atheism. That is, the average, even poorly educated person understands that evolution requires no god to work and therefore, that it tacitly endorses atheism.

I have never seen evolution presented on any forum that didn’t eventually becoming a shouting match where the Christian God, Bible and associated beliefs were the object of their ire. This isn’t about me taking any criticism personally. This is about the constant, over and over again, replay of the same scenario. Claims, and if those claims are rejected, insults, name calling and useless diatribes about how bad religion is.

I have never seen evolution presented without its constant companion, an atheistic/naturalistic/humanistic worldview.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Yes, I have tried scientific arguments elsewhere but they have been rejected by an orthodoxy that only wishes to promote a belief.

Perhaps they were rejected because they have no validity. Is that possible?

I cannot stress enough, that what is being taught here is not strictly science but the promotion of a worldview. Specifically:

We are all animals, which means, not subject to a mythical god of any kind.

That is not correct. I am certainly not promoting or teaching that.

Since there is no evidence of a mythical god, all Christians should embrace atheism. That is, the average, even poorly educated person understands that evolution requires no god to work and therefore, that it tacitly endorses atheism.

I have never seen evolution presented on any forum that didn’t eventually becoming a shouting match where the Christian God, Bible and associated beliefs were the object of their ire. This isn’t about me taking any criticism personally. This is about the constant, over and over again, replay of the same scenario. Claims, and if those claims are rejected, insults, name calling and useless diatribes about how bad religion is.

So your argument is not based on science but on the fact that you don’t like the way it is being promoted.

I have never seen evolution presented without its constant companion, an atheistic/naturalistic/humanistic worldview.

I have not presented it that way. Steve and Phil haven’t presented it that way. Rossum doesn’t present it that way. It would appear your claim is untrue.

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

Yes, I have tried scientific arguments elsewhere …

OK, go ahead. Try again. This is one place on the net where we don’t call people names.

 

[wildleafblower]

It’s widely believed that (other than the idea that Satan put into the minds of Man that they could become wise to good and evil by eating from the tree) Galileo’s theory of heliocentrism was the beginning of the idea that God did not create the world and universe for mankind and put macroevolution into the realm of possibilities. It put doubts in the official teachings of the Catholic Church regarding many issues. Keep in mind, the Church refuses to annul the doctrines and teachings of geocentrism… why would She have this is heliocentrism has been proven as true? Heliocentrism has not been proven, it’s simply another assumption used in the calculations of modern scientific study.

Heliocentrism was never proven, and all the science that goes into that theory also works perfectly equal to what geocentrism has to offer. This is why I’m 50/50 on the issue, I require more studying in the controversy.

Yes, geocentrism can be the topic of an entire thread… I’d participate

You might like to go to Popular Media hype and see what is happening on over there.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=178907
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=178907

On page three a person mentions “The Wacky World News”.

 

[zian]

OK, go ahead. Try again. This is one place on the net where we don’t call people names.

From my post #159, two pages ago …

edwest2:

All I’m getting is “Once you undrstand it, you’ll know it’s true.” I understand it. It’s a lot of speculation. It’s proponents here do not allow for any any evidence contrary to evolution. And I’ve seen evidence that contradicts evolution, but it’s inadmissable here.

…where I said:
I keep hearing about this evidence, Ed. Bring a few items so we can see them and discuss their merits.

/me waits …

 

[zian]

I think the problem here is a definition of science. I think those of us who reject evolution, by and large, are as pro-science as the evolutionists. We see science as the search for truth, and THE TRUTH DOESN"T CHANGE.

ah, but our understanding of the truth changes all the time. We do the best we can with the information we have at the present moment.

We have all head about various “scientific” theories and beliefs that have become discredited over the years. It is my opinion that these theories and beliefs were never science. They were pseudo-science, or junk science. They were the products of scientists going off half-cocked, shooting from the hip.

Not at all. This is just science doing its workaday thing - all day, every day. (see comment above)

Of course, some of it can be junk science. Your sweeping generalization is duly noted.

Theories based on assumptions are not science in my book. I don’t want to hear some one else’s theories. I can come up with my own. I want to hear about real science, something that is provable.

All of science has a basis in at least some assumptions. The question may arise as to whether or not the assumptions are reasonable or not.

You haven’t read any of the fine links posted by Phil, et.al. (repeatedly, in many threads) on the nature of science, and on the nature of proof in science, have you???

 

[hecd2]

I don’t remember mentioning anything about your Kent Hovind. You make some extreme assumptions. The information I get are from CATHOLIC Apologists such as Patrick Madrid, Bill Marshner, and a lot from Robert Sungenis.

Nevertheless, many of the things that you say, such as the foolish idea that the C14 concentration in the atmosphere is 1/3 of the way to equilibrium originate with Kent Hovind.

Secondly, you simply are stating he’s a sinner. Are YOU perfect? Do YOU sin? Being a hypocrite is what all people are, so what makes you special? Using tax evasion and him being in jail for it to make him seem any less credible for information that has NOTHING TO DO WITH being a sinner is just plain pathetic.

Hovind’s tax evasion is relevant. Just as he thinks that his supposed relationship with God justifies him in lying to the tax authorities, so he thinks it justifies him in lying about science. Hovind, from whom you get much of your ‘science’ whether you know it or not, is a liar, a thief and a criminal.

Lastly, his accreditations… Why don’t you research who it was that founded the majority of all the senior sciences and even lots of sub-sciences? Catholic monks, did they have pHD’s?

It’s PhD - not pHD. It’s absolutely not true that monks founded most scientific disciplines. It’s not even true that conventional Christians did. THe following great scintists were not conventional Christians: Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Watson, Crick, Chandrasekhar, Dirac, Mayr, Curie, Feynman, Pauling, Weinbrg, Laplace - I can list many, many more.

what does a pHD prove nowadays anyways. They show that you’ve been taught and you passed the classes required to achieve the piece of parchment entitling you with the suffix. They do NOT provide proof that you know the subject the best over somebody that doesn’t have a pHD.

The problem with Hovind isn’t that he hasn’t got a PhD, (lthough his ignorance of science is legendary) but that he lied about having a PhD.

You want to see what I basically believe in, I’m not going to sit here and argue over such simple logics, go to catholicintl.com/ for much of what and why I believe in special creation among other things.

Sungenis knows no more science or about how to conduct scientific study than a rabbit does.

I’m not 100% sure about geocentrism, but I think it’s something that needs further study… and if geocentrism is true, then evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.

Non sequitur.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Koru]

Let me get one thing straight…

The Church, since Her beginnings, has always taught Geocentrism and Special Creation. This has been the official teachings up until a few centuries ago. Then, the idea of heliocentrism and evolution came along way later. Since these idiologies came FAR after the previous teachings, the “Burden of Proof” is on the theory of Heliocentrism and Evolution.

If these cannot be proven, then there is no reason to transit over to a new teaching regarding history and astronomy from a logical stand-point. Once these have been PROVEN, that is when official teachings should switch… but that hasn’t and won’t happen.

It’s OBVIOUS that evolutionists will not sway, no matter how many Church doctrines, Tradition and teachings, and scientific proof is offered that oppose this ridiculous theory. You think the burden of proof is on us, but you have it WAY backwards. The burden of proof is on you evolutionists if you plan on swaying the teachings of special creation and geocentrism.

Keep in mind, regarding geocentrism I’m only about 50/50 regarding this issue… I need more time to study them both more deeply before I commit to it. But it is what the Church originally taught so Her teachings get the benefit of the doubt for now.

BTW - I know it’s PhD… I have an old keyboard and the shift key has a latency problem and needs to be replaced with a better one. I was typing quickly and I didn’t bother to go back and correct such a small grammatical error, especially if everything knew what the abbreviation means no matter where the caps show.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Well said, Koru.

 

[zian]

Let me get one thing straight…

If these cannot be proven, then there is no reason to transit over to a new teaching regarding history and astronomy from a logical stand-point. Once these have been PROVEN, that is when official teachings should switch… but that hasn’t and won’t happen.

It’s OBVIOUS that evolutionists will not sway, no matter how many Church doctrines, Tradition and teachings, and scientific proof is offered that oppose this ridiculous theory. You think the burden of proof is on us, but you have it WAY backwards. The burden of proof is on you evolutionists if you plan on swaying the teachings of special creation and geocentrism.

(a) it seems you haven’t absorbed the benefit of the posts by Phil, et. al. on the nature of science and the nature of **proof **in science either. Let me know if you are unable to find them via the search feature, and I will see if I can link to them.

(b) the burden of “proof” (finding consistent evidence, coherent theories, etc) is on every idea of science, all the time. Everything is subject to new discoveries and new or renewed scrutiny. The evidence for descent with modification in both the plant and animal kingdoms is vast. The linkage of this information to knowledge from other disciplines such as astronomy, cosmology, genetics, thermodynamics, etc etc etc is telling for the ideas that the earth is old and that life has changed over time. These are among the reasons that I accept evolution. I am unaware of the “scientific proof” that you mention. So far you have failed to bring anything forward that is compelling; did I miss it?

 

[hecd2]

Let me get one thing straight…

The Church, since Her beginnings, has always taught Geocentrism and Special Creation. This has been the official teachings up until a few centuries ago. Then, the idea of heliocentrism and evolution came along way later. Since these idiologies came FAR after the previous teachings, the “Burden of Proof” is on the theory of Heliocentrism and Evolution.

As far as science goes, whether that science is being done by believers or unbelievers, what the Church teaches is utterly irrelevant. Science does not give any credence to religious ideas, on the very well founded and attested basis that literal scriptural (Christian and non-Christian scripture) concepts about the natural world are worthless.

If these cannot be proven, then there is no reason to transit over to a new teaching regarding history and astronomy from a logical stand-point. Once these have been PROVEN, that is when official teachings should switch… but that hasn’t and won’t happen.

Except, that the official teachings of the Catholic Church already hold that an acceptance of evolution and a rejection of geocentrism are admissible. And the Church officially does not teach young earth creationism and geocentrism. So what you claim ought not to be, already is. Learn to live with it.

It’s OBVIOUS that evolutionists will not sway, no matter how many Church doctrines, Tradition and teachings, and scientific proof is offered that oppose this ridiculous theory.

You are right about the Church doctrines, tradition and teachings - any religious body can offer those until it is blue in the face and scientists will, rightly, ignore them, Religious doctrines and teachings are not valid scientific evidence. When it comes to scientific evidence against evolution, then scientists will take note of that. However, there is no good scientific evidence against evolution forthcoming.

You think the burden of proof is on us, but you have it WAY backwards. The burden of proof is on you evolutionists if you plan on swaying the teachings of special creation and geocentrism.

Already done. The Church already accepts that geocentrism and young earth creationism are not required beliefs and accepts acentrism and evolution as acceptable for Catholics to hold. Do try to keep up.

Keep in mind, regarding geocentrism I’m only about 50/50 regarding this issue… I need more time to study them both more deeply before I commit to it. But it is what the Church originally taught so Her teachings get the benefit of the doubt for now.

Not amongst scientists.

You have made many unsupportable claims, such as the foolish idea that the C14 concentration in the atmosphere is 1/3 the way to equilibrium, or that only three geologic periods are present in any one place. I have challenged you on these and your response has not been to provide supporting evidence for your claim but to ignore them. Amongst thinking people that loses you what little credibility you have left.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

“Amongst thinking people…” Need more be said? I will stand by the statements made by Pope Benedict about evolution because they make scientific and, more importantly, Scriptual sense.

Truth cannot contradict truth. I will stand by for what His Holiness has to say in the future about this topic.

God bless,
Ed