Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

[jdnation]

in what way could you disprove ID?

As someone mentioned, you could disprove ID by demonstrating that complex lifeforms can be created in nature by chance. And especially demonstrate or explain how less complex forms can become more complex forms through naturalism.

In any case, I’m not arguing that ID is operational science. Creationism is not operational science. And Macro-evolution is not operational science either. What I’ve been trying to say all along is that both Creationism and Macro Evolutionary beliefs are religions. They are believed not because scientific evidence but on religious faith. None of these can be verifiably tested, reproduced or disproven. Well I’d say evolution can be disproven only by virtue that there isn’t and never was a satisfactory hypothetical explanation for how it can happen in the first place. It is as if everyone just gave up trying to explain it or simply got too ahead of themselves trying to find evidence to fit the evolutionary worldview without ever bothering to confirm if it actually had happened, or is happening, or could happen at all… There is no working model, there is no eyewitness testimony for anyone witnessing organisms becoming more complex through natural selection… nothing at all!

jdnation, are you envious of educated people? Envy is not a Catholic virtue. Your anti-intellectualism dishonors St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and the other great doctors and fathers of the Church.

Evolution is taught because it works – it is accurate, concise, and fruitful in generating testable hypotheses. If either Young Earth or Intelligent Design Creationism were convincing explanations of astronomy, geology, geography, chemistry, and biology, Ken Ham would be teaching in a major university, rather than presiding over his own “Christian” Disneyland. Instead, you concoct a fantastic story about a worldwide conspiracy to “trick” people into accepting evolution as science!

StAnastasia

I don’t see how you came to the conclusion that I am ‘envious’, but I suppose that if I am jealous of anything then I am just as jealous as God is when He sees His people worshiping false gods and idols. (Exodus 20:4-5) I believe the Church doctors will also see it the same way. The Church has always been open to discussion. It is not close minded like atheist evolutionists and often the theistic evolutionists who unwittingly follow their lead.

Evolution isn’t taught because it works. It is taught because it is secular and believed to be actual science. How can you say it works when Evolutionists themselves will admit that they do not know how. They only make blind assumptions and leave it to chance. It is a complete article fo faith! Believe it or not there is a concentrated effort to keep people like Ken Ham away, to discredit and take away any credentials from scientists who convert from evolutionism to creationism or ID. Any students who are found to believe in creationism will be harassed and failed. You might argue that it’s because ‘evolution’ is true’ but you are merely using circular reasoning. You cannot prove it at all! How is evolution accurate and consice? Which method of evolution works? Which evolutionary theory do you subscribe to? The gradualist method? Or Punctuated Equlibrium? Not even evolutionists know and they debate it bitterly… What kind of testable hypothesis has it generated? I’d dearly like to know what there is that tests how organisms of lesser complexity can gain genetic information to become more complex through chance natural selection over millions of years!

Why are you that surprised by the fact that there is an open conspiracy to keep creationism and ID out of the picture? Similar things happen all the time on things other than creationism. There are already efforts underway to teach kids that homosexuality is a moral lifestyle choice. Many Catholic schools don’t even allow priests to preach on certain topics to their students. Schools are forced to teach about alternate sexual lifestyles and encourage the use of contraceptives. There is and has always been a conspiracy to get religion and religious motivated beliefs and subjects out of schools, and a thorough job has already been done in Universities and Colleges. They range from particular subjects all the way to daily prayers. Why are you so surprised? Haven’t you been paying attention? Can you really be that naieve? Just by parroting the line that ‘creationism’ isn’t as scientific as evolution, you are also part of the problem. Dr. Eugiene Scott, who leads the NCSE, and is an atheist loves encouraging religious people from priests to laypeople work under her guidance to spread the idea that evolution is compatabile with all religions. You’re useful to them for continuing to defend evolution while they use it to erode religion altogether. There are entire organizations set up to keep creationism out of science. When cases turn up for allowing creationism or ID in education, they are dragged into a court of law and the old false slogan of ‘Separation of Church and State’ is evoked to stop it… not scientific evidence… The list can go on! If you believe that universities and colleges and school boards today are sympathetic to religion, especially any religion firmly rooted in tradition and not some liberal interpretation… especially something associated with traditional Christianity… then you must be suffering from some cognitive dissonance. A scroll through the news sections on this forum should provide a healthy sampling of how ‘unbiased’ the secular world is to anything associated with traditional religion.

 

[edwest2]

yet another creationist argument relying on argument from personal incredulity and, as usual, strawmen.

evolution does not rely on random chance.
men did not evolve from apes.

please, let’s see your calculations resulting in astronomical numbers – unless, as is likely, you just made that up too.

It is incredible to think that random forces with natural selection brought life to this point. Based on that theory, there should be people walking around with feathers, beaks, moose antlers and fish scales. For scientists to think that only they can consider the possibilities posed by their formula is hubris.

According to the theory, random mutations should have been spitting out every conceivable, and inconceivable, body part known to man.

My point is, once an organism is born, it needs all of its various body parts, knowledge of how to use them effectively in an environment it is seeing for the first time, and the ability to find, and recognize edible plants and/or animals before dying of starvation.

The odds of this happening successfully even once are pretty high. The odds of another “mutation” that is beneficial being passed on before the animal is eaten, killed or dies due to fire or flood or disease, raises the odds further.

It is only an assertion that anything evolved. Did man and apes have a common ancestor? My argument is that apes and man are genetically related only because their similar body plans would result in very similar genetic coding to assemble those body plans.

Peace,
Ed

 

[jdnation]

Although the Bernoulli principle has been explained to me, I still cannot conceive of how a huge chunk of metal like a 747 can stay way up in the air! Or how a cruise ship can float. There must be invisible divine hands holding them in place, since it just doesn’t make scientific sense…

The odds are pretty good that a 747 intelligently designed and built will stay up in the air. Because not only is knowledge of the vehicles parts needed, but knowlege of how the vehicles parts must work together all at once, and knowledge of forces outside of the vehicle such as the air, speed, weight, areas of pressure etc. etc. Please describe how a bird evolved. Did it only have one wing first? Remember, a bird, like an airplane needs ALL of its parts functioning together, the frame, the skeleton, the control surfaces. They cannot gradually grow wings 1% at a time and practice flying. And how did birds start flying? Did they all start jumping off of cliffs? Gliding off of heights until they got it right? And what are the odds that the first mutated one surviving? And if it didn’t of other offspring following its lead and succeeding on their 1/4 evolved wings with scaly feathers? Or do you suppose a reptile laid an egg one day and out popped a perfect bird with feathers, hollow bones, and all intact like the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibria purports? The more one thinks about it, the more ridiculous it sounds…

Again, what are the odds “What are the odds that an ape will evolve into a human being or that a single celled creature will evolve into a more complex species.”

The simple answer is that the odds are irrelevant as according to evolutionary explanations of how they think it happened, evolution is simply impossible no matter what the odds or how much length of time you give it because the hypothetical mechanisms suggested for its operation were illogical and never worked in the first place.

 

[StAnastasia]

In any case, I’m not arguing that ID is operational science. Creationism is not operational science. And Macro-evolution is not operational science either…

jdnation, you raise many points. Some corrections:

(1) the distinction between “operations science” and “origins science” is bogus.

(2) Evolution is taught because it works. It explains biological diversity and is being observed.

(3) Ken Ham has no credibility with scientists because he is not a scientist.

(4) NCSE has a Catholic theologian on staff, directing their Faith Project.

(5) Evolution is compatible with religion, just as gravity is. Evolution is religiously neutral, however much the evangelical atheists want to twist it their way.

(6) Separation of church and state is a good idea, or we would end up like Saudi Arabia and other countries under shariah.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

T. And how did birds start flying? Did they all start jumping off of cliffs? Gliding off of heights until they got it right? And what are the odds that the first mutated one surviving? And if it didn’t of other offspring following its lead and succeeding on their 1/4 evolved wings with scaly feathers? Or do you suppose a reptile laid an egg one day and out popped a perfect bird with feathers, hollow bones, and all intact like the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibria purports? The more one thinks about it, the more ridiculous it sounds…

You are not describing the theory of evolution, but only an ignorant parody of it. No biologist has ever claimed that a reptile laid an egg that hatched as a bird. You need to study Biology 101. Enroll at your local college!

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

jdnation, you raise many points. Some corrections:

(1) the distinction between “operations science” and “origins science” is bogus.

(2) Evolution is taught because it works. It explains biological diversity and is being observed.

(3) Ken Ham has no credibility with scientists because he is not a scientist.

(4) NCSE has a Catholic theologian on staff, directing their Faith Project.

(5) Evolution is compatible with religion, just as gravity is. Evolution is religiously neutral, however much the evangelical atheists want to twist it their way.

(6) Separation of church and state is a good idea, or we would end up like Saudi Arabia and other countries under shariah.

StAnastasia

The Muslim Fundamentalist card. What nonsense.

The thing all Christians need to be concerned about is the current attempt to create an Atheist Technocracy imposing whatever crosses their mind law.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Wirraway]

It is incredible to think that random forces with natural selection brought life to this point.

formally known as argument from ignorance, or to put it nicely, argument from personal incredulity

Based on that theory, there should be people walking around with feathers, beaks, moose antlers and fish scales.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position thank you for providing a text book example.

For scientists to think that only they can consider the possibilities posed by their formula is hubris.

this, on the other hand, is an ad hominem or, more correctly, a personal attack

According to the theory, random mutations should have been spitting out every conceivable, and inconceivable, body part known to man

more strawman argument, and a display of a gross misunderstanding of the idea.

My point is, once an organism is born, it needs all of its various body parts, knowledge of how to use them effectively in an environment it is seeing for the first time, and the ability to find, and recognize edible plants and/or animals before dying of starvation.

almost true, but not a relevant point.

The odds of this happening successfully even once are pretty high. The odds of another “mutation” that is beneficial being passed on before the animal is eaten, killed or dies due to fire or flood or disease, raises the odds further.

this covers a variety of errors, noted above, it is also an argument by assertion

It is only an assertion that anything evolved. Did man and apes have a common ancestor? My argument is that apes and man are genetically related only because their similar body plans would result in very similar genetic coding to assemble those body plans.

Peace,
Ed

I am pleased to see you have learned that evolution posits a common ancestor for man and apes, and have refrained from the nonsensical position that man evolved from apes.

 

[StAnastasia]

The Muslim Fundamentalist card. What nonsense.Peace,Ed

I’m confused now: are you opposed to separation of church and state or not? If not, which church or which religion should be established?

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

I don’t see how you came to the conclusion that I am ‘envious’, but I suppose that if I am jealous of anything then I am just as jealous as God is when He sees His people worshiping false gods and idols. (Exodus 20:4-5) I believe the Church doctors will also see it the same way. The Church has always been open to discussion. It is not close minded like atheist evolutionists and often the theistic evolutionists who unwittingly follow their lead…

jdnation, perhaps you are not jealous, but you do complain about all the people – including many Catholics – who accept evolution as a valid and logical explanation for biological diversity. Incidentally, there are numerous Catholic priests among these biologists, who – without conflict – practice both their priesthood and their science.

Here is a proposal: rather than complaining about evolution, why not start your own movement to build a network of non-evolutionary biologists? Rather than being irritated at universities and colleges and professional societies who won’t give your scientific ideas a hearing, why not start your own universities and colleges and professional societies? Seek your own funding for biology research programs on non-evolutionary principles. Hold your own conferences and publish your own journals. Then you won’t have to endure painful rejections when you seek validation by submitting articles to “Nature” and “Science.” The AiG museum in Cincinnati has a good start already, and could serve as a nucleus for this movement…

It might work!
StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

I’m confused now: are you opposed to separation of church and state or not? If not, which church or which religion should be established?

StAnastasia

The statement you posted has no basis in fact. A prominant columnist wrote that America is no more a Theocracy now than it was in 1957. American Catholics need to return to 1957 in regards to practicing their faith.

Creating a state of fear is wrong. However, there is much recent promotion by scientists and even so-called comedians promoting atheism and the direct corrossive effect of science on belief. This should, correctly, be a concern for all Catholics. Also of concern is the spread of moral relativism embodied in such statements as I’m OK, You’re OK. Without a firm religious foundation, this country will be under the mercy of an ever-changing line-up of “experts” who will be, in turn, in vogue for a short while until the new expert with a new, new theory comes along.

I suggest you read President George Washington’s address to the nation upon his leaving office. It was published in its entirety in newspapers of the time and can be found online.

The separation of Church and State exists nowhere in the Constitution. it was an invention of the US Supreme Court. Congress shall make no law establishing a State religion but religion is also entitled to free exercise. According to one so-called comedian: “Religion is silly and dangerous.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Wirraway]

…
The separation of Church and State exists nowhere in the Constitution. it was an invention of the US Supreme Court. …

Peace,
Ed

the USSC has the authority to interpret the constitution, this has been accepted since the 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison. regarding religion, the Court has interpreted the first amendment establishment and free exercise clauses to require separation of church and state.

you might not like *Marbury *or the religion cases, but that’s like saying you don’t like the weather. you’ve got to just learn to live with it, 'cause asserting something different doesn’t mean much.

 

[edwest2]

formally known as argument from ignorance, or to put it nicely, argument from personal incredulity

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position thank you for providing a text book example.

this, on the other hand, is an ad hominem or, more correctly, a personal attack

more strawman argument, and a display of a gross misunderstanding of the idea.

almost true, but not a relevant point.

this covers a variety of errors, noted above, it is also an argument by assertion

I am pleased to see you have learned that evolution posits a common ancestor for man and apes, and have refrained from the nonsensical position that man evolved from apes.

I have learned, not just on this forum, that evolutionists can only see what they call evidence one way. It is my perogative to look at it differently. There is a relationship between many creatures on earth due to its atmosphere, gravity and composition. This is true. I contend that in terms of genetic codes, similar body plans will have similar codes. I view this as far more reasonable than saying some four legged, lemur like creature was man’s “common” ancestor. That is only an assertion, a misreading, or a biased reading of the evidence.

If you don’t agree, fine.

Believe me, I’ve been at this long enough to have had very detailed explanations given to me about why I am wrong. If anything, this has only strengthened my conclusion that A) Evolution is more assumption than anything. If something like evolution occurred, it is not what appears in textbooks. And science is certainly unable to detect other relevant aspects of the development of life. It is too narrow in its view. B) The vigorous, daily commentary and promotion of the theory, along with the fact that many leading scientist reject God, leads me to conclude that ‘universal acceptance’ of the theory is desired not for its scientific value, but in order to promote atheism. This thought is reinforced on those occasions when people refuse to accept the theory and the promoter stops talking about science and attacks the Bible, the invisible man in the sky and warns of the coming theocracy. The linkage is clear.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Wirraway]

I… leads me to conclude that ‘universal acceptance’ of the theory is desired not for its scientific value, but in order to promote atheism. This thought is reinforced on those occasions when people refuse to accept the theory and the promoter stops talking about science and attacks the Bible, the invisible man in the sky and warns of the coming theocracy. The linkage is clear.

Peace,
Ed

I’m just saying, ed, you’d do a lot better if you avoided the flawed argumentation. if you did that, you’d find people on opposite sides aren’t as far apart as you think.

do you really think I’m promoting atheism? or that the pope’s statements on evolution are wrong in that it let’s me “promote atheism”?

 

[edwest2]

This isn’t a political discussion. When you mention the Pope and evolution, I don’t know what you mean. There are numerous statements from the Pope clearly telling Catholics that evolution, as found in textbooks, is not the whole story. There is a mistaken belief that Pope Benedict is a satisfied evolutionist. Cardinal Schoenborn assures Catholics that is not true. There is also a snippet by Pope John Paul II that is further clarified in Human Persons Created in the Image of God. His “more than a hypothesis” statement was not meant as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution.

My point, and you can check the library of this site, is that Catholics are not allowed to believe that random mutation and natural selection alone created the life we see around us. That is the difference between the Pope’s statement that we were willed by an Intelligence, which is also described as a creative reason. The scientific explanation follows that we were the outcome of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have us in mind.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

the USSC has the authority to interpret the constitution, this has been accepted since the 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison. regarding religion, the Court has interpreted the first amendment establishment and free exercise clauses to require separation of church and state.

you might not like *Marbury *or the religion cases, but that’s like saying you don’t like the weather. you’ve got to just learn to live with it, 'cause asserting something different doesn’t mean much.

On the contrary, I don’t have to learn to live with it. I would never push the government of the United States to establish my religion as the State religion, but I will act as a good citizen and follower of the Christian faith in my daily life. I will speak and act based on those principles. I will also speak in the public square about what I believe.

I suggest you look up President George Washington’s speech to the American people as he left office. It was published in the newspapers of the time.

Just like others who don’t believe what I do promote their beliefs and ideas, I will do the same.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Wirraway]

On the contrary, I don’t have to learn to live with it. I would never push the government of the United States to establish my religion as the State religion, but I will act as a good citizen and follower of the Christian faith in my daily life. I will speak and act based on those principles. I will also speak in the public square about what I believe.

I suggest you look up President George Washington’s speech to the American people as he left office. It was published in the newspapers of the time.

Just like others who don’t believe what I do promote their beliefs and ideas, I will do the same.

Peace,
Ed

I’ve read it, ed, but GW’s speech isn’t law. the authority of the USSC to authoritatively interpret the C is law, just as is the separation of church.

 

[Wirraway]

… There is a mistaken belief that Pope Benedict is a satisfied evolutionist. Cardinal Schoenborn assures Catholics that is not true. …

I encourage you to let the Pope speak for himself. his writings are clear that that evolution and faith can fit hand in glove, despite what you say.

 

[StAnastasia]

I have learned, not just on this forum, that evolutionists can only see what they call evidence one way. It is my perogative to look at it differently. There is a relationship between many creatures on earth due to its atmosphere, gravity and composition. This is true. I contend that in terms of genetic codes, similar body plans will have similar codes. I view this as far more reasonable than saying some four legged, lemur like creature was man’s “common” ancestor. That is only an assertion, a misreading, or a biased reading of the evidence. If you don’t agree, fine.Peace,
Ed

Why not start your own field of biology? Why do you and other Young Earthers sit around criticizing evolutionary biology rather than doing something to promote your own view?

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Despite what I say? Please read Part 69 of the following:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

I hope you can consider my position for a moment. Richard Dawkins was on TV, and while I watched, he calmly declared: “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.”

In the United States, during the decades I was growing up, scientists were relied upon by the public to provide information, observations and commentary on scientific subjects. Their word was trusted and they were regarded as positive role models for young people. Today, they have taken up a cause. As Nature magazine tells us, most leading scientists reject God. Now, we all need to learn to live together and I have friends who are agnostic, Buddhist, and various other faiths and beliefs. We get along. However, the moment any scientist, and there are more than a few, picks up the same mountain of evidence to declare that evolution, as currently understood, negates a role for God - what do you say? Both Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn have been compelled to respond to this.

The comments I have read on numerous atheist, free thinker, bright, secular humanist, darwinist and other forums provides clear evidence that science combined with atheism will be the wedge and catalyst to create more atheists by explaining to them that all they see around them came into being by purely natural forces, no supernatural agent of any kind required.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

However, the moment any scientist, and there are more than a few, picks up the same mountain of evidence to declare that evolution, as currently understood, negates a role for God - what do you say? Both Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn have been compelled to respond to this.
Peace,Ed

So why do such scientists not start their own discipline? Why continue to work for institutions that disregard their criticisms?

StAnastasia