Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

[edwest2]

It’s sad that you do not acknowledge Biblical events and miracles. Jesus showed what God can do by raising the dead, cleansing the lepers and giving sight to the blind. Yet there are those (not you) followers of science who have blinded themselves to this reality.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

It’s sad that you do not acknowledge Biblical events and miracles. Jesus showed what God can do by raising the dead, cleansing the lepers and giving sight to the blind. Yet there are those (not you) followers of science who have blinded themselves to this reality.Peace,Ed

How are you in a position to believe that I do not acknowledge Jesus’ miracles?

 

[edwest2]

Both are possible, and I’m Catholic. All origins stories carry truth, and I read many different ones to my children. Belief in the earth diver is neither more nor less credible than belief in a talking snake!

I think assigning equivalency to obvious myth and divinely revealed truth in one area of the Bible calls into question the rest of the Bible.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

How are you in a position to believe that I do not acknowledge Jesus’ miracles?

What other ways can God act in nature?

 

[StAnastasia]

I think assigning equivalency to obvious myth and divinely revealed truth in one area of the Bible calls into question the rest of the Bible. Peace,Ed

No, it doesn’t call it into question. Do you know that the Bible is a composite document with a long redactorial history? Do you know that the Genesis stories were assembled many centuries later than some other parts of scripture? Do you know that the Bible includes myth and metaphor, story and symbol, ceremonial and apodictic and casuistic law, prophecy and poetry, wisdom and apocalyptic and literary genres?

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

II Timothy 3:16

I know about the Bible’s history but I was taught it was not assembled by men but by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. The Catholic Church gave the Bible to the world.

Peace,
Ed

 

[redneck22]

The following was emailed to me by a friend, not involved in this thread, a PhD in electrical engineering. Several swipes have been made at the Kolbe Center during this discussion. Here is something from the Kolbe Center itself, announcing another conference in Rome in which the Kolbe Center is participating.

Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

952 Kelly Rd., Mt. Jackson, VA 22842

Tel: 540-856-8453 E-Mail: howen@shentel.net

For me You have created the skies scattered with stars . . . and all the beautiful things on earth

(St. Maximilian Kolbe)

kolbecenter.org

Dear Friends of the Kolbe Center,

Pax Christi!

Thanks to your prayers and sacrifices, our colleagues in the French Association pour la Connaisance de la Science have completed final plans for an historic conference at La Sapienza University in Rome on the feast of St. Martin de Porres, November 3, 2008. This marks the first time that a group of distinguished Catholic scientists will present the scientific evidence against the evolutionary hypothesis at a major Catholic University. It is urgent that this information be published far and wide in the Catholic and secular media. You can help with this project by writing letters to the editors of your local Catholic and secular newspapers and by asking others to do the same. Here is a model letter that you can modify according to your own inspiration.

Dear Editor,

I am writing to urge you to cover one of the most important events in the Catholic Church in modern times. On November 3, 2008, a group of top notch Catholic scientists from all over the world will hold a conference entitled “A Scientific Critique of Evolution” at La Sapienza University in Rome. In 1950 in his encyclical Humani generis Pope Pius XII asked that Catholic scholars examine the evidence for and against the evolutionary hypothesis, but the conference on November 3 marks the first time that the scientific evidence against the evolutionary hypothesis has been presented by an international gathering of distinguished Catholic scientists.

The scientists, who hail from France, Poland, and Australia, will present evidence showing that the evolutionary hypothesis violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and that the latest findings in the fields of molecular biology, genetics, sedimentology, and radiometric dating contradict the evolutionary explanation for the origin of life and for the variety of living things. The conference program, the qualifications of the participating scientists, and the abstracts of their papers are available at the conference website sites.google.com/site/scientificcritiqueofevolution/

It is high time that Catholic (and secular) media covered both sides of the evolution debate!

Yours in Christ,

X

I am sorry to say that the APCS conference is the only Catholic conference planned for the next 12 months where a scientific critique of evolution will be permitted. Three major Catholic conferences on evolution have been planned in Rome to “celebrate” the year of Darwin. None of these conferences has invited any Catholic scholars critical of evolution. Indeed, the organizers of these conferences are receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Templeton Foundation, an organization dedicated to working with the Lucis Trust (formerly the Lucifer Trust) and similar organizations to build a New World Order with a New Age religion. According to statements by John Marks Templeton in the 1992 and 1996 issues of Who’s Who in Theology and Science:

. . . God is now providing new revelations in ways which go beyond any religion, to those who welcome the originality of the Creation and its continual surprises. For example, some theologians and scientists see tremendous possibilities for our future understanding of ourselves and our Creator through an integration of the discoveries of science with many religious traditions - a new “theology of science.” . . . old scriptures need new interpretations.

In contrast, the scientists participating in the APCS conference are devout Catholics who adhere to the orthodox Catholic faith and who are traveling to Rome at their own expense. We are using donations earmarked for the Rome conference to defray the cost of the conference. If you would able to contribute to this cause, please make donations payable to the Kolbe Center but indicate that they are for the APCS conference in Rome.

Thank you again for your prayers and sacrifices for this cause. Please continue to pray for the scientists who are exposing themselves to vicious persecution by revealing the bankruptcy of the evolutionary hypothesis. They are truly men of great faith, courage and integrity.

I will write to you again after the conference with a complete report.

In Domino,

Hugh Owen, Director

Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

Thanks a lot for that gj thats very important and I will be forwarding correspondence as suggested. Could you keep us informed of progress?

<<<<<<<<<
I find it interesting to learn who is the major funding sponsor of the “No ID conference.” It is cynical on my part to say “Follow the money,” ?

When it comes to so called “evolutionary evidence” it’s more a case of “Show me the money”.

 

[reggieM]

Why do you alone see it as false, when the 100,000 biologists who work with evolution – incdluign Catholic priests – do not see this?

If science was a popularity contest then evolution would win.

There are scientists who do see evolutionary theory as false and sometimes the minority voice is correct.

 

[StAnastasia]

If science was a popularity contest then evolution would win.

There are scientists who do see evolutionary theory as false and sometimes the minority voice is correct.

But those scientists are not working productively in universities or laboratories or medical facilities. They are in ineffectual little ghettos like the Kolbe Center or Catholic Answers or AiG.

Nothing you or the Kolbe Center or AiG can do will change the fact that 100,000 biologists continue to work fruitfully on the assumption of biological evolution every day. We might possibly still be having this very conversation fifty years from now, but to evolutionary science the yammering of the evolution deniers is and will continue to be totally irrelevant. An amusing sideshow, perhaps, but totally irrelevant to their scientific work.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

But those scientists are not working productively in universities or laboratories or medical facilities. They are in ineffectual little ghettos like the Kolbe Center or Catholic Answers or AiG.

Nothing you or the Kolbe Center or AiG can do will change the fact that 100,000 biologists continue to work fruitfully on the assumption of biological evolution every day. We might possibly still be having this very conversation fifty years from now, but to evolutionary science the yammering of the evolution deniers is and will continue to be totally irrelevant. An amusing sideshow, perhaps, but totally irrelevant to their scientific work.

StAnastasia

Is this an argument from popularity? Shame on you.

 

[StAnastasia]

Is this an argument from popularity? Shame on you.

No, it’s not an argument at all. I’m just saying that scientists – who have found evolution a fruitful and compelling explanation for the last century – will continue to work with it, regardless of anything Catholic Answers or the Kolbe Center says.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

No, it’s not an argument at all. I’m just saying that scientists – who have found evolution a fruitful and compelling explanation for the last century – will continue to work with it, regardless of anything Catholic Answers or the Kolbe Center says.

StAnastasia

As long as there is funding.

 

[reggieM]

But those scientists are not working productively in universities or laboratories or medical facilities.

I don’t accept that you are familiar with the careers of all of these scientists:

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Additionally, you’re raising the bar on this. You originally said that there were no scientists with any credibility. You’ve now qualified that further to day that there are none working “productively”. With all due respect, that’s your subjective judgement – you’re acting as the gate-keeper deciding who the “good scientists are” versus the “bad ones”.

It’s enough for me to recognize that there is dissent against Darwinism in the scientific community. Beyond that, many of the 100,000 you cite offer contradictory, ambiguous and often false information regarding evolution.

Nothing you or the Kolbe Center or AiG can do will change the fact that 100,000 biologists continue to work fruitfully on the assumption of biological evolution every day.

You might be right about that, but if so, I wouldn’t expect to see the kind of passionate interest (to the point of hostility) shown towards those who criticize evolutionary theory from the Darwinist side. If the anti-evolutionists are as harmless and as easily dismissed as you suggest, then nobody would pay any attention to them. But I’ve seen several instances where evolutionists struggle with ID theory and some aspects of creationism.

We might possibly still be having this very conversation fifty years from now, but to evolutionary science the yammering of the evolution deniers is and will continue to be totally irrelevant.

Well, I disagree.

Many of the criticisms of evolution that have come in from various sources have been taken seriously.

scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm

Developmental biologist Stuart Kauffman is clearly one who thinks we must expand evolutionary theory …

Well there’s 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there’s 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that’s 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There’s only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe.

 

[edwest2]

I think it should be pointed out that scientists who work with evolution every day actually do not.

Viruses mutate but remain viruses. Bacteria have built-in mechanisms, including lateral gene transfer between different species of bacteria, but remain bacteria.

I don’t want to belabor the point but bacteria do not sprout arms and legs. A long-running experiment with fruit flies was thought to be the key to exposing evolution in action. Their small size, short life spans and relatively large populations made them ideal. The experiment showed that radiation could switch genetic material around but it could only work with what was there. Some pretty bizarre results were achieved but the survivors could not survive in the wild.

Geneticists are recombining DNA, and figuring out what proteins do, but like a tinker toy, they are taking it apart and figuring out what does what. Which is fine, but it does not involve evolution.

Junk DNA, it was declared, was going to turn out to be a record of all the evolution man had gone through. It turns out it’s not junk after all. It turns out that other material among the junk could be as important as the actual DNA itself.

So, yes, there are bones in museums showing large, extinct animals. They did exist. I still contend that any genetic relationship between modern man and modern ape is based on body plans. I want to build two similar organisms, so, of course, the codes to build similar bodies will be similar.

Some ability to adapt to the environment is built-in. Darwin’s finches experience a change in beak size in response to their environment, but the beaks go back to their original shape when environmental conditions change back. They always remain finches.

It’s also true that fossilized trees have been found passing through many rock strata. That raises a question about ages for me.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

You might be right about that, but if so, I wouldn’t expect to see the kind of passionate interest (to the point of hostility) shown towards those who criticize evolutionary theory from the Darwinist side. If the anti-evolutionists are as harmless and as easily dismissed as you suggest, then nobody would pay any attention to them. But I’ve seen several instances where evolutionists struggle with ID theory and some aspects of creationism…Well, I disagree…Many of the criticisms of evolution that have come in from various sources have been taken seriously.
scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm

ReggieM, I have no problem with scientists vigorously disputing with each other about the meaning and intelligibility of the various factors in evolutionary biology. The Mazur article you present doesn’t seem in any way to call evolution into question.

What I do have a problem with is scientifically and theologically uneducated people – who have a dogged commitment to a 6,000 year-old earth and a global flood from which a guy named Noah saved every living creature – trashing whole fields of scientific research and endeavor, fields to which tens of thousands of brilliant scientists dedicate their careers. That’s my beef with some on Catholic Answers.

I do agree that there is much to be worked out regarding how evolution works and how God works through it. But denying that evolution happens is the biological equivalent of a geographer denying the sphericity of the earth. There’s not much possibility of communicating with people like that.

StAnastasia

 

[Wirraway]

…

I don’t want to belabor the point but bacteria do not sprout arms and legs. …

but the fact is you do want to belabor the point.

the reason I ceased to take you seriously is that you revel in a strawman caricature of evolution: you repeat this “pigs with wings” and minor variations endlessly and its not a substantive argument. no one, and I mean no one but creationists, posits this ridiculous scenario.

…It’s also true that fossilized trees have been found passing through many rock strata. That raises a question about ages for me.

tell the forum where these trees are, and we’ll discuss the particulars.

but what have you done, apart from argue from personal incredulity, about this question? do you understand anything about how dead animals or plants or fossils or sediments or both are often reworked and appear out of sequence by events like repeated erosion and downstream reburial (because a pluvial environment is the kind of place most likely to create fossils) to actions by scavengers and burrowing animals?

 

[StAnastasia]

but what have you done, apart from argue from personal incredulity, about this question? ?

I can’t believe Halloween is almost here, so it’s not.

 

[JReducation]

I’m going to unsubscribe from this thread now. I have enjoyed reading everyone’s posts and have learned a great deal.

Before leaving, I would encourage everyone in the words of the St. Francis to be humble and to trust the Church, especially the Pope and the bishops to find answers that are rational and theologically sound.

I get the impression on many of these threads that we (the laity) want to get involved in the discussion of issues within the Church. This is good. We should be interested and share opinions. On the other hand, like St. Francis said to his Brothers and Sisters and to all the Faithful, we must always be submissive to the Church.

As St. Elizabeth Ann Seton said, “Be children of the Church.” The Church is on-going. Those whose submission stops at the Pre-Vatican, are not being children of the church.

The Church is our mother. Just because our mother gets older and changes the way that she teaches, she does not cease to be Mother. Today, the Church wants to engage with atheistic scientists and scientists who are believers in this search to harmonize scientific observations with revealed truth.

Let the Church do what she wants to do and try to learn what she learns, not put our two cents into everything before the Church reaches any kind of conclusion.

This has been interesting and education. Thanks for allowing me to be here.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m going to unsubscribe from this thread now. I have enjoyed reading everyone’s posts and have learned a great deal.)

Farewell, JReducation!

StAnastasia

 

[reggieM]

What I do have a problem with is scientifically and theologically uneducated people – who have a dogged commitment to a 6,000 year-old earth and a global flood from which a guy named Noah saved every living creature – trashing whole fields of scientific research and endeavor, fields to which tens of thousands of brilliant scientists dedicate their careers. That’s my beef with some on Catholic Answers.

Ok, that’s understandable. I appreciate the explanation, even where I disagree (I think the Mazur article revealed some serious questions about evolution, for example).

Our Lord did mention Noah and the flood, so I think we should be careful about how we treat that.

I do agree that there is much to be worked out regarding how evolution works and how God works through it.

That is good to hear. Some of the more dogmatic evolutionists are not willing to admit that there is anything more to be worked out at all (although the vast majority see no need to understand God’s role either).

I do not think it’s easy to reconcile evolutionary theory with Catholicism – at least as I see it. I’m open to any attempts to do that. Of all the Catholic Darwinists that I’ve encountered on CAF, I haven’t seen any that didn’t either struggle immensely with trying to reconcile the two, or else just have a very flimsy explaination (more like just ignoring the problem) on how they’re reconciled.

It takes a lot of understanding about God and Catholic theology in order to explain God’s role in creation. When I see people completely trashing the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and of Popes and Councils of the past – choosing only a scant few passages from very recent Church documents to support their view – then I don’t think our Faith is treated fairly in this discussion.

One major danger, as I see it, is that science becomes the standard by which we decide what to believe or not believe.

There are three errors (probably many more) aligned with that:

Rationalism, Naturalism and Scientism.

Rationalism = meaning that human reason is the highest standard, and human life must be measured by reason and rationality alone. Catholicism respects reason but also teaches that there is a supra-rational truth – beyond reason, higher and more perfect than human reason.

Naturalism = nature alone explains the universe, life and humanity.

Scientism = Science is the only tool that can be trusted to understand the universe, life and humanity.