Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

[Wirraway]

So there is no longer a need for punctuated equilibrium?

how, exactly, have the creationists hijacked this concept?

 

[StAnastasia]

So there is no longer a need for punctuated equilibrium?

What do you mean? It’s a very interesting idea, and still useful.

 

[StAnastasia]

To StAnastasia, Amateur theology does not disprove the work of God. Peace,Ed

Ed, I googled “evolution and the bible” and found on the website of the National Center for Science Education and article I thought you might find interesting:

ncseweb.org/religion/god-evolution

“Can I believe in God and Evolution? The problem with this question lies in the clumsy framing: “Do you believe in creation or in evolution?” Framed in this fashion we are forced to choose between an apparently atheistic evolutionary worldview and a scientifically naïve creationism. But the question rests upon a category mistake that sets up a needless and false opposition. For example, what if I held up an orange and asked, “Is this fruit orange or is it spherical?” That would make no sense, because “orange” and “spherical” are not contradictory, but complementary descriptions of the fruit.”

StAnastasia

 

[Wirraway]

Ed, I googled “evolution and the bible” and found on the website of the National Center for Science Education and article I thought you might find interesting:

ncseweb.org/religion/god-evolution

“Can I believe in God and Evolution? The problem with this question lies in the clumsy framing: “Do you believe in creation or in evolution?” Framed in this fashion we are forced to choose between an apparently atheistic evolutionary worldview and a scientifically naïve creationism. But the question rests upon a category mistake that sets up a needless and false opposition. For example, what if I held up an orange and asked, “Is this fruit orange or is it spherical?” That would make no sense, because “orange” and “spherical” are not contradictory, but complementary descriptions of the fruit.”

StAnastasia

for those who are here to learn, its well written.

 

[buffalo]

What do you mean? It’s a very interesting idea, and still useful.

You pointed out that there the world’s museums are crammed full of transitional fossils.

I thought this was the answer to the findings that there weren’t.

 

[Wirraway]

You pointed out that there the world’s museums are crammed full of transitional fossils.

I thought this was the answer to the findings that there weren’t.

you don’t have a working understanding of the phrase “punctuated equilibrium” as the concept was developed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould thirty six years ago. you have a hijacked, cartoon version, courtesy of creationism, but you don’t know what it means.

 

[buffalo]

you don’t have a working understanding of the phrase “punctuated equilibrium” as the concept was developed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould thirty six years ago. you have a hijacked, cartoon version, courtesy of creationism, but you don’t know what it means.

So the idea of fast change and that’s the reason we don’t see transitionals is wrong?

 

[Wirraway]

So the idea of fast change and that’s the reason we don’t see transitionals is wrong?

before we discuss this, so that we’re on the same page, what is your understanding of PE?

 

[buffalo]

before we discuss this, so that we’re on the same page, what is your understanding of PE?

That there are periods of rapid change.

 

[Wirraway]

That there are periods of rapid change.

yes, the fossil record shows periods of rapid change and slow change. I’m sure you’re well aware of the problems of sampling bias.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, I googled “evolution and the bible” and found on the website of the National Center for Science Education and article I thought you might find interesting:

ncseweb.org/religion/god-evolution

“Can I believe in God and Evolution? The problem with this question lies in the clumsy framing: “Do you believe in creation or in evolution?” Framed in this fashion we are forced to choose between an apparently atheistic evolutionary worldview and a scientifically naïve creationism. But the question rests upon a category mistake that sets up a needless and false opposition. For example, what if I held up an orange and asked, “Is this fruit orange or is it spherical?” That would make no sense, because “orange” and “spherical” are not contradictory, but complementary descriptions of the fruit.”

StAnastasia

This is simply an example of what I call “permission culture.” It’s OK, science says so. Then science says it’s OK to believe this or believe that, but only if science says it’s OK.

The recent spate of books by scientists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and others, shows clearly how the same mountains of interpretations are being used to promote scientific atheism. As Christopher Hitchens stated in the National Catholic Register, If we knew then what now know, would we have ever become religious?

This superficial way of knowing is what I’m arguing against. This deformed way of knowing. Evolutionary Psychology is telling people your genes, not you, are you. They guide you, they choose; not you. They have brought you here to this new, new knowledge and we can’t say where they came from but they are god. They are your motivation.

God? A word to use on Christiam forums so that the “ignorant” can be taught the truth. Science is the way and the truth and nothing else.

Current science is a grossly deformed version of its former self. A tool for atheists.

Only the Catholic Church is trustworthy on this subject.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

This is simply an example of what I call “permission culture.” It’s OK, science says so. Then science says it’s OK to believe this or believe that, but only if science says it’s OK…
Only the Catholic Church is trustworthy on this subject.
Peace,
Ed

Ed, did you actually read the full article?

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Ed, did you actually read the full article?

StAnastasia

Yes, I did. It doesn’t alter my view at all. Modern science has become a deformed version of its former self.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes, I did. It doesn’t alter my view at all. Modern science has become a deformed version of its former self.
Peace,Ed

Deformities reveal the grace of God!

 

[reggieM]

Here is a view which is contrary to that of Mr. Hess’. I think it’s important to acknowledge what some evolutionists have said on the question also – to dismiss these points is to offer a very weak argument in support of the compatibility of religion and evolution. Some evolutionary scientists (well-supported, mainstream thinkers) state definitively that evolution has rendered a belief in God to be obsolete. When theists cover-up these facts, it doesn’t help their argument.

---

Even so, Stephen Meyer stressed that “contemporary Darwinism does not envision a God-guided process of evolutionary change.” He cites a famous observation by the late evolutionary biologist George Gaylord Simpson that Darwinism teaches “man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”

The ramifications are unmistakable, according to Meyer: “To say that God guides an inherently unguided natural process, or that God designed a natural mechanism as a substitute for his design, is clearly contradictory.”

Nancy Pearcey, who has written extensively on science and faith, insists that “you can have God or natural selection, but not both.” She pointed out that Darwin himself recognized that the presence of an omnipotent deity would actually undermine his theory. "If we admit God into the process, Darwin argued, then God would ensure that only ‘the right variations occurred … and natural selection would be superfluous.’"

Law professor Phillip Johnson, author of the breakthrough critique of evolution Darwin On Trial, agrees that “the whole point of Darwinism is to show that there is no need for a supernatural creator, because nature can do the creating by itself.”

… Another leading evolutionist, Francisco Ayala, who was ordained a Dominican priest prior to his science career and yet refused in a recent interview to confirm whether he still believes in God, said Darwin’s “greatest accomplishment” was to show that “living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent.”

When an attorney asked the outspoken William Provine (biologist at Cornell University) whether there is “an intellectually honest Christian evolutionist position … or do we simply have to check our brains at the church house door,” Provine’s answer was straightforward: “You indeed have to check your brains.” Apparently to him, the term “Christian evolutionist” is oxymoronic.

Pulitzer Prize-winning sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson was adamant on this issue. “If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection,” he said, “genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species.” No ambiguity there.
Characteristically, Time magazine summed up the matter succinctly: “Charles Darwin didn’t want to murder God, as he once put it. But he did.” (Time, Dec 31, 1999)

quoted text taken from Strobel, The Case for a Creator, pgs 22-23 (emphasis added)

 

[StAnastasia]

Nancy Pearcey, who has written extensively on science and faith, insists that “you can have God or natural selection, but not both.” I]

Franciscan Sister Ilia Delio shows in Christ and Evolution that this is not true.

 

[Namesake]

As far as I can see, this is a scientific congress sponsored by a Vatican agency with the intention of discussing scientific research in the area of evolution. We should not feel threatened that it is going to change the doctrine of Creation. That is not the purpose of this gathering.

Science does directly force religions to abandon some beliefs. That’s just progress toward more fully understanding God. By tossing out superstition and belief in untrue stories mankind gets ever closer to the reality of our universe.

 

[edwest2]

Franciscan Sister Ilia Delio shows in Christ and Evolution that this is not true.

Shows that these people did not say what they said? Including Time magazine? Give me a break.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Science does directly force religions to abandon some beliefs. That’s just progress toward more fully understanding God. By tossing out superstition and belief in untrue stories mankind gets ever closer to the reality of our universe.

Have you read some of the posts here?

Adam and Eve? Not real.

Noah and global flood? Never happened.

This is one of those, no, I’m really helping you by telling you to abandon some beliefs post.

So is it “understanding God” or “the reality of the universe”?

There is no need to write both, since the goal is clearly not about God. It’s about set in concrete suppositions about the Holy Bible, whereas the rest of science is subject to revision at any time. This is disingenuous. Period.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Shows that these people did not say what they said? Including Time magazine? Give me a break.
Peace,Ed

No. Sister Delio shows that it is false to claim “you can have God or natural selection, but not both.”