J
john_doran
Guest
ISABUS said:
no. pray tell.
- Status
no. pray tell.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t we Catholics here?
And don’t we have the Catholic Church with its Magisterium to teach us matters that pretain to faith?
That being the case, why do we have to go chasing off after Behe, et al, to get THEIR teachings?
And don’t we have the Catholic Church with its Magisterium to teach us matters that pretain to faith?
That being the case, why do we have to go chasing off after Behe, et al, to get THEIR teachings?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
What are we doing, resurrecting old evolution-ID threads. 
Fact #1: Mike Behe accepts God and common descent, he is Catholic, a theistic evolutionist.
Fact #2: John Paul the Great, Cardinal Ratzinger, and Pius XII all accepted evolution or said it was acceptable within limits. And see this July 2004 statement by the International Theological Commission headed by Ratzinger, especially paragraphs 62-70, basically says ID or creationism is not scientific, and that the scientific evidence for evolution is strong.
Fact #3: The evidence for common descent or macroevolution is overwhelming. This shouldn’t be denied by any thinking and scientifically knowledgeable Catholic, and it isn’t.
Phil P
Fact #1: Mike Behe accepts God and common descent, he is Catholic, a theistic evolutionist.
Fact #2: John Paul the Great, Cardinal Ratzinger, and Pius XII all accepted evolution or said it was acceptable within limits. And see this July 2004 statement by the International Theological Commission headed by Ratzinger, especially paragraphs 62-70, basically says ID or creationism is not scientific, and that the scientific evidence for evolution is strong.
Fact #3: The evidence for common descent or macroevolution is overwhelming. This shouldn’t be denied by any thinking and scientifically knowledgeable Catholic, and it isn’t.
Phil P
J
jdnation
Guest
It doesn’t say anything like that in there. It talks about evolution, sure, more like it says it can be one suitable method, at least where it describe events before we get to the Adam, Eve and the Fall.
Well more accurately evolutionists have thought up many examples that can be considered evidence in favor of evolution. Just the same I claim Biblical Creationism as plenty of overwhelming evidence. One difference being that Biblical Creation has remained fairly consistent, whereas, evolutionsts have changed and altered the theory in light of new discoveries. I’m a thinking Catholic who once believed in evolution, and I may not have whatever credentials and studies as you do Phil, but I deny evolution because anyone can understand the fact that it is a starting philosophy that then goes on to interpret evidence to suit itself, and that’s the way it’s been ever since. As well there are plenty of Creationists that hold impressive credentials in all areas of science. So your statement alluding that evolution isn’t rejected by thinking and scientific people is clearly false. Since both evolution and Creationism’s dogmas cannot be falsified, and evidence supports them both (through interpretation), I’m picking the one that sounds more plausible to me, which of course is also based on my biased beliefs in Christ and the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
jdnation << It doesn’t say anything like that in there. It talks about evolution, sure >>
Read it again. The indisputable facts of science supported in the document (see especially paragraphs 62-70) are the following:
(1) the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since.
(2) about 10 billion years later the planets formed, and in our own solar system the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago.
(3) there is general agreement among scientists that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago, and since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, therefore it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.
How much clearer can you get than “virtually certain” that evolution is true, that is, we evolved from this first organism on earth from 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.
And finally,
(4) While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
Sounds like humans are to be included in this common descent or macroevolution that is again “virtually certain.”
This statement was released last year from Rome, signed by Cardinal Ratzinger. It’s about as authoritative as you can get in the area of “science” since the Catholic Church doesn’t speak infallibly to science, but faith and morals.
At the end of the document we have the specific folks involved: The preparation of this study was entrusted to a subcommission whose members included: Very Rev. J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Most Reverend Jean-Louis Bruguès, Msgr. Anton Strukelj, Rev. Tanios Bou Mansour, O.L.M., Rev. Adolpe Gesché, Most Reverend Willem Jacobus Eijk, Rev. Fadel Sidarouss, S.J., and Rev. Shun ichi Takayanagi, S.J. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has given his permission for its publication.
jdnation << more like it says it can be one suitable method, at least where it describe events before we get to the Adam, Eve and the Fall >>
Does not say one suitable method, it says this is what we know today from science. Adam and Eve or how to interpret Genesis are not dealt with per se in the document, but it does mention Adam as a “symbol” of the unity of mankind here:
“43. Every individual human being as well as the whole human community are created in the image of God. In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.”
And yes we have to incorporate a historical Adam and Eve along with the Fall of man into our theology. I don’t want to deny that. But the science for evolution is strong, and the above document clearly acknowledges that. And I’m sorry it doesn’t suggest we go to pseudo-science groups like AnswersInGenesis or the Kolbe Center for our information, which is where you want us to go. :whacky:
Phil P
Read it again. The indisputable facts of science supported in the document (see especially paragraphs 62-70) are the following:
(1) the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since.
(2) about 10 billion years later the planets formed, and in our own solar system the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago.
(3) there is general agreement among scientists that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago, and since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, therefore it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.
How much clearer can you get than “virtually certain” that evolution is true, that is, we evolved from this first organism on earth from 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.
And finally,
(4) While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
Sounds like humans are to be included in this common descent or macroevolution that is again “virtually certain.”
This statement was released last year from Rome, signed by Cardinal Ratzinger. It’s about as authoritative as you can get in the area of “science” since the Catholic Church doesn’t speak infallibly to science, but faith and morals.
At the end of the document we have the specific folks involved: The preparation of this study was entrusted to a subcommission whose members included: Very Rev. J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Most Reverend Jean-Louis Bruguès, Msgr. Anton Strukelj, Rev. Tanios Bou Mansour, O.L.M., Rev. Adolpe Gesché, Most Reverend Willem Jacobus Eijk, Rev. Fadel Sidarouss, S.J., and Rev. Shun ichi Takayanagi, S.J. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has given his permission for its publication.
jdnation << more like it says it can be one suitable method, at least where it describe events before we get to the Adam, Eve and the Fall >>
Does not say one suitable method, it says this is what we know today from science. Adam and Eve or how to interpret Genesis are not dealt with per se in the document, but it does mention Adam as a “symbol” of the unity of mankind here:
“43. Every individual human being as well as the whole human community are created in the image of God. In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.”
And yes we have to incorporate a historical Adam and Eve along with the Fall of man into our theology. I don’t want to deny that. But the science for evolution is strong, and the above document clearly acknowledges that. And I’m sorry it doesn’t suggest we go to pseudo-science groups like AnswersInGenesis or the Kolbe Center for our information, which is where you want us to go. :whacky:
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
jdnation << Just the same I claim Biblical Creationism as plenty of overwhelming evidence. >>
There is none. Name a piece of that scientific evidence.
jdnation << As well there are plenty of Creationists that hold impressive credentials in all areas of science. >>
How many named Steve? Maybe one I can think of.
jdnation << So your statement alluding that evolution isn’t rejected by thinking and scientific people is clearly false. >>
No, its still true. These folks are not defending creationism scientifically, but solely by their Genesis interpretations, which has nothing to do with science. Sorry. The classic six-day young-earth creationists of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s have plainly admitted their creationism is not scientific:
“Creation. By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation…We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” (Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, page 40, emphasis added)
“Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious).” (Gish, letter to editor of Discover magazine, July 1981, emphasis added)
“…it is…quite impossible to determine anything about Creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wished to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there…Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation!” (Henry Morris, Studies in the Bible and Science, page 114, emphasis added)
above citations taken from Judge Overton’s landmark decision in the “Arkansas Creationist” Trial from 1981-82 ]
Evangelical geologist Keith Miller has similarly written, from a Christian perspective:
“The doctrine of creation really says nothing about ‘How’ God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment…It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order.” (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)
Phil P
There is none. Name a piece of that scientific evidence.
jdnation << As well there are plenty of Creationists that hold impressive credentials in all areas of science. >>
How many named Steve? Maybe one I can think of.
jdnation << So your statement alluding that evolution isn’t rejected by thinking and scientific people is clearly false. >>
No, its still true. These folks are not defending creationism scientifically, but solely by their Genesis interpretations, which has nothing to do with science. Sorry. The classic six-day young-earth creationists of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s have plainly admitted their creationism is not scientific:
“Creation. By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation…We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” (Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, page 40, emphasis added)
“Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious).” (Gish, letter to editor of Discover magazine, July 1981, emphasis added)
“…it is…quite impossible to determine anything about Creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wished to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there…Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation!” (Henry Morris, Studies in the Bible and Science, page 114, emphasis added)
above citations taken from Judge Overton’s landmark decision in the “Arkansas Creationist” Trial from 1981-82 ]
Evangelical geologist Keith Miller has similarly written, from a Christian perspective:
“The doctrine of creation really says nothing about ‘How’ God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment…It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order.” (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)
Phil P
S
slinky1882
Guest
Perhaps, But I have a question related to #1 (Phil’s #1, I believe). I think Evolution is possible and even plausible, but the real question raised is its origin. The whole “Big Bang” idea. Speaking froma Biochemical and Engineering background, I have yet to see ANY scientist explain or offer a possible theory on how the “Big Bang” occurred in the face of the Laws of Conservation and the Laws of Thermodynamics. Thanks and God Bless.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
slinky << explain or offer a possible theory on how the “Big Bang” occurred in the face of the Laws of Conservation and the Laws of Thermodynamics. Thanks and God Bless >>
Oh no, are you saying evolution or the Big Bang that started it all contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermo? That is a classic creationist charge, explained neatly here and in depth here. From the TalkOrigins encyclicals.
Phil P
Oh no, are you saying evolution or the Big Bang that started it all contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermo? That is a classic creationist charge, explained neatly here and in depth here. From the TalkOrigins encyclicals.
Phil P
S
slinky1882
Guest
Hey Phil, Thanks and yes I was referring to what started Evolution or came before the Big Bang. And those articles while scholarly did not address Laws of Thermodynamics prior to the Big Bang which would have been in a “closed system”.
S
slinky1882
Guest
Also, upon further reflection of the artciles you mentioned, scientists cannot prove that we are not in a gargantuum closed system. (Personally, I don’t believe we are, but who is to say that the universe are we know it is not surrounded by mirrors reflecting evertyhing back. I know it sounds funny, but as of sciences capabilities, it cannot be disproven at present. Remember, I said I don’t belive this idea is correct.). My questions arise of prior to the Big Bang related to Thermodynamics and Conservation Laws.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
slinky << Hey Phil, Thanks and yes I was referring to what started Evolution or came before the Big Bang >>
Well some people argue there is no “before” the Big Bang since that is when time started. There is only “after” the Big Bang. Similar to asking what was “before God” since God is outside time. Two books I need to re-read on this subject: God and the New Physics and The Mind of God by Paul Davies. There is no “before” the Big Bang" and no “after” the Big Crunch. But there is a “during” the Bang Crunch. That’s the sound you hear while eating some brands of cereal.
My goal is all these creationism-evolution-ID threads is not to argue with folks like you who ask good questions, but only with the idiots who think Ratzinger is dead wrong and AnswersInGenesis is dead right on evolution.
Phil P
Well some people argue there is no “before” the Big Bang since that is when time started. There is only “after” the Big Bang. Similar to asking what was “before God” since God is outside time. Two books I need to re-read on this subject: God and the New Physics and The Mind of God by Paul Davies. There is no “before” the Big Bang" and no “after” the Big Crunch. But there is a “during” the Bang Crunch. That’s the sound you hear while eating some brands of cereal.
My goal is all these creationism-evolution-ID threads is not to argue with folks like you who ask good questions, but only with the idiots who think Ratzinger is dead wrong and AnswersInGenesis is dead right on evolution.
Phil P
S
slinky1882
Guest
Ohhhh, sorry one other thing. You didn’t make any mention of the Laws of Conservation prior to thr Big Bang and when it happened. I believe evoltuion can indeed occur, but I do not believe in the deist sense (as in Newton’s idea of God as a disinterested clockmaker.) Thanks and God Bless.
S
slinky1882
Guest
Phil,
I want to say Thank you for taking the time to reply to my posts. I do not mean to argue, but to elicit dialouge on questions. I personally focus on Theoretical Science and Lab sciences. I do not mean to bring to light far-fetched ideas (i.e. the mirrors idea), but I have encountered them. I appreciate your candid dialouge. And perhaps in time we could have an IM discussion. Thanks and God Bless,
~slinky1882
I want to say Thank you for taking the time to reply to my posts. I do not mean to argue, but to elicit dialouge on questions. I personally focus on Theoretical Science and Lab sciences. I do not mean to bring to light far-fetched ideas (i.e. the mirrors idea), but I have encountered them. I appreciate your candid dialouge. And perhaps in time we could have an IM discussion. Thanks and God Bless,
~slinky1882
J
jdnation
Guest
The article released by Rome strictly deals with evolution, so I don’t expect to find any creationism matter in it. However it does not say specifically anywhere to not take creationism’s side. Statements as ‘virtually certain’ and ‘convincing case’ does not mean proven fact. Which is my point all along. THe position of the Church is that evolution can be inclusive in ones interpretations.
PhilVaz> There is none. Name a piece of that scientific evidence.
It’s the exact same evidence you have. There’s no different sorts of evidence. Same planet, same evidence. What differs is our interpretations of that same evidence.
PhilVaz>These folks are not defending creationism scientifically, but solely by their Genesis interpretations, which has nothing to do with science. Sorry. The classic six-day young-earth creationists of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s have plainly admitted their creationism is not scientific
That’s exactly the point. I never said creationism is scientific, merely that real people holding scientific credentials reject evolution. Evolution itself is unscientific, evolutionists do nothing but defend their naturalistic dogmas about how the universe came into existence. Neither creationism nor evolution is true science, they are both termed ‘origins science’, which is all speculation based on philosophical views.
PhilVaz> There is none. Name a piece of that scientific evidence.
It’s the exact same evidence you have. There’s no different sorts of evidence. Same planet, same evidence. What differs is our interpretations of that same evidence.
PhilVaz>These folks are not defending creationism scientifically, but solely by their Genesis interpretations, which has nothing to do with science. Sorry. The classic six-day young-earth creationists of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s have plainly admitted their creationism is not scientific
That’s exactly the point. I never said creationism is scientific, merely that real people holding scientific credentials reject evolution. Evolution itself is unscientific, evolutionists do nothing but defend their naturalistic dogmas about how the universe came into existence. Neither creationism nor evolution is true science, they are both termed ‘origins science’, which is all speculation based on philosophical views.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No. Some people holding advanced DEGREES in science may hold such a position – but none of them have published their theories in reputable, peer-reviewed journals.
Merely having a degree doesn’t make one a scientist. A scientist is one who does science, publishes, and whose work holds up to peer review.
No. Evolution has nothing to say about how the universe came into existance. Evolution is about LIFE, and what happened AFTER it came into existance.
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains how it came about. It does this by weighing, measuring, and classifying – the fundamental basis of science. The science of evolution is a branch of the science of biology.
Creationism has been abandoned by most of its supporters because it has become increasingly obvious that it is not science.
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
Can you reproduce it by experiment? Can you make predictions about evolution.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Yes, to both.
One “experiment” is the treatment for AIDS, where the virus mutates to gain immunity to the drugs. By manipulating the dosage and time, then switching drugs, the virus is held in check much better.
This is both the “experiment” and the “prediction” part – in fact, it goes beyond into the last step, “control.”
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
I asked the question in regards to the evolution of a species both in the past and the future.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Can you translate that into English for me?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
J
jdnation
Guest
Vern> No. Some people holding advanced DEGREES in science may hold such a position – but none of them have published their theories in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Merely having a degree doesn’t make one a scientist. A scientist is one who does science, publishes, and whose work holds up to peer review.
So what if peer review is biased? It’s the same argument as the validity of consensus science. A circular argument that creationism isn’t scientific because it hasn’t been published by peer reviewed journals. And when creationist literature is actually published in one, you’d complain that it shouldn’t have been in there because it isn’t scientific.
Vern>No. Evolution has nothing to say about how the universe came into existance. Evolution is about LIFE, and what happened AFTER it came into existance.
Now you’ve taken it to an extreme, I’m not talking about the first cause, simply the mechanics for how the universe came to be the way it is today. The concept of evolution has been applied to cosmology as well, and that plays a much a part in considering where biological life forms arose from, is not the environment a huge factor in biological evolution?
Vern>Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains how it came about. It does this by weighing, measuring, and classifying – the fundamental basis of science. The science of evolution is a branch of the science of biology. Creationism has been abandoned by most of its supporters because it has become increasingly obvious that it is not science.
I’d say it is the evolutionary community that seems to be breaking down, and although Creationism is a minority right now, it is said to be a quickly growing. Evolution is as much non-science as Creationism. If creationism is being abandoned as you say, then why is it becoming such a hot issue these days? You’d think it would have died long ago.
So what if peer review is biased? It’s the same argument as the validity of consensus science. A circular argument that creationism isn’t scientific because it hasn’t been published by peer reviewed journals. And when creationist literature is actually published in one, you’d complain that it shouldn’t have been in there because it isn’t scientific.
Vern>No. Evolution has nothing to say about how the universe came into existance. Evolution is about LIFE, and what happened AFTER it came into existance.
Now you’ve taken it to an extreme, I’m not talking about the first cause, simply the mechanics for how the universe came to be the way it is today. The concept of evolution has been applied to cosmology as well, and that plays a much a part in considering where biological life forms arose from, is not the environment a huge factor in biological evolution?
Vern>Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains how it came about. It does this by weighing, measuring, and classifying – the fundamental basis of science. The science of evolution is a branch of the science of biology. Creationism has been abandoned by most of its supporters because it has become increasingly obvious that it is not science.
I’d say it is the evolutionary community that seems to be breaking down, and although Creationism is a minority right now, it is said to be a quickly growing. Evolution is as much non-science as Creationism. If creationism is being abandoned as you say, then why is it becoming such a hot issue these days? You’d think it would have died long ago.
- Status