Why accomodate Darwin?

[goout]

goout:

Yes, and?

Do you need help to find St. John Paul 2’s comments on Humanii Generis? And his statements about evolution, and science in general?

How about Fides et Ratio?

Before I proceed - is it your claim that Pope JPII individual comments overturned the constant and firm understanding and teaching?

You are an excellent dancer.
Your dancing does not deflect from the fact that JP2 commented on Humanii Generis and JP2’s comments do not support your distortion of the Church’s positions on this issue. There are also others…bishops etc…who comment on Genesis and evolution.

Again, do you need help to find this information.

 

[MCH1]

The Earth and the Universe are billions of years old, and evolution happened, period.

Evolution is a theory, not a law. Saying that it definitely happened is unscientific. I wish people would treat as as the theory that it is.

 

[pianistclare]

Ahhhhhh. I remember the old CAF when Evolution threads were not allowed.
I miss the old CAF.
Not everything in the world is “covered” in the Bible. The Bible contains TRUTH. Truth that is unchanging.
GOD CREATED THE WORLD.
The details of how He did that, or the details of when and how HE chooses to reveal those and many more facts about creation us can be revealed at different times in history. It does nothing to belittle, make invalid or change that eternal truth. God created the world. It doesn’t change the fact that He is God, or that He is the Supreme first cause. Evolution does not contracidt any of that. It’s an explanation, not a theology.

 

[PetraG]

The Church has not “bowed down to Darwin.” The Church has allowed that Darwin’s explanation could be accepted without denying the faith.

 

[goout]

goout:

evolution of species is proven fact.

Um… lets not be hasty. It is a theory, NOT a scientific law.

The denial of them is insanity.

Science progresses by people disagreeing with the status quo.

Are you aware that JP2 holds evolutionary principles to be “more than an hypothesis?”
Yes, science by nature challenges established worldviews.

When we make science into a religion, we create an idol.
Likewise, when we reduce faith to science, we participate in a fundamentalist modernism.

 

[MCH1]

Are you aware that JP2 holds evolutionary principles to be “more than an hypothesis?”

Of course, evolution is a scientific theory.
A theory is the next step up from a hypothesis, but still not a law.

 

[Spyridon]

Evolution is a theory, not a law. Saying that it definitely

See, when you say that, it shows me you’re scientifically illiterate.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis which has been proven to be the best current model for explaining a certain natural phenomena.

Gravity is “just a theory,” heliocentrism is “just a theory.”

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Evolution is a theory, not a law.

Gravity is also a theory. I’m pretty confident in saying that gravity happened, period.

 

[MCH1]

A scientific theory is a hypothesis which has been proven to be the best current model for explaining a certain natural phenomena.

Not always, there are some contradicting theories.

Gravity is “just a theory,” heliocentrism is “just a theory.”

Of course, and these theories have a lot more data than evolution. How could we send space craft to other planets the way we do if the earth didn’t revolve around the Sun?

Saying that evolution is certainly true is wrong.

And by gravity, do you mean the graviton theory, or the general theory of relativity?

 

[angel12]

My apologies for rejecting your conviction and it’s entirely your right to accept Darwins theory of evolution to be as valid as Eibstein’s relativity theory that was confirned and recorded during a solar eclipse as stellar light was observed to curve around the sun.when observed by that telescope guy oooh what was his name again?? Ah Eddington i believe

You’re not rejecting my conviction, you’re rejecting science. You can reject all the science you want – you can reject the law of gravity, for all anyone cares – but your rejection of science doesn’t make it untrue.

 

[buffalo]

Read more on St Augustine…

 

[MCH1]

Gravity is also a theory. I’m pretty confident in saying that gravity happened, period.

I am not. I believe in general relativity. Are you talking of the graviton theory, the old idea of gravity as a the attraction of objects? GR makes more sense based on the data that we have.

We have two theories for gravity.

 

[goout]

You posted Humanii Generis earlier and misused Church teaching for your agenda.

Do you need help to find JP2’s comments on HG?

Do you consider JP2’s intellect and insights to be of value here?
Or no?

 

[goout]

JanSobieskiIII:

Gravity is also a theory. I’m pretty confident in saying that gravity happened, period.

I am not. I believe in general relativity. Are you talking of the graviton theory, the old idea of gravity as a the attraction of objects? GR makes more sense based on the data that we have.

We have two theories for gravity.

Ok.
At the same time, no serious scientist denies that gravity is a real thing and is operative in nature.
Not mentioned in scripture, yet a scientific reality.

How can that be?

 

[MCH1]

At the same time, no serious scientist denies that gravity is a real thing and is operative in nature.

By gravity do you mean GR or the graviton theory?

Not mentioned in scripture, yet a scientific reality.

How can that be?

What is your point? Is the knowledge of how gravity works essential for the salvation of our souls?

 

[buffalo]

Gravity is also a theory. I’m pretty confident in saying that gravity happened, period.

The effects of gravity can be proved empirically, that is they are observable, repeatable and predictable.

 

[Spyridon]

GR

The general theory of relativity.

 

[MCH1]

The general theory of relativity.

Yes, I was using it’s acronym. What is wrong with that?

 

[Spyridon]

Do you reject geology, astronomy, archaeology, palaeontology, history, genetics, and pharmacology?

If you don’t accept that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old and that things have evolved (I don’t accept all of natural Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution, but I do accept theistic evolution), then you have to reject these and basically all modern natural sciences.

 

[MCH1]

astronomy

Astronomy is not dependent on evolution.