Why accomodate Darwin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prayerman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s dependent on the Universe being 13.8 billion years old and Earth being 4.54 billion years old, which also entails evolution.
 
Spyridon said:
It’s dependent on the Universe being 13.8 billion years old and Earth being 4.54 billion years old, which also entails evolution.
Click to expand...
An old universe and earth does not mean evolution is certainly real.
 
Last edited:
And here I thought the answers in genesis types would all be Protestants :man_shrugging:t2:
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
And here I thought the answers in genesis types would all be Protestants :man_shrugging:t2:
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the widespread comingling of fundamentalist and evangelical Protestantism in America with the Republican Party, and the widespread membership of conservative/right leaning Catholics in the GOP, has led to an odd sort of cross-pollination between those Protestants and Catholics of certain ideologies.
Anti-intellectualism and rejection of modern science being some of the more lamentable characteristics of this bizarre interaction.
 
The flag will result in nothing being done as I said nothing in violation of the forum guidelines.

The truth is the truth even if you don’t like it.
 
For those who say there isn’t sufficient fossil evidence, you do realize that fossilization is a very rare event in the wild? Of course there would be gaps in the fossil record since less than a fraction of a percent of all life that has ever lived on Earth has been fossilized. That does not disprove anything.
 
Prayerman,

I’m sure there are different schools of thought and disagreements in science on the mechanisms and details of particular evolutionary relationships.

I’m further sure that the current state of the discussion is dealing with data and ideas far beyond anything Charles Darwin knew or contemplated in his lifetime. (You might notice that almost no one but creationists actually refers to current evolutionary biology as “Darwin’s” idea or “Darwinism,” because the field is not limited to him and could very well outright contradict him on some points without any difficulty. The guy’s writings were influential on the development of human thinking, but they aren’t the scientific equivalent of Holy Scripture. Really, nothing in science should be.)

However, I greatly doubt that there is any kind of mass movement of scientists away from the basic idea that all organisms on Earth are genetically related and that the various patterns of genetic similarity show descent from common ancestor populations, presumably all the way back to the first successful population of living things.

Even if a major scientific revolution finds that evolution by the purely materialistic working of nature can not explain the data we see, it is unlikely that the specifically Christian flavor of creationism (and especially the six-day version) is going to be the most plausible alternative.
 
MCH1 said:
40.png
goout:
At the same time, no serious scientist denies that gravity is a real thing and is operative in nature.
Click to expand...
By gravity do you mean GR or the graviton theory?
goout said:
Not mentioned in scripture, yet a scientific reality.

How can that be?
Click to expand...
What is your point? Is the knowledge of how gravity works essential for the salvation of our souls?
Click to expand...
In a fundamentalist sense, no.
At the same time, God is Logos. God reveals himself, and what God reveals is reasonable. So then, we have inquiry, and listening.
God who reveals himself asks for open ears and open hearts. Science is part of this search for God. It is not always employed for the good, but science is the human attempt to reason with what God reveals in nature. So is theology. (we could say that theology is also science, but we are assuming a distinction between “hard” sciences and other pursuits like philosophy and theology).

A related question to the pursuit of gravity:
Is the search for adequate food supply necessary for salvation? What do you think?
Does grinding hunger help a person toward salvation?
How about medicines that relieve physical suffering?
Are those sciences necessary for salvation?

Faith and reason go hand in hand in a healthy (“sanus” in Latin) person.
 
Last edited:
@Usagi.

Applause 👏 👏 👏

Well reasoned, wise, intelligent, articulate comment. Excellent comment.
 
Place your thumb on your little finger for each hand, have your arms outstretched and hands facing you. Now do you see a tendon on your wrist. It’s like a thin bone.

10 To 15% of People don’t have it anymore. It serves no real function.

Can you wiggle your ears?
 
Prayerman said:
An increasibg number of scientists are rejecting evolution as the amount of fossils found even to date fail dismally to vindicate Darwin.
Click to expand...
Can you please show where you got this. Who wrote it, and what did it appear in, how was it determined
 
I don’t accommodate Darwin. As far as I know the last statement made by the Catholic Church was that we can “examine” things with an open mind. Unfortunately that was regarded as a licence.

Observations, can only produce theories, and world-views can only produce lenses.

Case in point, a media report some years back that got very excited that Darwin’s finches had been seen to evolve in the space of 20 years with bigger beaks to eat bigger food sources. But they didn’t evolve really did they, they just simply adapted to their environment, they are still just finches. Micro-evolution good and provable, for God has built in a mechanism of survival, macro-evolution on the other hand has absolutely no evidence. It annoys me when the two are considered the same thing. So why would I want to entertain, even accommodate such.
 
Case in point. Thanks to a father son team back in the 70s with the observation of a few sites containing a layer of iridium, when I say a few, this was not a wide-spread phenomena, it was just observed in a few digs, but the hypothesis was that dinosaurs got wiped out universally, while leaving the rest of the eco-system entirely intact. Where do birds come from, they evolved supposedly from dinosaurs that were wiped out.
 
This is the Vestigial argument. Why do I have an appendix and a tail bone?

I thank God for both.
 
Actually its not.

And how can humans be so presumptive as to deny God His work of evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top