Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Metis1]

And your point is…?

BTW, the title does not match the content of the article itself-- check it out.

 

[Aloysium]

Your beliefs bought us

The way I see it, as a deeper faith arises from a truer belief system, so too can evil from what is false. There’s been much written here about where evolution is wrong, but then so are many of the ideas we have. A wrongful belief may not be necessarily evil; the problem lies in the fact that untruths leave us vulnerable and weak. People more easily succumb to sin, and without God’s grace who among us can be strong enough to confront it within ourselves and in the world around us. People can believe what they will; in fact, pretty much everything of what we know, except for the direct experience of God, is only a partial truth. We have to be reminded that people should proceed cautiously in adopting worldly ideas, always referring back to the revealed truth as taught by the church.

 

[rossum]

Primates? What about this guy?

What about learning something about taxonomy? “This guy” was a very early deuterostome. All humans, all primates, all mammals, all tetrapods, all vertebrates and all chordates are deuterostomes. Can you not tell the difference between your grandfather and your great^100grandfather? That is what this discovery is about.

By all means criticise evolution, but please do learn something about what it is you are criticising.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

I doubt it. It’s simply a sign of respect. The emphasis meant to act as a reminder.

 

[goout]

IF any given Christian were to suggest that God had ordered the killing of inoccent women and children then the discussion might proceed from my point that THIS particular God would appear to be unjust and cruel.

And IF any given Christian denied basic scientific facts (hi, Ed), then the discussion might proceed from my point that the poster is a science denying fundamentalist out of touch with reality.

But the Christian is always playing the white pieces and makes the first move. I can only respond accordingly.

How is the Christian making the first move. There is no first move. We have differing beliefs and discuss them.
It’s not like atheists are forced to play defense. Atheists dogmatically militate for atheist belief all the time, and try to shape the beliefs of others and the beliefs of societies all the time.
The question is, which belief is more coherent? Debating your beliefs on fundamentalist grounds is not a really a debate.

It’s like debating astronomy with astrologers.

 

[Metis1]

The idea that somehow evolution is wrong really doesn’t make one iota of sense even if one didn’t know a single thing about the scientific evidence. It stands to common sense based on observations that all material objects tend to change over time, and genes are material objects. We know they can and have changed (again, google “speciation” of examples and links to studies), and continue to do as such.

Accepting the basic ToE should not counter anyone’s faith in God, Jesus, or the Church as it is neutral on these. Instead, the better approach imo is to accept the reality of the basic ToE and incorporate it into our understanding of God’s creation instead of denying its reality.

 

[edwest211]

Neutral? See “Science Must Destroy Religion” by Sam Harris. Briefly, science/man is god and the only source of knowledge.

 

[WileyC1949]

But, love is never lost. Those moments of companionship exist within eternity. That our particular animal friends will be resurrected however, it’s a different story.

I saw it pretty much that way myself, but the Biblical story of the “Peaceful Kingdom” in Isiah was always there suggesting a “What if?”. The experience I had convinced me.

It was the most vivid dream which I had ever had. A little background, my first pet when I was a kid through 2nd year in college was a dog called Renny whom everyone in the family really loved. After he died and my parents eventually moved from the house to an apartment and they got another dog whom they gave the same name. At the time I was teaching not far away and so I was able to get home and I was the one who trained the dog. Like the first, he was an incredible dog.

In the dream I had I saw the Renny 1 running towards me out of a tunnel of pure light on my right hand side. He was there in the room with me… I could feel him and he was jumping all over me with joy. He then ran off in front of me where he joyfully greeted Renny 2. They happily played together, jumping over each other, and then they both came to me. I could feel both of them. Then they both ran off together joyfully into the tunnel of light.

This was not like any other dream I had had where you forget the details as soon as you are awake. I remembered every detail as if it were a memory of a real event. In the morning I called my mother (my dad had passed by this time) to tell her of the incredible dream I had but she then told me that Renny 2 had been hit by a car that evening and he died during the night.

The reality of that experienced totally convinced me that the Church’s teaching that animal do not have souls is incorrect. I now feel convinced that any animal who learns to love in his own limited way will find his way to heaven as well.

I know that my experience is not any sort of proof for anyone else, but it certainly was for me.

 

[Aloysium]

The idea that somehow evolution is wrong really doesn’t make one iota of sense even if one didn’t know a single thing about the scientific evidence.

It’s when you know th scientific evidence that you realize it’s wrong, meaning untrue, not corresponding to reality.

 

[Bradskii]

Sad. What did atheists say and think before Darwin’s book? I’ve spoken to atheists. I know where they’re coming from. Example: “Science 1, Gods 0.” So it doesn’t have to be the Christian God.

Point one out in this thread. Just one. No, point just one out on this FORUM. Put up or retract.

 

[Aloysium]

In the dream I had I saw the Renny 1 running towards me out of a tunnel of pure light on my right hand side. He was there in the room with me… I could feel him and he was jumping all over me with joy. He then ran off in front of me where he joyfully greeted Renny 2. They happily played together, jumping over each other, and then they both came to me. I could feel both of them. Then they both ran off together joyfully into the tunnel of light.

As I would interpret it, dogs have souls, not individual eternal souls, but they individually are brought into existence, with their instinctive capacity to engage in a loving relationship, by an act of Divine will, by Love itself. When they die, they return to the Source of their being as we do. All exists in that eternal Beatific Vision and God granted you a peak through those loving relationships, to inform your spirit of that truth and to comfort you in the pain that would soon engulf you. That the two Rennys will be resurrected however, I don’t think so. Their nature, the faithful happy dogginess of which each was an expression, within which we can say that they dwell, however, we should know again in the New Jerusalem.

 

[Aloysium]

the better approach imo is to accept the reality of the basic ToE and incorporate it into our understanding of God’s creation instead of denying its reality.

It is better to dispell the illusion holding on to the truths that science actually reveals and viewing them through the lens that is Jesus Christ as we do with the Old Testament.

 

[edwest211]

You know I post here just to amuse you … did I just write that ;

 

[WileyC1949]

All exists in that eternal Beatific Vision and God granted you a peak through those loving relationships, to inform your spirit of that truth and to comfort you in the pain that would soon engulf you. That the two Rennys will be resurrected however, I don’t think so.

I guess we will have to wait until we die to actually find out. (But I am not literally dying to find out.)

 

[Bradskii]

You know I post here just to amuse you … did I just write that ;

I’ll take that as a retraction.

 

[o_mlly]

Secondly, the acceptance of the basic axiom of the evolution of life did not cause the Holocaust,

“Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level.”

The hatred precedes the rationale to act but without the evolutionist’s rationale fewer would follow this madman.

 

[goout]

Neutral? See “Science Must Destroy Religion” by Sam Harris. Briefly, science/man is god and the only source of knowledge.

The Church does not speak dogmatically about evolution specifically. The Church does address the relationship between faith and reason.
The Church encourages freedom of thought, the Church does not grant license to ignorance.
Ignorance of science is not freedom of thought.

 

[edwest211]

The ignorance argument is a deflection. In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII makes the correct statements about false ideas entering into the minds of theologians. He writes a number of other warnings about this or that approach to Scripture.

“5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.”

“10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.”

 

[mVitus]

I’ll also point out that it’s the same encyclical where he says Catholics are allowed to accept the science of evolution.

 

[goout]

The ignorance argument is a deflection. In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII makes the correct statements about false ideas entering into the minds of theologians. He writes a number of other warnings about this or that approach to Scripture.

“5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.”

“10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.”

Ed, do you see the word “some” in there?

Are you able to recognize and make fine distinctions between individual cases and universals? That’s an important cognitive skill.