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

[rossum]

In that encyclical, Catholics are told polygenism is not acceptable.

It is not acceptable when applied to “true men”. It can be acceptable when applied to ‘almost-but-not-quite-true’ men.

That allows for a population of not-quite-men, two of whom were given souls (or one given a soul and another made from a rib).

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

‘Positive Christianity also rejected what it called “Jewish materialism", which gave an obvious [anti-Semite] slant to it. Rosenberg believed that Christ had actively fought against the “institutionalised Judaism" of the day and that this alone was enough to support why Positive Christianity should be anti-Semite. Rosenberg believed that Christ was an Aryan hero.’ https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/positive-christianity/

I guess that could be entitled: ‘The Role of Christianity in Nazi Racial Thought’.

Not even close in comparison. Rosenberg had little to no effect on German policy.

Rosenberg wanted the complete rejection of Catholicism and Protestantism. … Rosenberg saw Positive Christianity as Norse paganism …It is known that Rosenberg was not the most influential of the senior Nazis within the regime. …

 

[goout]

Don’t quote a fragment of what Pope John Paul II said:

“And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.”

The final judgment is held by theology.

Ed, you are so confused about what these documents say and what they don’t say. You have simply latched on to a Catholic faith that is comfortable for you.
Please speak to your priest, or if you can find one, a good Catholic theologian, seminary professor, someone with the competence to explain all this to you in person.

You could also listen to the various talks that are out there from good Catholic scholars, but you’ve been presented with all this numerous times with no effect evidently.

I pray that you find closure in all this.

 

[Metis1]

I did read it, and so? He has his opinion and I have mine, but they ain’t the same.

 

[o_mlly]

It is not acceptable when applied to “true men”. It can be acceptable when applied to ‘almost-but-not-quite-true’ men.

Oh, I see. The Darwinian “True Men may Dominate Near Men” principle. The English portrayed the Irish as ‘almost-but-not-quite-true’ men.

Irish Apes: Tactics of De-Humanization​

The Irish, too, have been compared to apes, suggesting that this comparison is a generalizable tactic of oppression, not one inspired by the color of the skin of Africans.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The Irish and the Black are compared as equally problematic to the North and the South respectively. Notice how both are drawn to look less human:

 

[Metis1]

What someone may do that’s evil with objectively-derived information is not necessarily the fault of the information itself. To portray it otherwise would be like me speeding and getting into an accident and then me blaming the car.

The basic ToE in no way contributes to any evil as it’s merely an explanation of what we know about the evolution of species. What some may do with that information could produce good, bad, or neither.

 

[Metis1]

See above.

 

[PickyPicky]

The English portrayed the Irish as ‘almost-but-not-quite-true’ men .

As an Englishman I absolutely accept that English attitudes to the Irish were for centuries quite appalling. Is the cartoon not, in fact, American, though?

 

[Bradskii]

o_mlly:

The English portrayed the Irish as ‘almost-but-not-quite-true’ men .

As an Englishman I absolutely accept that English attitudes to the Irish were for centuries quite appalling. Is the cartoon not, in fact, American, though?

Noting that there were no black people shown, the cartoon is actually aimed at Catholics:

'Eugene Lawrence published many anti-Catholic articles in Harper’s Weekly between 1871 and 1876. Here he argues that Catholic charitable organizations are burdens on taxpayers and part of a history of church greed for “accumulating lands and endowments.” He decries the Catholic Church as a “fatal influence blighting the hopes of freemen,” a source of “moral decay” and a “political faction rather than a Christian sect.” Story and Political Cartoon Accuse Catholics of Greed | NewseumED

It’s entitled ‘Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg’, by Thomas Nast - the ‘Father of American Cartoon’. He was definitely anti Catholic and was no friend of the Irish. Although not as a people but those of them who Nast thought deserved both barrels of his anger. And his cartoons of blacks and, for example, Chinese, often portrayed them as the underdog, downtrodden and sometimes heroic.

 

[rossum]

The English portrayed the Irish as ‘almost-but-not-quite-true’ men .

And Christian slave owners portrayed Africans as ‘almost-but-not-quite-true’ men. Your point is?

rossum

 

[PickyPicky]

It’s entitled ‘Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg’, by Thomas Nast - the ‘Father of American Cartoon’.

Thanks for the info. Not very subtle, was he.

 

[o_mlly]

What someone may do that’s evil with objectively-derived information …

See the previous posts. The tentative claims by the real scientists are written in the subjunctive mode. The fanatical evolutionists on this thread, however, elevate what is offered as possible to “absolutely, undoubtedly” certain leaving all objectivity in their rear view mirror.

 

[o_mlly]

Is the cartoon not, in fact, American, though?

And Christian slave owners portrayed Africans as ‘almost-but-not-quite-true’ men . Your point is?

At the root of the utter nonsense that human beings can be subdivided into races is Darwinism.

 

[o_mlly]

evolution of species is still well established scientific fact …

No, it is not fact. That’s why it is called the theories of evolution. “Species” is a construct of the human mind.

the Catholic Church is open to this legitimate scientific inquiry …

The Church does not make technical judgements.

and accepts the evolution of species

The Church teaches that evolution science does not explain the existence of the human being.

 

[rossum]

At the root of the utter nonsense that human beings can be subdivided into races is Darwinism.

Racism has been around from a lot earlier than 1859. Didn’t the American Constitution count negro slaves as 3/5 of a person and not count Native Americans at all? That was subdividing into three races right there.

You seem to have a very shallow knowledge of history before 1859.

rossum

 

[PickyPicky]

At the root of the utter nonsense that human beings can be subdivided into races is Darwinism.

[…] the fierce and impious Saxons, a race hateful both to God and men […]

[…] the Picts and Scots, like worms which in the heat of the mid-day come forth from their holes, hastily land again from their canoes […] differing one from another in manners, but inspired with the same avidity for blood, and all more eager to shroud their villainous faces in bushy hair than to cover with decent clothing those parts of their body which required it. […]

St Gildas: De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, C6th AD, tr. Giles.

 

[o_mlly]

Racism has been around from a lot earlier than 1859. Didn’t the American Constitution count negro slaves as 3/5 of a person and not count Native Americans at all? That was subdividing into three races right there.

Whatever racism that existed before Darwin did not have the facade of an erroneous scientific basis as the complete title of Darwin’s book clearly indicates: On the of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

the fierce and impious Saxons, a race hateful both to God and men

Is this not a translation from Latin? Race could very well have been selected as a word at the translators discretion instead of nation, people, tribe, etc.

 

[goout]

goout:

evolution of species is still well established scientific fact …

No, it is not fact. That’s why it is called the theories of evolution. “Species” is a construct of the human mind.

I’m sorry, but you are simply slam-dunk wrong on this. Evolution is well defined and well accepted scientific fact. The only part of this you are right about is that various scientific propositions and theories work with the well accepted science. And then when you veer off into theological propositions with it, there are many theories and tangents. But that doesn’t invalidate the scientific core of it.
If it did, then we should cast ourselves with Charles Duell, who foolishly proclaimed that "everything that has been invented (or discovered) had been invented). " Science is always broadening the inquiry. That inquiry is part of being a healthy human being.

If “species” is a construct of the human mind , then in like manner so is “man” and “woman”. And here you illustrate well the scandal that ignorance causes, because you cannot expect to make the case for common sense realities like the differentiation of sex if you refuse to accept the world around you as it should be perceived by thinking human beings. You simply veer off into superstition and fideism, and the Church condemns both.

the Catholic Church is open to this legitimate scientific inquiry …

The Church does not make technical judgements.

And that’s exactly the point that you misunderstand. What I said above is:
“the Catholic Church is open to this legitimate scientific inquiry …” The Church leaves scientific judgments to science. So you are techinically correct, but you oddly are making a leap of judgment the Church does not make.

and accepts the evolution of species

The Church teaches that evolution science does not explain the existence of the human being.

Not exactly true. The Church allows science to explain the material side of humanity.
Remember: a human being is a unity of body and soul.

In any case, you have read all of this many times through tiring debate, and you are obstinately attached to an anti-ecclesial view of the matter. That’s your choice.

 

[Metis1]

The basic process of the evolution of life has been so well established over the decades that no one whom is educated on this matter can deny it. As I’m mentioned many times here, google “speciation” for information and scientific links, and even the Wiki article on it is quite good. In science it is considered to be an “axiom”, thus so well established to the point of being without doubt. It’s the details that can and are debated.

And the Church also realizes this interpretation as being avalid option, so it does not go against Church teachings. Nor does the ToE posit any atheistic agenda as it is totally neutral about the issue of God(s).

 

[Metis1]

At the root of the utter nonsense that human beings can be subdivided into races is Darwinism.

The issue of “race” was here long before Darwin.