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

[goout]

rossum:

So, you think to criticise science by making it out to be a religion. That means that you consider religion inferior to science; only inferior science is like a religion. Real science is therefore better than a religion.

That is a very strange position for a religious person to take.

My religion is called Catholicism. The suffix “ism” refers to a set of attitudes usually identifying an ideology or world view. That is the reason the science is called “biology” and not called “biologism.”

Along the same lines, the Catholic Church does not do “fideism”.

 

[Bradskii]

A Catholic can give qualified assent only to evolution in the scientific sense and most certainly not to the religion of evolutionism.

Yaaay! All on the same page. Someone tell Ed!

 

[edwest211]

That is well said. Materialism is the overriding dogma. We are nothing more than biological devices that reproduce, or not, and die, with nothing else happening. The Church, and Jesus Christ, told us the rest of the story. Our relationship with Him.

Intelligent Design is a much better answer. There is no scientific use for evolution.

 

[edwest211]

Here, science is almost always presented as superior to religion.

 

[rossum]

Here, science is almost always presented as superior to religion.

Including by religious people who want to criticise the parts of science they don’t like by making them appear to be religious: “religion of evolutionism” etc.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

that man’s body developed from previous biological forms with the guidance of God

That is known as intelligent design.

 

[Metis1]

Please define what you mean by “basic ToE”. It’s apparent that the fanatical evolutionists believe one thing, scientists another and philosophers a third.

The basic is that life forms evolve over time-- it’s really that simple. The rest is tied up in axioms, theorems, and hypotheses.

Also, there’s no such thing as “evolutionist”. It’s like saying that if one understands that our moon exists then they’re “moonists”.

 

[Metis1]

The faithful in the religion of evolutionism believe that the entire universe is matter-in-development and consciously deny the existence of a spiritual or supernatural reality; all phenomena – scientific, historical, economic, and social – are explainable in exclusively material terms.

That is false as surveys show that most scientists that accept the basic ToE are either theists (believers) or agnostics (don’t know). Biologists, btw, has the highest percentage of theists as compared to any other science (cosmologists have the lowest).

 

[Metis1]

A Catholic can give qualified assent only to evolution in the scientific sense and most certainly not to the religion of evolutionism.

There is no such thing as a “religion of evolutionism” because religion posits at least one deity whereas the ToE doesn’t endorse nor negate divine creation.

 

[o_mlly]

The basic is that life forms evolve over time-- it’s really that simple. The rest is tied up in axioms, theorems, and hypotheses.

Not much in your definition to chew on. By your definition, Genesis is (the first) Theory of Evolution.

Also, there’s no such thing as “evolutionist”. It’s like saying that if one understands that our moon exists then they’re “moonists”.

That’s just silly. Merriam-Webster, Collins, Oxford and even Wikipedia disagree.

ev·o·lu·tion·ist

ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst/

noun

noun: evolutionist ; plural noun: evolutionists

1. 1. a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.

There is no such thing as a “religion of evolutionism” because religion posits at least one deity whereas the ToE doesn’t endorse nor negate divine creation.

Ever hear of the religion called animism? I’ll let the Buddhist reply for his belief system as theistic or not.

From ancient Hinduism to modern Scientology, many religions are non-theistic including evolutionsim.

 

[o_mlly]

That is false as surveys show …

Of course, you’re just kidding, right. Surveys disclose attitudes, not truth. Take another survey tomorrow and you’ll get a new answer.

 

[Edgar]

At the end of the course, I asked the same question in another confidential survey, and the results were that only one person in 30 years with all those courses I taught said they didn’t believe in evolution. Now either the evidence is so overwhelming that they accepted it, or I’m the world’s greatest salesman, and let me tell ya that it ain’t the latter.

You forgot to mention another possibility - a lot of young minds will believe just about anything about science they’re taught at college. A few of them - the more astute ones - realize later in life that evolution science is not as sound as they were led to believe.

 

[Edgar]

The basic is that life forms evolve over time-- it’s really that simple.

Pierre-Paul Grasse was a Christian scientist who believed in evolution, but he seemed to be of the opinions that a) macroevolution occurred in the past but is no longer possible; and b) science cannot explain how macroevolution could have occurred.

 

[WileyC1949]

That is known as intelligent design.

Certain it could be considered that, but the phrase “Intelligent Design” is a term often used by those who favor a literally strict interpretation of the Bible and an instantaneous creation. The point to the complexity of something which seems like nature could not possibly do on its own and use it as a proof of God’s creation. I refer to it as Divine Guidance because that term allows for an evolutionary development guided by God.

 

[Aloysium]

Hylomorphic dualism,

The difference in opinion as to whether man is an animal is obviously linked to the acceptance of an evolutionary view of creation. Beyond the semantics and morphologically based classifications, to me we are no more animals than animals are vegetables.

What a thing does, how it acts is the reality of how it exists. How it relates is what a thing is, be it an atom, a bacterium, a plant, animal or a person. And, what it does lies in the nature of its soul, or organizing principle that weaves material and psychological components together into a greater whole, the unitary being that is itself, existing as a part of something bigger.

CCC 365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

Hylomorphism and duality are opposites and the idea of hylomorphic dualism would appear to be a contradiction. The soul is understood to be the form of the body and yet some aspect of it is supposed to be separable and capable of surviving beyond the death of the body. That would be the “dualism”, but there is no real dualism. The person remains one although, our constituent parts include knowledge and the capacity for entering into a direct two way relationship with God. That relationship remains after death, but to be fully human requires a body and hence a resurrection.

This can be a rather long discussion which would get back to the same points that I am trying to make that the fundamental and truest reality is the soul of a thing. There exists in nature a hierarchy of “souls”, the relationships or actions that are any particular thing. More complex souls are composed of those which isolated from the whole and on their own, would be less so. What we do and what we are as individual persons expressing the kind of thing we are, is composed of atoms and cells, organs, along with perceptions and feeling states. That we share some of these features with animals to my mind does not in any way mean that we are animals.

 

[Aloysium]

Now either the evidence is so overwhelming that they accepted it, or I’m the world’s greatest salesman, and let me tell ya that it ain’t the latter.

I know quite a number of women who took women’s studies courses, who were pretty ardent feminists at the end of their program. Political science departments churned out a lot of Marxists when it was popular. Thinking is far less promoted within the educational system, than is the repetition of the teachers ideas. It’s all about indoctrination.

That is impressive

Well done.

I’m not sure what else to say, so I’ll say it again: Well done.

 

[buss0042]

Eloquent, to be sure, but what, then, would you define as an “animal” that would not arbitrarily exclude humans, and is based purely on science? Because I don’t think this is a particularly disputed point, that the human body falls under the kingdom of animalia.

The place of souls has no bearing on this particular topic – this is just the focus of the body. We are not merely bodies, of course, but that doesn’t mean biological truths don’t apply to our bodies.

 

[Bradskii]

Thinking is far less promoted within the educational system, than is the repetition of the teachers ideas. It’s all about indoctrination.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Metis1]

You forgot to mention another possibility - a lot of young minds will believe just about anything about science they’re taught at college. A few of them - the more astute ones - realize later in life that evolution science is not as sound as they were led to believe.

Sorry but that doesn’t make sense as you’re essentially portraying such scientists as ignorant and naive dolts who get so brainwashed that they lose sight of reality. Most of the scientists that I have known and worked with are hardly what you seem to think they are.

 

[Metis1]

Not much in your definition to chew on. By your definition, Genesis is (the first) Theory of Evolution.

Actually there are some theologians and other believers that think maybe the creation accounts pretty much hint at there being an evolutionary process, especially since it involves the sequencing of events and forms.