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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
There is a difference between being deeply suspicious and tossing out a claim without consideration.
My comment wasn’t made wihout consideration - Satan uses atheists to spread lies and nonsense designed to undermine the Faith.
I meant that you dismissed the claim without consideration of the content of the claim. An ad hominem involves giving consideration only to the source of the message, but not the content.
 
After years of reading threads like this, and the comments of all concerned, it appears the current theory of evolution falls into the philosophy/worldview category. Since science can only deal with the material, it should not surprise anyone that those who only believe in the material would find this so appealing. Before Darwin’s book, leading scientists gladly added God, but that went into decline.

Growing up, I did not look at evolution as closely as I should have. Hopefully, more information about what happened in the past will more clearly show misinterpretations against a backdrop of this, for some, carved in stone worldview. And the average person, including scientists, need no indoctrination into this.

It is clear that Biologists are doing their work and collecting data that can be called reliable. Most do not realize that evolution as any sort of guide, does not apply to their day to day work. But to believe it is the end result of indoctrination.
 
40.png
Edgar:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
It would have been more convincing if there were over a hundred quotes of appropriate experts who concluded that evolution of species is not true.
You miss the point: The experts believe in evolution DESPITE what the fossil record says.
And what does that tell you? Is it:
  1. The experts are all full of hooey, or
  2. Maybe the experts understand something about what the fossil record should be that I don’t.
The only conclusion I can draw, is that some of them, want to be honest.
 
My comment wasn’t made wihout consideration - Satan uses atheists to spread lies and nonsense designed to undermine the Faith.
It’s probably too late, the world has all ready latched on to Darwin’s error plagued ideas.
 
There’s always hope. Legitimate scientific work is often good, but sometimes applied science can be done the wrong way or for ends that harm the dignity of the person.
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Ad Hominem. If you can tag it as coming from an atheist that is enough to disbelieve it.
Not quite: As a Catholic, I’d be a fool not to be deeply suspicious of anything an atheist claims about the origin and history of life.
L: Hey, have you read that new article in ‘New Scientist’?
E: Not yet. I’m still investigating the guy’s religious beliefs.
 
What use is evolution to anybody?
The Theory of Relativity is useful because it includes a series of formulas with practical applications such as GPS and nuclear power plants. Quantum mechanics allows us to construct ultra-accurate clocks, microscopes that allow us to extend our visual sense to the smallest of things, and uncrackable codes. Our knowledge of the physical world through physics and chemistry underlie the technics of the modern world and have led to better understanding of the mechanics of biology, and thereby improved public health measures and medicine.

Science also informs about who we are and the nature of the world of which we are a part. We interpret basic scientific data in a way that makes sense to us. Dissecting the world into smaller and smaller bits has brought us quantum physics. Some of the ideas we’ve come up with include that these smallest of events are weird, being both waves and particles and affecting one another over huge distances. Not only that, they seem to be subjective and that given a choice, all paths are taken. These are interpretations of the formulas that describe the relationships between what we are observing and measuring. Quantum mechanics says none of these things; such statements come about in our efforts to translate the facts into the language of daily life.

When dealing with genetics and the fossil record, we try to imagine how these pieces all fits into the larger mosaic of life on earth. Evolution is actually a collection of interpretations, which themselves are a composite of ideas about matter and how it behaves, from its most basic atomic and molecular properties, to those of very complex organisms and ultimately ourselves. It involves a series of assumptions that typically include the primacy of matter. The genome, the DNA in our bodies, which if collected and joined together from every cell in our body would stretch to about twice the diameter of the Solar System, is information in action and as part of the cell it is responsible for our development, growth and maintenance; it is believed to have shaped itself through it’s inherent physical properties. The information in the form of base pair sequences, would have been added over time from some primordial state, resulting in bacteria, algae, fungi, grasses, fir trees, fish and frogs, dinosaurs and geese, peacocks and moles, lions and antelopes. We can’t replicate this of course, as grapes remain grapes, dogs are still dogs, cattle is cattle, horses remain horses and people are people. The pieces don’t really fit together, but evolution is the current widely held world view.

The use for evolution is intellectual, providing a collective understanding of how the world works and our place in it. Outside that psychosocial context, whose evolution is never explained without some god or randomness of-the-gaps thrown in, we couldn’t be discussing our vision of how our sitting here communicating came about.
 
Last edited:
The story that humans evolved from bacteria, however, cannot be confirmed. As far as I can work out, it’s a tale from atheist folklore.
It is the creation story for:
  • atheists, who reject any philosophical/religious perspective
  • those who believe in the transmigration of the soul, its rebirth through karma into higher forms of life
  • those that see the material coming together in different configurations or systems with emergent properties, such as the mind - naturalism/pantheism.
  • Christians, Jews and Muslims who do not experience the cognitive dissonance that arises from the opposing ideas of creation and evolution by compartmentalizing the two, and not thinking too deeply about the matter.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Edgar:
The story that humans evolved from bacteria, however, cannot be confirmed. As far as I can work out, it’s a tale from atheist folklore.
It is the creation story for:
  • atheists, who reject any philosophical/religious perspective
…or scientists who do not accept that Thor throws lightening bolts, but insist on looking for an explanation of lightening involving electrons.
  • those who believe in the transmigration of the soul, its rebirth through karma into higher forms of life
(too obviously referring just to rossum, for otherwise this point makes zero sense.)
  • those that see the material coming together in different configurations or systems with emergent properties…
…in otherwords those who see clearly.
  • Christians, Jews and Muslims who do not experience the cognitive dissonance that arises from the opposing ideas of creation and evolution by compartmentalizing the two, and not thinking too deeply about the matter.
…or Christians, Jews and Muslims who correctly see that creation and evolution are separate things.
 
…or scientists who do not accept that Thor throws lightening bolts, but insist on looking for an explanation of lightening involving electrons.
It comes across as your saying that Thor = God. If not, what exactly do you mean?
(too obviously referring just to rossum, for otherwise this point makes zero sense.)
I know people can take things personally, but Rossum, the self-proclaimed Buddhist, never entered my mind. Ask him; he doesn’t believe in the soul.
in otherwords those who see clearly.
I’ll take that as a yes for that category.
Christians, Jews and Muslims who correctly see that creation and evolution are separate things.
That’s what I was getting at, people who don’t experience cognitive dissonance because they compartmentalize things or don’t bother thinking beyond what others tell them to believe.
 
Last edited:
That’s what I was getting at, people who don’t experience cognitive dissonance because they compartmentalize things or don’t bother thinking beyond what others tell them to believe.
You are not using the term “cognitive dissonance” correctly. It means:
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change
But seeing creation and evolution as separate subjects is not inconsistent. You have to prove that evolution cannot be studied separately from creation when doing science. So as a purely scientific activity, there is no inconsistency in seeing them as separate.
 
But seeing creation and evolution as separate subjects is not inconsistent. You have to prove that evolution cannot be studied separately from creation when doing science. So as a purely scientific activity, there is no inconsistency in seeing them as separate.
I think it describes the situation the situation perfectly, where conflicting and contradictory ideas that normally cause a sense of confusion or uncertainty, are dealt with by the construction of separate realities.

There is one reality. God brings all this into creation, here and now, as in the beginning. His perfect creation, damaged by original sin, retains its perfection in Christ, our Way to communion within the Triune Godhead. While the different kinds of being that he created continue to unfold, expressing His beauty and infinite creativity, those original forms, the basic template of what follows, was brought into existence. Matter does not do this, rather it is the soul of each being that brings the constituent parts into one unity, each individual creature a part of the greater whole he has created, ultimately all joined in one eternal Beatific Vision.
 
Last edited:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
But seeing creation and evolution as separate subjects is not inconsistent. You have to prove that evolution cannot be studied separately from creation when doing science. So as a purely scientific activity, there is no inconsistency in seeing them as separate.
I think it describes the situation the situation perfectly, where conflicting and contradictory ideas that normally cause a sense of confusion or uncertainty, are dealt with by the construction of separate realities.
They aren’t separate realities. They are two subjects in the same reality. Reset and try again.
 
They aren’t separate realities. They are two subjects in the same reality.
Yes. Natural philosophy/science, psychology and metaphysics are subjects that relate to different aspects of one reality. Thinking about our own existence, we know ourselves to be matter, moulded into exquisitely complex forms, organized to express the miracle of experience - perceptions like that of this screen, from which we derive meanings as in the form of words, which in turn elicit feelings and ultimately action. And, all this exists; it is a manifestation of relationality, the self’s connection to what is other to it. All this is rooted in Perfect Relationality, the Love from whom everything is brought forth through an Act of Divine Will - the Triune Godhead.
 
Last edited:
Eric Voegelin provides probably the most profound and wide-ranging analysis of this modern rejection of ambiguity and mystery, the denigration of the tacit and implicit in favor of the strictly tangible and explicit in a narrowed understanding of truth and reality. Professor Voegelin traces man’s inclination in this direction to his pre-modern, age-old experience of anxiety in the midst of the ambiguity of existence, and the tension that became increasingly evident in the ancient Greek and Hebrew differentiations between the this-worldly and the other-worldly, the immanental and the transcendental, the physical and the spiritual-in man’s increasing awareness of his participation (mēthexis) in-between these two realms, and the tension that derives from his status as one who, as Augustine phrased it, is in, but not fully of, this world. Modernity’s equation of truth with clarity can therefore be understood largely in terms of an overwhelming temptation to fall from unclear, ambiguous truth into clear untruth.’"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top