P
PickyPicky
Guest
Why should there be?
You know what the Catholic Church teaches: belief in evolution is acceptable. Millions of Christians accept it.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
You know what the Catholic Church teaches: belief in evolution is acceptable. Millions of Christians accept it.
T
Techno2000
Guest
“from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God”-Pope Paul VIUriel1:
Why should there be?
You know what the Catholic Church teaches: belief in evolution is acceptable. Millions of Christians accept it.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The myth of evolution being a myth was being supported by a denigration of the worth of science. So yes, the argument has been about that.
E
edwest
Guest
Science does not equal evolution. It is certainly not all of science.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Actually, what I hear is the facts of science being used to denigrate what is being touted as science - the myth of evolution. It is a story using scientific knowledge to promote a distorted understanding of reality, a way to introduce materialistic and utilitarian philosophies into the classroom as being scientifically grounded.
I’m sure everyone would agree that the technology they are using at the moment is pretty amazing, although extremely frustrating when it glitches. Public health measures like putting on sun screen, using masks and gloves when dealing with teratogenic substances, and vaccination programs, all of which are designed to reduce the risk of random genetic mutations, are much to be admired and the reason for the increased longevity of modern times. Medicines are also appreciated for the role they play as part of the growth in our scientific knowledge.
Evolution, on the other hand is useless in addition to being wrong. If anyone will take the time to contribute their version of evolution, I would gladly consider what they have to say and provide feedback.
I’m sure everyone would agree that the technology they are using at the moment is pretty amazing, although extremely frustrating when it glitches. Public health measures like putting on sun screen, using masks and gloves when dealing with teratogenic substances, and vaccination programs, all of which are designed to reduce the risk of random genetic mutations, are much to be admired and the reason for the increased longevity of modern times. Medicines are also appreciated for the role they play as part of the growth in our scientific knowledge.
Evolution, on the other hand is useless in addition to being wrong. If anyone will take the time to contribute their version of evolution, I would gladly consider what they have to say and provide feedback.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
No need to cherry-pick … Darwin’s tree of common descent is “uselful” only in the minds of evolutionists. In the real world of applied science it’s as useless as a fairy tale.
I have never claimed that it’s lack of scientific utility proves that the D-tree is false.
Btw, my Progressive Creation model involves a “tree” of physical common descent, as the genome of each “new” creature (except the very first organisms that were created from non-genetic matter) was created from the genetic matter of its “ancestor”. In fact, from a distance, my model’s tree looks just like the evolutionists’ tree, because both are based on the same fossil record.
I’ve never disputed the reality of “evolution” and I have never disputed “the theory of evolution”, as far as these terms are understood in biology. I have never disputed that there are practical applications of “evolution” and “the theory of evolution” in biology - for there are many.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
It’s my understanding that the history of life (as revealed by the fossil record) begins with microscopic organisms and ends with man. In between is what could be described as some kind of evolution of life-forms, as it begins with the least-complex and ends with the most-complex. However, I don’t believe that this evolution of life-forms is the result of a completely natural process - such as the contiguous process of biological evolution accepted by the scientific community - that is to say, the process was supernaturally guided and seems to contain supernatural “gaps”. I would imagine a supernatural process like this is not something that would appeal to an atheist.
The death that the New Testament refers to is the death of human beings only, which is the result of Original Sin. I believe that the power of the Cross will not only eventually do away with human death, but the death of non-human creatures as well (which suggests an “evolution” of another kind).
E
Edgar
Guest
Not being able to come up with a plausible scientific explanation of natural (godless) abiogenesis doesn’t stop atheists believing it happened or stop them believing in its sequel - biological evolution. They tend to ignore abiogenesis and harp on biological evolution, as they feel that with evolution they’re on a winner, claming there is irrefutable evidence that it happened, as well as claiming to understand the mechanisms by which it proceeded.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If it looks just like evolution, then how it is scientifically different from evolution? (I am asking how it is scientifically different, not how it is philosophically different.)LeafByNiggle:
No need to cherry-pick … Darwin’s tree of common descent is “uselful” only in the minds of evolutionists. In the real world of applied science it’s as useless as a fairy tale.
I have never claimed that it’s lack of scientific utility proves that the D-tree is false.
Btw, my Progressive Creation model involves a “tree” of physical common descent, as the genome of each “new” creature (except the very first organisms that were created from non-genetic matter) was created from the genetic matter of its “ancestor”. In fact, from a distance, my model’s tree looks just like the evolutionists’ tree, because both are based on the same fossil record.
E
Edgar
Guest
I don’t know anyone who doesn’t accept the theory of evolution - ie, that natural selection favours genetic variations within a species population that are inherited by the next generation. However, some folks (like me) don’t accept the conclusion based on ToE that this processs can account for the history of life on earth.
If I shared your atheism, I would probably find it very, very easy to accept modern evolutionary science as “coherent”, for I would have already accepted a general theory of evolution. That is to say, after noticing that the fossil and geological records reveal that life started millions of years ago with microbes, I would have concluded that the history of life is the result of some natural process of evolution. With this general theory of evolution as my “starting point” of reality, modern evolutionary science it is simply the “icing on the cake” that confirms my a priori position.
But because I don’t share your atheism, I am perhaps a little more critical what you consider to be a “coherent and scientific” conclusion - that ToE can account for the history of life on earth. In fact, since I believe the history of life is a supernatural event, I consider the claims of science that it’s the product of a purely natural process which can be understood to be laughable and worthless.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
The idea of evolution is not lame, for the history of life is one of some kind of evolution - the first life-forms that show up in the fossil record are microbes; millions of years later, we arrive at man.
But what is lame, is my opinion, are scientific explanations for how this happened, for science cannot explain life, which is a miracle. It is tantamount to scientists trying explain how Jesus changed water into wine … or scientists trying to explain how the first life-forms arose from inanimate matter.
T
Techno2000
Guest
This is lame…Techno2000:
The idea of evolution is not lame, for the history of life is one of some kind of evolution - the first life-forms that show up in the fossil record are microbes; millions of years later, we arrive at man.
But what is lame, is my opinion, are scientific explanations for how this happened, for science cannot explain life, which is a miracle. It is tantamount to scientists trying explain how Jesus changed water into wine … or scientists trying to explain how the first life-forms arose from inanimate matter.
E
edwest
Guest
I’ll give you that.
E
Edgar
Guest
For thousands of years, due to a lack of scientific knowledge, the traditional interpretation of Genesis was a literal “six days” of creation. In her wisdom, the Catholic Church never insisted on any one interpretation of Genesis. And now we know why - modern science has demonstrated that the literal “six days” interpretation is wrong - life was created progressively over millions of years.
In the light of the scientific facts that are now available to us, other verses in Genesis can be reinterpreted and properly understood. For example, the “kinds” verses in Genesis 1 are not referring to the starting-point of creation, but the “end-point” of creation (ie, the creatures that the author of Genesis saw existing about him). The history of life - from the creation of the first microbes from inanimate matter, to the creation of man and all the creatures that exist with man - is succinctly described in Genesis 1: God said “Let the earth/waters bring forth … vegetation … living creatures … according to their kinds”.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
Christianity is not served well by folks who use simplistic and erroneous interpretations of Scripture to deny scientific facts. St. Augustine sternly warned against making this very mistake. The bad news is, to believe that life was created over six literal days is to live in a medieval dreamworld of scientific ignorance. The good news is, you can have your cake and eat it too - you can believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and also believe the modern science that demonstrates that life on earth began millions of years ago. Furhermore, you can believe in this science without believing in biological evolution.
I once believed in some of the literal interpretations of Scripture that you expound on this forum, but eventually I came to see that those interpretations were wrong, because they contradict the facts that God has allowed us (science) to discover.
It might help to think of the earth and the scientific facts gleaned from it as part of God’s revelation to man, just as the Bible is revelation. The two forms of revelation are meant to compliment each other, not to be a source of conflict. As Cardinal Ratzinger said, “Truth cannot contradict truth.”
Exodus 31:17 - “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”
The “six days” is a symbolic representation of the creation process that serves to set up the Sabbath Day (Exodus 20:8-12). It is not a literal description. A hint that it is symbolic are the words “and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed” - did God get tired from all that creating and have to rest in the cool shade of a tree for a while and drink Cool-Aid until he was “refreshed”?
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
“discussed it” might be going too far - “mentioned it”, may be closer to the mark. My understanding is that Darwin wasn’t interested in expounding any theory of natural abiogenesis and left that topic in that “warm little pond”. Darwin recognised that the origin of species is a different study to the origin of life and that the former can be studied while ignoring the lattter.
Had Darwin had access to the microbiological knowledge provided by modern science - and thus been aware of the ridiculous and interdependant complexity of even the simplest known cell - he may have realized how absurd his “warm little pond” idea was.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
Evidently, a great deal of time, effort, money and talent is being wasted in the field of biology.
E
Edgar
Guest
I’m pretty sure God left fridge-building to secondary (or third) causes, but for the life of me I can’t imagine why any Christian would leave God out of the picture when it comes to explaining the history of life.
E
Edgar
Guest
Have you read #283?
E
Edgar
Guest
I would agree. But you’ve got to agree that the story of whale evolution is pretty damned funny!
- Status