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.
Aloysium said:
It’s made me lots of money.
Click to expand...
:roll_eyes:

I’m surprised that you actually stated this as a reason. I have never considered practical use as the driving force behind science, however it is certainly one of the reasons why the applied-sciences get funded by private organisations most of the time.

So methodological naturalism is cool when it has a practical use and when it doesn’t question your interpretation of God’s creative act.

I get it now.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
If we go beyond the illusions, And you’d think Rossum would be on board with that, we can know reality as it is in itself…
Click to expand...
No we cannot know reality as it is. Our senses are imperfect so what we sense of reality is not reality but instead what we see ‘through a glass darkly’. Hence our internal models of reality are themselves imperfect; we see water in a mirage where there is no water in reality.

A common error is to mistake our imperfect internal model of reality for the actual external reality. Our models are good, but not that good.

rossum
 
IWantGod said:
https://www.ncbcenter.org/index.php/download_file/force/182/159/
Click to expand...
This is not a magisterial document.

Upon close examination -
“The thing to note here and now is that the focal point remains on the authentic faith of the Church which is not completely separable from purported “results” of the positive sciences and that the Pope has judged that there is no inherent or, in any event, obvious contradiction between the faith and at least some theories of evolution.” (The Church has no issue with micro-evolution, aka adaptation)

The next two paragraphs show the issues on polygenism, but he casts aside Eve coming directly from Adam rib. (never mentions or addresses it)

Then - “Evolution does not suffice to explain
the origin of the human race, just as the biological causality of the parents
alone cannot explain a baby’s birth.” Pope John Paul II

This paper does not back your claim, nor is it magisterial.
 
buffalo said:
Then - “Evolution does not suffice to explain
the origin of the human race, just as the biological causality of the parents
alone cannot explain a baby’s birth.” Pope John Paul II
Click to expand...
If you quote things out of context it can appear any way you want. He is basically saying that biological processes alone does not explain everything. He is challenging materialism, not evolution.

Since the Pope has also said “new knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”1 (in other-words is a legitimate theory) Your position is fringe at best, and in recent times the pope has said that there is no theological problem involved in investigating the biological origins of the human body or saying that it is a product of evolution.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
If you quote things out of context it can appear any way you want. He is basically saying that biological processes alone does not explain everything. He is challenging materialism, not evolution.
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree, but it is an important point.
 
IWantGod said:
Since the Pope has also said “ new knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis .”1 ( in other-words is a legitimate theory ) Your position is fringe at best, and in recent times the pope has said that there is no theological problem involved in investigating the biological origins of the human body or saying that it is a product of evolution.
Click to expand...
In any case, this is the Pope’s opinion and not theologically binding. I submit if JPII was alive today he might not have said this with all the new evidence challenging evolution that has come forth.
 
The Pope said in his address TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm
 
buffalo said:
I submit if JPII was alive today he might not have said this with all the new evidence challenging evolution that has come forth.
Click to expand...
It’s not theologically binding for you to accept evolution but you can’t say it’s against church teaching. There is no new evidence challenging the theory of evolution.

But you can prove me wrong, i have been wrong before.
 
Pope Benedict

"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
 
edwest said:
Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Click to expand...
Well Benedict has his opinion. But being more than a hypothesis is not being less than a theory.
 
“… time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments…” I would take what he said over anything else.
 
IWantGod said:
Feel free to answer my question when you are ready.
Click to expand...
I truly don’t know what you are asking. I thought I made it quite clear, including the reasons.

I’m figuring you want to know:
IWantGod said:
So why don’t you just reject science entirely? Science is a methodological naturalism; it’s materialistic by it’s very method. Why do you pick and choose?
Click to expand...
Evolution is not science. It is not something we know like we know the approximations we have to the gravitational constant or the speed of light. It is a story that does not make sense to me. I am not rejecting the science, which actually I embrace and have tried to repeatedly demonstrate fits better with creation than evolution.

Again on a personal note, at least I admit I do not know where you are coming from. You have decided not let me in on how you believe creation fits in with evolution other than to say that God did whatever that myth claims. While God does bring the totality of events that constitute the universe and provide it with its rational structure, it’s an assumption that this structure, inherent in the basic laws of nature, is sufficient in bringing about all this wondrous diversity of living beings. God is involved as the Triune Creator of each form of being. That I would say, I am certain of.

To speak of our existence and its beginnings, we are involving epistemology, how we know things and ontology, what it is the nature of the being that takes the various forms and relationships that constitute the areas of study of the various disciplines of physics, chemistry, microbiology, botany, zoology, and the arts. This hierarchy was brought into existence sequentially within the “six days” of creation, or at least that’s how modern science fits in the reality described by Genesis. To speak of creation we cannot remain at the level of the material, which helps with the building of things and medicine but fails to grasp what is life.

I’m hoping that is clear. I’ll keep trying, at least for as long as it is meaningful to do so.
 
Last edited:
God created the first man, and made him male and female at the beginning. We are a unity of being and that aspect that we speak of as body, the material was not in Adam a collection of errors that would have occured had evolution played a role inour creation. We have been devolving, as is all nature since the fall. As we age, so does the human race, albeit each baby is fresh and new; they contain errors in the initial code and related cellular processes. That would be a start of a very long post that few if any would read.
 
edwest said:
“… time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments…” I would take what he said over anything else.
Click to expand...
That comment is all it takes for you to disagree with evolution? Wow.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top