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.
IWantGod said:
This is just a commonsense argument.

If God created species, then apart from animals that have gone extinct, all the animals that exist today should be no different from when they were first created; there should be no new species. So it should be true that the Platypus has always existed for as long as there have been animals. From the moment animals existed they ought to be identical to the animals that live today. The evidence does not bare out that cl;aim.

So while one might not want to take evolution as fact, i think one can think that it is the most likely origin of species when compared to the biblical 7 day creation explanation…
Click to expand...
Using “common sense ALONE” when pondering Divine things; very often leads to wrong conclusions such as the one your sharing Isaiah 55: 8-9, but thanks for sharing it.

the Definition of “soul” includes “IT” to be that which animates ALL living life forms.

READ the 1st 3 chapters of Exodus and discover in Gen. 2: 6-7 and we learn that “man” {humanity} alone is the only thing in God’s original-creation that was “made” out of something; AND the ONLY think that GOD “breathed His Live into.”

Man’s Soul is uniquely-Rational and immortal; a “LIVING SOUL” that is far above every other species of living things, whose souls do cause/ animate “the life” of that “thing”; which in its death also KILLS its soul.

The RCC does not prohibit agreeing that SOME evolution takes place, SO LONG AS, it is clearly understand that it IS GOD who is the 1st Cause and it is GOD who is permitting the evolution to take place.

God Bless you and thanks for introducing this topic,

Patrick
 
Aloysium said:
That there exists a relationship between the two does not prove evolution.
Click to expand...
No, you miss the point, which is that the very foundations of evolution are being explored, in detail, by reputable mainstream evolutionists, “questioning the theory” as Glark put it. Questioning the theory is the bread and butter of scientists, and the main way in which Science makes progress. Creationists, of course, find this baffling, as their belief is founded on “not putting thy God to the test”; so no investigation is possible.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
No, you miss the point, which is that the very foundations of evolution are being explored, in detail, by reputable mainstream evolutionists, “questioning the theory” as Glark put it. Questioning the theory is the bread and butter of scientists, and the main way in which Science makes progress. Creationists, of course, find this baffling, as their belief is founded on “not putting thy God to the test”; so no investigation is possible.
Click to expand...
Why is teaching the controversy not allowed in schools then?
 
rossum said:
You do not get to define your own version of evolution. There is a standard scientific definition of evolution: descent with modification filtered through natural selection.
Click to expand...
This seems irrelevant ot my point … which is that the theory that life on earth evolved from microbes is useless to applied science.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
So, submarines evolved from whales…
Click to expand...
Once upon a time folks used to think it weird that humans could have evolved from monkey-men, but now we all know it’s an established scientific fact. Likewise, I believe that one day the world will accept whale-submarine evolution as fact.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Why is teaching the controversy not allowed in schools then?
Click to expand...
I’m afraid I can’t speak for the USA. In the UK there is no such restriction.

However I will hazard a guess, and perhaps any US biology teachers will be able to amend me if necessary. In a Science class, we begin by asking a Scientific question (How did life as we know it get here?), present some Scientific evidence (the variety of organisms, both living and fossilised), and suggest some Scientific responses. One such response could be that all the different species on earth were created simultaneously a few thousand years ago by a divine power. Another that all the different species were created spontaneously as they arise in the fossil records, over a few billion years, by a divine power. Yet another that all the different species are descended from a few fundamental species created either simultaneously or successively, as above, by a divine power; and a fourth that all the different species are descended from a single living form, which itself emerged from a mixture of abiotic chemicals, made possible by geological interactions, themselves the result of the formation of solar systems, stars, and the laws of the universe.

The first three answers lead inexorably into the biological question: how did the divine power do what it did?
The last answer doesn’t pose that biological question. It passes the buck, if you like, over to the cosmology department.

Unfortunately, there is no scientific way of investigating a ‘divine power’. In the UK, we can be honest and say that although many people believe that that is what happened, it cannot be investigated scientifically, and that therefore it is not a scientific response. If it is true, it can only be investigated by Philosophy (which in schools, tends to be the ‘Religion’ department).
 
Last edited:
It is taught. My son learned about it in Comparative Religion. The teacher said if they wanted to know more about how we got here from a scientific point of view then it would be covered in their biology class at some point.

He went to a Catholic school by the way.
 
So what happens in the Physics department, as the origin of the Earth is discussed. Again, the question is posed, and the evidence presented, and the responses emerge. The action of a divine power at any stage after the Biig Bang leads to the same kind of unanswerable “how was it done?” questions as before, which are not amenable to scientific inquiry. And so, eventually, we arrive at the Big Bang, or, in truth, a few billionths of a second just after the Big Bang, and the perfectly reasonable Physics question, “How did that happen”. At that point Science freely gives way to Philosophy. We don’t know. We can’t know. Over to you. And as far as I know, Divine Creation, at any level, is a question that may be discussed in Religion Classes, even in the USA - is that right? It’s just not Science.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
The action of a divine power at any stage after the Biig Bang leads to the same kind of unanswerable “how was it done?” questions as
Click to expand...
Science does not address how it was done. It seeks to know what was done.

An original plasma cooled down as subatomic particles came into existence. It just happened or God made it happen. There is an inherent order to the universe or the universe was ordered.

Life went from asexual to sexual reproduction because of random factors or because it was willed to do so.

The idea of evolutionary processes is imposed on the raw data to organize it into a coherent story which tells us how it happened.

That “how” is said to lie in the activity found at the level of what we understand to be the physical universe, its inherent properties. This is a metaphysical concept. Materialism is being taught covertly in science class. And, the discussion is closed by leading scientist who promote the view that philosophy is obsolete.

It should be pointed out that the evolutionary explanation that rests on changes happening through intrinsic biochemical changes occurring in the genome, actually runs counter to common sense, which sees the chaotic activity of things in themselves, to be destructive to an order that utilizes but is above that of their inherent properties.

To say that life came about as a result of random chemical changes influenced by environmental pressures is an attempt to answer “how” it happened. It is an interpretation of what happened. Actually is not an explanation at all, providing only a very partial picture and resting on the simple reality that stuff happens and can’t do what it does if it doesn’t exist.

It may be possible for science to answer the question as to whether new forms of life had mothers or not. Although I’m not sure how, it may be possible to know, for example, if an organism divided itself into a male and female pair who went on to have offspring through sexual reproduction. With respect to our first parents that was the case. Whether this happened through the random activity of material substances, is an interpretation resting on a belief system.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Aloysium:
That there exists a relationship between the two does not prove evolution.
Click to expand...
No, you miss the point, which is that the very foundations of evolution are being explored, in detail, by reputable mainstream evolutionists, “questioning the theory” as Glark put it. Questioning the theory is the bread and butter of scientists, and the main way in which Science makes progress. Creationists, of course, find this baffling, as their belief is founded on “not putting thy God to the test”; so no investigation is possible.
Click to expand...
From the website of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, for whatever their opinion is worth:
Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
Unfortunately, there is no scientific way of investigating a ‘divine power’. In the UK, we can be honest and say that although many people believe that that is what happened, it cannot be investigated scientifically, and that therefore it is not a scientific response. If it is true, it can only be investigated by Philosophy (which in schools, tends to be the ‘Religion’ department.
Click to expand...
I have proposed many times students in the US should be required to take philosophy in high school.
 
Bradskii said:
It is taught. My son learned about it in Comparative Religion. The teacher said if they wanted to know more about how we got here from a scientific point of view then it would be covered in their biology class at some point.

He went to a Catholic school by the way.
Click to expand...
Curious? You sent him? Why?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
And as far as I know, Divine Creation, at any level, is a question that may be discussed in Religion Classes, even in the USA - is that right? It’s just not Science.
Click to expand...
No. It is not allowed in public school. It used to be.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
It is taught. My son learned about it in Comparative Religion. The teacher said if they wanted to know more about how we got here from a scientific point of view then it would be covered in their biology class at some point.

He went to a Catholic school by the way.
Click to expand...
Curious? You sent him? Why?
Click to expand...
To give him a well rounded education.
 
I would be super surprised if I saw one with rossum as the author. Of course you will see more material by DI.

The proper response is not an ad hominem attack but rather dealing with the claims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top