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.
buffalo said:
LOL. You don’t know, or don’t want to answer.
Click to expand...
Since you have failed to answer two of my questions I will wait until you have answered my questions before answering yours.

You have not shown any evidence of a deity creating a new species, as I asked.

You have failed to answer my question on how to calculate entropy for specified or functional information.
 
Honestly, I’ve heard several Thomists discuss it lately. It seems popular at the Thomistic Institute. Norris Clarke gives a version of it in his “One and Many” text, which I’m still working through. I’m not an expert on it and have initial reservations. This might be a good place to start: https://www.thomisticevolution.org/
 
Thank you. This is inconsistent with existing Church documents and assumes things. I don’t find the conclusions acceptable.
 
The first thing is that the science only explanation is inadequate. God had a direct role in creation. Next, some science. From Communion and stewardship:
  1. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.
 
But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).
 
Thanks Buffalo. I’ve never heard of IDvolution before. It looks like an attempt to concede science it can’t refute while clinging to special creation. I’d ask why waste the time? Personally, I’ve approached this, and everything, from that angle of seeking truth wherever it leads. If the truth leads to a universe that’s billions of years old with men who had apes for fathers, then so be it. If it leads somewhere else, fine. If it shows Christianity is a pile of rubbish or the love of God towards Man, let it lead where it leads. But I don’t worry about science disproving Christianity because if Christianity is true it won’t be able to. But that’s not even what science is for. Many Creationists seem to think there’s a huge cover up, or at least a mass blindness, of truths that would be obvious if just looked at. But science doesn’t care what the truth is. It will look at anything. So if you hypothesize special creation then you can write a paper explaining the theory. If it can be shot down it will be and if it can’t be then it just might become accepted. That’s how science works.

A healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing. My quest has led me to the Catholic Church. I’m so convinced of its authority that if it said the Earth was a few thousand years old and God built Adam in a 24-hour day I’d try to find a way to swallow it. But it hasn’t done that. And honestly I’d fall out of my chair backwards if it did. The Church is an ark of truth. It’s not about to commit to error. Which is why it doesn’t commit to Creationism.
 
That’s a description of sentience, but not of how it came to be. What is it that pushed us over the edge into self-awareness and rational thought? I don’t know.
 
Hobgoblin said:
That’s a description of sentience, but not of how it came to be. What is it that pushed us over the edge into self-awareness and rational thought? I don’t know.
Click to expand...
As we approach the Truth, all conceptions reveal themselves to be mere wisps, like smoke, dissolving as it rises up into the sky, the unmistakeable reality of Existence itself.
 
I’m not qualified to debate the merits of that article. Theories are challenged and modified in light of new information all the time though. That’s how science works. Your website promotes ID and ID isn’t science. To be science it must be testable and falsifiable.
 
Aloysium said:
As we approach the Truth, all conceptions reveal themselves to be mere wisps, like smoke, dissolving as it rises up into the sky, the unmistakeable reality of Existence itself.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but doesn’t answer the question. 😉
 
edwest211 said:
the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution
Click to expand...
Yes, but what does he mean by all theories of evolution? It seems to me he is taking about philosophical extrapolations based on evolution since there is only one scientific theory of evolution and this is what Pope John Paul II is referring to when he said “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."

That to me is just commonsense. Can you reason otherwise?
 
From core studies in Minnesota, North Dakota and Southern Manitoba. There is a theory that the great flood happened about 8000 years ago when the last ice shelf damming glacial Lake Agassiz, an inland sea covering all of Manitoba south to Fergus Falls Minnesota, gave way and released the lake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top