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.
Pope John Paul II mentioned theories, plural, some of which were incompatible with the faith. The following is key:

"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. "
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
"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. "
Click to expand...
But John Paul is clearly talking about a particular theory when he talks about the theory of evolution being more than a hypothesis. I think he would have divulged what that theory was if he wasn’t explicitly referring to the scientific theory of evolution as understood in mainstream science.

“There can be only one” Highlander 1986
 
edwest211 said:
including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence
Click to expand...
The scientific theory of evolution does not explicitly deny divine providence. That idea is a philosophical conjecture that some scientists may or may not agree with, but in that case they are doing philosophy and not science.

If you intend to interpret that article as arguing that the mainstream scientific theory of evolution implicitly denies divine providence, then i have to disagree with you and your interpretation, because the pope clearly said “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.". When he said that he wasn’t talking about intelligent design theory or IDevoltion. He was talking about natural evolution. So i have to say it looks like you are really reaching here for something that doesn’t actually exist in the text.
 
Last edited:
Hobgoblin said:
Your website promotes ID and ID isn’t science. To be science it must be testable and falsifiable.
Click to expand...
There is ID, the philosophy and ID, the science. It is testable and falsifiable, unlike a one time event like evolution.
 
Hobgoblin said:
That may be true, but doesn’t answer the question. 😉
Click to expand...
From what I understand, your question would be what it is that “pushed us over the edge into self-awareness and rational thought?”

We have a fundamental difference in our understanding of what we are and how we got here.

It seems your problem would be how to fit together self-awareness and reason with evolution.

These are aspects of our human nature, created with the first human being, from whom we are all derived, as one humanity. This capacity is necessary for us to express our free will, and to love.

There’s a long version, but I’ll save it for later.
 
IWantGod said:
When he said that he wasn’t talking about intelligent design theory or IDevoltion. He was talking about natural evolution. So i have to say it looks like you are really reaching here for something that doesn’t actually exist in the text.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, I seem to have a different impression of who it is that is “really reaching here for something that doesn’t actually exist in the text”.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hobgoblin:
Your website promotes ID and ID isn’t science. To be science it must be testable and falsifiable.
Click to expand...
There is ID, the philosophy and ID, the science. It is testable and falsifiable, unlike a one time event like evolution.
Click to expand...
How do you falsify the claim that God created something?
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
Don’t be silly. The D in ID is God. How do we falsify the claim that God designed something.
Click to expand...
ID the science is what we are posting about.

ID the science is falsifiable by empirically proving darwinism true.

The Royal Society has recently faced this a I posted the links several times. They cannot get away from the evidence of biological design. They are now faced with having to prove natural selection itself is an intelligent agent.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
Don’t be silly. The D in ID is God. How do we falsify the claim that God designed something.
Click to expand...
ID the science is what we are posting about.

ID the science is falsifiable by empirically proving darwinism true.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. You are talking about science and you have the temerity to say that if one theory is ‘proved’ to be true, then another must be false.

In the first instance you already know that theories can’t be proved. So your suggestion is not viable.

And in the second instance, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that one can accept evolution AND believe that some aspects have been intelligently designed. The two are not mutually incompatible. So your suggestion is invalid on a second count.

ID needs to be falsifiable within itself. Not by claims outside what itself claims. Maybe you didn’t know that. You do now.

So how is it falsifiable?
 
Wozza said:
In the first instance you already know that theories can’t be proved. So your suggestion is not viable.
Click to expand...
You admit darwinism is not falsifiable? Good.

You are now conceding some ground to design? Good.
 
buffalo said:
You admit darwinism is not falsifiable? Good.
Click to expand...
Look back at what Wozza said, and read for comprehension:
40.png
Wozza:
In the first instance you already know that theories can’t be proved.
Click to expand...
That is “proved”, not “falsified”. There are plenty of potential falsifications of evolution, some dating back to Darwin himself. A Cambrian rabbit for example, because a rabbit could not have evolved in the Cambrian.

However, disproving ID is more difficult. To disprove ID you need to describe something that your designer could not design; the ID equivalent of a Cambrian rabbit.

You are not doing your case any good by failing to read the posts your are responding to correctly.
 
Wozza said:
In the first instance you already know that theories can’t be proved. So your suggestion is not viable.
Click to expand...
This theory is already considered to be true by the world.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
You are not doing your case any good by failing to read the posts your are responding to correctly.
Click to expand...
Maybe you missed it.

He now admits that evolution is not empirically provable, which I have been pointing out ad nauseum.

Intelligent design can be falsified by empirically proving darwinism. But since darwinism cannot be proven ID still stands. As we learn more the trajectory is ID will be the best explanation.

ID the science, can be falsified by empirically proving nature can produce a designing agent. That is now the task ahead for the Royal Society and company - show natural selection is a naturally occurring design agent. There is a 5 million dollar prize available. Maybe you guys can enter the contest.
 
Techno2000 said:
This theory already considered to be true by the world.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they do not realize just how many posters here did not get or admit that evolution is not empirical. How many posts just to get to that point - whew…
 
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
You are not doing your case any good by failing to read the posts your are responding to correctly.
Click to expand...
Maybe you missed it.

He now admits that evolution is not empirically provable, which I have been pointing out ad nauseum.
Click to expand...
Well it makes me bilious, I’ll say that.

Stop playing games, Buffalo. You KNOW that theories cannot be proved. Neither can ID. So you can’t ‘prove’ one by ‘disproving’ the other. But evolution can, within the construct of what it proposes, can be falsified.

ID cannot.

Please don’t insult my inelligence by posting what you yourself know to be nonsense.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Techno2000:
This theory already considered to be true by the world.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they do not realize just how many posters here did not get or admit that evolution is not empirical. How many posts just to get to that point - whew…
Click to expand...
Yep, just watch any nature show…evolution is a given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top