Stop Believing in Evolution

[ChesterKhan]

Sorry, no. It's like the old adage "you can't prove a negative." Scientific theories are generally considered fact when enough evidence/proof beyond any reasonable doubt is obtained. And there is only a mountain of evidence for evolution, so IMO the idea that it's (generally) wrong is ridiculous. There are examples in the article how man himself has caused "mini-evolutions" on his own (eg dogs breeds).

Also IMO it's equally silly to think that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. God is the who/why that set it all into motion; evolution and the other sciences simply explain the "how" and other details of it.

Spot on. How does the old scientific method I learned in 5th grade go?

Problem > Hypothesis > Experiment > Result > Conclusion > Retest, retest, retest > theory > law.

And I don't see why we couldn't even go as far as Aquinas and say angels are keeping the world in order - even through evolution. Evolution is just the "how", not the "who". Who knows what implications could come of evolution? People, it need not all be bad.

 

[ivebeenshown]

For all of the 'empirical evidence' demanded by atheistic scientists to convince them of God, I still see no empirical evidence for interspecies evolution. I can see the effect of gravity before my very eyes, I can buy a telescope and watch the planets love and chart them to see that they orbit the Sun, and I can breed dogs and see how they develop varying traits -- but I cannot see anywhere in the world that I can confirm a change of species. The closest example have seen is really just a bunch of the same bacteria forming a colony out of themselves, really no different than a coral.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When you mention the word "evolution," to a fundamentalist, they'll think you're talking about humans evolving from apes, as the photo in the OP article shows.

However, science never suggest that humans evolved from another species, but the human species itself evolved within it's self.

Fossil's and human remains going back tens of thousands of years prove the reality of evolution.

Evolution doesn't rule out God as creator, but from my perspective, makes the God more awesome than ever. A God who's creation will unfold over billions of years, is amazing to contemplate.

I like Fr Theilhard De Chardin's theory on evolution. Fr Theilhard De Chardin was a Jesuit priest, but also a geological scientist and was on the team which discovered Peking Man, which is said to be from 680,000–780,000 years ago.

Anyway, Theilhard De Chardin said, that humans evolved biologically, over the course of millions of years until about 10,000 years ago. Then, the biological evolution slowed down very much. However, the intellectual and spiritually, humans began to evolve quickly and continue to do so today.

Jim

 

[bill5]

I cannot see anywhere in the world that I can confirm a change of species.

The fact that it takes millions of years-ish to do might have something to do with it. I doubt you've been around that long.

However, science never suggest that humans evolved from another species

True. I'd call it more of a statement than a suggestion.

 

[ChesterKhan]

To those who doubt evolution: I not only suggest you read what the most recent Popes have said on it. I also suggest you look up scientists of the past 200 years in this field - especially Catholic ones. Gregor Mendel, the father of the science of genetics, provides an excellent means for interspecies evolution to occur. Fr. de Chardin discovered Peking Man, and wrote about how mankind really is God's magnum opus, with evolution being the proof thereof. He writes of it in The Phenomenon of Man.

 

[WisdomTree]

Spot on. How does the old scientific method I learned in 5th grade go?

Problem > Hypothesis > Experiment > Result > Conclusion > Retest, retest, retest > theory > law.

And I don't see why we couldn't even go as far as Aquinas and say angels are keeping the world in order - even through evolution. Evolution is just the "how", not the "who". Who knows what implications could come of evolution? People, it need not all be bad.

A law is not greater than a theory since they do not belong in the same category as such, scientific theories do not get promoted to scientific laws. They are in fact equal somewhat since theories rely on laws to provide data while laws rely on theories to explain the rationale.

Theories however do get promoted to theorems which is something that is essentially proven, though this means that it is only seen in mathematics.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Spot on. How does the old scientific method I learned in 5th grade go?

Problem > Hypothesis > Experiment > Result > Conclusion > Retest, retest, retest > theory > law.

And I don't see why we couldn't even go as far as Aquinas and say angels are keeping the world in order - even through evolution. Evolution is just the "how", not the "who". Who knows what implications could come of evolution? People, it need not all be bad.

Hypothesis, theory and law differ in kind, not degree.

A hypothesis is a conjecture made to be proven or disproven, based on previous research.

A theory is a field of study, particularly one involving a certain type of model. Therefore the phrase "Atomic Theory" means the models used to discuss the structure of the atom, not the question of whether or not atoms exist. Certainly the existence of atoms is relevant to the field, but the theory itself involves much more than that simple fact.

A law is a simple physical relationship, usually expressed as a mathematical equation. There wasn't a time where, for instance, Newton's Laws of motion were known as Newton's theories of motion. They are laws because they can be stated succinctly and represented mathematically.

None of these things can change into any of the others, even in the abstract.

Theories however do get promoted to theorems which is something that is essentially proven, though this means that it is only seen in mathematics.

This is also incorrect. A theory in mathematics (like Set Theory) is more or less the same thing as it is in science: a field of study. A theorem is a proven result within a theory (though theorems may also be called propositions and lemmas for largely stylistic reasons). A theory will contain many theorems.

 

[WisdomTree]

This is also incorrect. A theory in mathematics (like Set Theory) is more or less the same thing as it is in science: a field of study. A theorem is a proven result within a theory (though theorems may also be called propositions and lemmas for largely stylistic reasons). A theory will contain many theorems.

Ah, I see. I stand corrected.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Well, that's what falsification is: you try to disprove something. You have a theory and you line up all the evidence against it to see if it adds up. If it doesn't contradict your theory, you move on to the next bit of evidence, and so forth. That's falsification.

It is important to remember that falsification is only one part of scientific reasoning, because the data is always underdetermined. That is to say, we are always in a situation where the given data can be explained by multiple models. Theoretical Quantum physics is a great place to see this in action.

Even though this is the case, no scientist would say that all the models are equally likely to be true. Rather there are metaphysical reasons to prefer one theory over another (like the notion of symmetry in physics). And this is as it should be, seeing as how it is only with these considerations that science has ever progressed.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The fact that it takes millions of years-ish to do might have something to do with it. I doubt you've been around that long.

Exactly right, which is why I would have to believe it on faith. I'm up in the air about it, and it doesn't affect my Catholic outlook either way, but I fail to see how the theory of evolution can be taken as factual without a healthy dose of faith in the unseen.

 

[bill5]

Exactly right, which is why I would have to believe it on faith.

Nah, you'd simply have to look at the (tons of) evidence pointing to that conclusion.

I fail to see how the theory of evolution can be taken as factual without a healthy dose of faith in the unseen.

That's regrettable, but to each their own. Perhaps if you thought of it as "factual beyond any reasonable doubt" vs "100% certain....." in which case we could go off on philosophical tangents about how it's impossible to know anything with 100% certainty, and next thing you know we're talking about butterflies etc etc. No thx

 

[WisdomTree]

The thing about the Theory of Evolution is, is that it is not about faith and it should not affect one's faith. It's just a scientific theory in that it is man's way of explaining God's creation since we humans are so limited in being able to comprehend stuff, yet despite our limitations we are actually achieving quite a lot. So whether you believe it because there are tons of evidence for it or reject it because you see it as being incompatible to your faith is irrelevent, since none of us can be absolutely certain. As good Catholics (or bad ones), we just have to remember that so long as we subscribe to the dogmas and the apostolic deposits (as well as the standing doctrines), and practice our faith, we need not surrender our freewill to choose what we believe in. Even being Catholic is a choice, though the consequences of making the wrong choice for that would be quite dire.

At the end of the day, if future evidence say that the Theory of Evolution doesn't hold up, we can be like "meh, it was a good way of explaining things at the time" just like the geocentric view of the universe. Because all Catholics should know that it was God who made it that way.

 

[Azureknight 773]

One thing that I seriously had a very hard time embracing TToE is the first few chapters of Genesis from which it states that (paraphrased) one shall make descendants according to its kind. Now certainly no way can this even be possible:

 

[bill5]

Even being Catholic is a choice, though the consequences of making the wrong choice for that would be quite dire.

Not necessarily.

Now certainly no way can this even be possible:

Because..............

 

[WisdomTree]

Not necessarily.

It is if you're not doing it out of invincible ignorance.

 

[RuthD]

I just want to say when I saw this topic I was prepared to be offended by people's posts. BUT I must say that everyone here has added much very interesting points on the topic and you are all very intelligent.

 

[bill5]

Yeah, it's a good group, except of course when they disagree with me

It is if you're not doing it out of invincible ignorance.

Again, not necessarily. I'm pretty confident saying people other than Catholics get into Heaven. And not just because of "invincible ignorance."

 

[WisdomTree]

Again, not necessarily. I'm pretty confident saying people other than Catholics get into Heaven. And not just because of "invincible ignorance."

That would go against Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus which is clear that the Catholic Church being the one true Church, is the only path to salvation. Of course, a leeway is given somewhat towards the Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy as well as the Church of the East.

 

[RuthD]

Yeah, it's a good group, except of course when they disagree with me


Again, not necessarily. I'm pretty confident saying people other than Catholics get into Heaven. And not just because of "invincible ignorance."

I tend to be the one who is offended when others disagree with me, I am thin skinned I guess. But I am trying to be more open, really trying hard.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Nah, you'd simply have to look at the (tons of) evidence pointing to that conclusion.

That's regrettable, but to each their own. Perhaps if you thought of it as "factual beyond any reasonable doubt" vs "100% certain....." in which case we could go off on philosophical tangents about how it's impossible to know anything with 100% certainty, and next thing you know we're talking about butterflies etc etc. No thx

Its not about our ability to know anything for certain, it's about whether or not it is worth the effort. I don't care enough to spend my time learning the biology and chemistry behind it... And there are sources out there with, at the first glance, compelling scientific rebuttals based in biological and chemical concepts that, again, mean nothing to me as I do not profess in those fields. So to believe it, like your average teenage or college age atheist who does not study in those fields, I would have to pick a side and believe in faith.