Stop Believing in Evolution

AmericanChristian91 · Aug 23, 2014

WisdomTree said:
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.

So your saying that Protestants are not going to be able to have salvation?

WisdomTree · Aug 23, 2014

AmericanChristian91 said:
So your saying that Protestants are not going to be able to have salvation?

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned something in the lines of inculpable ignorance (or perhaps I mis-worded it as invincible ignorance?). If someone leaves or is not part of the Catholic Church despite know its Aposotlic Truth (either through pride or something along those lines), then yes, even if you are a Protestant you will not gain salvation. However, if you are not part of the Church not through sheer arrogance, but rather what the Holy See calls "inculpable ignorance" you may be saved. This really does apply to anyone in the World, but Protestants are more likely to receive salvation than a heathen since at least they acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour.

ChesterKhan · Aug 23, 2014

I think largely this is correct. But if I may lay out what I understand it to be, for simpletons like myself:

From what I remember in grade school, when one has a problem (for example, how did the universe come into being?, or how can we move something directly over a canyon?), one makes a testable hypothesis as to the answer to the problem. One then tests the hypothesis with experiments, and gets results from the experiment. He may test many times before either abandoning the hypothesis as false, or reaching a conclusion that the hypothesis does indeed seem to be true, or at least partially true. And scientists will retest a theory many times to see if their tests reach the same conclusions. When a hypothesis is tested many times, in many different circumstances, to make sure no better hypothesis explains the results, the hypothesis is considered a theory. If, after being considered a theory, nothing ever really challenges it, it can be considered a law.

So...

MoonlessNight said:
Hypothesis, theory and law differ in kind, not degree.

Somewhat - in the same way a pond, a lake, and a sea are all bodies of water. A theory or a law just have more evidence for themselves than an hypothesis.

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.

Actually, any student of atomic theory asks the question: "What is the structure of an atom?". The study is not of the "model", or theory, but of the question, and the apparent answer to it - that is, the theory. The difference being the theory is an answer to a question. It is not a session of hand-shaking and self-congratulating that we all agree on something.

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.

Einstein's theory of relativity - E=mc(2) - can be stated succinctly and mathematically. But it is not a law.

A law, simply, is a theory about which we are more or less certain given the overwhelming about of evidence in its favour.

Take for example the laws of the conservation of matter and energy. As the philosopher has said, "Ex nihilo nihil fit". From nothing comes nothing. It would be the end of science if anything could appear or disappear without any explanation whatsoever. Even Christians do not believe anything comes from nowhere. That would be far too convenient.

But in our experience, everything comes from something else. Nothing disappears completely; it just changes into something else. If it didn't - if things popped into existence from nowhere, or disappeared into nothing, we have never observed such a thing.

It's interesting there has been no talk of axioms, since maths has been brought up.

It seems to me the natural sciences have no axioms.

WisdomTree · Aug 24, 2014

ChesterKhan said:
I think largely this is correct. But if I may lay out what I understand it to be, for simpletons like myself:

From what I remember in grade school, when one has a problem (for example, how did the universe come into being?, or how can we move something directly over a canyon?), one makes a testable hypothesis as to the answer to the problem. One then tests the hypothesis with experiments, and gets results from the experiment. He may test many times before either abandoning the hypothesis as false, or reaching a conclusion that the hypothesis does indeed seem to be true, or at least partially true. And scientists will retest a theory many times to see if their tests reach the same conclusions. When a hypothesis is tested many times, in many different circumstances, to make sure no better hypothesis explains the results, the hypothesis is considered a theory. If, after being considered a theory, nothing ever really challenges it, it can be considered a law.

The last part has never happened nor is it possible for it to happen. While Laws give evidence, unlike Theories, they do give mechanism nor an explanation to a given phenomena where as Laws cannot be extrapolated like this without being falsified.

Also, unlike Laws, Theories can change and evolve as new things are discovered where as Laws as far as I can remember gets abandoned.

ebia · Aug 24, 2014

ChesterKhan said:
I think largely this is correct. But if I may lay out what I understand it to be, for simpletons like myself: From what I remember in grade school, when one has a problem (for example, how did the universe come into being?, or how can we move something directly over a canyon?), one makes a testable hypothesis as to the answer to the problem. One then tests the hypothesis with experiments, and gets results from the experiment. He may test many times before either abandoning the hypothesis as false, or reaching a conclusion that the hypothesis does indeed seem to be true, or at least partially true. And scientists will retest a theory many times to see if their tests reach the same conclusions. When a hypothesis is tested many times, in many different circumstances, to make sure no better hypothesis explains the results, the hypothesis is considered a theory. If, after being considered a theory, nothing ever really challenges it, it can be considered a law. So... Somewhat - in the same way a pond, a lake, and a sea are all bodies of water. A theory or a law just have more evidence for themselves than an hypothesis. Actually, any student of atomic theory asks the question: "What is the structure of an atom?". The study is not of the "model", or theory, but of the question, and the apparent answer to it - that is, the theory. The difference being the theory is an answer to a question. It is not a session of hand-shaking and self-congratulating that we all agree on something. Einstein's theory of relativity - E=mc(2) - can be stated succinctly and mathematically. But it is not a law. A law, simply, is a theory about which we are more or less certain given the overwhelming about of evidence in its favour. Take for example the laws of the conservation of matter and energy. As the philosopher has said, "Ex nihilo nihil fit". From nothing comes nothing. It would be the end of science if anything could appear or disappear without any explanation whatsoever. Even Christians do not believe anything comes from nowhere. That would be far too convenient. But in our experience, everything comes from something else. Nothing disappears completely; it just changes into something else. If it didn't - if things popped into existence from nowhere, or disappeared into nothing, we have never observed such a thing. It's interesting there has been no talk of axioms, since maths has been brought up. It seems to me the natural sciences have no axioms.

Um, no.

E=mc^2 is NOT a theory. It's no more than the famous equation from a theory.

A law is a very simple, often mathematical statement. Such as each law of thermodynamics, or each of newtons laws of motion.
A theory is much large explanatory model.

They are different types of thing, NOT different levels of certainly.

Picky Picky · Aug 24, 2014

ivebeenshown said:
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.

That's a very fair point: very few of us have the time to investigate biology and chemistry to the level required to say we are able, from only our own resources, to agree with this theory or that. But of course that is true of so many things. I am happy with the theory that the United States exists, although I have never been there, and am relying simply on the testimony of others. I am happy to agree that matter is made up of atoms and atoms of smaller particles, but I've never seen an individual atom in my life, let alone split one. The reason many people seem able to admit the existence of electrons but not the existence of, say, the common ancestor of humans and chimps is not really because they have been willing to spend the time on physics but not on biology.

Azureknight 773 · Aug 24, 2014

bill5 said:
Not necessarily.

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

Because Genetics and the Law of Biology explicitly states that like begets like. Now a cat gives birth to a cat, even from its 10000th or so level of ancestry due that law. A dog with a dog, an elephant with an elephant, a koala with a koala, a bee with a bee, a bird with a bird, a pig with a pig, a dragonfly with a dragonfly and so on and so forth. If TToE is indeed true, and verifiable in all levels of science, then we all here would all look like if not worse with H.P. Lovecraft's Dunwich Horror's Wilbur Whately guy. <Go research that via Google.> OR! The fictitious Zerg of the ever popular RTS calld "StarCraft". Even down with the plants and animals that surrounds us would look indistinguishable from the looks of the mutations due to evolution.

Evolution only pertains to sociological, environmental, and spiritual contexts but with a Creator involved in a more befitting Creative Evolution. I mean, sure like begets like still but how the organism adapts is all it takes for that. Also, those space rocks all accreted with each other due to the specified space coordinate where gravity was caused to do its task. How the whole Earth's people evolved from primitive cave mens and women to that where we live in the well designed infrastructures from the most lucrative and luxurious castes or palaces to the simple nipa hits, or stone houses. The human soul or spirit too evolves in successive learnings. Like how it was once clueless, to that when it became wise.
People can evolve mentally but not biologically into another creature. This also applies to EVERY living creature out there. Could we have a flamingo come out from a pig? A buffalo from a cat? A dog from an elephant? A lion from a goat? A bee from an ant? A mosquito from a soup of microbes? Well no! Nay in the highest extent... Unless we all live in science fiction and science fantasy films where anything is possible, even making cows fly with wings, make flies' wings as hard as steel and so on and so forth.

WisdomTree · Aug 24, 2014

Azureknight 773 said:
Because Genetics and the Law of Biology explicitly states that like begets like. Now a cat gives birth to a cat, even from its 10000th or so level of ancestry due that law. A dog with a dog, an elephant with an elephant, a koala with a koala, a bee with a bee, a bird with a bird, a pig with a pig, a dragonfly with a dragonfly and so on and so forth. If TToE is indeed true, and verifiable in all levels of science, then we all here would all look like if not worse with H.P. Lovecraft's Dunwich Horror's Wilbur Whately guy. <Go research that via Google.> OR! The fictitious Zerg of the ever popular RTS calld "StarCraft". Even down with the plants and animals that surrounds us would look indistinguishable from the looks of the mutations due to evolution.

Evolution only pertains to sociological, environmental, and spiritual contexts but with a Creator involved in a more befitting Creative Evolution. I mean, sure like begets like still but how the organism adapts is all it takes for that. Also, those space rocks all accreted with each other due to the specified space coordinate where gravity was caused to do its task. How the whole Earth's people evolved from primitive cave mens and women to that where we live in the well designed infrastructures from the most lucrative and luxurious castes or palaces to the simple nipa hits, or stone houses. The human soul or spirit too evolves in successive learnings. Like how it was once clueless, to that when it became wise.
People can evolve mentally but not biologically into another creature. This also applies to EVERY living creature out there. Could we have a flamingo come out from a pig? A buffalo from a cat? A dog from an elephant? A lion from a goat? A bee from an ant? A mosquito from a soup of microbes? Well no! Nay in the highest extent... Unless we all live in science fiction and science fantasy films where anything is possible, even making cows fly with wings, make flies' wings as hard as steel and so on and so forth.

In that extreme, no. However, speciation itself is a proven fact which can be and has been observed meaning that macro-evolution does occur, just requires an absurd period of time. After all, all macro-evolution is, it is an extrapolation of micro-evolution (you can't have one or the other). So a flamingo pop out of a pig, a buffalo from cat, bee from ant, or even a freakin' elephant from microbes? Of course not, since that wouldn't follow the proper protocal of the biological procedure which we call biological classification. It would even be absurd to say that chimpanzees could one day potentially produce humans, because that is not how evolution work (micro nor macro).

First, it needs to follow the rules on species, like you said like produces like. At this stage, we are still very much on micro-evolution since the critters are all within the same species. Once there is either a selection pressure or isolation with eventual mutation, one group may longer be able to mate and produce a viable offspring with another. That would be speciation thus now in the realm of macro-evolution. This has been observed in a lot of lizards in both laboratory conditions and in nature. From here on things get absurdly complicated in that simply put, it's going to take a very long time to get things moving again. Where now the creatures need to evolve within the genus section. Let me ask you this, how many different types of snakes do you know? Are they all compatible with each other? Even as we call a group of animals snake, they are not the same species nor the same genus. And evolution from one genus to another takes an absurdly long time, but at least it is not impossible nor implausible if you take the proper steps. Of course, this does mean that Darwinian version of evolution which we call gradualism is not feasible as the sole school of thought for the very reason that the Earth is not old enough to have been able to produce all the animals of the Earth. Hence why we have another called Punctuated Equilibrium which is pretty much the Big Bang of Biology (look up Cambrian Explosion). Put the two together, and things work out pretty well and the way I see it, it is an artful and poetic way of creating things which only God could do. Mother Nature is just a heartless ***** who couldn't even function had the laws of physics not been set by the Big Bang when the Lord said, "Let there be light".

Of course, everyone is free to believe what they want (so long as you don't contradict the Sacred Magisterium) and in one way or another we are all equally valid since we simply cannot know for absolute certain how the world was created and the origins of life. I choose to put my trust on science when it comes to the knowledge of all things material, but I will place my faith in God when it comes to all things in general.

MoonlessNight · Aug 24, 2014

ChesterKhan said:
It seems to me the natural sciences have no axioms.

Certainly they do, at least in the sense that they need certain assumptions which can never proven by the study of science itself.

For example:

-That effects in nature are caused.
-That these causes can be understood by the description of certain scientific laws.
-That these laws are universal in time and space. That is to say, that if Newton's First Law of Motion is a physical law, then it is a physical law here and on Alpha Centauri, and that it will not cease to be a physical law tomorrow.
-That these physical laws, or at the very least approximations of them sufficient for normal investigation, are simple enough to be expressed by humans.
-That a theory which handles contradictory evidence with ad hoc fixes is not likely to be correct.

And I'm sure that we can find many more. None of these can be proven (or even convincingly argued for) by the scientific method itself, even in principle.

bill5 · Aug 24, 2014

WisdomTree said:
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.

Nope. The most recent Catholic Catechism explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body." Not "you gotta be Catholic or you're outta luck."

ivebeenshown said:
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.

Well again if you choose to "choose faith" (which I guess means "choose creationism" in this case) simply because you don't understand evolution, that's up to you....but you needn't have a degree in biology or whatever.

Caedmon · Aug 24, 2014

Well this thread has turned out to be quite the litmus test.

Azureknight 773 said:
I abhor the Biological Evolution on the context that it is unscientific by virtue of Genetics, Energy Conservation Laws, Archaeology, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics.

That's quite a claim. I am particularly interested in hearing your evidence from archaeology.

MoonlessNight · Aug 24, 2014

Caedmon said:
Well this thread has turned out to be quite the litmus test.

Which is quite interesting, because I read the original article to be objecting to the fact that Evolution has become nothing more than a litmus test to most people. That is to say, that on both sides the topic of conversation is simply to answer the question "do you believe in evolution" and then end by sorting the respondent into the elect or the damned according to one's personal stance on the issue.

(And it does happen on both sides of the issue. I have seen people accepted as "rational" or "scientific" because they have said yes... even though they have severe misconceptions about what evolution means.)

But hopefully your questions will be answered and we will have an actual back and forth on this issue, which I think is for the better.

ivebeenshown · Aug 24, 2014

bill5 said:
Nope. The most recent Catholic Catechism explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body." Not "you gotta be Catholic or you're outta luck."

Well again if you choose to "choose faith" (which I guess means "choose creationism" in this case) simply because you don't understand evolution, that's up to you....but you needn't have a degree in biology or whatever.

thats not what I meant at all. I meant that, without a sufficient education in biology and chemistry to be able to process the information and arguments out there that support or deny evolution, I would have to believe in evolution out of faith and not out of empirical certainty. And I don't have the time or interest to learn about all of that, so at this time, I am evolutionism/creationism-agnostic. It just doesn't matter to me, really. It doesn't put food on the table, it doesn't pay the bills, it doesn't make my love life more romantic, and it doesn't affect my relationship with or belief in God.

RileyG · Aug 24, 2014

Gwendolyn said:
Considering that evolution is a fact, this article is silly.

The debate is whether macro evolution is "real". Micro evolution is visible in our everyday lives, as is sexual selection. It is species-to-species evolution that people have a problem with.

I agree with you, Gwen.
I, 100% believe in evolution.

Fantine · Aug 24, 2014

I do think that belief in theistic evolution has a profound effect on one's religious faith.

It's not that people stop believing in God, or in Jesus, or the Bible, but their perceptions are very different.

One can say "God the Father" and have images that range from an elderly gentleman sitting on a cloud with a beard and crown to a mysterious and ultimately unknowable loving presence whose love is continually creating an ever expanding universe.

When someone who looks at evolution looks at the Bible critically, it's not just the first chapter of Genesis that is seen allegorically.

And so maybe it is "safer" to deny evolution. Here in the south, I know lots of bright, well-educated people who have done that...but I'm just not able to myself.

bill5 · Aug 24, 2014

ivebeenshown said:
thats not what I meant at all. I meant that, without a sufficient education in biology and chemistry to be able to process the information and arguments out there that support or deny evolution, I would have to believe in evolution out of faith and not out of empirical certainty. And I don't have the time or interest to learn about all of that, so at this time, I am evolutionism/creationism-agnostic. It just doesn't matter to me, really. It doesn't put food on the table, it doesn't pay the bills, it doesn't make my love life more romantic, and it doesn't affect my relationship with or belief in God.

Got it, thx for clarifying.

Mary's Bhoy · Aug 24, 2014

bill5 said:
Nope. The most recent Catholic Catechism explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body." Not "you gotta be Catholic or you're outta luck."

And to be a part of the Church one must be baptised, and to be baptised is to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and to willfully renounce submission to the Holy Pontiff is a sin which separates you from the Church and grace.

Yours in Jesus an Mary,
SCIM.

Open Heart · Aug 24, 2014

Gwendolyn said:
Like I said, religious people take issue with macro evolution, or species-into-species evolution. Only a very ignorant, uneducated person would claim micro evolution does not exist.

Not all of us, Gwendolyn. I consider myself a highly religious person, and yet I accept evolution (and by that I mean macro evolution as God's choice in how to create all life).

The only difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is TIME. Given ENOUGH time, evolution doesn't just occur within a species but will eventually change enough things that we will dub it a new species, such as when dinosaurs became birds. And we have that time. Lots of it.

I thought the artical was spot on. I never say I believe in evolution, since believing takes a certain amount of faith. I am always careful to speak of ACCEPTING evolution (or not).

ChesterKhan · Aug 24, 2014

MoonlessNight said:
Certainly they do, at least in the sense that they need certain assumptions which can never proven by the study of science itself.

For example:

-That effects in nature are caused.
-That these causes can be understood by the description of certain scientific laws.
-That these laws are universal in time and space. That is to say, that if Newton's First Law of Motion is a physical law, then it is a physical law here and on Alpha Centauri, and that it will not cease to be a physical law tomorrow.
-That these physical laws, or at the very least approximations of them sufficient for normal investigation, are simple enough to be expressed by humans.
-That a theory which handles contradictory evidence with ad hoc fixes is not likely to be correct.

And I'm sure that we can find many more. None of these can be proven (or even convincingly argued for) by the scientific method itself, even in principle.

Thank you Thomas Aquinas.

Azureknight 773 · Aug 24, 2014

WisdomTree said:
In that extreme, no. However, speciation itself is a proven fact which can be and has been observed meaning that macro-evolution does occur, just requires an absurd period of time. After all, all macro-evolution is, it is an extrapolation of micro-evolution (you can't have one or the other). So a flamingo pop out of a pig, a buffalo from cat, bee from ant, or even a freakin' elephant from microbes? Of course not, since that wouldn't follow the proper protocal of the biological procedure which we call biological classification. It would even be absurd to say that chimpanzees could one day potentially produce humans, because that is not how evolution work (micro nor macro).

First, it needs to follow the rules on species, like you said like produces like. At this stage, we are still very much on micro-evolution since the critters are all within the same species. Once there is either a selection pressure or isolation with eventual mutation, one group may longer be able to mate and produce a viable offspring with another. That would be speciation thus now in the realm of macro-evolution. This has been observed in a lot of lizards in both laboratory conditions and in nature. From here on things get absurdly complicated in that simply put, it's going to take a very long time to get things moving again. Where now the creatures need to evolve within the genus section. Let me ask you this, how many different types of snakes do you know? Are they all compatible with each other? Even as we call a group of animals snake, they are not the same species nor the same genus. And evolution from one genus to another takes an absurdly long time, but at least it is not impossible nor implausible if you take the proper steps. Of course, this does mean that Darwinian version of evolution which we call gradualism is not feasible as the sole school of thought for the very reason that the Earth is not old enough to have been able to produce all the animals of the Earth. Hence why we have another called Punctuated Equilibrium which is pretty much the Big Bang of Biology (look up Cambrian Explosion). Put the two together, and things work out pretty well and the way I see it, it is an artful and poetic way of creating things which only God could do. Mother Nature is just a heartless ***** who couldn't even function had the laws of physics not been set by the Big Bang when the Lord said, "Let there be light".

Of course, everyone is free to believe what they want (so long as you don't contradict the Sacred Magisterium) and in one way or another we are all equally valid since we simply cannot know for absolute certain how the world was created and the origins of life. I choose to put my trust on science when it comes to the knowledge of all things material, but I will place my faith in God when it comes to all things in general.

I was just making an example as to how absurd is it to believe that in extremely long periods of time, given as to how living creatures transform into another creature that is not the same as its ancestor. However, I do admit that God does implement universal laws as He is the Creator of all things visible and invisible.

And yes! I am a man of both science and faith since science explains and explores the material universe created before man to behold while faith in God to understand the supernatural. It is just a common knowledge that two are mutually useful for everyday work. If you throw science away, then you get superstition and idolatry. Now, if you throw faith away, you end up with a lame life of being too proud of thyself.

Stop Believing in Evolution

Regular Member

Philosopher

No, Emotions are not a good reason!

Philosopher

Senior Contributor

Old – but wise?

IXA the Knight Kamen Rider

Philosopher

Fides et Ratio

Well-Known Member

kawaii

Fides et Ratio

Expert invisible poster and thread killer

Veteran

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Formerly the user SCIM

Well-Known Member

No, Emotions are not a good reason!

IXA the Knight Kamen Rider

Similar threads