Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm getting the impression that one can say anything on a science final and get away with it.

That's probably why so many mistakes are made.

And you would be wrong on both counts.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Your interpretation of history is just as bad as your interpretation of science so let's take a step back again to my original question: in what way at all does the 'liberal media' have anything to do with the millions of light years that astronomers can see, let along the theory of evolution being actual science?

You are always full of such wonderful comments .

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, since it is so speculative, why can't one not get behind the science fully or even not believe it?

Because belief does not factor into science because it's not a theological or philosophical position. Science is not something runs on belief nor requires belief.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are always full of such wonderful comments .

Don't be a troll. Answer the question put to you please.

 

[River Jordan]

And that is why they give the weather in % chances. Science should do the same, "there is a 30% chance that this is a species that was the connection between these other to species". It just sounds more professional.

You've already given up that little game. You complained when you said scientists spoke with certainty and you complained when they spoke tentatively. You complain no matter how they describe their work.

Since you previously admitted that nothing will ever make you change your mind it's pretty obvious that as long as scientists keep reaching conclusions you don't like, you will always complain. Hopefully though you appreciate how no scientist anywhere in the world will ever change any aspect of their work as a result of your complaining. You're just one more anonymous fundamentalist on the internet griping about those darned scientists.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're just one more anonymous fundamentalist on the internet griping about those darned scientists.

Look under the hood, chief.

Look under the hood.

1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So, since it is so speculative, why can't one not get behind the science fully or even not believe it?

It's not about being speculative. It is about being honest about the level of certainty and noting that *ALL* conculsions are tentative or provisional. Strong conclusions are reached by a accumulation of data from multiple studies, etc. The language that seems to other you is just how scientists actually talk in our work.

(It is never a matter of belief.)

 

[FaithT]

As long as a Catholic believes God is the Prime Mover and Architect of life on Earth, how it came about is up to the believing individual.

True.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Enki was the was one who saved humanity from Enil and taught them all kinds of interesting things. He was also the god of the ‘water of life’. Which never not makes me snort in adolescent laughter.

Funny how you like Enil and I like Enki when Enlil is associated with authority and judgment and Enki is the god of water, wisdom, creative energy, compassion and cleverness.

I knew you were going to come back and point something out about my response. And as my response to why I don't fully believe the theory of evolution was confusing, my response to the Sumerian gods will be even more confusing .

Enki (also known as Ea, Enkig, Nudimmud, Ninsiku, Nissiku) was the Sumerian god of wisdom, fresh water, intelligence, trickery and mischief, crafts, magic, exorcism, healing, creation, virility, fertility, and art. Iconography depicts him as a bearded man wearing a horned cap and long robes as he ascends the Mountain of the Sunrise.

The above bolded words are why, in my eyes, Enki is more like the serpent in the Garden of Eden than the savior of mankind (like you appear to believe).

Apkallu: Unlocking the Mystery of Ancient Mesopotamia’s Seven Sages

The Apkallu, legendary sages from ancient Mesopotamian mythology, are often depicted as fish-like beings sent by the gods, notably Enki, to impart wisdom and civilization to humanity. These divine emissaries played a crucial role as advisors to early Sumerian kings and were revered for their...

timelessmyths.com

First and foremost one must remember the Sumerian gods were the enemy of the Hebrew God so when the Hebrews were writing their sacred literature, the enemy was An, Enlil, Enki, Inanna, Ninhursag and all the other lesser gods of the area. Enki created the Apkallu and sent them to teach skills to the humans but the skills they taught weren't all good (war, sexual perversions, astrology).

 

[BCP1928]

Yes, but the theory of evolution was the big thing (but the same as Gender Studies today) back 150 some years ago pushing the same stuff and here we are today still debating major parts of it. How many souls have been lost to it?

Mostly those who are taught that they must accept the literal inerrancy of Scripture in order to believe in God.

 

[The Barbarian]

Look, I'm a staunch practicing Catholic.

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP

Human Persons Created in the Image of God*
While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Because it's not a declared tenet of Christian belief, you, as a Catholic, can reject the Church's teaching on this. But there it is.

 

[The Barbarian]

Mostly those who are taught that they must accept the literal inerrancy of Scripture in order to believe in God.

Jesus told His followers that it's better to emulate a heretic who loves his neighbor than to emulate a Levite who does not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm getting the impression that one can say anything on a science final and get away with it.

That's probably why so many mistakes are made.

Actually, 'science' is definitive, but it instrumentally relies upon the concept of 'Provisional Truth' rather than 'Absolute Truth.

Absolute (and Comprehensive) Truth is left to the Domain of God...........................

 

[Hvizsgyak]

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP

Human Persons Created in the Image of God*
While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Because it's not a declared tenet of Christian belief, you, as a Catholic, can reject the Church's teaching on this. But there it is.

Your last statement puzzles me. I did not get that same conclusion when I read what you have there in red.

64. 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.

From the same INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION Document

"Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him."

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Find out what Catholics believe about it.

www.catholic.com

I think I'll still stick to what I believe about Evolution. The Church supports that view to because God is given the credit for Creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your last statement puzzles me. I did not get that same conclusion when I read what you have there in red.

The Church points out that any theory of evolution that denies God's role is unacceptable. But since Darwin himself assumed that God created the first living things, the Church is good with modern evolutionary theory. According to the Church:
Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.

You aren't required as a Catholic to accept the Church's guidance on this, of course. It's not a salvation issue unless one makes an idol of one's interpretation.

 

[FaithT]

The Church points out that any theory of evolution that denies God's role is unacceptable. But since Darwin himself assumed that God created the first living things, the Church is good with modern evolutionary theory. According to the Church:
Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.

You aren't required as a Catholic to accept the Church's guidance on this, of course. It's not a salvation issue unless one makes an idol of one's interpretation.

I thought Darwin was an atheist.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought Darwin was an atheist.

Good news though:

He converted on his deathbed.

 

[NBB]

God made us exactly how He wanted. "He made us, and not ourselves".
If evolution were true, there would be a computer process creating better stuff than the human body and intelligence, there can't be though.

 

[Gene2memE]

Good news though:

He converted on his deathbed.

No Darwin didn't. Darwin also wasn't an atheist.

The best evidence available is that Darwin remained a believer in some kind of God, but took on an agnostic and Deist bent. He explicitly rejected the notion of a personal God and divine revelation, but maintained a troubled Anglican faith up to his death.

There is simply no evidence of a deathbed conversion. Darwin's family have refuted several accounts, most famously the 'Lady Hope' story. That one is so full of holes that even Answers In Gensis says "there are many inconsistencies that make the story untenable".

 

[Larniavc]

Enki is more like the serpent in the Garden of Eden than the savior of mankind

Hm. Enil wanted to destroy humanity and Enki wanted to save, nurture and teach humanity.

Who to venerate, I wonder…?

Hypothetically of course but one of us seems to be on the wrong page it everything discussed.