Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[Sum1sGruj]

I am taking his side here because you are trying to attack shernren's views without the slightest indication you understand what his views are. You can't even tell where shernren is discussing other creationists views or his own. Why don't you try to learn what TEs believe before you rant against them? Deal with the points shernren is making rather than assume you understand his motivation in making them, and further assume that his supposed motivation invalidates his point.

He went on a rant about an example I used in the middle of an entirely different discussion. I have always been the speculative type, obviously, but I know something when I see it, and it is abundantly clear of what his intentions were. He went on to try and reveal a false idea that I do not know the Bible well, attempted to show a false presentation to what I previously explained completely based on bias, and his original point at the start had already betrayed him as soon as went on to explain his idea of what sea meant in Revelations.

Like I said, I have quite an ability to see these things. It is quite clear that he just wanted to give me a hard time because I was making moves with creationist ideas, and I do not like that at all. He obviously does not have much of an extraordinary theology if he takes cheap shots like that. And fails, but that's beside the point.

Remember you sig? It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it ~Aristotle That goes for understanding TE too. How can you try to come up with a coherent aregument if you do not even understand what you are arguing against?

I do understand what I am arguing against. I know TE more than some TE's do themselves. I know what lies at the bottom of logic with TE. It has a nice, shimmering surface but the deeper you go, the more contradictory it gets. One would think that all these self-proclaimed science buffs would make use of basic scientific principles into their own ideas and provide a symmetry to their theology.

I'm a completest, of course I can map TE just like my very own theology. It would also help you to know that I used to be a TE myself. But I never contended it with creationists because I never saw it as dominant.
It is obvious that I see it as even less now, and with the opposition that TE's are showing is ridiculous because I know by experience that if one takes the time to critically think and take advantage of that gift from God, they will soon realize many things that most people ignore.

Creationists are outnumbered. Not outweighed, but outnumbered. And you see, that makes patience run thin when all TE's can do is ravage the foundations of creationism with what they think they know and assume.

When someone wants to have a respectable discussion, that's fine. Whatever he pulled., no. Not happening.

 

[Assyrian]

He went on a rant about an example I used in the middle of an entirely different discussion. I have always been the speculative type, obviously, but I know something when I see it, and it is abundantly clear of what his intentions were. He went on to try and reveal a false idea that I do not know the Bible well, attempted to show a false presentation to what I previously explained completely based on bias, and his original point at the start had already betrayed him as soon as went on to explain his idea of what sea meant in Revelations.

You never addressed his idea of what sea meant, instead you seemed to concentrate of his description of various creationist interpretations of the waters above the firmament, which you seem to think were his own idea.

Like I said, I have quite an ability to see these things.

And as long at you keep thinking this you will be unable to have sensible discussions with anybody.

It is quite clear that he just wanted to give me a hard time because I was making moves with creationist ideas,

No he saw some highly idiosyncratic symbolism and interpretations that contradicted the text of scripture and he called you on them.

and I do not like that at all.

If you don't like it then stop imagining it.

He obviously does not have much of an extraordinary theology if he takes cheap shots like that. And fails, but that's beside the point.

Unless all theology is measured by how well it agrees with Sum1sGruj, the problems shernren picks up in your theology tells you very little about his theology other than he disagrees with you.

I do understand what I am arguing against. I know TE more than some TE's do themselves.

How can you possibly tell when you only ever against your own imaginary version?

I know what lies at the bottom of logic with TE. It has a nice, shimmering surface but the deeper you go, the more contradictory it gets. One would think that all these self-proclaimed science buffs would make use of basic scientific principles into their own ideas and provide a symmetry to their theology.

So the TE of your imagination is self contradictory? I can think up a simple symmetrical explanation for that.

I'm a completest, of course I can map TE just like my very own theology. It would also help you to know that I used to be a TE myself. But I never contended it with creationists because I never saw it as dominant.
It is obvious that I see it as even less now, and with the opposition that TE's are showing is ridiculous because I know by experience that if one takes the time to critically think and take advantage of that gift from God, they will soon realize many things that most people ignore.

And a lot of TEs here used to be creationists, I was so was shernren. The difference is both shernren and I recognise a wide variety of different creationist views and approaches, while you seem to think every TE thinks the way you used to. Perhaps if you approached the discussion of TE by talking about what you believed when you were a TE, we can show you how our ideas differ, or even point out where you went wrong. Much better than trying to squeeze us into a box of what you think we must believe.

Creationists are outnumbered. Not outweighed, but outnumbered. And you see, that makes patience run thin when all TE's can do is ravage the foundations of creationism with what they think they know and assume.

When someone wants to have a respectable discussion, that's fine. Whatever he pulled., no. Not happening.

So a nice respectable discussion that doesn't involve criticising anything you say? Why not deal with the points shernren makes rather than wander off attacking what you think his reasons must be? You will get your reasonable discussion.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

You never addressed his idea of what sea meant, instead you seemed to concentrate of his description of various creationist interpretations of the waters above the firmament, which you seem to think were his own idea.

I didn't have to, he practically did it himself. He referenced sea as bearing more then one meaning.
And furthermore, throwing other creationist ideas was meaningless. How is any of that here or there?
I took that as an insult, as well I should. You took it as some one-up for your TEism, as portrayed by actually continuing to defend him after I already pointed out his ridiculous manner.

And as long at you keep thinking this you will be unable to have sensible discussions with anybody.

Not with people like that, no. And do not fancy yourself as being everybody or some paragon among people. You are simply somebody. I have discussions all the time on such things, just not too often on here because of the audacious nature of most of the TE's.

No he saw some highly idiosyncratic symbolism and interpretations that contradicted the text of scripture and he called you on them.

But you see, he never refuted me on anything. His entire dismissal turned out to be just a little extra detail into what I already stated. It's quite ridiculous actually, that I had to hand-feed him the citations just so he would comprehend the parts within them that actually related to what I implied. He was going on about different parts of the same thing.

If you don't like it then stop imagining it.

Seriously, you are just as ridiculous. I wasn't sure before but now I know. This quote above just shows it through and through.

Unless all theology is measured by how well it agrees with Sum1sGruj, the problems shernren picks up in your theology tells you very little about his theology other than he disagrees with you.

How can you possibly tell when you only ever against your own imaginary version?

Well I think 2+2=4, but that doesn't stop physics from saying it equals 5. Perspective. You have never nor will you ever see your theology in the way it hurts itself because you are a person of culture, not religion. Whatever fits into your world is your idea of what is acceptable to you. My version is based on exact context and critical thinking and application, yours is based practically on science, with a god thrown in the mix for good measure and you wonder why creationists don't like it too much. You put yourselves in front of the gun that creationists had pointed at Deistic/atheistic approach, and wonder why your getting lit up.

So the TE of your imagination is self contradictory? I can think up a simple symmetrical explanation for that.

And a lot of TEs here used to be creationists, I was so was shernren. The difference is both shernren and I recognise a wide variety of different creationist views and approaches, while you seem to think every TE thinks the way you used to. Perhaps if you approached the discussion of TE by talking about what you believed when you were a TE, we can show you how our ideas differ, or even point out where you went wrong. Much better than trying to squeeze us into a box of what you think we must believe.

So a nice respectable discussion that doesn't involve criticising anything you say? Why not deal with the points shernren makes rather than wander off attacking what you think his reasons must be? You will get your reasonable discussion.

Because his points were insulting and carried no weight. I repeat, they carried no weight. Is that somehow not registering? When did it all become about Shernren anyway? What is your obsession with him?
You do not want me to bring up my points. The simple fact that you think so naively of a symmetry in rationale just goes to show how fun it would be to bring them up.

I might as well be psychic, I swear. I knew that you were going to proceed him with some ridiculous, delusional backing on the matter. It's just that typical nonsense one has learned to expect from people like you and him. It's getting old, and there are people on here that would agree with me, so take the halo off your head.

 

[KerrMetric]

When ya daft as a brush, ya daft as a brush - and no dancing around can change that.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

When ya daft as a brush, ya daft as a brush - and no dancing around can change that.

Ah! I never fail to be wrong on this subject, ironically. I have never once been refuted on this thread so far. It just goes to show exactly what I have been talking about this whole time. Building your own imaginary projection of what you desire to be truth, just like your theologies.
You are right, when your daft as a brush, ya daft as a brush- but no massing together can change that.

I am just happy I have a reason to abandon this thread completely. Good luck with going on with whatever either of you were going on about. I've yet to figure out what it actually is, but it'll have to do without me

 

[KerrMetric]

You do not understand the arguments on either side of the debate you are attempting to create. The very definitions and terminology employed eludes you.

 

[Assyrian]

I didn't have to, he practically did it himself. He referenced sea as bearing more then one meaning.

And that is an argument?

And furthermore, throwing other creationist ideas was meaningless. How is any of that here or there?

The different ways people interpret Genesis is irrelevant to a discussion of how Genesis is to be interpreted?

I took that as an insult, as well I should. You took it as some one-up for your TEism, as portrayed by actually continuing to defend him after I already pointed out his ridiculous manner.

What ridiculous manner? You mean his motivation you imagined? To be any sort of 'one-up for TEism' you would actually need to put up an argument. I simply the whole thing sad.

Not with people like that, no. And do not fancy yourself as being everybody or some paragon among people. You are simply somebody. I have discussions all the time on such things, just not too often on here because of the audacious nature of most of the TE's.

People like what? shernren is gracious and intelligent, as you would find out if you tried having a discussion with shernren himself rather than you imagined version.

But you see, he never refuted me on anything. His entire dismissal turned out to be just a little extra detail into what I already stated. It's quite ridiculous actually, that I had to hand-feed him the citations just so he would comprehend the parts within them that actually related to what I implied. He was going on about different parts of the same thing.

You didn't discuss it long to get anywhere near a conclusion, though your hiding behind his supposed motivation was a pretty good indication which way the discussion was going.

Seriously, you are just as ridiculous. I wasn't sure before but now I know. This quote above just shows it through and through.

Develop a thicker skin, then whether the insults are real or imagined, you can ignore them and get on with the real issue of discussing what scripture says and how we should interpret it.

Well I think 2+2=4, but that doesn't stop physics from saying it equals 5. Perspective. You have never nor will you ever see your theology in the way it hurts itself because you are a person of culture, not religion. Whatever fits into your world is your idea of what is acceptable to you. My version is based on exact context and critical thinking and application, yours is based practically on science, with a god thrown in the mix for good measure and you wonder why creationists don't like it too much. You put yourselves in front of the gun that creationists had pointed at Deistic/atheistic approach, and wonder why your getting lit up.

You see? You can't keep from arguing against imaginary opponents. It makes you think you are scoring so many hits when in reality it just sounds bizarre. Unless you think a good discussion is all about making up names to call people. The problem is you are the only one who thinks, sorry has some deep insight, that we believe 2+2=5. We don't. So why don't you argue against what we actually think instead of what you want to believe we think?

Because his points were insulting and carried no weight. I repeat, they carried no weight. Is that somehow not registering? When did it all become about Shernren anyway? What is your obsession with him?

What is registering is that you are hiding behind imagined insult to avoid addressing him and his arguments.

You do not want me to bring up my points. The simple fact that you think so naively of a symmetry in rationale just goes to show how fun it would be to bring them up.

I would love you present your ideas so we can have a rational discussion about them. This is dancing around is tedious.

I might as well be psychic, I swear. I knew that you were going to proceed him with some ridiculous, delusional backing on the matter. It's just that typical nonsense one has learned to expect from people like you and him. It's getting old, and there are people on here that would agree with me, so take the halo off your head.

The nonsense of people suggest you address the argument instead of your almost psychic understanding of their real motivation?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Alright, I'm am going to issue this last this last post and then I am done. This dancing around and being purposefully ignorant is not something I generally entertain.

And that is an argument?

Yes, because he defeated himself by his own refutation. It's quite funny, actually, and brings out a good idea of what his intentions are when considering what he attacked and how he did it. You might as well be telling me the sky is green.

The different ways people interpret Genesis is irrelevant to a discussion of how Genesis is to be interpreted?

On the current discussion at the time, yes. It was clearly his way of trying to attack my ideas under my umbrella of interpretation. It carried no weight. In fact, nothing from you or him has carried any weight period since the original subject. It has become a straw man, intelligence stomping junction that both of you should be ashamed of. Do not forget that I did nothing to cause this. It was the person you are defending, which affirms everything I have stated thus far in more ways then you can count with your fingers. Especially with KerrMetric, the insufferable astrophysicist who offers nothing but unfounded bias. You will see that he offers nothing else, much like you and your friend have been doing through half the course of this thread. You want to talk about whats sad- well there it is.

Develop a thicker skin, then whether the insults are real or imagined, you can ignore them and get on with the real issue of discussing what scripture says and how we should interpret it.

The only delusional one is you. You can't even see the error of what you are defending. Grow some skin, because your bias bleeds through.
Do not mistake me being well-spoken and intuitive for being over-reaching.
You and him are the ones being ridiculous, and so I broke it down for both of you to see with your own eyes, in which you proceeded to put a blindfold over. This is the most idiotic argument I've ever been contested with.
The only ones dancing around are you two. It's been that way for a while now. You need to come back to planet Earth.
As for me, I'm out of this thread, so go ahead and continue to speak in circles and lie about you or him even having a stand on anything and hopefully after you and others spam the thread enough the actual truth will be buried by it

 

[Assyrian]

Cheers Sum1sGruj, thanks for joining in.

 

[KerrMetric]

Do not mistake me being well-spoken and intuitive ....

Don't worry, no such mistake is being made. I assure you of this.

 

[shernren]

So gruj is clearly either incapable or unwilling to reply my points. So be it.

Good thing I already know what to do:

... whenever I've tried to put someone on the ignore list, it's almost always backfired. I see other people responding to the ignored person on the thread and I become more and more curious until I cave in and un-ignore the person. It's a bit of a Romans 7 effect, if you get my drift. It's often better to leave the person off the ignore list, but skim through any posts they make and silently laugh at how silly they are, which leaves you satisfied with your current position without having to spend any time actually engaging with them.

 

[theFijian]

Best comment so far!

I have an unwavering ability to read between the lines,

and my daddy's bigger than your daddy!

 

[theFijian]

And a lot of TEs here used to be creationists, I was so was shernren. The difference is both shernren and I recognise a wide variety of different creationist views and approaches, while you seem to think every TE thinks the way you used to. Perhaps if you approached the discussion of TE by talking about what you believed when you were a TE, we can show you how our ideas differ, or even point out where you went wrong. Much better than trying to squeeze us into a box of what you think we must believe.

This is why sum1 struggles badly when trying to debate the topic; he's arguing against his past beliefs, not any beliefs that people round here actually hold. He used to believe a kind of god-of-the-gaps deism and thought it was Theistic Evolution. He compounds his error further by accusing other TEs of believing the flawed beliefs he used to hold. He was wrong about TE before and he's wrong now, but then some people are just too smart for everyone else!

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Sure it does. The scientific account is the bare facts.

How do you know it is factual? Do you just believe whatever the scientific community says,as if it always gives logical explanations?

His document we are talking about supports that, expanding on it to support theistic evolution, which adds what we know by faith to the bare facts of the scientific account.

The document does not endorse the theory,it merely mentions it and passes on to Catholic theology.

THe RCC has repeatedly said that theistic evolution, including the bare facts of the scientific account, is an acceptable view of our origins, as long as it is clear that what is known by faith is added, making it theistic evoluton. That's what Pope Benedict is saying in the commissions report.

The theory of evolution is not theistic evolution,and it does not become compatible with the doctrine of creation and providence just because people say "that's how God works".

You are contradicting yourself. On on hand, you are saying that the document doesn't support theistic evolution, and only mentions the scientific account without agreeing with it. Then on the other hand, you argue that Pope Benedict didn't agree with the document, because it supports theistic evolution. Well, which is it?

I didn't say he disagrees with the document,I said his approval of it does not mean he agrees with the scientific account,that is,the theory of evolution.

First of all, yes, since he'd be saying it.

You can't be that naive. The president is a socialist.

Secondly, you know that's an inappropriate analyogy, because he has plenty of other statements that contradict that, while Pope Benedict has no statements anywhere that contradict theistic evolution.

He has shown doubt concerning the theory of evolution itself,which theistic evolutionists usually accept as true.

In the book Creation and Evolution,he says,
"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science."

Not quite an endorsement of the theory of evolution or of theistic evolution.

Well, I happen to think that Pope Benedict is a man of integrity, and would not help craft and submit a document he thought was wrong. Do you think Pope Benedict would not help craft and submit a document he thought was wrong? Is that an honest thing to do?

I never suggested that he thought the document is wrong.
I said he did not endorse the scientific account of origins.

No, he didn't. Everything Cardinal Schonborn says is consistent with the Pope's theistic evolution and of course with my position.

You haven't shown that the pope believes in the theory of evolution. Your position on the ITC document is consistent with those whom Schonborn was contradicting.

Cardinal Schonborn sees no problem with belief in common descent, and says so in the statement you referenced.
I've asked you several times if you agree with Cardinal Schonborn about Common Descent. Do you? That's theistic evolution.

He said that common descent might have happened,not that he sees no problem with the theory. It's true that it might have happened,insofar as God can do anything. But it cannot be demonstrated that it did happen,and so it is presumptuous to say that God made it happen.



​

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

In other words, there eventually comes a statement of yours which I either have to accept or reject simply on faith? I don't think your argumentation has reached that point yet.

You should accept or reject statements on reason,which,by the way,is not
the same as the scientific perspective.

That is entirely too nebulous a criterion to be of any use.

That's how we normally judge what causes what. We have knowledge of proper causes and effects from common observation and experience. The medieval philosophers knew that effects are fitted to proper causes,and they applied that principle to their own pursuit of truth.

For example, suppose I were to tell you that all around you are tiny corpuscles of negative charge that occupy such exceedingly small amounts of space that trillions of them could fit into the width of a human hair, and that have such minute charge that trillions of them would have to adhere to an object to even be measurable.

Now suppose I were to compare the "causal power" of such a corpuscle, minute and insignificant and immeasurable as it may be, to the effects it is purported to generate: it is said that the manipulation of such corpuscles is responsible for computation of vastly complicated sums, transportation of millions of tonnes of goods, lighting and heating and cooling the homes of billions of people, and even giant fighting robots that inexplicably masquerade as cars. (Okay, the last one is fictional.) Surely the causal power of something so intangible can hardly be compared with the effects that have revolutionized humanity!

And yet it is true that electricity is predicated on the control of electrons.

This is not the kind of power that is necessary for the creation of organisms. An organism requires,practically by definition,the power to organize parts into a working,purposeful whole. It is not just a matter of chain reactions of elements.

I could go on and on. The history of science is precisely about people discovering that the causal powers of things are far stranger and more wonderful than any sterile theorizing could conclude.

Natural causes are not so strange and wonderful so as to create organisms.

There's nothing sterile about the free use of reason to trace out what causes what.

Is there any process within the cell which does not have a currently-known chemical explanation?

Probably not. Scientists can explain anything according to the naturalistic and mechanistic view. But naturalistic and mechanistic explanations are not adequate to explain what causes the processes of cells.

But they do!

In fact, the planets affect the Earth's orbit to such a degree that the Earth's orbit is fairly chaotic: an error of as little as 15 meters in the Earth's current position would render the Earth's position completely unpredictable in about 100 million years, which sounds like a long time until you realize that by the same estimates the Solar System has been around for about 5 billion years, and 100 million years is only about 2% of that lifespan.

This is not the sort of claim that can be verified by experiment,and it does not sound like there is any logical necessity to it either.

Now would you be so sure that the planets don't influence the course of your life?

The gravitational effects of the planets might have some effect upon earth in general,but it would be too much of a stretch to say that they influence the course of your life.

Except I just showed you one, right?

No.

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote"

Originally Posted by Papias

Sure it does. The scientific account is the bare facts.

How do you know it is factual?
​

It is a fact as well supported as fact like the existence of the Roman Empire, or the US Civil war. All of that based on large amounts of converging evidence from many fields, as pointed out in the statement the Pope gave us.

Papias wrote:

His document we are talking about supports that, expanding on it to support theistic evolution, which adds what we know by faith to the bare facts of the scientific account.

The document does not endorse the theory,it merely mentions it and passes on to Catholic theology.

The whole document supports theistic evolution, explicitly in sections 59-70, as we've seen.

THe RCC has repeatedly said that theistic evolution, including the bare facts of the scientific account, is an acceptable view of our origins, as long as it is clear that what is known by faith is added, making it theistic evoluton. That's what Pope Benedict is saying in the commissions report.

The theory of evolution is not theistic evolution,and it does not become compatible with the doctrine of creation and providence just because people say "that's how God works".

The bare facts of the theory of evolution are part of theistic evolution, and theistic evolution is of course compatible with the doctrine of creation. Heck, that's the main point of the document of Creation and Evolution we are discussing.


​

I didn't say he disagrees with the document,I said his approval of it does not mean he agrees with the scientific account,that is,the theory of evolution.

But you just agreed that the document contains the bare facts of the scientific account.

You can't be that naive. The president is a socialist.

Better grab your tinfoil hat!! I'll leave Obama debates for the politics forum.


​

He has shown doubt concerning the theory of evolution itself,which theistic evolutionists usually accept as true.

He's clarified that naturalism is unacceptable, and that he understands what a theory is. He has'nt doubted common descent.

In the book Creation and Evolution,he says,
"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science."

Not quite an endorsement of the theory of evolution or of theistic evolution.

Sure it is. It's a clarification that atheistic evolution is unacceptable, and that statement, like all of his others, is consistent with theistic evolution.


​

I never suggested that he thought the document is wrong.
I said he did not endorse the scientific account of origins.

But if you simply read the document, you can see that it does agree with the bare facts of the scientific account, while being clear that atheism is not being supported.

​

You haven't shown that the pope believes in the theory of evolution.

Sure I did, all I had to was point out that the Pope shows that he supports the bare facts of evolution and common descent by what is written in the ITC document.

Your position on the ITC document is consistent with those whom Schonborn was contradicting.

No, it demonstrably isn't. My position is theistic evolution, like the Pope. Schonborn is only attacking atheistic evoluiton, as the Pope does as well.

Papias wrote:

Cardinal Schonborn sees no problem with belief in common descent, and says so in the statement you referenced.
I've asked you several times if you agree with Cardinal Schonborn about Common Descent. Do you? That's theistic evolution.

He said that common descent might have happened,not that he sees no problem with the theory. It's true that it might have happened,insofar as God can do anything. But it cannot be demonstrated that it did happen,and so it is presumptuous to say that God made it happen.



​

Here is the statement you are referring to:

Evolution in the sense of common descent could
be true, but evolution in the Neodarwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not true.​

He's clarifying that atheistic evolution (an "unguided, unplanned process") is not true. Of course it isn't. God planned and guided evolution, that's why it's called "theistic evolution".

The sad thing is that you just as happy misreprenting the holy church, and our holy father as you are misrepresenting the Cardinal.

Papias

​

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

It is a fact as well supported as fact like the existence of the Roman Empire, or the US Civil war. All of that based on large amounts of converging evidence from many fields, as pointed out in the statement the Pope gave us.

No,the theory does not have that kind of historical evidence to support it.
The course of biological descent of all creatures was not recorded by humans,and it did not leave man-made remains like Roman buildings or the Gettysburg cemetary.

All of that based on large amounts of converging evidence from many fields, as pointed out in the statement the Pope gave us.

The pope didn't make that statement,a commission of the ITC did.

The whole document supports theistic evolution, explicitly in sections 59-70, as we've seen.

I don't take it that way,and neither do many other Catholics who are not convinced of the theory of evolution.

The bare facts of the theory of evolution are part of theistic evolution, and theistic evolution is of course compatible with the doctrine of creation. Heck, that's the main point of the document of Creation and Evolution we are discussing.

Have you scrutinized evolution theory to see if the narrative is factual,or do you just uncritically accept whatever scientists say about nature?

Theistic evolution is not compatible with the doctrine of creation if it is belief in a false theory. Before you say that God has done what the theory says happened,you should inquire into whether the theory is true.
If you insist on saying that God worked in the way that the theory claims nature has worked,then you are simply putting a theistic spin on an unproven,naturalistic,mechanistic theory. And you are attributing to God events and ways and means that cannot be shown to have happened in the first place.

But you just agreed that the document contains the bare facts of the scientific account.

No,I did not say "bare facts". Many of the claims of the theory cannot be shown to be facts.

He's clarified that naturalism is unacceptable, and that he understands what a theory is. He hasn't doubted common descent.

He said: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

That quote does not show that he believes in common descent.

And since the theory of evolution is,in fact,"neo-Darwinian",it does not make sense to say that God did what the theory claims to have happened. And scientists who advocate the theory do tend to deny and explain away the evidence for design.

Sure it is. It's a clarification that atheistic evolution is unacceptable, and that statement, like all of his others, is consistent with theistic evolution.

No,he said that we do not have to make a decision for "an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science."

Your personal belief that God has worked according to the theory of evolution does not change the fact that it portrays nature as self-creating. The theory of evolution is atheistic,because it attributes the origination of creatures to natural causes alone. The theory does not become acceptable just because you think God worked according to what the theory claims to have happened. First show that the claims of the theory are true. Otherwise,you are attributing to God things that he may not have done.

But if you simply read the document, you can see that it does agree with the bare facts of the scientific account, while being clear that atheism is not being supported.

It doesn't agree with the claims of the scientific account. They cannot be shown to be facts.

Sure I did, all I had to was point out that the Pope shows that he supports the bare facts of evolution and common descent by what is written in the ITC document.

You did not show that. I showed you where you are mistaken.

No, it demonstrably isn't. My position is theistic evolution, like the Pope. Schonborn is only attacking atheistic evoluton, as the Pope does as well.

Schonborn also denied that the Church or the pope has endorsed the theory of evolution.

< Ever since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things. >

< In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.
The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter 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."
Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."
Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary." >

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

No,the theory does not have that kind of historical evidence to support it.
The course of biological descent of all creatures was not recorded by humans,and it did not leave man-made remains like Roman buildings or the Gettysburg cemetary.

I never claimed only "historical" evidence, but evidence as a whole. Evolution is supported by all kinds of evidence, from different fields, using different methods, by literally millions of scientists, and all of it is in agreement. That's more powerful evidence than just "historical" evidence. Some of the fields include anthropology, physiology, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, genetics, paleontology, phylogeny, geology, ontology, and more. Just a couple of those, alone, would be enough to establish evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. If there were zero fossils of any kind, instead of the literally hundreds of transitionals we have, evolution would still be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Many of those fields don't confirm the civil war nor the roman empire. That's part of why evolution is more firmly established than the existance of the Roman Empire or the US Civil war. Just because you unfamiliar with all that evidence (it's much too much for any one human to know), doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor that you can logically ignore it, as you have been doing. The Pope at least is aware that evolution is "virtually certain", to his and our holy church's credit.

​

The pope didn't make that statement,a commission of the ITC did.

And who was the leader of that commission? I thought you already agreed that as leader of the commission, of course he agreed with the commission's statement?

Papias wrote:

The whole document supports theistic evolution, explicitly in sections 59-70, as we've seen.

I don't take it that way,and neither do many other Catholics who are not convinced of the theory of evolution.

"yes officer, I was driving 88 mph on that road, but I don't take the reading of that law to mean that it's a speed limit, so I contest this ticket........."

As I mentioned earlier, if you want company in denying evolution, there are schismatic groups like the society of pope pius X, who have lots of members who deny evolution, the holocaust and so on.

​

Papias wrote:

The bare facts of the theory of evolution are part of theistic evolution, and theistic evolution is of course compatible with the doctrine of creation. Heck, that's the main point of the document of Creation and Evolution we are discussing

.
​

Have you scrutinized evolution theory to see if the narrative is factual,or do you just uncritically accept whatever scientists say about nature?


Theistic evolution is not compatible with the doctrine of creation if it is belief in a false theory. Before you say that God has done what the theory says happened,you should inquire into whether the theory is true.

So do you follow doctor's orders, or do you just uncritically accept their prescriptions and the idea that there are these invisible things called "germs"?

I have looked at some of evidnece, and it is indisputable. More importantly, so have millions of scientists from different fields, many of the Christian, and practically all scientist agree that evolution is undeniable. In fact, as you may well know, some of the scientists that are most active in pointing out how silly creationism is, are themselves Catholic.

And you are attributing to God events and ways and means that cannot be shown to have happened in the first place.

For the bare facts of the events, yes, of course they can be shown to have happened, unless you are going to resort to "last thursdayism".

For the fact that God is the one who did them, well, Faith is kinda like that. We know that Jesus existed - how do you, Anthony, know that he existed though God's actions, as opposed to having just "existed".

​

No,I did not say "bare facts". Many of the claims of the theory cannot be shown to be facts.

Well, the ones that the Pope, as leader of the commission, agreed with in the document, have been shown to be facts. In fact, the document itself shows that the Pope considers common descent to be "virtually certain".

Here are some of those facts:
the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the &#8220;Big Bang&#8221; and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life....the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. ..... all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. .......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.



​

He's clarified that naturalism is unacceptable, and that he understands what a theory is. He hasn't doubted common descent.

He said: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."
​

That quote does not show that he believes in common descent.

It shows that he doesn't oppose it.

Look at the form of the sentence:

Heliocentrism might be true, but alien abductions- is not.

Plate tectonics might be true, but Atlantis- is not. etc.

The form is "X might be true, but Y- is not.

X = something everyone agrees is true
Y= What I'm disagreeing with.

If that wasn't the case, he would have said "and" instead of "but".

Sure it is. It's a clarification that atheistic evolution is unacceptable, and that statement, like all of his others, is consistent with theistic evolution.

No,he said that we do not have to make a decision for "an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science."
​

Right - that's atheistic evolution.

Your personal belief that God has worked according to the theory of evolution does not change the fact that it portrays nature as self-creating. The theory of evolution is atheistic,because it attributes the origination of creatures to natural causes alone.

Like that atheistic theory of gravity, and the atheistic theory of germs, and atheistic algebra?

Why are you not denying Algebra, which also makes no mention of God? Perhaps because in those cases, you see that simply describing how something works, without reference to God, is theistically neutral, not atheistic? Since you can see that with gravity and algebra, they why can't you see that with evolution?

The theory does not become acceptable just because you think God worked according to what the theory claims to have happened.

Sure it does, just like gravity, algebra, and plate tectonics.

First show that the claims of the theory are true. Otherwise,you are attributing to God things that he may not have done.

.......They cannot be shown to be facts.

That's was done decades ago. There is no significant disagreement with evolution, germs, heliocentrism, nor plate tectonics among scientists. By denying any of these, Christians simply make Christianity look stupid, as Augustine pointed out 1500 years ago.

But if you simply read the document, you can see that it does agree with the bare facts of the scientific account, while being clear that atheism is not being supported.

It doesn't agree with the claims of the scientific account.
​

By stating them and incorporating them into Catholic theology, it does. That's the point of the whole document.

Schonborn also denied that the Church or the pope has endorsed the theory of evolution.

Please clarify what you mean by "endorse".
"Endorse" can be taken to mean "I establish this as the only acceptable view." Is that what you mean?

Or, "Endorse" can be taken to mean "This is what I see to be correct, though others may hold different views."

Which do you mean? Thanks.


Papias

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

I never claimed only "historical" evidence, but evidence as a whole. Evolution is supported by all kinds of evidence, from different fields, using different methods, by literally millions of scientists, and all of it is in agreement. That's more powerful evidence than just "historical" evidence. Some of the fields include anthropology, physiology, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, genetics, paleontology, phylogeny, geology, ontology, and more. Just a couple of those, alone, would be enough to establish evolution beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence is whatever information and physical artifacts are presented to support a theory,even if the evidence does not necessarily lead to the claims of the theory. The accumulated evidence for the theory of evolution do not logically or biologically add up to the primary claims of the theory. But there are logical and biological reasons to think that what the theory claims to have happened did not happen. In a court of law,the same evidence is sometimes used by both the prosecutors and the defense attourneys to support their cases,and the jury can judge for themselves if either interpretation is beyond reasonable doubt. There are certainly good reasons to doubt the theory of evolution.

If there were zero fossils of any kind, instead of the literally hundreds of transitionals we have, evolution would still be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Many of those fields don't confirm the civil war nor the roman empire. That's part of why evolution is more firmly established than the existance of the Roman Empire or the US Civil war.

How would you know if a fossil represents a transitional species if you don't know of its reproductive connections with other species? The similarities between species do not say anything about whether there was common descent. To assume that there must have been common descent is to assume that similar species can only have come into existence from a common ancestor,which is not logical. There is no law of nature which would prevent similar organisms from coming into existence separately,and certainly God is not limited to creating only one ancestral organism and deriving all others from it.

Just because you unfamiliar with all that evidence (it's much too much for any one human to know), doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor that you can logically ignore it, as you have been doing. The Pope at least is aware that evolution is "virtually certain", to his and our holy church's credit.

I don't ignore the evidence,I analyze it. The theory is virtually certain to those who uncritically go along with its non sequiturs and false causal connections.

And who was the leader of that commission? I thought you already agreed that as leader of the commission, of course he agreed with the commission's statement?

He agreed with the theological statements. He did not have to agree with the scientific account of origins to approve the document. Just like we don't have to agree with every opinion that is recorded in the Bible,like the opinion that there is no God,which is mentioned in one of the psalms.

As I mentioned earlier, if you want company in denying evolution, there are schismatic groups like the society of pope pius X, who have lots of members who deny evolution, the holocaust and so on.

There are many people in the Catholic Church,perhaps a majority,that would deny the theory of evolution. I would remain in the Church even if I could not find like-minded people. I would argue against the theory of evolution just as I am doing now.

 

[sfs]

Evidence is whatever information and physical artifacts are presented to support a theory,even if the evidence does not necessarily lead to the claims of the theory. The accumulated evidence for the theory of evolution do not logically or biologically add up to the primary claims of the theory.

Sure it does.

But there are logical and biological reasons to think that what the theory claims to have happened did not happen.

So what are those reasons?

In a court of law,the same evidence is sometimes used by both the prosecutors and the defense attourneys to support their cases,and the jury can judge for themselves if either interpretation is beyond reasonable doubt. There are certainly good reasons to doubt the theory of evolution.

Again, what are those reasons? In a court of law, each side has to actually argue their case. After the prosecutor has shown the defendant's DNA and fingerprints at the murder scene, the written record of his threats against the victim, and the victim's blood on his clothes, the defense attorney isn't going to get very far simply repeating, "The evidence does not logically point to my client; there are certainly good reasons to doubt his guilt." He has to either put up or shut up.

Also, you might note that the relevant jury for judging scientific questions is the community of scientists within that field. That jury was convinced by the evidence for evolution long ago, and remains convinced.

How would you know if a fossil represents a transitional species if you don't know of its reproductive connections with other species? The similarities between species do not say anything about whether there was common descent. To assume that there must have been common descent is to assume that similar species can only have come into existence from a common ancestor,which is not logical. There is no law of nature which would prevent similar organisms from coming into existence separately,and certainly God is not limited to creating only one ancestral organism and deriving all others from it.

It is quite true: the existence of, say, a fish with feet (from exactly the same era as evolution would predict such a species), or dinosaurs with feathers, does not logically compel the conclusion that these are transitional species. Rather, they are a test of the hypothesis that land animals evolved from fish and birds from dinosaurs. (This process, of coming up with a hypothesis and then testing it against empirical data, goes by the name "science", by the way.) Evolution predicts the existence of these fossils, while creationism makes no prediction about them at all. Since evolution makes better predictions, that's the hypothesis that scientists accept.

I don't ignore the evidence,I analyze it. The theory is virtually certain to those who uncritically go along with its non sequiturs and false causal connections.

Oddly enough, the ones who devote their lives to studying the evidence virtually all come to the conclusion that evolution is correct; they're called "biologists".