Evolution vs creation - let's give up on sounding educated!


#1

I continue to be amazed at Catholics that accept macro evolution in the year 2004. I realize it is a slam-dunk taught by all schools and universities but they are behind about 25 years.

There has been an overwhelming collection of facts accumulated that range from genetics to cosmology that prevent macro gradualism from occurring. It distresses me that Protestants stay up on science that defends the Bible and arn’t afraid to speakup. I hear from Priests, RCIA teachers, and other Catholics express a weak endorsement of evolution, a shrug of the shoulders, and watering down of Genisis.

I really feel the door is left open a crack for Satan’s deception when we don’t speak with greater clarity that macro evolution has been refuted and the Biblical accounts are well supported.

Your thoughts please . . . :slight_smile:


#2

macro evolution has been refuted

surely you are joking? those protestant “scientists” who so valiently defend against evolution arent worth the ink used to print their texts when it comes to real science.

since there is absolute proof that dinosaurs existed tens of thousands of years (if not MUCH more) before humans, what do you think of the six days of creation? just a thought for you.

really, though, lets here some of these items used to masterfully refute evolution. we’ll see if you can label any new ones i havent already seen debunked a hundred times.


#3

My thoughts…

Thought (1) is consider Project Steve

All these Ph.D.'s in science signed off on this statement, now ask yourself why?

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.

Thought (2) is consider the massive Evidence

If you can’t handle that, try my Cliffs Notes version

Thought (3) is a humorous thought

All right, I stole the gif from a creationist site…

So what have you read in the last 25 years to make you doubt evolution? Anything worthwhile? Besides a narrow interpretation of Genesis I mean. I’ve already conceded there are some theological objections that need to be ironed out, but what about the scientific data presented in the other threads? :thumbsup:

Phil P


#4

Well Chuck, I share your concerns. And the debate is certainly not over, unless of course science is your religion. I would dispute any ‘so-called’ evidence of evolution. Because there is none, there is only theory and hypothoses. The debate isn’t over because outside of the advent of a time traveling device, the theory is unprovable. For instance the methods used by geologists and paleantologists in determing the date of a fossil or mineral sample are not verifiable. I always thout that one of the most basic rules of science was that to establish a fact, something must be observable. I would love for someone to explain to me how carbon dating and other methods are verifiable.

If evolution is true then explain the existence of no transitional stages of fossils. it is convenient that in the lack of finding such evidence the evolutionists have moved to the macro theory of evolution. I also wonder why we never hear of bones found in the process of fossilization (not petrification). It is rather hard to prove that bones take millions of years to fossilize.

There was an experament done several years ago in which scientists set out to make fossils in a labratory. using extreme pressure for a period of around 30 days they had made fossils from the carcasses of squid, and said this proved that it took millions of years to create fossils. In fact the only established fact was that fossils can be made under extreme pressure in a short period of time.

Dinasaurs, fossils, rocks, bones and a lot of imagination have given us one of the greatest works of fiction the world has ever known.


#5

[quote=promethius]macro evolution has been refuted

surely you are joking? those protestant “scientists” who so valiently defend against evolution arent worth the ink used to print their texts when it comes to real science.
[/quote]

Protestant scientists? hummmm…

Ever been to the The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation
Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective

kolbecenter.org/


#6

[quote=promethius]macro evolution has been refuted

surely you are joking? those protestant “scientists” who so valiently defend against evolution arent worth the ink used to print their texts when it comes to real science. QUOTE]

Promethius,

With all due respect. There are many reputable scientists refuting Darwinism. For example, check out the following link.

discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

Read this PDF file in detail. Read the fine print. Contemplate who it is on this list that you just called “protestant scientists not worth the ink used to print their texts”. You are referring to some of the finest scientists across the country. Biologists, chemists, physicists. Some of them are Catholic. Some of them Nobel prize nominees.
[/quote]


#7

Catholicism and science are both after the truth, and to the extent they are both honestly seeking that I don’t see a conflict.

Some protestant thinkers use their interpretation of the Bible as truth, and so are trapped defending their interpretation no matter what. And likewise some atheistic thinkers see evolution as a refutation of God, and are trapped defending the God-less portions of this theory no matter what.

Was God behind creation of Man and all things? Absolutely. Has life on earth evolved? Absolutely. The question of how God used and uses evolution in the process of life is an interesting question honest people are continuing to pursue.

And I think all sides of this pursuit should be taught in schools.


#8

[quote=Flounder]Some protestant thinkers use their interpretation of the Bible as truth, and so are trapped defending their interpretation no matter what. And likewise some atheistic thinkers see evolution as a refutation of God, and are trapped defending the God-less portions of this theory no matter what.
[/quote]

i agree with this statement, everyone, no matter who, has a bias and we must know this before swallowing what people tell us.

[quote=Flounder]Was God behind creation of Man and all things? Absolutely. Has life on earth evolved? Absolutely. The question of how God used and uses evolution in the process of life is an interesting question honest people are continuing to pursue.
.
[/quote]

this on the other hand cannot be said. you can’t say “absolutely” to either of these things as they are both unprobable. we can’t say that God “absolutely” created things because we can’t even prove without a doubt there is a God (even though i believe there is). and we can’t say that evolution has “absolutely” taken place as there is no way to prove it and there are a number of scientists (see PDF article above) who dissent. i think you can and should teach both theories in schools even if one does imply a “creator”. shouldn’t we all be seekers of truth? why then should we run from a theory that implies God? if it’s true we should examine it and not just cast it aside. i say the same thing for evolution. my faith is not based on whether evolution happened or not, it’s based on the fact that i have experience Christ in my life. there is nothing anyone can say to disprove that. C.S. Lewis once said, “You can argue with theology, you can’t argue with biography.”


#9

Bengal Fan,

I actually think we’re in violent agreement. We wouldn’t say God “probably” had a hand in creation, and the belief in God is so fundamental to everything it has to be “absolutely.” Can the existence of God be repeatedly proven in a lab so no sane person could ever come to any other conclusion? No, but still HIs existence can be rationally arrived at…C.S. Lewis and St Thomas Aquinas both do excellent jobs of it.

That living things evolve is a fact; but in the sense evolution means change over time. People are taller now than they used to be, for instance. Extending this to a theory of the origin or Man, or that bats and mice have a common ancestor, etc. is an unproven theory still in dispute. I was referring to just the basic concept of evolution, not the big creation theory.

I too think all sides of the pursuit of truth should be taught in schools, but I think most educators are terrified (of themselves and their establishment) to mention God.

I also think the hiring of Marvin Lewis has made all the difference.


#10

Give up on sounding educated? I haven’t heard an educated argument against evolution yet, but rather stuff about no transition fossils, evolution is not proven, and so on. So for the few that insist on bashing evolution from a position of ignorance, I recommend a visit to talkorigins.org
origins.tv/darwin/darwin.htm
archaeologyinfo.com/index.html


#11

[quote=PhilVaz] Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.
[/quote]

I find it to be so bothersome that those who support evolution as if it is this impeccable brick wall of a theory do so by such enormous assertions like the one appearing above. I want to break it down per the adjectives used. Evolution is said to be:

(1) “vital” - in what sense? It’s “alive and kicking?” It’s necessary? The first is obviously true and the latter is by no means obviously true. I assume the author means the latter sense. I’ve yet to hear the great argument that the theory of evolution is necessary to biology (remembering that equivocation on terms like ‘evolution’ to mean merely ‘change’ does no one any good). Perhaps the author could supply the argument for why the underlying theory of origins is necessary to contemporary biology?

(2) “well-supported” - OK, what qualifies as evidence that supports the theory well? Since it is historical in nature, only historical evidence could support it “well,” though perhaps non-historical evidence could help in mild ways for a cumulative case argument. Only major historical evidence one could readily think of is the fossil record, no? And needless to say, such a record by no means support evolution well. If it did, there would be no room for debate whatsoever. The provided “links” would be a slam dunk.

(3) “unifying principle of the biological sciences” - it is a unifying principle, but of course the question is whether it’s the only adequate or successful unifying principle one could think of, which leads me naturally to address the last assertion, which is, not unexpetedly, overstated…

(4) “the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry” - but, of course, it could only be so with an very good (or even mildly supportive) fossil record, along with perhaps other lines of evidence. There is no doubt that the biologial sciences imply commonality among all living organisms. Somehow though, this commonality translates to simple common ancestry, though there are many missing links in the argument from obvious commonality among organisms to common ancestry. Common design is equally plausible, and perhaps more so, given a lack of fossil support.

And then, in keeping with the overstatement, we leave off with a quote which sounds like little more than bullying and belittling. But, I don’t suppose it’s so surprising. This is what one tends to do when his case is not as strong as he might have hoped it would be.

[quote=PhilVaz] It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.
[/quote]


#12

You cannot compare between an orange and an apple, between scientifical and spiritual beliefs. Your ending up what our Lord Jesus said “Amen, amen, I say to you, we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? ” There’s a lot of things that Satan’s using, do not become a stumbling block to others.


#13

As catholics we should be open to all truth. since the truth alwasy sets us free


#14

[quote=PhilVaz]So what have you read in the last 25 years to make you doubt evolution? Anything worthwhile? Besides a narrow interpretation of Genesis I mean. I’ve already conceded there are some theological objections that need to be ironed out, but what about the scientific data presented in the other threads? :thumbsup:

Phil P
[/quote]

I would like someone to explain the human eye to me. How do you think this evolved… a few light sensitive cells got together and… even over millions or billions of years, it is statistically impossible for this to happen by chance mutations.

Show me the “missing link.” Not conjecture, ideas or theories.

The way I learned it was “The THEORY of Evolution” and it will always remain such because it is not directly observable and is therefore outside the realm of the scientific method.

Scientists should focus on science (that is events which are directly observable) and leave the theories to philosophers.

The fact is that we will not know this side of heaven the correct answer to these questions. As long as the science that my children are taught does not contradict the CCC, it’s fine with me.

God bless!
Iguana (guess I haven’t evolved yet!:wink: )


#15

Personally, after having read the other thread…holy smokes…

I have read books and all, but all the evolution stuff and details are WAY over my head.

I may also state that I would probably be in the majority on this one, by simple fact that only the same few people continuosly post on these threads.

I understand that many of you are well versed in this stuff, but the rest of us are currently disengaged from this topic, simply because we cannot understand the jargon being coughed up.

I am not gonna say that details shouldn’t be argued, but I do want to say, for the benefit of those who are not as well ‘educated’, that some of us would be able to understand or enjoin you if we could at least understand it better.

My eyes just glazed over after the 80 post on that other thread…

Story


#16

Iguana27, I think there is a confusion of terms here. There are two types of evolution: atheistic and theistic. Atheistic evolution is the branch that claims that complex design came out of nothing. Theistic evolution, which is the branch that the Catholics here fall under, assert that natural evolution is the tool God used to bring man to his current form.

Many consider evolution to be a prime proof for God’s existence. The fact that chance would come into play so much in order for atheistic evolution to be true seems to point to an Intelligent Designer. However, I digress.


#17

[quote=Sanosuke]Theistic evolution, which is the branch that the Catholics here fall under, assert that natural evolution is the tool God used to bring man to his current form.

Many consider evolution to be a prime proof for God’s existence. The fact that chance would come into play so much in order for atheistic evolution to be true seems to point to an Intelligent Designer.
[/quote]

Sanosuke, I understand the distinction. I was responding to Philvaz who said:

Again, I just want someone to show me a missing link, proof of the macroevolutionary leap that they think is proved by microevolutionary changes.

The absence of such proof is the reason that evolution is a theory, not a law. Responsible scientists should not treat theories as laws!


#18

[quote=iguana27]Again, I just want someone to show me a missing link, proof of the macroevolutionary leap that they think is proved by microevolutionary changes.
[/quote]

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The absence of such proof is the reason that evolution is a theory, not a law. Responsible scientists should not treat theories as laws!

Stop using the word “theory” as though a scientific theory means
"speculation". That is incorrect.

dictionary.com
the·o·ry cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-rhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif, thîrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif)
n. pl. **the·o·ries **
[list=1]
*]**A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. **
*]**The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. **
*]A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
*]Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
*]A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
*]An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
[/list]


#19

Booger,

Nice skull collection. Are you telling me you have found the missing link?

If you really feel that theory might as well mean law, why don’t they just call it a law?

law (From dictionary.com)

n.

[list=1][list=1]

  • A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.
    *]A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and demand.
    [/list]
    [/list]The reason why is that evolution is not a law.

    It is precisely what your definition states: **A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. **

    Since evolution cannot be tested, it falls under the category of widely accepted. It is an attempt by well-intentioned scholars to describe the world they live in. This still does not make it a fact, and no one should deride anyone else for not buying this explanation! It is clearly outside the realm of the scientific method.

    I appreciate your right to believe that this is the way the world was created. I do not want it taught to my children as a fact, as that would be inaccurate.

    God bless you booger.:smiley:


  • #20

    [quote=iguana27]Booger,

    Nice skull collection. Are you telling me you have found the missing link?
    [/quote]

    Yeah, I found the missing links and arranged them so that you could scoff at them.

    Since evolution cannot be tested, it falls under the category of widely accepted. It is an attempt by well-intentioned scholars to describe the world they live in. This still does not make it a fact, and no one should deride anyone else for not buying this explanation! It is clearly outside the realm of the scientific method.

    As one evolutionary geneticist told me (and I’m paraphrasing), evolution is tested through various models that, in parts, come together to support the theory as whole.

    I appreciate your right to believe that this is the way the world was created. I do not want it taught to my children as a fact, as that would be inaccurate.

    God bless you booger.:smiley:

    Then you are deceived because I don’t believe in creation, though you have the right to. I do believe that you are wrong when you deny evolution as a fact. You don’t have to like it, but you cannot dispute reality. You might end up in the looney bin. You should read more of the website that I linked to earlier and then come to a more informed conclusion afterwards.


    DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.