Reconciling Evolution & Faith

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282526344' post='2161716']
Too bad, you are required to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. You are required to believe what the Author intended. You are not allowed belive that Genesis is a myth.

MiniLuith has failed to provided solid proof that Darwinian Theory can be proven by the scientific method, or observed. In fact thus far no Darwinian Evolutionist has done so, their predictions continue to change when those predictions are not proven or proven wrong.
[/quote]
Nope, I am not

since you are not the author and since you were not there don't assume you know exactly what the author intended either.

I never said Genesis was a myth, you are assuming again. and what does that say about you?

I have no problem reconciling the Big Bang theory or evolution as started by God with the Scriptures. If you do - that is your issue, not mine.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1282527482' post='2161729']
I don't think MiniLuith has to prove that Darwin's theory can be proven... if it could be "proven" it would no longer be theory would it? The point is that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with the Catholic faith. If you've been taught otherwise you've received very bad, unorthodox catechesis.
[/quote]

That's just the problem perhaps MiniLuith is not guilty of this but a majority of Darwinian Evolutionists are, they believe that it is fact and shun all other theories of Origin. Evidence that disproves certain theories Darwin are rejected and/or ignored. There is no true critical look at Darwinian Evolution any longer, it has become dogma not science. In fact it has never an actual science but rather a way to disprove the existence of Christ or God. This was like it or not one of the intents of Darwin, and is also the intent of many of the scientists that embrace Darwinian Evolution. Intelligent Design is widely misunderstood and rejected. It's falsely labeled as Creationism. The two are not the same but this matters not to Darwinian Evolutionists. So that they can keep their dogma from being challenged. Scientists who do reject Darwinian Evolution are treated as heretics and banished. The articles and videos provided do give good logical reason to doubt and/or at least be highly critical of Darwinian Evolution. I can only pray individuals will at least do that much.

I must bow out of this debate, it is like many debates of late becoming to personal, whenever we start to use "you this" and "you that" it becomes personal and not to long after that it becomes a stupid hissy fit. I avoided using those terms as long as I could but others made it necessary. Now I must end it.

Pax.

Edited August 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[sixpence]

Awww... now who will we debate with? Anyone else in agreement with K of C?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1282527482' post='2161729']
I don't think MiniLuith has to prove that Darwin's theory can be proven... if it could be "proven" it would no longer be theory would it? The point is that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with the Catholic faith. If you've been taught otherwise you've received very bad, unorthodox catechesis.
[/quote]

ehh, not really. it is still referred to as the "theory of gravity" for example. Scientists are pretty beaver dam sure evolution happens.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1282532361' post='2161784']
ehh, not really. it is still referred to as the "theory of gravity" for example. Scientists are pretty beaver dam sure evolution happens.
[/quote]
Gravity isn't understood particularly well at the more basic levels though. There are quite a few anomalies that have yet to be worked out.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1282528575' post='2161736'] There is no true critical look at Darwinian Evolution any longer, it has become dogma not science. In fact it has never an actual science but rather a way to disprove the existence of Christ or God.
[/quote]

completely false. The theory of evolution has changed with time(evolved you might say) to reflect new thinking and discoveries, and scientists are constantly questioning the methods Darwin put forward as to how exactly evolution happens. It is not even remotely dogma for scientists or anyone with more than a 10th grade science class education on the subject.

[quote]
This was like it or not one of the intents of Darwin, and is also the intent of many of the scientists that embrace Darwinian Evolution. Intelligent Design is widely misunderstood and rejected. It's falsely labeled as Creationism. The two are not the same but this matters not to Darwinian Evolutionists. So that they can keep their dogma from being challenged. Scientists who do reject Darwinian Evolution are treated as heretics and banished. The articles and videos provided do give good logical reason to doubt and/or at least be highly critical of Darwinian Evolution. I can only pray individuals will at least do that much.

I must bow out of this debate, it is like many debates of late becoming to personal, whenever we start to use "you this" and "you that" it becomes personal and not to long after that it becomes a stupid hissy fit. I avoided using those terms as long as I could but others made it necessary. Now I must end it.

Pax.
[/quote]

The intent of science is science. Intelligent design has been shown to be based off of several flawed premises, using statistics wildly incorrectly, etc.

[KnightofChrist]

It's not false at all. But I don't care to debate it anymore. It's a waste of time.

God Bless.

[MithLuin]

Yes, I feel this debate is distracting from [b]Zigg[/b]'s purpose in starting this thread.

Theologically (and from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church) no one [i]has[/i] to 'believe in evolution' (whatever that even [i]means[/i]), so I see no reason to continue debating when the only person arguing that viewpoint has tried several times to bow out of the discussion.

So, back to [b]Zigg[/b]'s question - can you reconcile a non-Young Earth with the Fall?


I see a trend in your examples to view the natural order as a horrible thing. While, certainly, we think of peace and redemption as 'the lion and the lamb' being able to hang out together...that doesn't mean that it is 'horrible' for suns to be created and die before the origin of our planet. Meaning, you can't define all change as a product of a fallen world!

So...how come nature is fallen? One idea that has been thrown out there is that you can blame it on the fallen angels. I do not know what role (if any) the angels played in creation, but they certainly were able to hang out here once the world was created. Just because God created a good world did not mean it remained unspoiled. It's worth pointing out that when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden, they found a world already difficult and suffering the effects of the Fall. The Garden is portrayed as an oasis to which they cannot return.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1282527482' post='2161729']
I don't think MiniLuith has to prove that Darwin's theory can be proven... if it could be "proven" it would no longer be theory would it? The point is that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with the Catholic faith. If you've been taught otherwise you've received very bad, unorthodox catechesis.
[/quote]


[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1282532361' post='2161784']
ehh, not really. it is still referred to as the "theory of gravity" for example. Scientists are pretty beaver dam sure evolution happens.
[/quote]


[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1282532467' post='2161787']
Gravity isn't understood particularly well at the more basic levels though. There are quite a few anomalies that have yet to be worked out.
[/quote]

Theories are not hypotheses. Theories provide [b]an explanation for natural events[/b]. Laws are the natural events themselves. Gravity, actually, is an example of both a theory and a law.

The law of gravity states that an object will always accelerate toward the earth's center.

The theory of gravity explains why: objects with mass are attracted to other objects with mass, according the Einstein's theory of general relativity.

The difference? The law of gravity concerns what is directly observable; it answers the question "what happens?". The "theory" answers another question entirely: it seeks to answer the question, "why it happens?".

Evolution, similarly, could be said to be both law and theory. The law of evolution is simply that organisms change; that much is directly observable. The theory of evolution, however, attempts to explain why those organisms change.

Theories != hypotheses.

[MithLuin]

Yep, that's correct. A lovely explanation!

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1282538592' post='2161882']
Yep, that's correct. A lovely explanation!
[/quote]

Science teachers UNITE!!

[Nihil Obstat]

I like science.

[sixpence]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1282539417' post='2161888']
I like science.
[/quote]

yey science!! [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/caption_cool.gif[/img]

[Nihil Obstat]

[img]http://www.giftag.com/clip/jmdavidson/xkcd-store-clip.jpg[/img]

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='mommas_boy' timestamp='1282538316' post='2161877']
Theories are not hypotheses. Theories provide [b]an explanation for natural events[/b]. Laws are the natural events themselves. Gravity, actually, is an example of both a theory and a law.

The law of gravity states that an object will always accelerate toward the earth's center.

The theory of gravity explains why: objects with mass are attracted to other objects with mass, according the Einstein's theory of general relativity.

The difference? The law of gravity concerns what is directly observable; it answers the question "what happens?". The "theory" answers another question entirely: it seeks to answer the question, "why it happens?".

Evolution, similarly, could be said to be both law and theory. The law of evolution is simply that organisms change; that much is directly observable. The theory of evolution, however, attempts to explain why those organisms change.

Theories != hypotheses.
[/quote]

Addendum: Theories also do not one day grow up, put on big boy pants, and become laws after further research. They are considered to be of the same level of veracity (truthiness, to steal a word from Stephen Colbert). That is not to say that neither theories nor laws are infallible; [b]both[/b] are changed with new data.

For example, the "Law of Conservation of Matter" once held that matter could be neither created nor destroyed. We now know this to be only partially true: matter and energy can be interconverted via nuclear reaction (atomic fission and fusion).