Evolution

[Oik]

lacobus or Sanvean, before you all decide to stop posting, please, please remember two things, hard-heads (that's me) make the best converts and also, I am exremely close-minded ( the purpose of an open mind, it like that of a open mouth, to close it on to something solid.-GK Chesterton) and [b][u]looooooove[/u][/b] to hear other people explain thier views and opinions! Please continue to do so.

[StColette]

[quote name='Oik' date='Aug 27 2004, 09:30 PM'] Iacobus, I actually do understand evolution, but I reject the terminology as biased and an attempt by scientists to debunk religion. [/quote]
I'm sorry that I've waited so long to respond to this topic, being a Biology major I've sat in many classes which discussed Evolution and Darwinism.

Science is not trying to debunk religion in any way. In fact, I'm sure Veronica ( Sanvean ) will agree with me that Science actually is one of the most powerful arguments to uphold the existance of God, you just have to study it correctly. The first thing every Professor will tell you when discussing Evolution is it neither proves nor does it disprove the existance of God.

Here are the exact notes that my Zoology Professor gave us:

--------------------------------------------------------

Evolution & Concepts involved

evolution does not state that humans came from apes
does not say there isn't a God
does not involve the creation of life

Evolution is the change in DNA over time within a population

Charles Darwin "Origin of the Species by means of natural selection"
- did not use the term evolution

--------------------------------------------------------

Many people jump to conclusions of what Evolution theory states without even reading about it.

This topic came up in the Paltalk room last night with an athiest who was trying to use the evolution theory as a means of saying people came from apes, now having knowledge of what the evolution theory actually was I able to somewhat refute his argument because he could not answer why apes weren't still "evolving into humans" this is because the evolution theory does not teach this.

As stated above Evolution is the change in DNA over time within a population. Now we can all agree that DNA changes because it's evident in people today. People long ago were much shorter than they are at present. This was caused from DNA change.

Anyway that's my little spill about the Evolution theory. And Science isn't the enemy of religion !

God Bless,
Jennie

[Sanvean]

My goodness! So many posts in such a short period of time

Oik,

As a general caveat, I really don't much care either way to know the exact way life came about(shh... don't tell my profs. Not that it matters, my research interests are much more practical.) I find the debate on the topic interesting, but dangerous.

Before my conversion, the only Christians I knew were Protestants of the young earth creationist variety, and they were bent on telling me that evolution is dead wrong and that science is the great enemy of faith. After the study I have put into the matter, I cannot in good conscience agree with those premises. This is the sort of thing that leads large numbers of the pseudo-intellectual youth I know to outright reject the notion of Christianity as a sort of intellectual suicide.

[quote] Right. I think though, if you'll read into my statements in this topic you'll soon realize that I am approaching things from a theological standpoint. Science can not conclusively account for Faith and God, neither does Philosophy. Only Theology accomplishes this.
[/quote]

Thankfully, science does not attempt(at least, not good science) to conclusively accound for Faith and God. However, the facts we scientists dig up about the world around us serve as a most excellent departure point for that leap of faith!

[quote]
Bottom line is that if (the theory of) evolution shows that decisions are made in a predetermined system, then it is bunk. I don't believe that God created a system and then left it to play out with out his involvement. I don't think science and religion are incompatible, I think that Religion ( that is the True Religion, Catholicism) is superior to science. Science helps explain the world around us, but it is limited to good ideas and facts. Facts change, Truth is eternal. Science books, laws, and theories are factual. The Bible and the laws of God are eternal
[/quote]

I also don't believe that God "created a system and then left it to play out with out his involvement". While, I know a few Deists of that variety, but they are really only a small handful. Most of the theories people have on evolution as it relates to the origin of life do not at all require any belief at all related to this notion. I believe that science is a most noble tool, used to ceaselessly search for truth. Through better learning about the world around us, so many of us are able to transcend to knowing the Truth.

[quote] All of them are wrong. [/quote]

My, what a monumental task. Can you prove that? Irregardless, you are quite entitled to believe whatever you like, but that is indeed quite the sweeping generalization.

[quote] lacobus or Sanvean, before you all decide to stop posting, please, please remember two things, hard-heads (that's me) make the best converts and also, I am exremely close-minded ( the purpose of an open mind, it like that of a open mouth, to close it on to something solid.-GK Chesterton) and looooooove to hear other people explain thier views and opinions! Please continue to do so. [/quote]

Oh, I'm not likely to decide to stop posting, although I'm really not interested in making a theistic evolutionist out of you. I enjoy a bit of friendly discussion every now and then, but it's important, I think, to remember that we aren't talking about a belief necessary to salvation(thankfully!). Thus, I'm not much inclined to devoting much energy to the topic, except where it is useful.

As Jennie mentioned, science is indeed one of the most powerful proofs of the existance of God. I've never been entirely clear how one could complete a degree in biology while remaining an atheist. Sadly, it happens.

-Veronica

[Sanvean]

[quote name='StColette' date='Aug 29 2004, 03:05 PM'] This topic came up in the Paltalk room last night with an athiest who was trying to use the evolution theory as a means of saying people came from apes, now having knowledge of what the evolution theory actually was I able to somewhat refute his argument because he could not answer why apes weren't still "evolving into humans" this is because the evolution theory does not teach this.
[/quote]
Jennie,

And I missed it? Sounds like it was great fun.

On of my greatest pet peeves is the way some evolutionists have of completely representing evolution theory

Oh well.

-Veronica

[StColette]

[quote name='Sanvean' date='Aug 29 2004, 02:33 PM'] On of my greatest pet peeves is the way some evolutionists have of completely representing evolution theory
[/quote]
I hear ya girl !! makes me want to ram my head against the wall !! hehe

[Oik]

[quote]As stated above Evolution is the change in DNA over time within a population. Now we can all agree that DNA changes because it's evident in people today. [/quote] See though, he is my point of disagreement. I think the current notion of change is incorrect.

Ex. Explain the idea of Change to God. God does not change, but is eternal, what is change to Him. See, change is a human application to explain an unexplained instance.

[quote]Oxford-English Dictionary:1. a. trans. To put or take another (or others) instead of; to substitute another (or others) for, replace by another (or others); to give up in exchange for something else.[/quote]

The notion of change asserts that a said things becomes something different then is was previously.

However, as Christians, excepting God is becoming more of who we already are. This also applies to creation. The universe is becoming more of what is already is.
There is a scripture that says something like "all creati0on criers out for the sons of God to be revealed." Our True self, (when we die got to Heaven and the new Heaven and Earth deal) is when humanity and the universe see the Sons of God to be revealed.

I am saying notion of "change" is unchristian. We live by Faith, not by sight.

However, science is a good way to understand the intricancies (sp) of the world around us. Here's a good analogy for scientific explainations:
Trying to understand the world around us is like teaching a Gorilla quantum physics and then expecting it to figure the mass of the universe. Sure, maybe if the gorilla can concieve of QP, it might be able to write a few Math problems.

It isn't in vain to study science, however relying on science (without first relying on the Truth of God) for conclusive anything is a false sense of reality.

PS, in the instance that any non-catholics are reading this thread, don't take it personally. This conversation does not exclude anyone, however, understand that my views are based on Catholicism and Absolute Truth. If you do not accept both of these, you probably will disagree. :ph34r:

[StColette]

[quote]See though, he is my point of disagreement. I think the current notion of change is incorrect.[/quote]

You can't deny that your DNA is different from that of your father's DNA or your mother's DNA it is different because you have a combination of both their DNA, this is a change in DNA, you have a completely different DNA structure than the two of them seperately. Does that make any sense ?

Edited August 29, 2004 by StColette

[StColette]

The Church and Evolution

The Catholic Church has never had a problem with "evolution" (as opposed to philosophical Darwinism, which sees man solely as the product of materialist forces). Unlike Luther and Calvin and modem fundamentalists, the Church has never taught that the first chapter of Genesis is meant to teach science. F.J. Sheed writes in his classic Theology and Sanity that the creation account in Genesis,


... tells us of the fact but not of the process: there was an assembling of elements of the material universe, but was it instantaneous, or spread over a considerable space of time? Was it complete in one act, or by stages? Were those elements, for instance, formed into an animal body which as one generation followed another gradually evolved-not, of course, by the ordinary laws of matter but under the special guidance of God-to a point where it was capable of union with a spiritual soul, which God then created and infused into it? The statement in Genesis does not seem actually to exclude this, but it certainly does not say it. Nor has the Church formally said that it is not so....
Pius XII correctly pointed out in the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that the theory of evolution had not been completely proved, but he did not forbid


that the theory of evolution concerning the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter-for Catholic faith obliges us to hold that human souls are immediately created by God-be investigated and discussed by experts as far as the present state of human science and sacred theology allows (no. 36).
In his catechesis on creation given during a series of general audiences in 1986, John Paul 11 provided the following discussion on the first chapter of Genesis:


This text has above all a religious and theological importance. There are not to be sought in it significant elements from the point of view of the natural sciences. Research on the origin and development of individual species in nature does not find in this description any definitive norm.... Indeed, the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis.... It must, however, be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. The doctrine of faith, however, invariably affirms that man's spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings (General Audiences, January 24 and April 16, 1986).


The Church's quarrel with many scientists who call themselves evolutionists is not about evolution itself... but rather about the philosophical materialism that is at the root of so much evolutionary thinking.
The Church's quarrel with many scientists who call themselves evolutionists is not about evolution itself, which may (or may not) have occurred in a non-Darwinian, teleological manner, but rather about the philosophical materialism that is at the root of so much evolutionary thinking. John Paul 11 puts the matter succinctly:


The Church is not afraid of scientific criticism. She distrusts only preconceived opinions that claim to be based on science, but which in reality surreptitiously cause science to depart from its domain.
This remark was aimed at biblical exegetes, but it certainly applies to Darwinian science, which contains hidden philosophical additives.

In the area of theology, the Magisterium has warned against the teachings of the French paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who concocted from evolutionary theory a kind of process theology that, among other things, implicitly denies original sin and the existence of first parents of the human race who differed in kind from whatever may have preceded them. In Humani Generis, Pius XII also condemned polygenism, championed by Teilhard, Rahner and other theologians, which holds that we are descended from multiple ancestors rather than from one historical person named Adam (no. 37).


The Church insists that man is not an accident; that no matter how He went about creating Homo sapiens, God from all eternity intended that man and all creation exist in their present form. Catholics are not obliged to square scientific data with the early verses of Genesis, whose truths-and they are truths, not myths-are expressed in an archaic, pre-scientific Hebrew idiom; and they can look forward with enjoyment and confidence to modem scientific discoveries which, more often than not, raise fundamental questions which science itself cannot answer.

[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html"]http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html[/url]

[Iacobus]

[quote name='StColette' date='Aug 29 2004, 02:05 PM'] Science is not trying to debunk religion in any way. In fact, I'm sure Veronica ( Sanvean ) will agree with me that Science actually is one of the most powerful arguments to uphold the existance of God, you just have to study it correctly. The first thing every Professor will tell you when discussing Evolution is it neither proves nor does it disprove the existance of God. [/quote]
Two things,

Firstly, don't fall into the trap, many people mistake evolution for "How life started." Evolution says "Life was there... than it changed." It says nothing about how life (orginal) started. This isn't directed at anyone, but her mention of Paltalk seems to be of this strain. My history teacher also thinks this. Evolution ONLY is valid if life is pre existing.

Secondly, I feel a line of CMoms sig (which I read every time she posts and can now almost recite from memory, lol I love it, back to the point).

[quote]"Science can purify religion from error and superstition.
Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes" 1987
John Paul the Great[/quote]

And something else that falls into this, Dr. Les Fay told his Bio class this when explaining "What is Science?" *Not seeing my notes so I will summarize.*

[quote]There are no truths in Science. Religion seeks an absoulte truth. Science does not.

Sci ≠ Abs T
Rel = Abs T

No truths is science ∴ you cannot "prove" something.

The role of a scientist is to prove himself "wrong" to better his understanding of the enviroment around him. The role of a religious is to better understand his God from the enviroment around him. ∴ They have differing roles. The Sci cannot use the religious but the religious can use the Sci.

AMDG

The Sci seeks not Truth. Sci seeks understanding. Rel seeks Truth.[/quote]

[StColette]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Aug 29 2004, 05:32 PM'] Firstly, don't fall into the trap, many people mistake evolution for "How life started." Evolution says "Life was there... than it changed." It says nothing about how life (orginal) started. [/quote]
hehe are you telling me don't fall for it ? because I stated that Evolution doens't deal with the origins of creation

[reelguy227]

Doesnt evolution go against what the Church says ? Thats the reason why I dont believe in it.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='StColette' date='Aug 29 2004, 08:16 PM'] hehe are you telling me don't fall for it ? because I stated that Evolution doens't deal with the origins of creation [/quote]
LOL! I wasn't addressing it to you but it sounds like the guy on Paltalk was messed up with that and I know a lot of people are confused about what evolution is.

reelguy227, no it doesn't. The "offical" stance is belive whatever you want provided...

1. You belive God made everything somehow

2. The human recived his soul all at once.

[StColette]

[quote name='reelguy227' date='Aug 29 2004, 08:20 PM'] Doesnt evolution go against what the Church says ? Thats the reason why I dont believe in it. [/quote]
reelguy I posted an article about what the Church says about Evolution read above a few posts.

[reelguy227]

But.....the Church says we are not suppost to believe in evolution from apes ,I know that for sure. Evolution of animals to others im not sure of.

[Aloysius]

clarification to #1:
1. God created everything out of nothing.