Theory of Evolution

[hierochloe]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 4 2005, 01:29 AM']Evolution says we came out of nothing for no reason..[/quote]
No it doesn't say that.

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 4 2005, 01:29 AM']Evolution has no form whatsoever that announces or even trys to prove a Intelligent Designer (God); in any shape or form period[/quote]
Why should it? it's not within the realm of science to attempt to prove God.

[cappie]

[b]Pell ´agnostic´ on intelligent design [/b]

Cardinal George Pell has said that while the theory of evolution is compatible with the church's teaching, it is sometimes taught "in an anti-God way" and he'd "be happy for [science teachers] to talk about design or intelligent design [ID]".

Cardinal Pell told the Weekend Australian that science cannot infer that there is a designer, hat is the business of philosophy.

The paper's feature was responding to news that, in coming weeks, science students at Sydney's Pacific Hills Christian School will begin learning about this theory that challenges much that conventional science says about the origin of life. Education, Science and Training Minister Brendan Nelson has supported the teaching of ID.

It quoted Australia's world-renowned physicist Paul Davies, who described ID is codswallop, not science but creationism in disguise.

The paper also quoted Fr Andrew Hamilton, publisher of the Jesuits' Eureka Street, who said science will "see off" the ID argument, but for religion it is dangerous.

"It makes God dependent on scientific evidence," he said. "You are locking God into being a discernible actor within the world rather than the principal on which the world depends. You're domesticating God."

It is, he suggests, more about the search for security than truth. "[With faith] you don't have the security of absolute proof, it's always a move into the unknown," he says.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 4 2005, 06:23 PM']
Why should it? it's not within the realm of science to attempt to prove God.
[right][snapback]710899[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Because it is precisely that science's theory on origin's is structured in such a way as to attempt to disprove God.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Sep 4 2005, 08:02 PM']Because it is precisely that science's theory on origin's is structured in such a way as to attempt to disprove God.
[right][snapback]711026[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't see it that way in the least. It doesn't even come remotely close to disproving God. To say that was the intent of the design of most of these theories is ludicrous. Just because it conflicts with the biblical version of creation doesn't mean it attempts to disprove God.

[White Knight]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 4 2005, 05:23 PM']No it doesn't say that.
Why should it? it's not within the realm of science to attempt to prove God.
[right][snapback]710899[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, Evolution does claim that our existance occured by Blind chance, that this was and is a once in a lifetime ordeal, that nothing to this extreme will ever happen again. With Evolutions complex nature, it says all this happens by random chance, well to produce our EXTACTNESS in every detail our existance could not have occured to this intense detail. Something tells us that there Has to be a Intelligent Designer, to construct our existance.


Evolution denines God, it has never in its 120 years of existance it has ever tryed to claim that there is Intelligent Designer, its been claiming randomness all this time, Well let me tell you something, Randomness cannot come up with this detail to the extactness of everything. It just is impossible.


[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 4 2005, 09:13 PM']I don't see it that way in the least. It doesn't even come remotely close to disproving God. To say that was the intent of the design of most of these theories is ludicrous. Just because it conflicts with the biblical version of creation doesn't mean it attempts to disprove God.
[right][snapback]711099[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


By its never self claiming basis of never trying to Prove God in anyway or even mention Him, in anything, is a Sign of God Denining Logic.

Edited September 5, 2005 by White Knight

[oakleyswitch]

i totally love monkeys

[hierochloe]

The theory of evolution does not deny God, nor does the concept of the Big Bang. That's like saying the lottery denies God because the winner is determined by chance.

[avemaria40]

Maybe God created us through evolution b/c the Big Bang had to have a Force behind it and evolution makes no sense at all unless Someone wanted life on this planet and maybe He started with little prokaryotic cells but He was working towards His greatest Creation.

Edited September 5, 2005 by avemaria40

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 5 2005, 06:20 AM']The theory of evolution does not deny God, nor does the concept of the Big Bang. That's like saying the lottery denies God because the winner is determined by chance.
[right][snapback]711664[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Unfortunately evolutionists do not share your view about the theory of evolution. All of the points Oik brought up are valid. Evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

[track2004]

Well as far as I've heard, the Pope (at least JPII) said you could believe in evolution, so evidently they aren't as incompatable as you're saying Bro.

[Oik]

It is correct to say that JPII eluded to the fact that one can subscribe to a theory of Evolution if that theory does not, at it's core attempt, or from it's content indeed lead to the exclyusion of God (the Atheistic view).

Futhermore, Deism and other -isms that would conclude that God has little or no role in the creation of Man and/or God doesn't, from the beginning to eternity interact with man, have been condemned by the Church.


So, if you want to get technical, Atheistic Evolution is incompatible for obvious reasons.

Theistic Evolution in it's varying explanation (while there are maybe only three or four) is in some senses flawed.


If God created a process to create our bodies, then in a way this admits of a kind of Deism, from the physical aspect of humanity. It places Evolution inbetween God and man.
Even here, this is incompatible with even the Theistic evolutionists claim in Genesis with God making man out the clay. When God makes man out of clay, HE forges man, HE molds man, HE is the processor.

Theistic evolution, indeed, re-creates Evolution as the molder for it implies that God controls the process indirectly (or directly), though immediately, in relation to man, it is Evolution that forms man's flesh.


This in incompatible with Catholicism, it is incompatible with all Christianity. It is simply anti-Biblical.



What the Church would allow in Theistic Evolution is if evolution created the clay for which God was to mold man.

Really though, is this evolution? Evolution theorizes that it is the changes over a period of time that develop into evolution.

With God, changes in reguards to the human person are irrelevant. What I mean to say is, it makes no difference (here I am NOT stating God's opinion) to God whether or not a mountain has snow or not, that fact doesn't play a role(in the sense of God's creation, not in a sense of utility) in whether or not my body is fashioned the way it is.


Objections:

I can see where some might say that environment plays a role in God fashioning the human body with certain features (for instance, if God placed adam and eve in the cold, it is possible that Adam and Eve would have had long hair instead of sghort hair). Here, though, understand that I am NOT speaking in a manner of utility (that is hair length to serve a purpose, ie, keeping me warm). I am speaking here about what defines me as a person.

Why? As human beings, we are BODYSOUL. So, the body is important, the soul is important.

Evolution cannot account for the bodysoul relation.

This in and of itself does not discount Evolution. What is does do though is that it allows us, as Christians to look to Theology and Philosophy (philosopy that is compatible with Christianity of course).

He is where Evolution fails. The seat of wisdom of the theory (I don't mean this in a mocking sense, I mean it in the scientific sense) of Evolution goes back to empirical evidence.

Simply though, Man is not merely empirical.
Why? You may observe me only from the perspective of an outsider. You are not me, I am me.

However, you, as a human being are self-reflective. You (or I) can be aware of ourselves, being aware of ourselves.

This aspect of humanity is simply incompatible with Evolution.

As for Theistic evoltuion, I have given my response. Theistic evoltuion is, in the structural sense, inefficent (which has nothing to do with anything).
Theistic evolution, in terms of roles, becomes creationism when God is directly involved and it become Anti-Christian (or Anti-God) when Evolution is the means which created man's body.

Why? As I mentioned before, God molded man for clay. It was God's hands that create.

God Bless,
Chelsea

[Oik]

bump

[Brother Adam]

[White Knight]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 5 2005, 05:20 AM']The theory of evolution does not deny God, nor does the concept of the Big Bang. That's like saying the lottery denies God because the winner is determined by chance.
[right][snapback]711664[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I'm afriad it does.

[Oik]

I can see the point that is being expressed White Knight. I think the distinction is whether or not science intentionally sets out to deny God or not. Sometimes it does. Other times it comes to conclusions that might lead one to to deny God's existence. Still other times, the conclusions point to God's existence.

As for me, I am neither Evolutionist nor Creationist (am sympathetic to Creationism ,of course, for it is 100% compatible with the Faith).

Edited September 6, 2005 by Oik