Creationism Vs Evolutionism
#41
(07-13-2018, 05:56 AM)AnthonyB Wrote: For starters, Origins science is dominated by atheists who believe billions of years of evolution is an indisputable fact.  I suspect they then "interpret the evidence" of the earth's age to fit this belief, resulting in some very tall tales being told.  The public accepts these stories as fact because they naively think all scientists are objective and honest.

Secondly, if it is actually true that the earth is very old, I think Genesis 1 can be interpreted as the "six days" occuring at a time - perhaps a very long time - after God created the earth (ie, there may have been at least two separate stages of creation).  So the Scriptures may support an old earth, although I believe the "six days of creation" occurred 6000-10000 years ago.

But in the end, I find the whole origins thing very confusing.  I don't trust scientists and I think evolution is an atheist fairy tale.  What Genesis really means I'm not sure, so it's probably best to accept it as a divine mystery.

I'm sure some scientists probably have an atheist worldview and they are not careful to prevent their bias from influencing their research.  However, we're not talking about a handful, even a large handful, of scientists who are distorting the natural record with their views.  We're talking about the entire scientific community.  That would mean that each and every scientist in the requisite fields would have to be atheist and allow their bias to affect their explanations, or those who aren't entirely committed to this biased narrative are all remaining silent.  It is impossible to hold the view that our current scientific narrative of the history of the earth and its origins is largely untrue without subscribing to a massive conspiracy theory.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#42
(07-13-2018, 09:48 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-13-2018, 05:56 AM)AnthonyB Wrote: For starters, Origins science is dominated by atheists who believe billions of years of evolution is an indisputable fact.  I suspect they then "interpret the evidence" of the earth's age to fit this belief, resulting in some very tall tales being told.  The public accepts these stories as fact because they naively think all scientists are objective and honest.

Secondly, if it is actually true that the earth is very old, I think Genesis 1 can be interpreted as the "six days" occuring at a time - perhaps a very long time - after God created the earth (ie, there may have been at least two separate stages of creation).  So the Scriptures may support an old earth, although I believe the "six days of creation" occurred 6000-10000 years ago.

But in the end, I find the whole origins thing very confusing.  I don't trust scientists and I think evolution is an atheist fairy tale.  What Genesis really means I'm not sure, so it's probably best to accept it as a divine mystery.

I'm sure some scientists probably have an atheist worldview and they are not careful to prevent their bias from influencing their research.  However, we're not talking about a handful, even a large handful, of scientists who are distorting the natural record with their views.  We're talking about the entire scientific community.  That would mean that each and every scientist in the requisite fields would have to be atheist and allow their bias to affect their explanations, or those who aren't entirely committed to this biased narrative are all remaining silent.  It is impossible to hold the view that our current scientific narrative of the history of the earth and its origins is largely untrue without subscribing to a massive conspiracy theory.

That’s not true at all. Based on the field you’re in, when you’re a student you are taught what you’re expected to know to get you up to where the field is presently at. You don’t start at square one and re-test everything yourself. You build off of the frameworks that the previous generations handed over to you. So it simply requires an acceptance of the common consensus.
Reply
#43
(07-13-2018, 09:54 AM)Some Guy Wrote: That’s not true at all. Based on the field you’re in, when you’re a student you are taught what you’re expected to know to get you up to where the field is presently at. You don’t start at square one and re-test everything yourself. You build off of the frameworks that the previous generations handed over to you. So it simply requires an acceptance of the common consensus.

Then whenever that framework was created that new scientists are learning from, it would have required all scientists to be on board with the false narrative.

Besides, new scientists are questioning the science they learned ALL the time. Very, very few are questioning the entire evolution/origins paradigm. They occasionally question a particular leg of it. So even today's scientists would have to be complicit to refuse to even question the glaring truth that evangelical, armchair scientists are able to deduce on their own.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#44
(07-13-2018, 11:43 AM)Melkite Wrote: Then whenever that framework was created that new scientists are learning from, it would have required all scientists to be on board with the false narrative.

Besides, new scientists are questioning the science they learned ALL the time.  Very, very few are questioning the entire evolution/origins paradigm.  They occasionally question a particular leg of it.  So even today's scientists would have to be complicit to refuse to even question the glaring truth that evangelical, armchair scientists are able to deduce on their own.

There are scientists that question it, just like there are scientists who disagree with the narrative of global cooling global warming climate change. There's no shortage of books questioning evolution. But if you're a biologist and it becomes known you're a creationist, you're going to get fired if possible, or at least not going to get funding, or shunned by the community and excluded from publishing and conferences. You end up like the guy at Google who asked if perhaps there are fewer women in STEM fields because women are less interested in science and maths. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but now he's unemployed and likely unhireable in the liberal tech industry.

It's professional suicide to question evolution. But why should they, when the clergy keep telling us there's no conflict? Maybe if they just keep researching, the next discovery will be the one to answer all the questions. And just like judges do when they have to follow precedent that they disagree with, they find a way to outwardly toe the line while personally disagreeing. I suspect - and I've read some books on the topic that say this - that many evolutionists will privately admit problems with the theory, but they'll be accused of being creationists if they publicly question it. And once labelled as a creationist, even if the scientist in question says he isn't and insists he believes that life arose from non-living matter and God had nothing to do with it, he's treated as a religious nut and excluded. Questioning evolution is heresy, according to modern, secular dogma, and heretics must be destroyed. Maybe we don't literally burn them anymore, but their careers are figuratively torched.
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • cassini, Some Guy
Reply
#45
(01-16-2018, 09:03 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Well since MaryLover asked for a debate on Creationism v. Evolutionism; I shall play the role of advocat diablo.  I will state this, I hold a preference over the Creationist hypothesis strictly as a Christian, but I am wholly indifferent to this issue and do not have any prejudices accepting Evolution as the basis for our existence, provided it does not conflict with Teachings of the Faith.  I will do my best to advocate Evolution, despite being entirely indifferent, as well as wholly ignorant, on the matter, as well as a slight preference for Creationism at the time of this writing.

Since the great saint Fulton Sheen always began his work by calling upon the Holy Family for guidance and wisdom, I shall honor him and call the Holy Family to guide me as well.

JMJ


Evolution v. Evolutionism

Allow me first to make one point clear as I begin my introduction in support of Evolution as the explanation of the origin of our physical species.  We must first make the clearest distinction that when I speak in favor of Evolution as an explanation, it must not proceed beyond that.  There appears to be two meanings when we refer to Evolution: Evolution as the explanation for the origin of life on Earth, and Evolution as the philosophy that makes their own definitive statements that permeates throughout much of academia and our culture.  In the words of C.S. Lewis, whom I assume needs no formal introduction, had this to say about the distinctions of Evolution and Evolutionism.

Quote:We must sharply distinguish between Evolution as a biological theorem and popular Evolutionism or Developmentalism which is certainly a Myth...To the biologist Evolution…covers more of the facts than any other hypothesis at present on the market and is therefore to be accepted unless, or until, some new supposal can be shown to cover still more facts with even fewer assumptions…It makes no cosmic statements, no metaphysical statements, no eschatological statements.
- C.S. Lewis “The Funeral of a Great Myth.” Christian Reflections.'

Now that it has been settled that I will be discussing Evolution the theory, and not Evolution the philosophical school, let us begin approaching this subject.  I will primarily be using the University of California-Berkeley website on Evolution, as my guide and primary resource.


What is Evolution, simply put it is the biological descent with modification.  This encompasses what is enumerated as small-scale evolution, in which focuses on gene modifications from one population to the next; and large-scale evolution, in which focuses on the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations.  Evolution does not entail changes over time ranging from deciduous or erosion, as they do not entail descent through genetic inheritance.  Evolution proposes that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor.  It should not be considered controversial to at least agree that all living things have at least one thing in common with their Creator, which is life; therefore, if we all have in common life, and we all share in having similarities to one another from either skeletons, to limbs, to simply the elemental compounds that form us, then it should be no dreadful conclusion to presume that we would have a common ancestor.

Evolution points that all forms of life have a history and has changed overtime, but that each species contains similarities between their common ancestors, as stated previously.  When we categorize birds, as man naturally does with his intellect, we notice that there are commonalities, as well as differences.  We know that for example a honeybee and a hawk have wings and are able to fly; both share two unique characteristics that are not found in most animals, and yet, they are also strikingly different from each other.  However when we compare a hawk to a falcon, we notice that the differences are much less notable.  Both look identical to each other, yet their characteristics are much different. Hawks hunt with their feet, Falcons their beaks. However both look and function similar to each other, and yet when their DNA is examined, they are completely different. Evolution explains these similar but different birds of prey in saying that they at one point had a common ancestor, just like I could say to someone in Russia, that I share a common ancestor with them.  The most suitable explanation for these similarities and differences is that these animals share a common ancestor but by way of natural selection and/or gene mutation, they have evolved to a different species of bird.  While having many things in common, but clear differences.  How else can we explain the chicken which has every characteristic of a bird, yet is commonly known as a land creature.

In fact, we all can (even Creationists) agree that all humans on Earth share a common ancestor with both Adam and Eve, and Noah, and yet evolution can explain how we have common ancestry with them, but not with the majority of Cain's descendants as they were lost in the Deluge.  In this case, we can point to Natural Selection as the answer why Seth's genes survived in with us via his kin, but neither did Cain or Able's.  All traits we gain are from Seth's lineage and if there were any changes in the descendants of Cain, then they no longer exist in us.

With the discovery of genetics by Brother Gregor Mendel and further supported with the discovery of the structure of DNA by scientists Watson and Crick, we now have the basic blueprints for physical lifeforms that all living things on Earth all share.  



Is Evolution against the Teachings of Church?

The Angelic Doctor Saint Augustine in his tract against the Manicheans says in response in regards to Scripture on whether one should take all as figuratively or as a faithful account that must be defended; quote: "No Christian, I mean, will have the nerve to say that they should not be taken in a figurative sense, if he pays attention to what the Apostle says: All these things, however, happened among them in figure (1 Cor 10:11)."

There are numerous examples in Sacred Scripture that were meant to be taken figuratively, as opposed to a statement of fact. For example, when Scripture says in Genesis that, And they shall be two in one flesh (Gn 2:24), we know that it does not mean that two bodies physically merge into one, neither the soul, but that they are bound to each other in the Sacrament that exists unto death.  Therefore we should consider reading Genesis in terms of cosmological summary of events, as opposed to an actual explanation of what happened.

In Scripture the Angelic Doctor asserts that in Genesis that the first came water, then plants, and of the animal kingdom came from the sea and from that sea creatures as well as birds, followed by land animals and then finally man.  We know from reading Genesis this to be the case.  We also read that God made man from the "slime of the Earth".  How are these events different from modern theory of Evolution that also states first came earth, followed by water, then plant-life followed by animals, with man being the latest creation.  Although there is a difference between Genesis and Evolution as to what came first land animals or birds, Evolution is open to correction as long as a fossil is found with bird-like qualities that pre-dates the earliest land animal fossil.

It is important to state that the Church has never condemned Evolution from the biological scientific point, but only the atheistic theory.  Numerous early Church Fathers took a figurative view of Genesis.  Origen and and Clement both argued that one should not take the days of Genesis literally as there was no time, since without Earth and moon, sun, and skies...there's no way to calculate a day.  We know that Augustine did not take a literal interpretation of Genesis and Augustine cautioned that no single interpretation be asserted of Genesis in fear that a future argument proves the prior interpretation fallible and thus be used as a weapon of infidels to mock us.

Moving on to the other Angelic Doctor St Thomas of Aquinas, echoing Saint Augustine had this to say about narrow interpretations.

Quote:First, that the truth of Scripture be held without wavering. Second, that since sacred Scripture can be explained in many ways, one should adhere to no explanation so precipitously that he would [still] presume to assert this understanding of Scripture [even if] it were [later] agreed, because of a certain argument, that this position is wrong—lest Scripture be mocked by unbelievers because of this, and the way of believing be blocked for them.
- ST I.68.1

Lastly to sum up with Pope Pius XII on his encyclical Humani Generis
Quote:36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

St Pope John Paul II went on to declare that new findings are revealing evolution to be more than a hypothesis, but stressed once again against dubious concluscions

Quote:Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

Hi! I especially focused on the last part of your response. The writings of the Church you cited are what I have been sticking to through my years as a Biology major in college.
I think that, as Catholics and Christians, we need to be careful about fleeing science. It gives no glory to God to believe everything every Creationist book preaches. Why not try instead to see God's hand in evolution? Or is God unable to use scientific ways to form his creatures? Doesn't he use science in most of his creation?
Maybe Evolution exists on all scales or maybe not but we need to stop seeing this as a "religious" issue. God may have evolved the physical forms of many species-even man-but only He placed the soul inside. 
Science deals with the body; religion with the soul. 
It makes sense the two came about differently.
The Owl Is Watching
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)