The Theological Correctness of Evolution

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='Kismet' date='Feb 2 2006, 01:54 PM']…but you offered an insult and a judgment and you still haven't explained your views. You wish to judge but you shy away when your opponent judges you.

As to my opinions about conservative Catholics, you do not sway me. First stop everyone else from posting false, close-minded and insulting comments about liberal Catholics and THEN we will discuss my opinions and how your feelings are hurt.
[right][snapback]873261[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I will try to get past any insults we have made towards each other and make a clear response.

I guess I can explain what I believe. First thing, I am not what you describe as a conservative Catholic. I think that your definition of conservative Catholic is an inaccurate description of most self-labeled conservative Catholics and is more in line with how political conservatives are often described with their "this is how we've always done things" approach. There are conservative Latin Mass attending Catholics who have an open mind to hear other Catholic opinion.

Also, I had no idea that this was a debate considering it's been posted in Open Mic when we have a board set aside for debate. What is the debate here about? Conservative Catholics vs. orthodox Catholics? Creationism vs. Evolution?

Theology cannot prove Evolution correct. Only science can prove if Evolution is correct. My belief on Evolution is about the same as it is towards Newtonian Physics. It's a big step from philosophy to science, but it still is a flawed theory. Einstein showed how Newton was wrong, through no fault of his own. I conjecture that someday Darwin will have his Einstein come along and topple his Theory of Evolution. I have a problem with so many people taking Darwin and his theory to be the source of truth when really evolution is just a description - and probably an imprefect description - of what the Divine Logos has created. Just as the precession of Mercury doesn't happen because of the development of a theory, neither did our world come about because of the development of a theory. All scientific knowledge we have is directed toward explaining how the world works, but it will never be able to explain the irreducible why.

[Kismet]

Points of Information:

1) There are no modern biologists or anthropologists who label themselves as "Darwinian." It is a failed and flawed theoretical construct. It is flawed, among other reasons because it offers no logical mechanism for the transmission of the "acquired traits" Darwin wrote about in his "Origin of Species." It was only after the Austrian Augustinian monk, Gregory Mendel (1822-1884) performed his genetic experiments did Darwinism have its much needed mechanism,

2) Though some people, mostly non-scientists, refer to it as the "Theory of Evolution" it is, in fact, "The Paradigm of Evolution." That is, there might be disagreements amongst professional biologists and anthropologists as to minor interpretations and largely insignificant or misinterpreted


You are correct in that the philosophy of science runs from hypothesis to inconsistency to actual anomalies to new hypothesis to new paradigm but, as Kuhn and Popper have pointed out, the point to science and the evolution of human intellectual history is not to develop "negatively," that is, to greater and greater numbers of anomalies and inconsistencies. Science moved from the Copernican system (heliocentric universe) overthrew the Ptolemaic (geocentric) one, and Newtonian physics was replaced by Relativity and Quantum Physics. Soon, the latter will be replaced by Unified Field Theory.

There is no scientific advancement that suggests that we could be completely off the mark with science and that creationism is actually the proper explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Why? Because it would be the equivalent of going back to Ptolemaic science. What would be so wrong with that? Because it would instantly cause more problems than it would explain.

Science advances because it address inconsistencies in data and outright anomalies. Creationism has too many inconsistencies in data and outright anomalies built-in that have never been addressed. It will never be real science.

And, for those that think that doesn't matter, please explain comparative embryology in terms of creationism. As a Catholic Christian, I believe that evolution was and is the tool that God used to create and maintain the universe. I will point out that the noted paleontologist and Jesuit priest, Teilhard de Chardin agreed.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Kismet' date='Feb 2 2006, 04:17 PM']Points of Information:

1) There are no modern biologists or anthropologists who label themselves as "Darwinian." It is a failed and flawed theoretical construct. It is flawed, among other reasons because it offers no logical mechanism for the transmission of the "acquired traits" Darwin wrote about in his "Origin of Species." It was only after the Austrian Augustinian monk, Gregory Mendel (1822-1884) performed his genetic experiments did Darwinism have its much needed mechanism,

2) Though some people, mostly non-scientists, refer to it as the "Theory of Evolution" it is, in fact, "The Paradigm of Evolution." That is, there might be disagreements amongst professional biologists and anthropologists as to minor interpretations and largely insignificant or misinterpreted
You are correct in that the philosophy of science runs from hypothesis to inconsistency to actual anomalies to new hypothesis to new paradigm but, as Kuhn and Popper have pointed out, the point to science and the evolution of human intellectual history is not to develop "negatively," that is, to greater and greater numbers of anomalies and inconsistencies. Science moved from the Copernican system (heliocentric universe) overthrew the Ptolemaic (geocentric) one, and Newtonian physics was replaced by Relativity and Quantum Physics. Soon, the latter will be replaced by Unified Field Theory.

There is no scientific advancement that suggests that we could be completely off the mark with science and that creationism is actually the proper explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Why? Because it would be the equivalent of going back to Ptolemaic science. What would be so wrong with that? Because it would instantly cause more problems than it would explain.

Science advances because it address inconsistencies in data and outright  anomalies. Creationism has too many inconsistencies in data and outright anomalies built-in that have never been addressed. It will never be real science.

And, for those that think that doesn't matter, please explain comparative embryology in terms of creationism. As a Catholic Christian, I believe that evolution was and is the tool that God used to create and maintain the universe. I will point out that the noted paleontologist and Jesuit priest, Teilhard de Chardin agreed.
[right][snapback]873358[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Amen to that!

And this probably should be moved over to the debate table.....

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Kismet' date='Feb 2 2006, 01:32 PM']I've taught biological anthropology on the university level on three continents for many years...it is you, instead, that doesn't know of what he speaks...
[right][snapback]873116[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If, in this day and age, a professorship stood for anything of a truth value, I might consider that a reason to take caution.



I don't believe you know whom you're addressing (and I mean Brother Adam, not myself, as I am an intellectual weakling).

In any event, Adam is stubborn as a mule. You won't win a debate with him because he will never concede, nor will he run out of sources from which to draw.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Kismet' date='Feb 2 2006, 04:17 PM']I will point out that the noted paleontologist and Jesuit priest, Teilhard de Chardin agreed.
[right][snapback]873358[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Wasn't he denounced as a heretic?

Either way, you can't take as serious a "scholar" who claims that man is evolving into God.

[God's Errand Girl]

[quote name='Kismet' date='Feb 2 2006, 12:32 PM']I've taught biological anthropology on the university level on three continents for many years...it is you, instead, that doesn't know of what he speaks...
[right][snapback]873116[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Even if you have the truth, Christ calls you to speak it in love.

[Kismet]

[quote name='God's Errand Girl' date='Feb 2 2006, 04:59 PM']Even if you have the truth, Christ calls you to speak it in love.
[right][snapback]873522[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Exactly correct...but why didn't you write that to the person who uncharitably said that I didn't know what I was talking about?

I find too many people on this site to be very hypocritical. People making ad hominem attacks and insisting that their views alone are correct. People condemning opinions different from their own but who balk when people attack theirs. I was told that I couldn't express my opinion because I had only been on the site for a year. I've been criticized for posting as I do and told that I don't have the credentials to express an opinion and then when I do declare the field in which I hold an expertise, I'm told that I was rude or prideful. That's insanity. One can't win. I've stopped being demure and now dish out criticism as well as I previously had taken it.

The point to Catholicism is to be a saint; to be perfect like the Father (Matthew 5:48.) If you can't manage sainthood then don't piss and whine about the others who similarly can't make it. We are to follow Christ's Gospel of love towards each other and refrain above all from judging each other. It's ridiculous to criticize me and simultaneously ignore the nonsense that goes on here. Aloysius, for example, is proud to tout his homophobia! This is Christianity?! This is what Christ's Church is about? The Church's opinion about homosexuality is clear and there may or may not be discussion of this issue but the Church is similarly clear about how it condemns stupidity and hate-filled thinking. Does Aloysius, or anyone who refused to condemn his brand of stupidity and hatred, really believe that when they stand before God on Judgment Day, that He would "give extra points" for hating or being sacred of gays (or anyone else for that matter!?) I'm sorry….I'm too orthodox to believe nonsense like that. Hate the sin, love the sinner? Anyone who wishes to hate a sin, please feel free to post your sins so that the rest of us can follow Aloysius' stupidity, close-mindedness and anti-Christianity. Pride? Hubris? Lies? List them herein so that we can condemn you for the life of sin you've chosen for yourself. Are there those who can honestly cast stones? (John 8:7) in that case, you're probably the Messiah. If so, step up and introduce yourself. But, of course, if you hate, then you can't be a very Christian and obviously you've only deluded yourself into thinking you're the Messiah. If you're not the Messiah then you've lost the right to judge or hate others. Christ never demanded the right to hate sinners. Why do you dare usurp a right that God Himself would never ask for?

As to the nonsense that Catholics are human and we allowed to have our faults, I tell you now….let me be the first to enjoy this forgiveness and utter humanity. Let me have my opinions and be free of your judgments and whining. Accept the humanity of those who disagree with you (eg liberal and moderate Catholics) and refrain from insulting them…unless, of course, you've found a loophole in the Bible that gives you alone the right to judge others.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Kismet' date='Feb 2 2006, 01:55 PM'] ad hominem attacks
[/quote]
I love that this term is brought into practically every debate & argument in here.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Kismet' date='Feb 3 2006, 01:49 AM']ad hominem attacks
[/quote]
ooh! ooh! A second time! And we're still only on one page!
Although, both have been uttered by Kismet, so I'm not sure if that counts. Did I miss another one?

[Snarf]

Père Pierre Teilhard de Chardin had interesting views on original sin, and for this he was silenced by being sent to China on some sort of mission. Nobody went through the effort of making a heretic out of him formally, as far as I know.

[Era Might]

[deleted]

Edited February 3, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[deleted]

I need to renounce the Internet.

Edited February 3, 2006 by Era Might