The "damnable doctrine" of Charles Darwin

[theHawk]

Nobody is telling you it's a giant leap to question how the initial life form formed. It's a perfectly legitimate subject of inquiry.

Then why all the hostility?

They're telling you that has NO BEARING on the validity of evolutionary theory. Because it doesn't matter what the answer is, it doesn't change anything for evolution.

It was created through a random chemical process? Fine. Then it evolved.

It was magicked into existence by elves? Fine. Then it evolved.

It was engineered by an ancient alien race from another dimension? Fine. THEN IT EVOLVED.

Get it?

Yes I do "get it". What I don't understand, is why evolutionists attack people that suggest God created life. Take the evolutionists' pin-up boy Dawkins for example. He says life could of originated from a metor, or on the backs of crystals, but refuses to accept that God is a possibility.

 

[Sunni Man]

Abiogenesis is the scientific communities theory of magic.

Inorganic material somehow mixed together, and a spark of life magically turned the chemical soup into organic life.

and people accuse creationists and religious people of believing in nonsense and blind faith

Chemicals mixing together and reacting is somehow magic?

To 13th century minds, yes

The best 21st century scientific minds can't do it and never will.

As I said before, abiogenesis is pure nonsense.

Belief in magic is no different from belief in the quack theory of abiogenesis

 

[Setarcos]

Belief in magic is no different than belief in the quack theory of abiogenesis

Yet you believe in magic

and attack others for accepting a scientific hypothesis


Lack of internal consistency is generally a sign that you're, in layman's terms, full of shit.

 

[Sunni Man]

Belief in magic is no different than belief in the quack theory of abiogenesis

Yet you believe in magic

 

[SmarterThanHick]

is it irrational to ask how that first lifeform was first created?

No

Is it irrational to say the two are linked?

linked? no.

Is it irrational for you to insinuate they are the same, or that complete understanding of one is required for the other? Yes. Yes, absolutely.

 

[Father Time]

Nobody is telling you it's a giant leap to question how the initial life form formed. It's a perfectly legitimate subject of inquiry.

Then why all the hostility?

They're telling you that has NO BEARING on the validity of evolutionary theory. Because it doesn't matter what the answer is, it doesn't change anything for evolution.

It was created through a random chemical process? Fine. Then it evolved.

It was magicked into existence by elves? Fine. Then it evolved.

It was engineered by an ancient alien race from another dimension? Fine. THEN IT EVOLVED.

Get it?

Yes I do "get it". What I don't understand, is why evolutionists attack people that suggest God created life. Take the evolutionists' pin-up boy Dawkins for example. He says life could of originated from a metor, or on the backs of crystals, but refuses to accept that God is a possibility.

You'd have to ask them individually, dawkins is extreme in his views about religion and God (he once compared religion to child abuse, and not in a joking exaggeration either) and his views represent mostly his own. There's some evolutionists who believe in God, and the ones that don't are not all are hostile.

 

[Ryan]

I wasn't calling you a liar. If you want to say Charles Darwin influenced several generations, you will find no argument from me. His impact on our scientific knowledge has been immense. His theory has made predictions which time after time have come true. As far as Secular Humanists claiming Evolution is proof that there is no god- I haven't heard that argument from them. You can provide examples if you like, but if they consider that alone is evidence of the absence of god, then they are wrong. It does not rationally follow, which is why Catholics can accept evolution and god.

My source for evolution and Catholicism is the Pope.

You should make time for the rest of my post, since it would save you the time of continuing this thread.

Even if I agreed with you and said Charles Darwin was a rotten bastard and his theory causes people to become genocidal maniacs, it still doesn't affect whether the theory is true or false. We don't get to pick reality according to how we think it should be. I think you read the rest of my post, but didn't want to deal with the reflection of your dishonest arguments.

So answer this: Why do you use the term Darwinist instead of Evolutionist?

This response only concerns your most recent post, I will look at the previous one separately.

You claim that your "source for evolution and Catholicism being the Pope." Now I do have to go back to an earlier post to point out what you stated in that regard.

"Evolution is part of the Catholic belief system as well."

So I guess your source a Pope but you did not specify which Pope although I suspect it was something John Paul II might have said in passing. I wondered if you might cite an encyclical or the Catechism but that was not the case. Since your answer was so vague I cannot address any quote that might back up your statement unless you do provide the details.

My understanding is that the Catholic Church is neutral on the question of evolution. I was born and raised in the Post Vatican II Catholic faith and my experience was the OT was rarely stressed. Anyone else that has a similar background as myself could probably confirm what I say. Prove me wrong, my understanding is the Catholic Church is less concerned about the biological origin of humans, neutral on evolution, and more concerned with the soul. In 2008, the Vatican announced that the belief in extra-terrestrial life is not inconsistent with Catholicism. The distinction just like the question of evolution is that the Church is neutral.

An example of the Catholic belief system is an official writing like an Humanea Vitea Encyclical.

.

Catechism
159. 159. Faith and science: "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....

Pope John Paul II on evolution:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

I stand by my original post and I even specified my original objective of that post when questioned earlier. As I recall, I stated that my original objective was to create awareness about Charles Darwin that I felt was not included in sanitized accounts of the man. I also pointed out that Darwin's theories according to biographers Desmond and Moore were always intended to have a social application. I provided examples, then went on to point out the devastating long term consequences of that social application.

The theory of evolution is a secondary issue to the point I was making and therefore if you read my posts in good faith you would not be asking me why I used the term "Darwinist" instead of "Evolutionist." Later on as the topic expanded in due course I stated several times that I do not deny the process of evolution in general, I question the process specifically in regard to the origin of modern man. I provided several names of well respected researchers of anthropology and some of their views to clarify what I meant by legitimate questioning.

So you meant this to just be a bland history lesson? Your entire point was that Darwin was not above thinking like his contemporaries in regards to race? Anyone with a concept of historical perspective and takes the total body of Darwin's work would realize that he was a bigot by today's standards, but tolerant and compassionate by the standards of his time. He was a staunch abolitionist who believed that all human beings were related.

I notice you didn't provide a lot of examples of Darwin actually advocating the application of his theory to social systems. He never intended his theory to be used that way. He meant his theory to explain the origin of species, thus the title of the book. It's true that he drew upon Malthus' social selection theories for inspiration, but that is not the same as advocating for the application of those theories in society.

For one thing, natural selection is a passive system. If at any point you are culling the weakest from your ranks, then you are engaging in artificial selection, not natural selection.

And if you don't accept the evolutionary origins of man, then you reject the Theory of Evolution, part of which is the common descent of all living things. Can you explain shared endogenous retroviral insertions between man and other animals?

The term Darwinists still doesn't make sense. If you intend it to refer to people who believe in common descent, then you are misusing the term evolution. If you want to selectively choose what you believe, then that makes you the anamoly. The general understanding of an Evolutionist is someone who accepts common descent. I have never met a "Darwinist" since I have never met anyone who believed that Darwin was 100% right on every aspect of his understanding.

So instead of confusing everyone, why don't you define your terms, so that everyone knows exactly what the hell you're talking about.

What have you provided besides your besides your misconceptions? You state at one point that you are not calling me a "liar" and then you go on to calling my "arguments dishonest." Pony up hotshot, you either prove my arguments "dishonest," retract the statement or prove yourself a "liar." Your choice.

Take out a specific quote of mine and make a specific challenge

I have taken a specific quote and challenged it a number of times. You just don't respond. I even linked to the damn thing.

One can be dishonest without telling a lie. For example, if you make what you believe are true statements criticizing Darwin as a racist, and your real purpose is to try to paint everyone who accepts Evolution with the same brush, then you are acting dishonestly without telling a lie.

And your thread is pointless. I have never met any educated person who respects Charles Darwin who doesn't realize that he shared some Victorian views that today we would find appalling. No one believes he was a saint by today's standards.

In contrast, I have only seen those who are critics of Darwin due to religious beliefs who continually, through ignorance or intentional deceit, emphasize his unsavoury views without placing them within historical context. That is not an intellectually honest endeavor and hints at motivations other than simply "educating" people as you seem to claim was your intent.

You stated, "Evolution is part of the Catholic belief system as well." Then you cite an Pope Pius XII encyclical Human Generis as support for your stated position. Here is a portion from a link which you can look up or try to discredit.


"Pope Pius XII, a deeply conservative man, directly addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. The document makes plain the pope’s fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad, and it attacks those persons who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution …explains the origin of all things.” Nonetheless, Pius XII states that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one specie might evolve into another—even if that specie is man. The Pope declared:


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 experiences 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.


In other words, the Pope could live with evolution, so long as the process of “ensouling” humans was left to God. (He also insisted on a role for Adam, whom he believed committed a sin— mysteriously passed along through the “doctrine of original sin”—that has affected all subsequent generations.) Pius XII cautioned, however, that he considered the jury still out on the question of evolution’s validity. It should not be accepted, without more evidence, “as though it were a certain proven doctrine.” (ROA, 81)"


The Vatican's View of Evolution: Pope Paul II and Pope Pius


Now you must understand that Pope Pius encyclical was a statement of neutrality and does not suppport your statement that, "Evolution is part of the Catholic belief system as well."

Then you take a quote of John Paul II speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. John Paul was not speaking "excathedral" and therefore anything he stated is not part of the catechism and his statement was not an encyclical. Nothing stated by John Paul in regard to evolution changed the "Catholic belief system."

Have you considered the writings of Pope Benedict both as a Cardinal and as Pope?

The current Pope as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith in 1994 endoresed a statement to the International Theological Commision that seems to support "intelligent design."

"In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe.

A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.[30]"


None of this has changed Catholic Doctrine, the official position of the Church is neutrality. At this date, 10/9/2009 the Catholic Church is neutral on the role evolution played in the origin of modern man. Certainly if evolution is proven to have been the exclusive force in the developement of modern man I will have no problem with that at all. There are still legitimate questions that first must be answered. That has always been my position.

I just have two questions for you. Do you still hold that, "Evolution is part of the Catholic belief system as well."? Do you contend that the Catholic Church is not neutral on the issue of evolution?



I will try to get to the other responses later.

 

[Setarcos]

Another poster already posted a statement from the Vatican acknowledging that evolution is a fact.

Are you saying the Vatican is confused?

 

[Ryan]

Setarcos, it was not the encyclical by Pope Pius was it that you are referring too? Read up my post covers this and pay attention to the term "excathedra" and Pope Paul. I can see how it confuses but the Catholic Church is neutral.

BTW, Hitler was born Catholic try to avoid his sacrament of Confirmation but his father Alois beat him senseless and forced AH to be confirmed. He like the rest of the Nazi hierarchy(Himmler, Rosenberg, Boerman. Goring, Goebbels et cetera) were varying degress of neo-pagans. I will follow up later including the belt buckle.

 

[Setarcos]

was it ***t you are referring too?

??

 

[rdean]

I can understand debating the data gathered the points to evolution. But debating evolution itself is crazy. All you can seriously debate are the "finer points". Denial, in this case, is just another form of delusion.

 

[Setarcos]

A recently published statement on current scientific knowledge on cosmic evolution and biological evolution from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences concludes: "The extraordinary progress in our understanding of evolution and the place of man in nature should be shared with everyone. ... Furthermore, scientists have a clear responsibility to contribute to the quality of education, especially as regards the subject of evolution." The statement appears in the proceedings of "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life," a plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held from October 31 to November 4, 2008....

Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation ***t the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories," noting ***t there was also wide agreement among the participants on the common ancestry of life on earth. "Evolution," he added, "has acquired the status of established fact...."

The latest on evolution from the Vatican | NCSE

.

 

[gcomeau]

Nobody is telling you it's a giant leap to question how the initial life form formed. It's a perfectly legitimate subject of inquiry.

Then why all the hostility?

Because you weren't listening to people when they tried to explain things to you, and that tends to frustrate.

They're telling you that has NO BEARING on the validity of evolutionary theory. Because it doesn't matter what the answer is, it doesn't change anything for evolution.

It was created through a random chemical process? Fine. Then it evolved.

It was magicked into existence by elves? Fine. Then it evolved.

It was engineered by an ancient alien race from another dimension? Fine. THEN IT EVOLVED.

Get it?

Yes I do "get it". What I don't understand, is why evolutionists attack people that suggest God created life. Take the evolutionists' pin-up boy Dawkins for example. He says life could of originated from a metor, or on the backs of crystals, but refuses to accept that God is a possibility.[/QUOTE]

Probably because there is absolutely not one single tiny shred of evidence in favor of that hypothesis... and because it is an unfalsifiable, and thus totally pointless, proposal.

 

[rdean]

As soon as someone can prove "it's" existence, then God will become part of the scientific equation, until then, just let it fade.

 

[Sunni Man]

Scientists have not been able to disprove the existence of God

 

[gcomeau]

Scientists have not been able to disprove the existence of God

They haven't disproven the existence of gravity fairies either. How relevant do you think that is, exactly?

And one more time now... can you please answer the one simple question I have repeatedly asked you since beginning my explanation of the evidence involved here?

Do you or do you not accept that the information presented so far is valid, or do you take exception to something? (And if so... what?)

The fact that you keep ignoring the question every single time it is asked is starting to signal that you aren't actually interested in the evidence at all. So just answer it already, would you?

 

[Sunni Man]

Look Gcomeau, I am reading each of the stages as you post.

Please continue

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Look Gcomeau, I am reading each of the stages as you post.

Please continue

interpretation: I'm trolling and don't want to answer a simple question as it will hinder my ability to troll further

 

[Sunni Man]

Look Gcomeau, I am reading each of the stages as you post.

Please continue

interpretation: I'm trolling and don't want to answer a simple question as it will hinder my ability to troll further

Actually, you appear to be the one who is trolling.

You just show up out of nowhere.

Don't participate in the thread.

And then accuse me of trolling

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Actually, you appear to be the one who is trolling.

how?

oh, the ultimate troll stopper: asking them to support something. so I guess I can assume you're going to ignore this post and continue trolling other people now?