Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[tw]

The Pope is infallible? Not according to actions of the current 'infallible' pope. From the NY Times of 24 Jan 2009:

Pope Reinstates Four Excommunicated Bishops
The four reinstated men are members of the Society of St. Pius X, which was founded by a French archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, in 1970 as a protest against the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, also called Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre made the men bishops in unsanctioned consecrations in Switzerland in 1988, prompting the immediate excommunication of all five by Pope John Paul II.

Later that year, Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, sought to regularize the church’s relationship with the society. And as pope, he has made reinstating the Lefebvrists an important personal cause.

Appreciate the statements that caused these bishops to be excommunicated by an infallible pope.

Pope Benedict XVI, reaching out to the far-right of the Roman Catholic Church, revoked the excommunications of four schismatic bishops on Saturday, including one whose comments denying the Holocaust have provoked outrage. ...

Among the men reinstated Saturday was Richard Williamson, a British-born cleric who in an interview last week said he did not believe that six million Jews died in the Nazi gas chambers. He has also given interviews saying that the United States government staged the Sept. 11 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan. ...

Indeed, even though the Society has given no public signs that it would reverse its rejection of Vatican II, one Vatican official, speaking on condition of anonymity on Saturday because talks were continuing, said that the Vatican was willing to discuss making the group a personal prelature. Pope John Paul II did the same with another conservative group, Opus Dei.

In a public statement Saturday, the Vatican said that the pope would reconsider whether to formally affirm the four men as full bishops, but it referred to the men by that title. It said talks would seek to resolve the “open questions” in the church’s relationship with the society.

Either Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict is wrong. One was fallible. Religion's premise (that underpins that entire religion) is really speculation. Religion re-labels as theory what science defines as speculation - also called junk science. Religion's theory is even contradicted by experimental evidence: an infallible pope made a mistake.

There is no 'theory' of creationism. That speculation uses the same reasoning that says a pope is infallible. To have a theory, one must first have sufficient evidence that the theory even exists. Experimental evidence even suggests creationism is false.

Even the concept of a soul is nothing more than wild speculation. No different from the same logic that proved Saddam had WMDs. We feel Saddam had WMDs. Therefore that is a fact? We feel that god created woman from a man's rib. Therefore that is a fact? Hardly. It does not even meet the definition of theory.

The only man and only woman had two sons. So how did they have grandsons. Did Cain or Abel do their mother? Or did they do their unmentioned sisters? Or maybe religious 'facts' and 'theories' are really nothing more than parables or fairy tales?

Religion is full of beliefs that even contradict knowledge and reality – that even justified massacres. This is why religion is only a relationship between one man and his god(s). Nothing more. No wonder the fallible pope is somehow still infallible.

[richlevy]

There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'. With this kind of rigid dogmatism mixed with realpolitik, picking up the worst of both worlds, they may be right.

Unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer Holocaust survivors walking around with their numbers still tattooed on their arms to remind us. It's possible that people will forget, especially if the current pope chooses expediency and condones the denial of what happened. Considering the fact that he himself experienced the Holocaust from the other side, you would think he would be able to correct these idiots.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp

[tw]

As Pico and ME noted:

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

I have my own theory about how this usually starts with people and tried to express it in another discussion, but was accused of attacking someones 'faith' when you got into the discussion.

Another fundamental problem with beliefs based only in speculation: the believer has no reason to justify (be confident in) their belief. A believer must fall back to emotional attachment and outbursts. A resulting emotional suspicion and cynicism redefines those questions, instead, as an attack. Why? Religion should only be a relationship between one and his god(s). Therefore anyone else's questions or doubts are completely irrelevant - harm no one - insult no one.

Does religion also not teach to turn the other cheek? Of course. One secure in his own religion is never threatened or insulted - if religion is really only about that man / god(s) relationship.

Religious beliefs don't meet the definition of 'theory'. Religious rhetoric (ie the pope is infallible or that virgins await martyrs) only meets the definition of wild speculation or junk science. And yet the religious will even violate their sixth commandment to ‘defend’ their religion from threats that only ask damning questions and that threaten no one.

"What is a god?" The question broke down into the inevitable problem - what is a fact and how do we know anything? Why would people confuse a 'theory' called evolution with 'wild speculation' called creationism? Creationism is defined by the same reasoning that also proved "The Force". No wonder religious leaders in the early days of Star Wars called it a pagan religion. “The Force” was a potential religion and therefore a threat. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed so that Luke Skywalker could save the universe.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by richlevy

There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'. With this kind of rigid dogmatism mixed with realpolitik, picking up the worst of both worlds, they may be right.

I've been easing away from the church for some time. For me Benedict is my last Pope. This obscenity just reinforces my decision.

[Phage0070]

"From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos, as the religion according to reason...It has always defined men, all men without distinction, as creatures and images of God, proclaiming for them...the same dignity. In this connection, the Enlightenment is of Christian origin and it is no accident that it was born precisely and exclusively in the realm of the Christian faith....It was and is the merit of the Enlightenment to have again proposed these original values of Christianity and of having given back to reason its own voice... Today, this should be precisely [Christianity's] philosophical strength, in so far as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not other than a 'sub-product,' on occasion even harmful of its development—or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its criterion and goal...In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the Logos, from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational." -- Pope Benedict XVI

The Pope makes an interesting argument here, which has some interesting consequences to the original topic. Basically what he seems to be saying is that the widespread concept of rational thinking arose in Western society and so is of exclusively Christian origin. He goes on to say that it is important for Christians to maintain that reality is the way it is for a reason, rather than reason being a byproduct of existence. Thus, he concludes that Christians should be open to rational thought.

From this we can deduce the following: Not only should a Catholic be open to the reasonable explanations provided by evolutionary science but they should base their entire belief system on reason. In my view the Pope is basically shooting the Catholic faith in the foot because faith is, by definition, unreasonable. Thoughts?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

The Pope makes an interesting argument here, which has some interesting consequences to the original topic. Basically what he seems to be saying is that the widespread concept of rational thinking arose in Western society and so is of exclusively Christian origin. He goes on to say that it is important for Christians to maintain that reality is the way it is for a reason, rather than reason being a byproduct of existence. Thus, he concludes that Christians should be open to rational thought.

From this we can deduce the following: Not only should a Catholic be open to the reasonable explanations provided by evolutionary science but they should base their entire belief system on reason. In my view the Pope is basically shooting the Catholic faith in the foot because faith is, by definition, unreasonable. Thoughts?

Rational thinking exclusively Christian origin? humph. What about the Greeks? Or the Egyptians? Or any other myriad ancient cultures that predate Christianity?

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by richlevy

There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'.

Wow - just like Doctor Who!

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'.

Originally Posted by Griff

For me Benedict is my last Pope. This obscenity just reinforces my decision.

See. Elect a black man as president and the world comes to an end. Now to find proof in a bible.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by tw

Does religion also not teach to turn the other cheek?

Not all religions do, no.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

From this we can deduce the following: Not only should a Catholic be open to the reasonable explanations provided by evolutionary science but they should base their entire belief system on reason.

"Evolutionary Science" does not provide a reasonable explanation for how the universe explodes out of nothing, how life is created from non life, or how amoebas evolve into men.

The evidences that "Evolutionary Scientists" use can be reasonably proved to be at least open to question (the speed of light, carbon dating), fraudulent (Lucy) or outright wrong (gillslits in foetii, moth experiments).

Origins is a religious discussion, regardless of which side you're on.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

"Evolutionary Science" does not provide a reasonable explanation for how the universe explodes out of nothing, how life is created from non life, or how amoebas evolve into men.

This is only partially correct. Evolutionary science provides a reasonable explanation for only the last thing you listed, "how amoebas evolve into men". It does not explain the other things you listed simply because it is not meant to explain such things. You are confusing religion which is designed to be an all-encompassing explanation with science which limits itself to explaining observations.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

The evidences that "Evolutionary Scientists" use can be reasonably proved to be at least open to question (the speed of light, carbon dating), fraudulent (Lucy) or outright wrong (gillslits in foetii, moth experiments).

This is true; by the very nature of basing their findings on evidence scientists leave the foundations of their theories open to question. Evidence can be open to question, fraudulent, wrong... or even completely accurate. This is the strength of science and logic; we can examine various ideas and determine if they are correct or not. This lends long-standing scientific principles significant credibility.

Compare this to religion which bases their beliefs on faith; faith is not open to question at all. Faith cannot be reasonably proved to be *anything* because it deliberately violates the requirements of reason. This is the fundamental weakness of religion; we cannot examine various ideas and determine if they are correct or not. This lends long-standing religious principles significant doubt.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Origins is a religious discussion, regardless of which side you're on.

This is not correct. There are fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the methods of thinking between religious and scientific people, so it may be that a discussion of origins between two such people becomes two different discussions altogether. However, origins can and is approached from a scientific angle frequently.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

Evolutionary science provides a reasonable explanation for only the last thing you listed, "how amoebas evolve into men".

No, it doesn't.

It does not explain the other things you listed simply because it is not meant to explain such things.

How can you explain "amoebas to men" evolution without explaining how the amoeba got there, how the planet formed, and how the universe formed? It's ALL origins theory.

You are confusing religion which is designed to be an all-encompassing explanation with science which limits itself to explaining observations.

Ok, observations....like...current evolution? Like...the big bang? Like the fact no scientist has ever seen a star born? Like how a leg bone in the desert has been observed procreating and you can tell what color it's skin was and what it ate, based on a LEG bone???

True science limits itself to the scientific theory, which is observable, documentable, and repeatable. Therefore, any origins theory is NOT scientific since it does not qualify under any of those.

This is true; by the very nature of basing their findings on evidence scientists leave the foundations of their theories open to question.

Then tell me why this theory is CONSTANTLY treated as fact and MANY people have been blackballed for questioning it?

Evidence can be open to question, fraudulent, wrong... or even completely accurate. This is the strength of science and logic; we can examine various ideas and determine if they are correct or not. This lends long-standing scientific principles significant credibility.

Unless these theories are proven wrong, but the ideas are still left in the textbooks and our children are indoctrinated in lies. When you attempt to point out that the idea in question is false, you're labeled as "one of those Creationist kooks" and not taken seriously.

Compare this to religion which bases their beliefs on faith;

I base my beliefs on a collection of manuscripts that have more fragments (over 25,000) that all say the same thing. It is historically and scientifically accurate, as far as anyone has been able to determine.

Because I was not there at the time those events occured, I have faith that those 25,000 fragments that have been compared to each other by the best scientific minds out there are true, accurate representations of the events as they occured. But I concede it's faith.

It is also faith to believe that the universe exploded from nothing, that non life arises from life, and that ANY life form can somehow magically evolve into another with all the interdependant working parts just happening to mutate all at once. That is faith too.

faith is not open to question at all.

Sure it is. Christians are called in the bible to have an answer for their faith.

Faith cannot be reasonably proved to be *anything* because it deliberately violates the requirements of reason. This is the fundamental weakness of religion; we cannot examine various ideas and determine if they are correct or not.

Of course you can, and you should. You can have intellectual conversations about religions, and discuss all the different aspects of it. That's called philosophy. Determining correctness or "rightness" of these ideas is a matter of culture and perspective, but they can most certainly be discussed and not taken for granted.

This lends long-standing religious principles significant doubt.

I disagree (depending on the principles you would like to discuss).

This is not correct. There are fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the methods of thinking between religious and scientific people

There are MANY scientists who were/are religious, and many of them are people that we hold up as "fathers" and "scholars" of their branches.

so it may be that a discussion of origins between two such people becomes two different discussions altogether.

Or, it can be that the evidence that we can observe can be interpreted in multiple ways that make reasonable sense, if you are willing to admit your interpretation could be wrong. It's all about your starting presuppositions.

However, origins can and is approached from a scientific angle frequently.

Not if one uses "observable, demonstratable and repeatable" as the basis of their theories.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

The battle ground is the theory of evolution. The underlying theme of the battle is whether or not God is or God is not. Not wether or not evolution is a workable theory or not.

That question can not be answered by the theory of evolution. I think it is misguided to use things such as the theory of evolution to prove or disprove God.

God either is, or God is not. As far as I can tell this is a very personal matter. It is also misguided for a believer to get all in a huff over a non believers status as a non believer.

Young Earth Creationists believe that God created the heavens and the earth, all the water and land and plants and animals and humans, etc in 6 twenty four hour days. They get their information from one source: the Bible.

Progressive Creationists (and Intelligent Design folks) Think there is a desiger God who created the universe using the various scientific laws, and let those laws work to make all life, etc. They try to take man created ideas and mash them together with Biblical ideas so that everyone can be happy.

The battle is really this: Either Creation is true or it is not. Evolution as a stand alone idea (even if I wasn't one of those Creationist nutters) doesn't work when you examine it critically. But lets compare the two:

Creation:
God made the earth FOR humans, and He made all the animals and made humans stewards of the whole thing, to take care of.
He made the earth perfect.
He gave humans free will, and they screwed it all up
Screwing it all up was the first instance of sin, which is what brought death and decay to the world.
The dumbass people didn't learn, and a big flood came and wiped out everyone but a family on a big boat.
The dumbass people still didn't learn and so the Creator decided to come down to the Creation and walk about in their form, and show them how to do it, at the same time, creating a way for these dumbasses to hang out with him after their time here.

God Created the world, it's his, we're just (supposed be) taking care of it while we're here. He made it for us, specifically. We are unique.
Since he created it, (and us), he knows more than we do, and we are answerable to him.
How you live your live matters, because wherever you go after you die, you'll be there alot longer than you'll be here.
Man was prior to death.
There is an absolute right or wrong.




Evolution:
Something exploded out of nothing. It was only by an astronomically large number chance that even an amino acid simply popped into existance (in a soup that is death to amino acids, by the way.)
Millions of deaths (and years) later, another one (again, against astronomical odds) simply popped into existance in the toxic soup. Supposedly, this happened enough that those magical amino acids (all of which were spinning the wrong way) suddenly fused together in the soup and some how figured out how to make a working cell wall and mitochondrial cells and energy transporation routes. This continued for billions of years, against ALL odds and logical thought.

Nothing created anything, it's all random chance.
There could be billions of other intelligent life forms in the universe who all happened to have the same unfathomably small odds of evolving too.
Humans are answerable to no one. They are the top of the food chain. There is nothing, no power greater.
How you live your life doesn't matter, because this is all there is.
Death created man.
There are no absolutes. It's all random chance.

The two ideas are diametrically opposed in every way. The war is between God and the Devil, the human mind is the battleground, and the prize is our souls (look up Nephesh for who/what has a soul and who/what doesn't).

[HungLikeJesus]

So, by your description, if we find life on other planets, this proves there is no god?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

How can you explain "amoebas to men" evolution without explaining how the amoeba got there, how the planet formed, and how the universe formed?

Much more clearly and succinctly.

Just like you can explain "water to ice" without going back to the creation of oxygen molecules by fusion in stars, which then allows hydrogen to oxidize, creating water. That is interesting, and worthy of study in its own right, but it's not part of the freezing process.