Sure. But I think Jan is trying to say that there is a scientific problem with evolution--that what we believe lacks supporting evidence. Though he hasn't been able to qualify this charge. To those who see God at the head of evolution, the scientific theory isn't a problem. They've reconciled their faith with science by accepting God's diminished role in Creation. Jan, on the other hand, is just repeating unscientific bunk that he's learned from fundamentalist Youtube videos and similar websites. None of it is original thought; it's all propaganda.
Jan has shared his views pretty clearly in his "Darwinist" thread, the most important point of his being the crux of the thread -- one can't be both a supporter of Darwinian evolution and a believer in God. In my exchanges with Jan, it would seem that he sees no need to reconcile his faith with science, on this point.
His rationale for such a claim was extremely convoluted. Something to the effect of "Because evolution does not require a God, therefore theism is incompatible with it." Which is absurd, obviously. Jan can't reconcile science with theism because he doesn't seem to understand either.
Billy T, What I believe, is not on the table, at this moment in time. We are getting to grips with what you believe, by trying to see this whole phenomenon (including our observing selves) as nothing but products of 'material nature'. All you need to know about me is that I am a theist All musics are constructs of the mind. It is purely materialistic. What isn't materialistic is the ability/desire. Give 1000 individuals the musical composition to play, and not one of them will be exact with another, and we don't need scientists to work that out. While the ''construct'' will be exactly the same (providing the individual players are competent), the interpretations will all differ. jan.
Would you say your knowledge of DE is as complete as say, an evolutionary biologist? NO?.. I hear you say. But yet you accept DE. Right? You don't see a flaw in it. Right? But you are not in possession of what it is in it's entirety. Don't worry, there are lot's of people like you who accept it, but know hardly anything about it (if anything). They may be able to talk in a way that leads you to believe that these are rational, intelligent people, who now accept the truth and discard the fairytale. But the truth is they don't have much of a clue. Do you think that people like Balerion, or (Q) would charge anybody who believed in DE, with being scientifically illerate? jan.
This is hugely ironic, Jan, since you are yourself scientifically illiterate. Darwinian evolution isn't even a thing. It's just called evolution. This is a false distinction you've made, and certainly not one based on science. Why don't you tell wegs what's wrong with evolution? If you want to convince her of the truth of your position, then you shouldn't be afraid to explain yourself.
Well, I'm merely a lay(woman) who accepts the evidence used to support the theory of evolution. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Interestingly, I've always been the type who desires to know the theorist behind the theory. During the past few years and probably more so over the past year, I've researched more about Darwin and how he systematically denounced Christianity and then his belief in God. It is in learning about Darwin (as a person), that I've developed a more thorough understanding of evolution. And when I was a believer, I thought it possible to believe that God orchestrated evolution, as many theists believe. But, evolution conflicts too deeply with religion and faith. The part that I couldn't reconcile with evolution was that faith proposes that God infused man with a soul, while evolution not only doesn't support that assertion, but offers nothing about it. When we look at evolution as believers or not, that aspect of evolution is what becomes the pivotal point in evolution vs faith based discussions. That aspect of evolution isn't talked about much in these conversations, but it really becomes the deciding factor for whether a believer can fully embrace evolution or not. I don't think a believer can accept evolution in its entirety, therefore. Just going out on a limb, having chatted with you Jan about this topic, you seem less caught up in disproving scientific reasoning behind evolution as much as it just is a theory that collides with what you believe, in terms of your faith. And having been a Christian myself, I completely understand why that would be true.
Here's what I find odd. I don't see where there needs to be any issue between those who believe in God and science. A religion that can't embrace continuing to gain knowledge is not a valid religion (IMO). If there is a God surely one can't really pretend to know what day he created the Earth or how. These aren't things that can be known. When most religions were started they weren't anti-knowledge. They embraced the knowledge of their times. It's a mistake (IMO) for them not to now embrace the knowledge of our times. One can believe in God and science by just believing that he gave us "science" and the natural world and however we find it works. No one is arguing that their "faith" doesn't allow for them to accept anything other than a flat Earth and one that the universe revolves around. Why should evolution be any different?
At the of the day, if someone believes in God, God will win out over science. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It is that simple. (IF science causes said believer to be conflicted with his/her faith.) For those who claim to be religious scientists, they would have to be lukewarm on both fronts. When it comes to evolution, for a believer to support it completely, he would have to discard the part of his faith that conflicts with it. And vice versa. (Note: I'm speaking with regard to the Abrahamic faiths only, for I'm not sure how other religions conflict (if at all?) with certain aspects of evolution) Interesting comment that you think Jan doesn't understand theism? Hmmm. You have some 'spraining to do on that one lol, because it would seem his beliefs are of utmost importance to his world view. (Not trying to speak for you, Jan. lol Just things I've gleaned from exchanges with you.)
Ah, but if we are talking about say Christianity, evolution directly conflicts with some significant aspects of the Bible's teachings on the origin of man. It's not something a scientific Christian can ignore. I hear you, but the Bible is unfortunately still a book that many Christians cling to as literal truth. The Catholic Church states that it "accepts" evolution but how can it in its entirety, if the Church teaches that God gave man a soul, and evolution doesn't support that. In coinciding with the theory of evolution, the Catholic Church teaches that human beings are "special," and that they have "souls," and that this doesn't conflict with a naturalist view of evolution. Lol, yes it does. If you do a quick history search on the Catholic Church's position on evolution when the theory first emerged, it vehemently rejected it.
That's what's wrong with "faith"...pretending to know what you don't/can't know Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! See all the problems that it causes! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! People say, "who does it hurt...I'm a moderate and not an extremist"...this is where the harm comes in Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The dumbing down of society should concern everyone Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It really isn't that simple, though. Unless you're suggesting that the entirety of the Catholic Church is "lukewarm" in their faith...? Religion may not be adaptive, but people certainly are. The Catholic Church realized that it needed to get with the program or become irrelevant. Evolution is so ubiquitous, if you ask most people who call themselves believers, they simply assume God caused it, completely bypassing any conflict and assuming the two ideas are perfectly compatible. And they are, so long as you keep God where he belongs--in the realm of the unknown and unknowable. That may be too much of a concession for some, but others don't have any problem with it. After all, evolution is reality. It can't be denied rationally, and rational people know this. And he'd tell you (in fact, I'm sure he's told you already) that his beliefs aren't beliefs at all. What he means by this, exactly, he won't say, but the claim alone is enough to give you an idea of how murky Jan is on the subject. He also swears that people who convert from theism to atheism were never theists to begin with, which may be just an attempt to win an argument, but who really knows?
@ Balerion; Understand your point. But, does the Catholic Church accept evolution in its entirety? No, it doesn't. If you read the Catholic Church's view of evolution, it looks to be modified (for lack of a better word) to "fit" around Church teachings rather than the Church simply "accepting" evolution, as is. I imagine the Church's desire to appear "with the program," forced its hand to having to face the difficult questions that science presents to it. Evolution shouldn't be a dilemma however, to any religious organization interested in pursuing truth. So, I guess "adding in" the bit about God created man to be "special" and with "souls," allows for an acceptable definition of evolution to be thrust upon Catholics by a Church who wants to stay "with the program," yet not appear like it's turning on its own dogma. This is me agreeing with you but irritated that people think the Church accepts evolution, and they use it as an example of a Christian organization that is "with the program," but the Catholic Church does NOT accept evolution at face value. Because it can't without rejecting its own dogma. I don't believe (?) there is any Christian denomination that accepts and supports evolution in its entirety.
I'm not that far into it, but even if it [the Catholic church] has modified it somewhat, I would ask to what degree? Of course they have to add the concept of a soul after man evolved from the Ape, but I would expect that. On the other hand though, I'm pretty sure that things like the Adam and Eve scenario are not now taken as Gospel by the church itself..... The same goes for the BB....The church could not just remain resolute in their beliefs with the mountains of evidence.....and yes of course they modify it somewhat to imply that which scientists do not understand, is the work of God..... They had to also shift from the flat Earth scenario and the geocentric picture for the same reasons, and change/modify some minor beliefs.
Great points, but why won't the Catholic Church accept the naturalist definition of evolution? Putting it another way, an atheist wouldn't accept the Catholic Church's "view" of evolution. But, an atheist doesn't have a moral dilemma with accepting evolution as is, the Catholic Church does. Evolution has nothing to do with the spiritual realm or souls. Evolution as we know it, doesn't support those ideas, because they are religious ideas. So, for evolution to be universal, the theory as put forth by Darwin needs to stand as is. Yes? Many Christian fundamentalists reject evolution completely, and I can't help but wonder if this is one of those areas between religion and science that taking such a stance at least appears authentic. The Catholic Church wants popular approval, yet it needs to stay faithful to its own teachings. It seems disingenuous to me, as compared to the hard line some fundamentalists take with evolution . And they are often ridiculed for their beliefs, but at least they take a solid religious stand as to why they reject Darwinism.
Really can't argue with any of your points, other then to say, to be fair to the Catholic church and the Vatican, even accepting a modified version of Evolution, means that they do recognise science while evidence supports a scenario... I wonder how much more they will be required to shift ground when we have an observable validated QGT? Now that will be interesting.
Actually, that's not true. The Catholic Church takes evolution as a whole, and simply tacks on God at the start. Churches change their dogma frequently. Used to be, unbaptized babies went to purgatory. Now they go right to heaven. Woah, what changed? The Church's mind. It's really that simple. You're a bit behind the times, wegs. The Church accepts evolution as a fact. Their additions to it do nothing to change the science or the implications of it.
lol No, I'm not behind the times, I think it's just difficult in a few posts to clearly demonstrate where I'm coming from, relating to the RCC's stance on evolution. So, I thought this would be beneficial to see where I'm coming from, as it points to precisely what you're stating in terms of the RCC's stance on evolution from a scientific perspective, (and I don't disagree) but you will see where the conflicts enter in. Please read, and let me know what you take away from it. http://www.ewtn.com/library/humanity/evolutn.txt [Basically, the Catholic Church teaches that Genesis is a historical account of man, not a scientific process, of how man came to be. Unlike many Fundamentalist Christians, who believe Genesis serves as both a historical account of the origin of man, AND a scientific one. Therefore, Genesis doesn't conflict with the theory of evolution in any way, for a Catholic. Hmmm...] You're right that ''Churches'' change their dogma at times, but what does that say about the dogma to begin with? Point being, if any religion needs to modify its teachings in order to favor or support science, then the teachings themselves can't be based on objective truth. (that's kind of my point) In this case, the Catholic Church avoids the elephant in the room, which has been and always will be...Genesis. Fundamenalists reject evolution largely due to their literal belief in Genesis conflicting with evolution. The Catholic Church touts itself as an 'authority' on interpreting Scripture, so how does this work if one is not Catholic, but is Christian? This is why it seems all well and good at first glance that the Catholic Church seems to accept evolution, but does it honestly, without a whole lot of side stepping? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS--The above piece is really very good, and probably one of the more thorough views of the Catholic Church's position on evolution.
There's alot you haven't thought about, and there are things you don't wish to think about. Wegs, nothing that I have discussed with you requires faith, or belief. I could be an atheist and still come to those conclusions. It's all about comprehending what the scriptures are saying, not from any particular POV. You also think that I am displaying faith despite me explaining to you that faith is not a requirement to the comprehension of scriptures. IOW, you are adamant regardless of the facts. What would it take for you to conclude that DE is not true? Apart from what you've read, what do you know about Charles Darwin? Why is this the case? What have you learned about him that makes you believe we all evolved from goo? They don't believe it, because it isn't connected to us. By that I mean you have to be fed the information over and over, then you accept it. If you don't accept it, you are percieved as anti-science, irrational, dumb, moronic, and all other descriptions people don't want to be associated with. It is the same pattern with all institutional religions. You are still a ''believer'', but you've ''change sides'', moved with the times. No doubt, whatever development is made with this dominent belief system, you will accept, on the basis that the people disseminating the information know what they're talking about, not that you believe what they are saying. What's the alternative? That's because it's designed to. The next stage in this belief is to convince it's followers that belief in God (even if He exists) is a futile excercise. That you may as well not believe in Him because He doesn't do anything. He's already played His role of starting the universe, His one and only role. And for that reason it will never be talked about without the interference of certain types of atheists. They will disrupt it. Once again, anything I've discussed with you does not require faith or belief. I think you keep bringing this up for your own piece of mind. Take a lookaround, there is no discussion on what makes DE correct. At best you'll get a load of technical jargon, at worst they will throw links at you. Anyone who steps outside of the ''programme'' (Balerion's term. One thing we agree on), is seen as a betrayer. You'll find that there is no discussion on it, outside of affirmations, and competition. This is because it has no real substance. What do you think will happen when, after generations, God is all but a distant memory (if that). Do you think everyone will be happy? jan.
