Posted on 11/18/2012 6:18:07 AM PST by GonzoII
Why is it “Creationism” and not “Creation”?
Why is it “Evolution” and not “Evolutionism”?
Framing the argument the way the author did implies a bias.
Isn’t the most logical explanation that it is both
As I read the article, I realized the author believes that God created.
However, we who believe that God created must not succumb to the terminology of the evolutionists.
Creationists often slam evolution as being "only a theory." But in science, isn't a theory an assumption that is backed by considerable evidence, such as the theory of relativity or the atomic theory?
The universe was created, and evolution is an ongoing process within that creation.
> an assumption that is backed by considerable evidence
With evidence, interpretation is everything.
See http://www.wiebefamily.org/e.pdf
Well, if I read the article right, it is stating there is no evidence for the "theory" in this case.
"Giving due weight to the data of faith and to scientific discoveries about the evolution of species, Catholic theology is not opposed to the idea that God could have infused a soul into an already-existing being, having previously prepared a body to suit it, thereby making it a 'man'. This way of explaining things is called 'moderate evolutionism'."In this connection, John Paul II, in his 22 October 1996 message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, after recalling the teachings of Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis, pointed out that recent advances in scholarship 'lead one no longer to regard the theory of evolution as a mere hypothesis'.
"But at the same time he said that there is not just one 'theory of evolution' but a number of such theories, and he indicated which ones are contrary to faith: 'The theories of evolution which, in line with the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit as something that emerges from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man'".
No. The theory of evolution is clearly contradicted by Scripture.
The Bible teaches that suffering and death came about as a result of sin, and the fall of man. Evolution teaches that bloodshed, pain, and death existed for millions of years before mankind showed up.
Humans are a relatively recent arrival on the evolutionary timetable. But in the book of Matthew (19:4-6), these are the words of Jesus:
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
If both, which came first? While I semi-agree with you, it also lends itself to the chicken-egg type arguments - every living things needs a way to reproduce before it can endure/evolve else it would expire during the first generation. For evolution without creation, the odds against a grand accidental mixing of heat and chemicals grows substantially in that life would have had to have arisen from the mixture with the built-in ability to reproduce.
Good observation.
Given also the fact that every living thing goes through the same process (seed to germinaton to plant, and etc), it's hard to believe that evolution is not a fact.
Just because stars form through natural processes doesn’t mean that God did not create those stars. The author of this is a small minded blind fool setting up propaganda and straw men arguments because his faith is a small and weak pitiful thing that demands that God did things the way he can easily imagine.
False dichotomy, or reason?
I think you went off the map. I didn't see any thing of the kind.
I think this author makes a lot of unsupported assumption. The example of the microvilli is an example. Isn’t it possible that the humans with the closer spaced microvilli survived and the ones with further spaced ones died out. Also new bacteria are evolving all the time and the intestines are not the only way they can enter the body. When a new strain of bacteria develops it is sometimes more lethal and then it changes to be less lethal otherwise it would kill all of its hosts. And those people who’s immune systems are unable to fight it off die while those with better immune systems survive to pass on their genes.
As for there being no transitional fossils, I saved this from another thread on this subject when someone else provided it.
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
I don’t see why it has to be either/ or. Many people see evidence that the universe was created by an intelligence and there is also lots of evidence for the process of evolution. Why can’t both be true.
And maybe the scripture is wrong. Will you consider that? How does a book written thousands of years ago and full of arbitrary claims become the standard by which science is judged?
But isn't that a natural fixed process whereby each species produces its kind, where do we see the fish produce or evolve into bird or whatnot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.