Posted on 08/11/2006 11:54:04 AM PDT by presidio9
Well, thanks for your analysis. Atheism is definitely a belief system, as you suggest. It is not a religion.
Actually, it's the single-celled prokaryotes I find the most challenging. The amount of genetic structure and biochemistry that they have in common with humans is substantial, while they are chemically/structurally virtually unrelated to any non-living material. Once gene replication gets going, I have no problem seeing how it could progress quickly. It's how it could have gotten going at all in the time frame geologists give for Earth's existence, that is mathematically impossible to explain. I strongly suspect that the simplest life forms arrived here from somewhere else, which could have happened either by natural means, or by deliberate action on the part of a previously evolved intelligent life form.
"A billion Catholics have no problem believing in both God and the theory of natural selection as an explanation for observed biological evolution. I would never attempt to claim that Pope John Paul II didn't believe in God, yet clearly he stated that the theory of natural selection was both compatible with Catholic belief, and supported by the preponderance of scientific evidence." ~ DNA-RNA-AA
Actually he qualified his remarks:
First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.
Theories of Evolution
John Paul II Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
Excerpt:
"...And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God willed for itself."
In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity, and self- giving with his peers.
St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created. But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity.
All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable.
The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual is not the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans. ...."
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:o8JURpdB4ukJ:www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html+John+paul+theories+of+evolution&hl=en
It's comical that lack of "grasp" of genetics is mentioned in this context. Genetics was actually born to creationism - when a Catholic monk Gregor Mendel was searching for an explanation of the phenomenon of life. Darwinism is the most impotent "scientific" theory on record - it created nothing, has no achievements, is able to predict nothing and hardly explains anything.
You completely mistated what I said;
Evolution makes nature seem unfair and capitalistic. Thus the pitch for a safe government to MAKE everyone equal resonates all the more! Thus the reason ALL liberals beleive evolution AND in the need for a massive government to save people from themselves [nature].
As a sef-described Catholic, why aren't you in line with the Vatican's stance on evolution?
"..OK so you say that either you believe in God and no evolution or you believe in Evolution and no God? .." ~ aft_lizard
I think that the fact that most scientists - especially in biology - today are atheists - is the reason Christians aren't willing to listen to anything they have to say.
Francis Collins admits it takes great courage to admit to being a Christian among most of his colleagues in science today. He makes that point in the audio link I'm providing beelow. He also makes this point:
"You can't reason yourself all the way to faith. You can get there to the sense that faith is more plausible than atheism, and I would argue that atheism is the least rational of all choices because that assumes that you know enough to assume the possibility of God." [end quote]
Must We Have a Separation of Church and Science?
Listen here...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5617850
Talk of the Nation, August 4, 2006 · Can a world class scientist also be a devout Christian? Some big names in science say "absolutely." But balancing a scientific career with religious beliefs does involve some challenges.
Guests
Francis Collins, author The Language of God; director, National Human Genome Research Institute (National Institutes of Health)
Owen Gingerich, author, God's Universe (forthcoming from Harvard University Press); senior astronomer emeritus, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory; research professor emeritus (astronomy and history of science) Harvard University
Whatta crock.
I don't think it's a wise tactic for you to give the Scopes trial as an exeample of a "scientific inquisition," since Scopes was on trial for teaching evolution, not the other way round.
I believe its important for scientific advancement to have a large body of scientists being skeptic, if that means the skepticism is based on religion,then thats just as well because religion can be a powerful motivator
Since a large part of the rest of Western Civilization is bordering on extinction, it doesn't really matter what they think.
bump for later...
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.