Posted on 05/09/2005 11:35:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
Went completely over my head Corny..
But I shagged your ball and am inspecting it for defects now..
Kinda wet though.. hmmm
That's because I'm an expert.
donh: "The Pope...accepted Darwinian evolution in 1996... Darwinian evolution, nor any of modern micro-biological discipline (as affirmed by the Pope, incidently), is capable of opposing or supporting the notion that God created the universe...."
What gave you the impression that I was arguing against "MICRO evolution"??? Microevolution is a fact of life.
There's a difference of night and day between micro and Darwinian MACROevolution, however.
"MACROevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.
MICROevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.
The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change?
Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change?
Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking. A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example.
Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics.
While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution.
In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution."
Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887).
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen." - Dr. John Morris
*
This was your pope's position on "evolution":
Quoting the Pope: "....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. ...man... was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). ...
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind 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. ..."
More:
"....... Pope John Paul II, in a General Audience on 24 January 1986, addressed the issue and said that "The theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world, as presented in the Book of Genesis."
Conflicts between the truths of science and the truths of faith, in other words, are only apparent, never real, for both science and faith, the natural world accessible to reason, and the "world" of revelation accessible to faith, have the same author: God.
It makes no difference to faith what precise mechanisms the Creator chose to carry out his divine plan of creation. Being all powerful, and having created everything out of nothing, God could have literally and directly created man out of the slime of the earth, as Genesis describes, or he could have used evolutionary mechanisms which he himself had set in motion. ...
God, in the Pope's and the Church's teaching, would have to have intervened directly in the creation of man because each rational soul is created out of nothing. The soul of man could not have arisen from nature as an accident of evolutionary processes." February 23, 2003 Science and Faith
For my part, I see all the wealth that moves around in the economy being basically recycled - merely changing hands - except for two types: mining and invention.
In that regard I suspect the intention of government was noble to invest in discoveries which would not be subject to patent and copyright law – so that all entrepreneurs could benefit.
The “catch 22” in biology though is that the pharmaceutical companies who would stand to gain the most would rather own the patents (same could be said of other industries) – and thus they want the research on their “nickel” whether by in-house research and development or by buying up smaller companies. There is a similar profit motive in what to develop as is evidenced by the emphasis given to lifestyle enhancers like Viagra over less profitable products such as vaccines.
I’m all for profit motive, capitalism and an ownership society – but here we do have a problem in keeping “invention” moving in areas which are not terribly profitable and also encouraging more “public domain” invention to spur competition for the benefit of the consumer, job growth and such.
So I do believe the government has to have its mitts in the funding of science, but I also believe it is high time the methods of doing it are reviewed - we the taxpayers are not getting our money's worth.
For one thing, the scientists should not have to become accountants to get funded. They ought to be able to form consortiums to take care of the nitty-grit financial matters so they can actually do what they are educated to do.
For another, ‘out of the box’ thinking is necessary to get and stay competitive with science in the old Soviet countries, Asia and such. We cannot rest on our laurels. There needs to be a mechanism for publishing the results of investigations which do not pass the review of the peer reviewed journals in the U.S. Neither Darwin nor Einstein were subjected to peer review and a number of Nobel scientists were rejected in the peer review process.
My last suggestion is that universities should not be the gate keepers for determining the paths that science ought to take. The academic community is altogether biased – politically, ideologically, methodologically – and are therefore tunnel-visioned in understanding what “we the people” want or need to know. The taxpayers are paying for it and ought to have a seat at the table at least to establish priorities.
Anyway, that’s my two cents…
"....... Pope John Paul II, in a General Audience on 24 January 1986, addressed the issue and said that "The theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world, as presented in the Book of Genesis."
Now that is silly. Evolution IS in principle opposed to the truth about creation of the visible world, as presented in the book of Genesis. Why? Because evolution cannot explain how creation came to be. I have no doubt that evolution can happen in the sense that people can become larger by eating better food and so forth. But evolution has no answer for the creation itself. This came from God, as Genesis duly notes.
I don't agree with theistic macroevolutionists any more than I agree with atheistic macroevolutionists.
True, your assesment is much more adult than mine at least less emotional.. I am..... a bit cynical... Oh! alrighty then.. I'm a pissed off ol dog baying at the moon about current political events and issues.. I admit it..
So much so that evolutionary double talk is way way down my list of priority's.. Too old to revolute, I convolute political minutia.. So there.. d;-)
Long winded, and authoritatively sounding as your response is, it is, of course, a grievious misquote followed by orotund gibberish. The Pope did NOT, in any way, support the micro-macro pseudo-scientific argument, as your full quote from the Pope, at the end of your overly-long response shows. There are painfully obvious, fundamental consistencies between all species of living things, and more so between related branches of the tree of life, roughly proportional to their specie's respective distances on the tree. Trying to make an argument that pretends that this is not what scientists see, and base their confidence in evolutionary theory on, is like trying stop a hurricane by peeing to windward.
Galactic astronomers assume that small, galactic behaviors of gravity (which are observed) lead to large, universal macrogravitational effects transmitted through the intergalactic void, where absolutely nothing is observed. When, oh when will the massive fraud of intergalactic gravitational effects, (for which absolutely no contemporarily observed evidence exists) be exposed for the slime ball left wing conspiracy that it is?
Pope John Paul II, in his Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) said:
"It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
Nonsense.
Why? Because evolution cannot explain how creation came to be
Nonsense on stilts. Not being inclined to have an opinion about something in no manner demonstrates that you are opposed to or in favor of it. Science is neutral on the subject of divine intervention. For aught science can say about it, now or ever, divine intervention may be guiding every sperm to it's divinely pre-ordained egg by physically indetectable, supernatural means. Science confines itself to opinions about what can be physically detected.
Nonsense.
Why? Because evolution cannot explain how creation came to be
Nonsense on stilts. Not being inclined to have an opinion about something in no manner demonstrates that you are opposed to or in favor of it. Science is neutral on the subject of divine intervention. For aught science can say about it, now or ever, divine intervention may be guiding every sperm to it's divinely pre-ordained egg by physically indetectable, supernatural means. Science confines itself to opinions about what can be physically detected.
Being a creationist means being able to post fake but accurate quotations.
If you have one, whip it out.
Is it a habit of yours to wait over 4 months to raise a question to a post?
Not really. I clicked on a link in a current thread, and it opened up an old thread. I got caught up reading the old thread and didn't even notice the dates.
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.