Posted on 10/01/2005 5:09:27 PM PDT by NYer
EXCEPT for the robes and the fact that each is addressed as "His Holiness," it would be hard to find much in common between Pope Benedict XVI and Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama. Yet both have recently expressed an unhappiness with evolutionary science that would be a comfort to the Pennsylvania school board now in a court fight over its requirement that the hypothesis of a creator be part of the science curriculum.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Dry-clean your tuxedo. The Nobel committee will doubtless soon be in touch.
" "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution"
is not a
"recently expressed.. unhappiness with evolutionary science"
unless the Pope is a nominalist.
I became Catholic because I rejected nominalism so I hope he really doesn't have this view.
Actually, evolution theory says that through the process of reproduction, heritable difference, and natural selection, an interbreeding population gradually changes to adapt to environmental situations it's confronted with (such as war/predators, disease, starvation, and various natural disasters) and whenever circumstances cause a population to split into two separate and completely isolated groups, each group will adapt to different environmental situations in unique ways until they eventually become so different that they no longer interbreed should they come back into contact with each other later. Thus, the origin of species.
The charlatan psuedo-science BS you're cut and pasting from various rabid anti-evolution resources is completely dishonest and contrary to both science and the Christian religion you claim to believe in. If you spent as much time reading a real science book as you do internet trash, you'd stand a better chance of actually knowing something.
Well, NOW we're outside of my league, for sure!
But on the other hand, human beings are extraordinary, because we CAN think about concepts like "eternity" and "immortality" and "infinity" and even "pi" and "the perfect circle": things which actually do not exist in the physical universe. That intriguingly suggests that we have some "aptitude" for things outside of time and space, although it does leave your head buzzing like a little too much beer.
What I've heard, is this: it's not that God doesn't experience time at all, it's that He experiences it all at once. We're like people driving a car down a road. We can only experience the spot where we are. God is like a person on a high hillside looking down on the road and seeing the whole thing at a glance.
What that does to "before" and "after," "cause and "effect," I do not know.
I don't think it's true that there's no "concept" of time to God. He made Time and Space; they are His creatures. So He understands them thoroughly; He shaped them with precision calibration to be exactly what they are.
You mentioned before --- rather touchingly, I thought --- that you could sympathize with a lonely, bored god who would create a Universe capable of surprising him. A tender picture, to be sure, but surely you're missing something about the nature of God.
God is not a singleton. God is a Trinity: that is, three persons with one undivided essence. You may wonder how this can be, and why it makes a difference, but it makes a big difference indeed.
For one thing, God is love. An isolate cannot love; unadulterated self-love is a monstrosity which does not deserve the name of love at all. Love needs at least a subject, verb, and object. This is one way to understand the Trinity: God is, from all eternity, a community of Persons. What are they doing for all eternity? Loving.
So God didn't have to create the Universe because of loneliness or boredom, or any need at all. It was sheer overwhelming wild superfluous generosity. He wanted to show forth His glory: beauty, light, splendor. He wanted more beings capable to appreciating this. More Beloveds. Neutrinos. Quasars. DNA. Me. You.
I'm not convinced our wishes alter reality. Haven't seen it work yet.
| by Nathan Zachary | by Randall Niles |
| Since Darwin put forth his original theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of evolutionary transition found thus far in the fossil record. In Darwin's own words, if his theory of "macro-evolution" were true, we would see a vast number of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. However, we see none -- not one true transitional specimen has ever been found. | Since Darwin put forth his original theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of evolutionary transition found thus far in the fossil record. In Darwin’s own words, if his theory of “macro-evolution” were true, we would see a vast number of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. However, we see none – not one true transitional specimen has ever been found. |
| Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin's theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. | Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin’s theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. |
| Author Luther Sunderland saw the problems with the fossil record, so he determined to get the definitive answer from the top museums themselves. Sunderland interviewed five respected museum officials, recognized authorities in their individual fields of study, including representatives from the American Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and the British Museum of Natural History. None of the five officials were able to offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that document the transformation of one Kind of plant or animal into another. | Author Luther Sunderland saw the same issue, so he determined to get the definitive answer from the top museums themselves. Sunderland interviewed five respected museum officials, recognized authorities in their individual fields of study, including representatives from the American Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and the British Museum of Natural History. None of the five officials were able to offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that document the transformation of one Kind of plant or animal into another. |
| Therefore, based on Darwin's own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn't happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800's, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn't provide the support Darwin himself required. | OK, I just wanted to complete that loop. In my research, I haven’t found even one transitional fossil. Therefore, based on Darwin’s own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn’t happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800’s, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn’t provide the support Darwin himself required. |
| Remarkably, the SETI project, a multi-billion dollar effort to scan the cosmos for some indication of intelligence, is based on one simple notion. If we find radio waves that contain any type of ordered sequence of sounds, then we've discovered intelligence somewhere in the universe! Think about that? The whole premise of these scientists is that you can't have ordered sound (such as the blips and dashes in a Morse code transmission) without an intelligent force behind them. In the case of evolution theory however, rather than admit the theory is flawed beyond repair, they ignore the evidence of inteligent design to protect their religion. | Remarkably, the SETI project, a multi-billion dollar effort to scan the cosmos for some indication of intelligence, is based on one simple notion. If we find radio waves that contain any type of ordered sequence of sounds, then we’ve discovered intelligence somewhere in the universe! Think about that? The whole premise of these scientists is that you can’t have ordered sound (such as the blips and dashes in a Morse code transmission) without an intelligent force behind them. To me, that’s huge! |
Yes, that's a scenario that seems to remove some contradictions or absurdities.What I've heard, is this: it's not that God doesn't experience time at all, it's that He experiences it all at once. We're like people driving a car down a road. We can only experience the spot where we are. God is like a person on a high hillside looking down on the road and seeing the whole thing at a glance.
What that does to "before" and "after," "cause and "effect," I do not know.
Now, here's a weird result of that: If God sees the march of time in our universe as a whole like a timeline laid out in front of him, then if he interacts with us at all, he must make a change at a spot on the timeline, thus changing it hopefully to something with a better result. But the previous timeline is presumably just as real as the new timeline. So the old timeline, without any divine, intervention, has played out in its entirety. But then God steps in and changes time - and just like the time-traveller scenario where you change a timeline - the whole "storyline" gets eliminated in favor of the new one. The old storyline, including every good & bad thing that happened in it, disappears like it never happened.
So, what if God decides to intervene in our timeline's past? Say, he decides to thwart 9/11. Well, that's great, but then we, and everything we thought, felt, & did since 9/11 will disappear. It's the same as in the traditional time-traveller scenario: The chrononaut goes back in time to save the world/big city from the disaster/atrocity, but everything his colleagues & everyone else did in the intervening time gets erased. Very weird, if nothing else.
Interestingly, if this model is true (of God seeing time as a timeline laid out in front of him), we should be able to pray retroactively, as in "Dear God, please make it as if 9/11 never happened." I guess if such a prayer was answered, we'd never know because "we" would now refer to the versions of ourselves who are playing out the new timeline.
God is not a singleton. God is a Trinity: that is, three persons with one undivided essence. You may wonder how this can be, and why it makes a difference, but it makes a big difference indeed.For one thing, God is love. An isolate cannot love; unadulterated self-love is a monstrosity which does not deserve the name of love at all. Love needs at least a subject, verb, and object. This is one way to understand the Trinity: God is, from all eternity, a community of Persons. What are they doing for all eternity? Loving.
That's something I've never thought of. Maybe because it sounds downright creepy! But even if you discount the creepy factor, it still sounds rather ad-hoc. I mean, I talk to myself all the time. And I sometimes do things for myself, which is subject-verb-object right there. This may point to something about how the parts of our minds are organized under the hood, but I'm still one person and if there was just myself in this world, I'd still eventually get bored talking only to myself. And of course it still begs the question of where this God person came from and why he's not part of a family, etc.
But hey, all the standard nontheistic models have aspects which are just as unsatisfying for me too, so I'm not really sold on any models here. :-)
I've got a daughter who talks quantum physics and string theory. It kind of stretches you. Good analogy there, with the car.
It appears our dishonest creationist is lifting more than a few words from another dishonest creationist. No surprise there is it?
Somebody once asked Gerard M. Hopkins (Jesuit priest poet) how he could be sure that God existed. Hopkins answered, "Give alms." I think the point is, to understand God you have to share His nature; and His nature is love. So if you try to perform a sincere act of love, you develop a bit of "connaturality" toward God. It makes it possible for you to understand a little.
This is not knowledge by analysis, but knowledge by personal union.
I am a beginner myself. I'm pretty sure, though, that it's worth the effort. Let me know! :o)
Good god, have you even READ a recently published science book lately?! Where do you think they GET their information? Ecology (environmental junk science), molecular biology (gay gene, global warming, population "destroying" the earth, etc) and so on all come from...drumroll...those with Ph.Ds! To insinuate that they are uninfluenced by the internet is sheer idiocy.
At least he condensed it, except where he didn't.
I could say since it may be predestined what difference does it make if I pray, it has all been written in. I know it makes a difference when I pray.
If you call upon Him in Jesus Holy Name excepting His best will for your life and willing to let Him be LORD of your life (He is anyway, for truth sake acknowledge it) He WILL respond. He WILL take you into His heavenly family. He WILL make all the difference in eternity for your life. Predestination is The Heavenly Father's realm, not ours. Ours is to obey Him and trust Him. You will find Him completely faithful. I know God hears my prayers. I'll pray for you. Prayer is talking to God. He listens and He responds.
It's way, way beyond wishful thinking. God is The Power, The Glory and The Kingdom, forever and ever, Amen.
Because I recently took a few biology courses to brush up for the MCAT, and I was shocked to learn how much JUNK science is in Biology texts these days from MAJOR universities (i.e. Duke). You will find in texts that global warming is in chapter 23, whereas molecular biology is in chapter 22, etc.
Go back to post #2. The Pope said that not the Dalai Lama.
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.