Posted on 01/07/2007 1:28:33 PM PST by Coleus
It's a historical fact that reading Copernicus' book would earn you death at the hands of the Church. The book was on the Church's prohibitted books list.
Well, if it's even slightly less ridiculous then it can't be just as innacurate. :)
In fact, we can probably approximate it as less innacurate by an order of 332,946 magnitudes. ;)
I've read two or three statements which look like claims that the evolution/creation debate should have been over the day DNA was discovered, i.e. game, set, and match to the creationists.
Slight modification. It appears that Galileo believed the sun to be one of many stars. I believe Copernicus taught true heliocentrism, that all heavenly bodies, including of course the stars, orbited the Sun.
Whatever answer works for the Trinity works just as well for the universe.
DNA the unit that evolutionary biology measures.
Whether you like this science or not is irrelevant. You slander the Church when you claim it's anti-science. The church has no problem with evolutionary biology and never has.
Only if the adherents of scientism admit to being faithful.
Golly, you must have been reading Dawkins. Actually the notion of evolution by blind chance is essentially agnostic about the intellligibility of the universe. Neither you nor Dawkins recongizes that Darwin posit a demiurge, called Evolution, to produce the evidence we have in hand. The early stages of the earth as as remote to human beings as the remotest galaxies. More remote, because we can through telescopes faintly see them. The earth of earliest times we can see only with our imaginations.
Your's is a correct statement but id certainly doesn't address the thesis of the article.
"“Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.”
Umm, no. My own answer is the correct answer: I don't know. Most people simply can't handle that truth and prefer to make up fairy tales.
But regardless, no matter what answer one finds satisfactory for the origin of the Trinity then from a rational standpoint that same answer will always be equally satisfactory for the origin of the universe, which is why the false dilemma that was set up by OK is a meaningless argument, and a fallacy.
" an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."
Nobody is saying entirely "random." Mutations can be caused by many things. There are scientific laws governing things.... except, perhaps, at the quantum level.
Anyone who believes a magical deity created decided to create human out of mud is certainly not following modern science.
Um yes. Catholicism is faith based. When you state " Whatever answer works for the Trinity works just as well for the universe." I take that at it's face value. The answer that works for the Trinity is faith. Feel free to edit your statement.
As for fairy tales, I have no opinion or interest in what you do or do not consider to be fairy tales.
It had slipped my mind that the original heliocentric model also posited a stationary sun at the center of the universe. Thanks for reminding me! I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that, although he did hold that the sun was one of many stars, Galileo was at most vague about the centrality of the sun. Whatever the case, it was not until the period between Kepler and Newton that it was widely accepted that the sun as well was neither fixed nor central.
"Vatican Policy: Not Evolving (ScienceMag, Sept. 2006)
Don't look for a big change any time soon in the Catholic Church's views on evolution. Although supporters of evolution had feared that the Pope would embrace so-called intelligent design, Pope Benedict XVI gave no sign at a gathering last week as to how he thought the topic should be taught.
The pope said little during the meeting, which included his former theology Ph.D. students and a small group of experts near Rome. Peter Schuster, a chemist at the University of Vienna and president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, attended the meeting and gave a lecture on evolutionary theory. "The pope … listened to my talk very carefully and asked very good questions at the end," he says. And the Church's most outspoken proponent of intelligent design, Cardinal Schönborn, seemed to distance himself from the theory."
Uh, yeah, and as you yourself pointed out when you incorrectly thought that would be my answer, that answer works equally well for the universe.
Darwin is. Darwinian evolution theorizes RM/NS/heritability.
Mutations can be caused by many things.
Certainly.
There are scientific laws governing things.... except, perhaps, at the quantum level.
I think there are no exceptions to scientific laws, just scientific laws that are not well understood.
Uh yeah, which is what I said that you took exception to. Why? I have no idea.
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.