Posted on 01/13/2009 6:40:50 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
The traditional understanding of DNA has recently been transformed beyond recognition. DNA does not, as we thought, carry a linear, one-dimensional, one-way, sequential code—like the lines of letters and words on this page. And the 97% in humans that does not carry protein-coding genes is not, as many people thought, fossilized ‘junk’ left over from our evolutionary ancestors. DNA information is overlapping-multi-layered and multi-dimensional; it reads both backwards and forwards; and the ‘junk’ is far more functional than the protein code, so there is no fossilized history of evolution. No human engineer has ever even imagined, let alone designed an information storage device anything like it. Moreover, the vast majority of its content is metainformation—information about how to use information. Meta-information cannot arise by chance because it only makes sense in context of the information it relates to. Finally, 95% of its functional information shows no sign of having been naturally selected; on the contrary, it is rapidly degenerating! That means Darwin was wrong—natural selection of natural variation does not explain the variety of life on Earth. The best explanation is what the Bible tells us: we were created—as evidenced by the marvels of DNA—but then we fell and now endure the curse of ‘bondage to decay’ by mutations...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Thank you. BTW, if you have a good link on Thomistic metaphysics, I’d be much obliged.
Throw in some jalapenos and you'll never worry about hemorrhoids again.
I’m not saying my view should be the only one considered. Where did you get that from?
Where are we, Iran?
Why is it that every time religion is discussed it's "dangerous ground".
People who disagree with the ID, the Catholic faith, evolution, or anything else religious are entitled to say whatever they damn well please.
Something said here offends you? Too bad. No one cares.
In my metaphysics class, we used the book "The One and the Many" by W. Norris Clark. It isn't pure Thomistic metaphysics (it's actually based on Lonergan's Transcendental Thomism), but it isn't a bad starter.
Thanks a bunch—GGG
No, I'm not offended. If I were, I would probably take my business elsewhere.
It's "dangerous ground" in the sense that the argument doesn't hold water. Appealing to the crowd is a logical fallicy. In other words, he can say what he wants, but I'm telling him that his argument is flawed.
Chill.
I can just imagine god telling Abraham, "You just got punk'd!! Haha, just kidding, you don't REALLY have to murder your son. I was just messing around!"
He didn't teach us what to think but how to think and puzzle things out.
Glad to see you on the thread, CottShop. If I’m not mistaken, I think I sent you this link before. I reread it last night, and found it even more powerful than the first time a read it, so I decided to give it its own thread.
All the best—GGG
No problem. Thanks for posting the link to the “Life’s Irreducible Complexity” articles; I missed them yesterday.
Sounds like an excellent teacher. To imagine, there used to be a time when a teacher was allowed to mention God in the classroom!
“The only view that, to my knowledge, is completely unacceptible is that evolution, separate from God, is the mechanism by which all life came to be.” ~ GCC Catholic
Here’s probably the quote you’re looking for:
“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them.
By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation.
A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
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.
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. ...”
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
Ya think? ;-)
LOL...for some reason it seems so much more obvious (to the point of comedy) when you put it like that. LOL again, just for good measure!
Hey GGG- I’ll have to give it a read more thoroughly in a few days- having all I can do with hte first thread with htis cold (Think it’s turnign into Bronchitis-) But hopefully this thread goes as well and civil as the other one-
Rest up...we need you in tip-top shape for the battles to come!
Or it puts the young earthers / IDers in those same cross hairs for denying Creation.
“My seminary rector made a compelling argument based on Thomistic metaphysics for theistic evolution. Unfortunately, the explanation is too long and it’s too late to write it all here.” ~ GCC Catholic
Was it close to this one?:
A Theological Argument For Evolution
GEORGE L. MURPHY
St. Mark Lutheran Church 158 North Avenue, Box 201 Tallmadge, Ohio 44278
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86Murphy.html
I think you might be interested in this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2164203/posts
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.