Posted on 12/18/2004 5:56:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry
I like this Richard Colling. He says what some of us have been saying around here for years.
|
As a Catholic, I don't feel obliged to believe that God created the universe 6,000 years ago. Geology and astrophysics and the evident age of many species make that idea hard to support. But frankly, the Theory of Evolution is full of holes. It's not a matter of religious belief in my case, it's a matter of bad science.
Partial evolution of bird beaks, sure. General evolution right up the chain of being from primordial soup to man, no. It just doesn't make sense. The harder you look at it, the less sense it makes.
I am one of those he speaks of.
He would have an easier time force feeding pork to a well armed muslim then selling me on this theory.
The most deceptive lie,is the lie that lies closest to the truth.
Nazarenes are fundamentalist? News to me. Looks like once again the press doesn't know the difference is between fundies and evangelicals.
I have no problem whatsoever with evolution. The Bible tells the "why" and science the "how." This past summer, I drove out to Nevada. While in western Wyoming, I saw the stratification of the rocks....and it showed me that the Earth was far older than the 5 or 6 thousand years the literalists would want us to believe. The sheer might of God was apparent in those rocks....and I came away with a stronger belief in the Almighty after seeing that.
He's on the right track but what's his evo-Freeper name?
It always seems to me that evolution is like moving from version 9.0 to version 9.1 of a complicated piece of software. It definitely happens, and 9.0 definitely eventually dies out and is replaced by 9.1.
But it doesn't say anything about where version 1.0 came from.
Faith can never conflict with reason. The Pope's statement on Galileo and science/scripture conflicts.
In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition.The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Physical evolution is not in conflict with Christianity. Excerpts:
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. 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 favour of this theory.
Unlike those who see evolution as an assault on faith, Prof. Colling finds it strengthens his own. "A God who can harness the laws of randomness and chaos, and create beauty and wonder and all of these marvelous structures, is a lot more creative than fundamentalists give him credit for," he told me. Creating the laws of physics and chemistry that, over the eons, coaxed life from nonliving molecules is something he finds just as awe inspiring as the idea that God instantly and supernaturally created life from nonlife.
It's a good approach, but here's a question:
If random is designed, and random-design is a process, and if random and chaos have laws, how is it all actually "random?"
Microsoft stole it from Apple who stole it from Xerox. Xerox didn't copy it from anyone.
Think snowflakes. Not truly random (little in nature really is), but not "designed" either.
If random has a designer, then what is observed as random is actually "apparently random."
Refreshing article, thanks for the ping
Says it neatly. There is no good way to deny a thing for which science has accumulated massive amounts of evidence over more than a century.
the evolution of species according to the process of random mutation and natural selection are "fully compatible with the available scientific evidence and also contemporary religious beliefs"
This is ludicrous.Natural selection (Darwinism)has been thrown out because it requires more time than even the evolutionist time frame allows ie;to be correct the sun would be exhausted before the process would get us to where we are.This was supplanted by the "hopeful monster"theory to explain how evolution could make huge jumps in a short period of time.In other word beneficial random mutation.
Neither abides by science or observation.
The two laws of thermodynamics say that 1)new matter is not being created and 2)all matter is in a state of decay.What this means is there is no scientific basis for a fish to grow claws,a reptile to grow hair or feathers.The gene that causes these traits would have to have appeared out of nothing and repeated the process again and again.
Mutations when occurring are almost always regressive in nature and are not beneficial to the original species.They are also usually sterile so that the mutation stops with that individual whether animal or human.
evolution is no more the work of the devil than is Newton`s theory of gravity
Evolution can no more be compared to gravity than a horse to a unicorn.Gravity is the name given to the force one mass exerts on another,call it anything you like but it can be demonstrated by anyone dropping a ball.Evolution cannot nor has been demonstrated by any means what so ever.That is no one has seen or found evidence of the vast numbers of "missing links" that natural selection or random beneficial mutation would require.
Evolution is the religion of those who would elevate man above God.That is why when challenged on the merits no rational argument is presented only assumptions and presumptions that require as much or more faith in the unseen or unprovable as intelligent creation.
Okay, you sound like someone who has devoted a vast amount of study to this subject. Let's see your challenge on the merits.
I'd have more confidence in the people pushing creation if even one of their tired old mantras was true or even halfway defensible. It's all BS.
It would also be useful to learn what science is: The scientific method.
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.