Which Christian denominations won't accept Darwinism?

[Deeje]

What do you think is the difference between assumption and conclusion based on facts?

I would consider that evolution is a premise.....an idea that occurred to someone even before Darwin proffered it.
I see that it was taken up by scientists as a hypothesis and that the hypothesis became a theory on what I consider to be very flimsy evidence. Having read various links over the years, I can honestly say that science seems to have built a skyscraper on toothpicks. From what I can see, its foundations are as weak as dishwater.

Do you think facts should never be interpreted?

I guess that depends on what you call "facts". Science doesn't have very many of them at all when dealing with the subject of macro-evolution, does it?

You believe that this...

evolved from this...

Show me the evidence that this is even possible. You can suggest it, but its not going to sound plausible to any thinking person to assume that it happened just because science wants it to be true.....

If so, you are arguing against the very idea of doing science. In my experience, most creationists are anti-science.

I am certainly NOT anti-science.....I love real science but I draw the line at calling supposition and suggestion "real science". Everything I have read is nothing more than educated guesswork. No substantiation but lots of suggestion.
You want us to believe that this is the ancestor of a whale....
Seriously....?

....and how do they arrive at this conclusion.....? Something about a similar earbone......

I can see the resemblance...can't you?

And this evolved from the same amoebas that produced dinosaurs. Its not a stretch of anyone's imagination though....

Assumptions are often based on facts. For example, it is a fact that we observe certain isotopes decaying at a certain rate. We also look out at the universe and see that the fundamental laws that are the foundation of nuclear decay are the same through space and time. Therefore, we assume that atoms decayed the same in the past as in the present.

And what if there is some phenomenon that caused decay to occur at a different rate in the past...? What then? Since science can't "prove" that what they believe is true, why should it be accepted without question?
Science isn't about 'proving' things apparently...it about guessing what happened no matter how ridiculous it sounds to intelligent people.

Conclusions are descriptions of how the observations fit the hypothesis, as well as descriptions of the foundations for further hypotheses. Since no scientific experiment can produce all possible data the conclusions are always tentative, hence the use of tentative language.

"Observations"....what can science really "observe" about things that supposedly happened billions of years ago?
This is where science excels at tentative language. No one was there to record anything except the Creator...and you don't believe him.

Interpretation is really the application of the scientific method. You produce hypotheses and see if the observations fit your hypotheses. If they do, then the supported hypotheses are the interpretation.

Ah, the "scientific method"...I know people like the sound of that, but who formulated this method....? Scientists interpret evidence using the method that they set, with evolution as their pre-conceived idea....right? Well that's a bit like Bible scholars interpreting the Bible. Which one do you believe since they all claim to be experts?

I would suspect that your professor would consider infectious diseases a fact even though germs are a theory. If an interpretation has stood up to decades of testing and is really well supported then I would suspect your professor considers them facts without even realizing it. To put it another way, facts are something proven so extensively that scientists don't waste any more time testing them and instead use them as the foundation for asking new questions.

I really can't put germ theory and gravitational theory in the same category as macro-evolution since germs can be observed under a microscope and gravity is as easy to prove as dropping an apple.

A scientific law is nothing more than an idealized description of observations.

And if you have observations, you have to report them objectively....but there is no objectivity in science because they all believe that evolution is true and will squeeze all their evidence to fit into that pigeon hole.

My first response is to ask how the interpretation is scientific and supported by the evidence. Anyone can make up an interpretation, such as saying that you interpret clouds as the leftovers from unicorn farts. Same evidence, different interpretation. However, what evidence would convince anyone that your interpretation is correct?

With Intelligent creation, if something exhibits complex design, it logically had to have a designer. Why is that illogical? What do you use in your life that is intended for a specific purpose, that wasn't designed by an intelligent mind? Is it because it requires an entity that science has no way to test? It doesn't stop them from assuming a whole lot of other things with no way to test, now does it?

There are many peer reviewed papers that do give two possible conclusions for a set of data, so there is nothing wrong with that. The only time problems arise is when an interpretation is either incapable of being falsified or the interpretation is inconsistent with the observations.

Can you falsify the Creator? Can you prove that it is impossible for him to exist? Or does science just assume that he can't? Based on what?

I believe that our interpretation of the evidence is as valid as yours....neither of us can prove that what we believe is true.....its a stalemate....not a checkmate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I started this thread also to clarify the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.
Pope Ratzinger defends theistic evolution, the reconciliation between science and religion already held by Catholics. In discussing evolution, he writes that "The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability.... This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science.... Where did this rationality come from?" to which he answers that it comes from the "creative reason" of God.

Well..through this twisted speech actually he confirms that most genetic mutations are random and negative, so all the living beings evolve through adaptation (narrow corridor).
The conclusion has a very ambiguous implication: he defines the process rational...even if his premise tells clearly that it deals with something spontaneous and chaotic....certainly creative...but not rational.

There is no doubt the Vatican bowed to Darwinism. The Anglican Church did too.
What about Protestants?

The Catholic Church rejects aspects of evolutionary science as a point of doctrine:

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII

Speciation needs populations, not just lone pairs, so the encyclical above implies that the Catholic doctrine of original sin fails if humans evolved.

 

[Estro Felino]

The Catholic Church rejects aspects of evolutionary science as a point of doctrine:


Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII

Speciation needs populations, not just lone pairs, so the encyclical above implies that the Catholic doctrine of original sin fails if humans evolved.

You can ask any authoritative theologian about this matter. They will confirm, as Cardinal Pell did, that Adam and Eve are neither the scientific truth, nor the historical truth.

What Pope Pacelli said doesn't matter much, given that we live in the 21st century.

 

[metis]

You can ask any authoritative theologian about this matter. They will confirm, as Cardinal Pell did, that Adam and Eve are neither the scientific truth, nor the historical truth.

What Pope Pacelli said doesn't matter much, given that we live in the 21st century.

And to go along with what you're saying above, my first exposure to a Christian minister that accepts the basic ToE was a Catholic priest, and that was back in the early 60's. Several years later, I took two Catholic theology classes during my junior year at college, and what the priest had said to me was indeed confirmed.

 

[metis]

I would consider that evolution is a premise...

It's actually, besides the most basic science, just common sense. All material objects appear to change one way or the other over time, and genes are material objects. On top of that, there is simply not one iota of evidence that suggest that "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stops short of becoming "macro-evolution", and many creationists make their denominations and themselves look quite silly by asserting as such.

IMO, any religion or denomination that is anti-science is simply bogus and should be avoided and condemned. To use a literalistic interpretation of a biblical narrative that has as its main purpose to teach morals and values, not science and history, is mindlessly silly.

It would be like us in science saying that since there is no objective evidence for God that all such beliefs in God must be automatically wrong. Yes, there are some scientists who do say that, and I am opposed to them on that as well as I am opposed to some creationists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can ask any authoritative theologian about this matter. They will confirm, as Cardinal Pell did, that Adam and Eve are neither the scientific truth, nor the historical truth.

What Pope Pacelli said doesn't matter much, given that we live in the 21st century.

If you can find any Catholic priest who would agree that Original Sin isn’t literal truth, I would be very surprised.

 

[tayla]

all creatures have more to them than the biological, that the role of the senses in the generation of the world we perceive around us, in all its myriad forms, is central, and that all beauty is a manifestation of the will of the Divine, which is what animates the world.

Yes. Well said.

 

[exchemist]

If you can find any Catholic priest who would agree that Original Sin isn’t literal truth, I would be very surprised.

I would agree that any Catholic priest will consider Original Sin to be an important doctrine. But as for "literal truth", I am not sure what you mean by that. If you read the thread, you will see there are respectable interpretations of what Original Sin means which do not require a literal, historical, "first couple" such as Adam and Eve.

It seems to me that what Luca 85 is saying can be perfectly compatible with a doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would agree that any Catholic priest will consider Original Sin to be an important doctrine. But as for "literal truth", I am not sure what you mean by that.

I mean that they consider it passed hereditarily to all “true humans” (with the exception of the Virgin Mary, due to the special, one-time intercession of God) due to the actions of a single male-female pair who were the progenitors of all other “true humans” including all people living today.

If you read the thread, you will see there are respectable interpretations of what Original Sin means which do not require a literal, historical, "first couple" such as Adam and Eve.

Sure. I never said that there’s anything “dishonourable” about non-Catholic interpretations of Original Sin.

It seems to me that what Luca 85 is saying can be perfectly compatible with a doctrine of Original Sin.

Yes... but not with the doctrine of Original Sin spelled out by the Catholic Church.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I mean that they consider it passed hereditarily to all “true humans” (with the exception of the Virgin Mary, due to the special, one-time intercession of God) due to the actions of a single male-female pair who were the progenitors of all other “true humans” including all people living today.


Sure. I never said that there’s anything “dishonourable” about non-Catholic interpretations of Original Sin.


Yes... but not with the doctrine of Original Sin spelled out by the Catholic Church.

Original sin does not require a literal Adam and Eve. You may think of "original sin" as "flawed human nature", if it's easier for you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Original sin does not require a literal Adam and Eve.

In the Catholic view, it does... or at least it requires an original male-female pair who were the “first parents” of humanity. The Catholic Church doesn’t hold as a point of doctrine that their names were “Adam” or “Eve” or that they lived in a garden.

You may think of "original sin" as "flawed human nature", if it's easier for you.

*I* reject the whole concept altogether. But we aren’t talking about me; we’re talking about denominations that reject evolution... and the Catholic Church does. Granted, they reject it in a more subtle way than a YEC Church does, but Catholic doctrine *is* incompatible with evolution.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

In the Catholic view, it does... or at least it requires an original male-female pair who were the “first parents” of humanity. The Catholic Church doesn’t hold as a point of doctrine that their names were “Adam” or “Eve” or that they lived in a garden.


*I* reject the whole concept altogether. But we aren’t talking about me; we’re talking about denominations that reject evolution... and the Catholic Church does. Granted, they reject it in a more subtle way than a YEC Church does, but Catholic doctrine *is* incompatible with evolution.

Nonsense. I'm Catholic, I accept evolutionary theory. QED.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nonsense. I'm Catholic, I accept evolutionary theory. QED.

And like 90% of Catholics use contraception. Doesn’t change the doctrine.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And like 90% of Catholics use contraception. Doesn’t change the doctrine.

The doctrine, as you call it, still doesn't require a literal Adam and Eve. "Original Sin" is part of the human condition. It isn't because some literal person ate some literal fruit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The doctrine, as you call it, still doesn't require a literal Adam and Eve. "Original Sin" is part of the human condition. It isn't because some literal person ate some literal fruit.

I didn’t say that the Catholic belief involves “literal fruit” and I’d appreciate it if you stop misrepresenting what I’m saying.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I see that it was taken up by scientists as a hypothesis and that the hypothesis became a theory on what I consider to be very flimsy evidence.

You would consider any evidence to be flimsy since you have a dogmatic religious belief to protect. That's the whole point.

I guess that depends on what you call "facts". Science doesn't have very many of them at all when dealing with the subject of macro-evolution, does it?

Science has millions of species, millions of genomes, and hundreds of thousands of fossils. Thus far, all of that evidence sits squarely in the evolution camp.

Show me the evidence that this is even possible.

Arguments based on incredulity are a logical fallacy.

I am certainly NOT anti-science....

Yes, you are. You reject the scientific method as you have shown with every one of your posts. You reject the very idea of forming hypotheses and testing them with evidence.

And what if there is some phenomenon that caused decay to occur at a different rate in the past...? What then? Since science can't "prove" that what they believe is true, why should it be accepted without question?

The problem is that you don't question it. You reject it flat out because of your religious beliefs. All you have to do is look at the stars in the sky to know that the laws which govern atomic nuclei haven't changed for billions of years.

"Observations"....what can science really "observe" about things that supposedly happened billions of years ago?

Fossils are organisms that lived millions of years ago. Genomes are a direct record of ancestry that can be traced back millions of years. Events in the past leave evidence that we can observe in the present.

Ah, the "scientific method"...I know people like the sound of that, but who formulated this method....? Scientists interpret evidence using the method that they set, with evolution as their pre-conceived idea....right? Well that's a bit like Bible scholars interpreting the Bible. Which one do you believe since they all claim to be experts?

And once again you demonstrate that you are anti-science.

I really can't put germ theory and gravitational theory in the same category as macro-evolution since germs can be observed under a microscope and gravity is as easy to prove as dropping an apple.

Evolution is as easy as organizing life by shared derived characteristics and seeing if it produces a phylogenetic signal. You can also do the same with DNA sequences and see if there is a statistically significant correlation between the trees based on morphology and those based on genetic sequences. You can observe endogenous retroviruses and see if they occur at the same spot in the genomes of different species. Evolution is just as easy to test as germ theory or gravity.

And if you have observations, you have to report them objectively....but there is no objectivity in science because they all believe that evolution is true and will squeeze all their evidence to fit into that pigeon hole.

What is not objective about a DNA sequence?

With Intelligent creation, if something exhibits complex design, it logically had to have a designer. Why is that illogical? What do you use in your life that is intended for a specific purpose, that wasn't designed by an intelligent mind?

Life.

Can you falsify the Creator? Can you prove that it is impossible for him to exist? Or does science just assume that he can't? Based on what?

If a ID/creationism can not be falsified then it isn't science.

 

[gnostic]

The Bible's author is the one I trust...

There are more than one authors to the bible, and god didn’t write any of it.

The gospels even contradict with each other in the details.

For instance, before Jesus’ arrest, Jesus spent a night at Bethany, when a woman came in and began pouring on to Jesus.

According to gospels of Matthew (26:6-13) and Mark (14:3-9), it was poured on Jesus’ head, but in the gospel of John (12:1-8), it says it was Jesus’ feet that was washed or anointed, not the head. In Matthew and Mark, the woman was unnamed, but John’s version say it was Mary, sister of Lazarus.

John also disagree the other 2 gospels, with whose home it was in Bethany, saying it was Lazarus’ home, as opposed to home of Simon the Leper.

In the gospel of Luke (7:37-50), it was Jesus’ feet, the woman was anonymous. However, it disagree with other 3 gospels, this event took place in home of another Simon, who was a Pharisee, and not in Bethany, but either in Capernaum (7:1) or in Nain (7:11), both of which are towns in Galilee, not Bethany in Judaea.

In Matthew’s and Mark’s, all the disciples complained of wasting expensive perfume, but in John’s it was only Judas to complain. But I; Luke’s, none of disciples were at the Pharisee’s table, so it was Jesus’ host who commented on the woman’s action, and no mention of anything about Jesus’ burial.

So which gospel do you think this event ever took place?

If god (or the Holy Spirit) was actually writing this, wouldn’t the stories be the same?

With such inconsistencies in the details, one would say that there are more than one author. If the bible was inerrant the inconsistencies wouldn’t be there.

 

[metis]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and recent popes, it is acceptable for a Catholic to accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

Also, the Church teaches what it thinks is right, which I personally think is its right and duty, but it is up to Joe & Mary Parishioner to decide what to do with it. Excommunication is an extremely rare "bird" nowadays.

 

[Audie]

You would consider any evidence to be flimsy since you have a dogmatic religious belief to protect. That's the whole point.



Science has millions of species, millions of genomes, and hundreds of thousands of fossils. Thus far, all of that evidence sits squarely in the evolution camp.




Arguments based on incredulity are a logical fallacy.



Yes, you are. You reject the scientific method as you have shown with every one of your posts. You reject the very idea of forming hypotheses and testing them with evidence.



The problem is that you don't question it. You reject it flat out because of your religious beliefs. All you have to do is look at the stars in the sky to know that the laws which govern atomic nuclei haven't changed for billions of years.



Fossils are organisms that lived millions of years ago. Genomes are a direct record of ancestry that can be traced back millions of years. Events in the past leave evidence that we can observe in the present.



And once again you demonstrate that you are anti-science.



Evolution is as easy as organizing life by shared derived characteristics and seeing if it produces a phylogenetic signal. You can also do the same with DNA sequences and see if there is a statistically significant correlation between the trees based on morphology and those based on genetic sequences. You can observe endogenous retroviruses and see if they occur at the same spot in the genomes of different species. Evolution is just as easy to test as germ theory or gravity.



What is not objective about a DNA sequence?



Life.



If a ID/creationism can not be falsified then it isn't science.

What do you suppose it would do for / to someone
who has so much, seemingly their entire construct of reality
rigidly connected to rejection of all things not supporting it?

In a lot of cases, the condition requires never being / admit
to being mistaken about anything. Ever.

Maybe some people are better left to themselves. I guess I'd
offer contrary ideas to someone I thought could be
protected from the vice of creationism, but for others,
nothing could get thru.

Discussion of issues only serves to hone their skill at
misleading innocents, children especially.

I have an uncle who is like that about Mao. Dont
get him started!
He went through so much, invested his heart and
soul. Let such be.

Really, what might be the consequences for the
person whose construct of reality is shattered?

If there is a psychologist on board, maybe they'd
have a comment.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What do you suppose it would do for / to someone
who has so much, seemingly their entire construct of reality
rigidly connected to rejection of all things not supporting it?

In a lot of cases, the condition requires never being / admit
to being mistaken about anything. Ever.

Maybe some people are better left to themselves. I guess I'd
offer contrary ideas to someone I thought could be
protected from the vice of creationism, but for others,
nothing could get thru.

Discussion of issues only serves to hone their skill at
misleading innocents, children especially.

I have an uncle who is like that about Mao. Dont
get him started!
He went through so much, invested his heart and
soul. Let such be.

Really, what might be the consequences for the
person whose construct of reality is shattered?

If there is a psychologist on board, maybe they'd
have a comment.

One interesting case is Kent Hovind. I actually feel sorry for the guy because he appears to be suffering from some sort of mental illness. After he was convicted for tax evasion and spent multiple years in prison because of it he still won't admit that he was convicted of tax evasion. If you want to really go down the rabbit hole, you can Google "Kent Hovind denies tax evasion". It's a really scary look at what full on denial looks like.