Austiran Cardinal talks about evolution

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

There still isn't much evidence in favour of the core of his theory, with respect to macroevolution. All we have is indirect evidence, which seems to suggest that this is what happened, but no direct observations. Darwin makes the leap by saying that mutations and differentiation within a species will produce new species, assuming that the two are governed by the same process.

Would you apply the same criticism to geology and astrophysics? Those are based on indirect observations to a higher degree.

The problem with expanding anything, is that the theory begins to get applied into areas where it was not designed to work. Even the most successful theories fall prey to their own success over time.

Darwin's theory was intended as an explanation of the history of life. That's why many Christian's find it disagreeable, remember?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The problem is not with the modifications, rather that no one asks the question that maybe the theory itself is wrong. The more settled opinion is that one theory must be right, the more modifications that are usually required to save the theory. That's why I said, beyond all recognition.

Not true- the basis of science is that it is open to revision and to questioning- unlike religious dogma or doctrines, and unlike science when given a religious imprimatur- so that to question Galen or Ptolemy or Aristotle could for instance be seen as being 'unChristian'' in mediaeval times.

Fortunately scientists in the Islamic world were still trusting to experimentation and observation to show that the Ancient Greeks weren't always right in either their measurements or assumptions.

[Heresson]

I can translate an interview with archbishop of Lublin about evolution if You like. It's not too long.

[Atahualpa]

Re: Re: Austiran Cardinal talks about evolution

Originally posted by Heresson
The church accepts evolution, it just points out that if it existed, it is not completely random, it is a means in the hand of God.

And you want to go into textbooks with that statement?
"There is a purpose in evolution, because this is what it has to be!"

You seem to have troubles to understand that when you want to have something in a textbook taught in school, you cannot argue with religious dogmas.

[Boris Godunov]

The church accepts evolution, it just points out that if it existed, it is not completely random

That's nice, but evolutionary theory does not state that evolution is "completely random," so the issue is moot, scientifically.