"Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."

Started by BigMelvin, August 19, 2014, 07:27:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

BigMelvin

Quote from: Atila Sinke Guimarães Today we know that Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility. Neo-Darwinism tried to save Darwinism from complete ruin, but it also collapsed. I read some years ago that the whole theory of evolution is considered by serious scientists at most as a religion that survives because of the belief of its followers, but it cannot be considered a science.

Source: http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/D004Inter_FindFaithn.htm (A CFN Interview).

Any thoughts on this on this? Can anyone give me some solid scientific sources which corroborate this?
I am not so concerned with Catholic sources like His Holiness Pius XII, since I have these, and my concern is with acquaintances who believe evolution to be rock-solid.
Thank you,
I saw the sun go down, on dreams of a utopian evermore...

Modernism controls its victims in the name of obedience, thanks to the suspicion of pride which is cast on any criticism of their reforms, in the name of respect for the Pope, in the name of missionary zeal, of charity, and of unity."
– Fr. Roger Calmel OP, Letter of 8th August, 1973

"In reference to the created intellect, however, (and specifically to the human) things may be said to be false when by their appearances they invite misconception of their true nature"
H.D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 4: Metaphysics, 138.

Habitual_Ritual

Quote from: MelvinMailer on August 19, 2014, 07:27:59 AM
my concern is with acquaintances who believe evolution to be rock-solid.
Thank you,

See the word I bolded. That is all you need to know.

" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith."

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)

BigMelvin

Its not all I need to know if I want them to believe in the Faith, since they think Holy Mother Church's rejection of natural selection means she is wrong.
I saw the sun go down, on dreams of a utopian evermore...

Modernism controls its victims in the name of obedience, thanks to the suspicion of pride which is cast on any criticism of their reforms, in the name of respect for the Pope, in the name of missionary zeal, of charity, and of unity."
– Fr. Roger Calmel OP, Letter of 8th August, 1973

"In reference to the created intellect, however, (and specifically to the human) things may be said to be false when by their appearances they invite misconception of their true nature"
H.D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 4: Metaphysics, 138.

Lydia Purpuraria

#3
You may find useful information from The Kolbe Center: http://www.kolbecenter.org/  or, the Faithful Answers site: http://www.faithfulanswers.com/science/

edited to add: http://www.kolbecenter.org/?s=natural+selection

BigMelvin

Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on August 19, 2014, 08:55:49 AM
You may find useful information from The Kolbe Center: http://www.kolbecenter.org/  or, the Faithful Answers site: http://www.faithfulanswers.com/science/

Thanks, I know of the Kolbe Center from before, I will have a good look later. Do you think they would cite secular scientists, or do you know of any who discredit Darwinism?

Thanks
I saw the sun go down, on dreams of a utopian evermore...

Modernism controls its victims in the name of obedience, thanks to the suspicion of pride which is cast on any criticism of their reforms, in the name of respect for the Pope, in the name of missionary zeal, of charity, and of unity."
– Fr. Roger Calmel OP, Letter of 8th August, 1973

"In reference to the created intellect, however, (and specifically to the human) things may be said to be false when by their appearances they invite misconception of their true nature"
H.D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 4: Metaphysics, 138.

Lydia Purpuraria

Quote from: MelvinMailer on August 19, 2014, 09:00:24 AM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on August 19, 2014, 08:55:49 AM
You may find useful information from The Kolbe Center: http://www.kolbecenter.org/  or, the Faithful Answers site: http://www.faithfulanswers.com/science/

Thanks, I know of the Kolbe Center from before, I will have a good look later. Do you think they would cite secular scientists, or do you know of any who discredit Darwinism?

Thanks

Melvin - look at the link I added as an edit http://www.kolbecenter.org/?s=natural+selection . When I browsed it quickly, I saw secular sources cited; but I haven't had a chance to do much more than skim the pages.

This may be a good place to start with a secular scientist saying evolution is "scientifically impossible": http://www.faithfulanswers.com/gene-gun-inventor-says-evolution-scientifically-impossible/



Lydia Purpuraria


GloriaPatri

We are talking about a man who, contrary to all empirical evidence, believes that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. That alone destroys any real scientific credibility that this man may have ever held. That anyone keeps holding him up as a good example is further evidence of the bankruptcy of scientific comprehension that seems to be prevalent amongst the trad community.

Basilios

Inb4 the old "trads are not ready for true science" rebuttal.

Too late!
Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth: and a door round about my lips. Incline not my heart to evil words.

zork

Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 19, 2014, 10:23:49 AM
We are talking about a man who, contrary to all empirical evidence, believes that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. That alone destroys any real scientific credibility that this man may have ever held. That anyone keeps holding him up as a good example is further evidence of the bankruptcy of scientific comprehension that seems to be prevalent amongst the trad community.

I agree, the anti-science bias within Traddom is very irritating.
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.

Lydia Purpuraria

#12
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 19, 2014, 10:23:49 AM
We are talking about a man who, contrary to all empirical evidence, believes that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. That alone destroys any real scientific credibility that this man may have ever held. That anyone keeps holding him up as a good example is further evidence of the bankruptcy of scientific comprehension that seems to be prevalent amongst the trad community.

Which man are you referring to? The one from Melvin's OP, or the geneticist?

Did you listen to the youtube video I posted?


GloriaPatri

Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on August 19, 2014, 10:41:34 AM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 19, 2014, 10:23:49 AM
We are talking about a man who, contrary to all empirical evidence, believes that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. That alone destroys any real scientific credibility that this man may have ever held. That anyone keeps holding him up as a good example is further evidence of the bankruptcy of scientific comprehension that seems to be prevalent amongst the trad community.

Which man are you referring to? The one from Melvin's OP, or the geneticist?

Did you listen to the youtube video I posted?

The geneticist. A man who has, at this point, zero credibility. The empirical evidence, and the consensus derived from that evidence, is against him. He holds an analogous position to those minority biblical scholars who believe Jesus had no historical existence.

Lydia Purpuraria

Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 19, 2014, 10:54:35 AM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on August 19, 2014, 10:41:34 AM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 19, 2014, 10:23:49 AM
We are talking about a man who, contrary to all empirical evidence, believes that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. That alone destroys any real scientific credibility that this man may have ever held. That anyone keeps holding him up as a good example is further evidence of the bankruptcy of scientific comprehension that seems to be prevalent amongst the trad community.

Which man are you referring to? The one from Melvin's OP, or the geneticist?

Did you listen to the youtube video I posted?

The geneticist. A man who has, at this point, zero credibility. The empirical evidence, and the consensus derived from that evidence, is against him. He holds an analogous position to those minority biblical scholars who believe Jesus had no historical existence.

I thought what he had to say was quite interesting, particularly that genetic entropy is basically science's proof of Original Sin and the effects thereof being passed down through the generations (my paraphrasing).

Do you disagree? Do you think that we are "evolving"?
What is your point of view and how is it in line with Scripture and Tradition?