Author Topic: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger  (Read 2244 times)

Online Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3856
  • Thanked: 930 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #30 on: November 29, 2018, 09:07:47 PM »
Father Ripperger's critique of evolution cannot even get off the ground because it rests on an equivocation.

No, it doesn't
" 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.)
 

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #31 on: November 29, 2018, 09:41:06 PM »
Father Ripperger's critique of evolution cannot even get off the ground because it rests on an equivocation.

No, it doesn't

You can't just say "no it doesn't." This is a mere assertion. I explained how he equivocates in previous comments, and you don't even address that charge. To simply deny it without addressing the issue is to practically concede the point.

 

Offline Maximilian

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4877
  • Thanked: 2405 times
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2018, 10:08:04 PM »
Father Ripperger's critique of evolution cannot even get off the ground because it rests on an equivocation.

No, it doesn't

You can't just say "no it doesn't."

"That which is gratuitously asserted, may be gratuitously denied."
 
The following users thanked this post: Habitual_Ritual, Miriam_M

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2018, 10:21:33 PM »
Father Ripperger's critique of evolution cannot even get off the ground because it rests on an equivocation.

No, it doesn't

You can't just say "no it doesn't."

"That which is gratuitously asserted, may be gratuitously denied."

I really hate to be snarky like this on a Christian forum, but are you serious? Did you bother to read any of the posts. Because I explained in detail why this is an equivocation. So it was hardly a gratuitous assertion. If you disagree with my reasoning, fine. But anybody who even bothered to look at this debate can see there was no gratuitous assertion on my part.
 

Offline Maximilian

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4877
  • Thanked: 2405 times
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2018, 11:30:34 PM »

I really hate to be snarky like this on a Christian forum, but are you serious?

You "really hate to be snarky," but you know, someone's got to do it, so you roll up your sleeves and get down to it.
 
The following users thanked this post: Habitual_Ritual

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2018, 02:48:09 AM »

I really hate to be snarky like this on a Christian forum, but are you serious?

You "really hate to be snarky," but you know, someone's got to do it, so you roll up your sleeves and get down to it.

When it is warranted it is warranted. My argument from my posts regarding Father Ripperger's equivocation stands.
 

Offline Miriam_M

  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5707
  • Thanked: 3504 times
  • Never have been "MiriamB"
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #36 on: November 30, 2018, 03:13:52 AM »

I am not Father Ripperger so I am not sure what line of reasoning he would take to support premise (4). Perhaps it too is false and his critique of evolution is problematic from that philosophical angle as well. I just wanted to bring up that Fr. is working with an outmoded understanding of species, one different from what modern biology uses.

And if he or his defenders insisted that his definition of species was workable in spite of it being largely outmoded, his critique of evolution still fails because it would still rest on an equivocation.

I also don't agree that he has an argument if there is some definition of species that "there is more than one species alive today, all life descended from a single common ancestor (obviously only one species) as evolutionary theory has it, and parents cannot produce an offspring of a different species." Even if there is some such definition of species, it would have to be one that renders (1) and (4) true. Now, he and his defenders might argue that (4) is true based on some specific Aristotilean understanding of "species." But this does not mean it is true on any understanding in which "there is more than one species alive today...etc."

The actual difference between you and Father Ripperger is that his utterances, understandings, and premises are Catholic at their foundation, whereas yours clearly are not, no matter what your user identifier says here.

I do understand him and recognize his explanation of the order of the universe as traditionally Catholic, not modernistic Catholic.  I listened to Part 2 as well.  I think it's this one:


 
The following users thanked this post: Habitual_Ritual

Offline Sempronius

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 453
  • Thanked: 227 times
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #37 on: November 30, 2018, 09:06:32 AM »
Accirding to TomD Fr Rippergers reasoning doesnt seem to hold water. Would be nice if anyone could come to his defence. If not, then he should work on his arguments a little more..

How should he work with the ”new understanding of species”?
 

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #38 on: November 30, 2018, 09:54:40 AM »

The actual difference between you and Father Ripperger is that his utterances, understandings, and premises are Catholic at their foundation, whereas yours clearly are not, no matter what your user identifier says here.

I do understand him and recognize his explanation of the order of the universe as traditionally Catholic, not modernistic Catholic.  I listened to Part 2 as well.  I think it's this one:


1. My "understandings, premises, etc" are not "Catholic at their foundation?" I have been arguing Father Ripperger commits the fallacy of equivocation. This is a matter of objective facts about his use of terms, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic philosophy.

2. Maybe you are simply referring to my comment in response to Quare regarding what I list as premise (4) of Father's argument. If that is the case, then there are two problems. First, it is a red herring since my problem with Father Ripperger does not have to do with whether or not he can give an argument for premise (4). As I said, I do not know whether or not that that premise is true but it wasn't the point of my argument.

Second, before you go implying that I should not use the tag "Catholic" on my profile, could you please point me to where the Church definitively taught (4) as a matter of faith? If you can't, then you should retract what you said. It is slanderous and it is also misleading to those who might come across this site and be interested in the faith. Slander and misleading people about the requirements of faith are hardly "Catholic at their foundation." No?
 

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #39 on: November 30, 2018, 09:59:59 AM »
Accirding to TomD Fr Rippergers reasoning doesnt seem to hold water. Would be nice if anyone could come to his defence. If not, then he should work on his arguments a little more..

How should he work with the ”new understanding of species”?

The real issue though is not working with the "new understanding of species." See the problem is that regardless of what you think of any concept of species, Father Ripperger is using a different understanding than proponents of evolution. Therefore, to criticize evolution on its terms by employing his as the foundation of the argument, is precisely to commit the fallacy of equivocation. (I lay this out more explicitly in my previous comment where I number the premises of what I take his argument to be).

 

Online Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3856
  • Thanked: 930 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2018, 07:33:38 PM »
Tom, you seem unaware that evolution errs in so many spheres, not just the scientific. And F R's use of the term 'species' is essentially what most people understand it as being, despite the slippery, shifting, and ever changing definitions that science itself cannot seem to agree upon. You cannot be equivocal about something that refuses to define itself in any kind of settled sense.
" 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.)
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, Miriam_M, Xavier

Offline Graham

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1081
  • Thanked: 710 times
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #41 on: November 30, 2018, 08:53:06 PM »
Accirding to TomD Fr Rippergers reasoning doesnt seem to hold water. Would be nice if anyone could come to his defence. If not, then he should work on his arguments a little more..

How should he work with the ”new understanding of species”?

The real issue though is not working with the "new understanding of species." See the problem is that regardless of what you think of any concept of species, Father Ripperger is using a different understanding than proponents of evolution. Therefore, to criticize evolution on its terms by employing his as the foundation of the argument, is precisely to commit the fallacy of equivocation. (I lay this out more explicitly in my previous comment where I number the premises of what I take his argument to be).

uh, how is he meant to disprove evolution after he accepts a definition of species that includes evolution
 
The following users thanked this post: Habitual_Ritual, Xavier

Online Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3856
  • Thanked: 930 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2018, 07:56:38 AM »
Evolution is nothing more than a philosophy of nature, wrapped precariously in vague, non-committal  scientific jargon. Fr R has one philosophy of nature, Tom and Q have another. That's all she wrote.
" 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.)
 

Online Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3856
  • Thanked: 930 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2018, 08:18:45 AM »
Never, ever admit your opponents have answered any of your objections

Still waiting for that to happen in any kind of verifiable and final sense. You see, what you and others of your ilk fail to understand is that science is not, and has never been, a relevant vehicle for determining the truth. It is a philosophical category error to believe so. I await your retraction and apology regarding the myth of ring species and hubristric claims to truth on this matter.
" 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.)
 

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2018, 09:46:39 AM »
Tom, you seem unaware that evolution errs in so many spheres, not just the scientific. And F R's use of the term 'species' is essentially what most people understand it as being, despite the slippery, shifting, and ever changing definitions that science itself cannot seem to agree upon. You cannot be equivocal about something that refuses to define itself in any kind of settled sense.

1. I do not agree that evolution errs in "so many spheres." Again, to simply state this without an argument is a mere assertion. Moreover, regardless of what spheres it errs in, I am not here to discuss every aspect of evolution. I gave a comment listing two problems with Father Ripperger's critique of evolution. My points stand even if evolution never happened.

2. A minor point regarding evolutionary biology: it doesn't matter if the definition of "species" is shifting, or not agreed upon, etc. You seem to think that proponents of one definition are trying to make some major metaphysical point. This is a serious misunderstanding of what science is even attempting. "Species" is being used as a useful classification tool to talk about what we observe in nature.

3. Regarding your sentence "F R's use of the term...cannot seem to agree upon." Notice: you seem to admit that Father and evolution are using two different understandings of species. But this is exactly why he is equivocating.

Rather than simply stomp your feet and say he's not equivocating, you should show why he isn't. On page 2, I wrote out what I take to be Father's argument against evolution, a valid argument with 4 premises. Then, I proceeded to explain how he equivocates. And I will say it again: it does not matter if Father's understanding of "species" is better than modern biology. What matters, for if he is equivocating, is whether or not he is using the same definition of species throughout all of his premises. I explain how he implicitly is using two different understandings of species in premises (1) &(4) and (2). By admitting evolution is working with a different understanding of species, you are basically conceding this point.