The Church has defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. The church claims the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the guidance of God.!!!

Sally

i will give you an example that illustrates the correct reasoning...and why there is no conflict with god.

suppose you stand directly in front of a 3 foot diameter dart board. you are bindfolded, holding a needle sharp dart above its center. drop the dart down randomly in front of you.

the probability that you hit the dart board is 1.

now, examine the place where the dart landed on the board. see how it split one of the threads...how certain other fibers were pushed this way and that. among all the possible ways the dart could have landed - what are the chances that it would land that way - say if you dropped the dart over again? infinitesimally small. yet, some new thread would be punctured, pushed and molded by the dart hit - that is certain. this is how we came about.

another example...

drop a red ink droplet on the floor randomly. it spashes into thousands of tiny microscopic dots. what is the chance that it will make a specific pattern? extremely small. what is the chance it will hit the floor making some kind of irreproducible splotch? this will happen to be sure.

likewise, the chance that life developed in the way our world currently exists in all its complexity is small but that life would develop in some manifestation is certain.

there is no conflict with god. if you like, god is the droplet of ink, or god is the dart, or god is the hand releasing the dart or the ink. god is the gravity. and evolution is the process.

voila, there you are. a revelation.

I realize that staunch material Atheists don’t always agree with this remark, but MOST religious faiths find that they are not at odds with the Theory of Evolution whatsoever. The Roman Catholics being the most glaringly obvious example of this. In fact, one of my close girlfriends demonstrates this perfectly. We attended college together and still stay in touch. We both studied Paleontology and early hominid cultural origins. She is a devout Catholic and would attend mass every Sunday. There was simply no conflict between her belief system and biological evolution or even human anthropogenesis. I’m not really sure who is so obstinate about this except perhaps fundamentalists Christians and they are just fun to argue with. Perhaps the only issue there is that they insist on taking every last speck of scripture literally which even most Christians recognize as being a bad move

No one has EVER claimed that humans evolved from rocks or that they evolved from monkeys. The great apes are the members of the biological family Hominidae which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Humans share about 96% of their DNA with chimpanzee. The reason? They are our closest living relative on the face of the planet. They are literally our cousins. We diverged from them about 6 million years ago and they developed into their own unique species as did we. That is why their bodies are far superior to ours as it relates to their physicality and sheer strength. They adapted to live in the trees or at least to have access to trees when needed for protection and sanctuary. Humans remained on the ground and adapted a differing skillset in order to thwart predators and create a successful culture.

GREAT QUESTION!!!

'... Evolution: is it fact? ...'

Evolution is much better than fact!!!

... IT'S A SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!!

In a scientific context, you can't get any more factual than 'scientific theory'.

Unlike the general understanding of 'theory' in everyday life which might imply a supposition, an educated hypothesis, a well articulated guess,
... 'scientific theory' implies the rigourous demonstration and explanation of all the isolated tested facts regarding a particular scientific topic.

Alone, a fact doesn't explain or 'prove' anything other than that which it demonstrates specifically.
Without its 'Evolution scientific theory' context,
... the isolated 'fact' that you found a fossile,
... the isolated 'fact' that you have proven that the #2 human chromosone has fused,
.... or that an archeological team has recently (10-12 years) uncovered a 'hotbed' of so-called 'missing links' transitional fossiles,
mean very little other than the evidence it reveals.

The 'scientific theory' rigourously ties an othewise isolated string of facts together, and allows for scientific 'proof' of much larger scale than that which the isolated 'fact' could ever claim.

Somewhere in the 19th century, the scientific community realized and distinguished that they weren't in a competition with religious dogma, and didn't have to establishing irrefutable 'Scientific Laws' to compete with religious dogma; that it wasn't science role to deal in absolute answers of the divine type. Science dropped 'law', and replaced it with 'scientific theory': remaining in the question and scientific inquiry, rather than being syphoned in the domains of the absolute or dogmatic.

As a contribution, here is yet another piece to the very interesting video-bibliography provided by BDBC, I invite you to visit the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&feature=related

It is a Ken Miller presention at Case Western Reserve University:

'... The collapse of Intelligent Design,
will the next 'Monkey Trial' be in Ohio? ...?

Ken Miller is a Cell Biologist and teacher at Brown Univesity. He wrote 'evolution and god', and not that it should matter, but Miller believes in god, and attends church every Sunday.

This not an atheist, or mad anti-religious person, on the contrary. His presentation started with a reverend inviting the guests to join him in a prayer before Miller's presentation.

As far as 'reality-checks' in this 'evolution-creationism' staightjacket jousts go, it is a formidable round-up of the most recent scientific as well as judicial (the teaching of 'creationism or I.D.' as been ruled unconstitutional by a Kansas court verdict) facts regarding this question.

Miller clearly argues for the debunking of the debate, and makes every attempt to reach for reconciliation of the 'other camp' while making no compromise in distinguishing 'fact' from 'fiction' in this whole debate.

Voileazur! Great to see you posting again. Your comments were missed!

Krimsa...

Krimsa,

If you have a chance, visit the 'Ken Miller' link I posted above.

I'd be very interested to hear your unedited take on it!

Sally,

Do you speak for THE CHURCH? By CHURCH are you talking about the Catholic Church?

Well,

The catholic church has clearly stated its support of the theory of evolution. So not that church.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has also clearly stated that his church supported the scientific findings of the theory of evolution.
Moreover, the Archbishop stated in no ambiguous terms, that the church was flatly against 'creationism' or its 'Intelligent Design' variation being tought in schools!!!
So not that church either.

I am at a loss. Have no idea what 'church' Sally might be referring to.

And that being said, what does some obscure corner street church edict have to do with a scientific theory, ... please!?!?!?

I think that anyone who insists that they have the "facts" or the truth concerning the nature of our existence only have a tiny portion of the picture.

No, I don't think "evolution is a fact." It is "scientific theory."

(Thanks for making that clear Voileazur!)

It’s probably just the fundamentalists at this point which are exactly what you surmised. A little church down the road with a bunch of holly rollers and religious right conservative types. Since they surround themselves with only like minded individuals, they have no idea that there is actually a macro culture that lies beyond the foundation of their belief system in the big blue yonder.

Kent Hovind LOLOLOLO.

Yea get your science from him, sigh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFm8uCZ6Uoc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foWdiT9iH44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZCcTcOPV0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDUkd5os4xk


I am really sorry Deke, I really am, I wish someday you will get a proper understanding of science.

You know I once believed in ID. Perhaps some day you too will get caught with the science bug and come to learn how backward your current understanding is. I did and have never felt so connected to nature and reality.



Well facts are testable things. Evolution has happened, its empirical at this point. How it all happened is not well known, we just got started. The fact that evolution takes place, that natural selection and developmental evolution occur is not in argument. It is fact.

Kent Hovind is crazy

And in prison. He thought paying taxes was optional . . .

I didnt know that. Of course now they will argue "he's not a real Christian."

Paying taxes is optional. Is that the real reason he is in prison? For not paying? Or for perjury? What were the actual charges?

LOL,

Pretty sure Tax evasion.

Just a quick google.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16451/kent-hovind-dr-dino-guilty-on-all-counts

THE IRS IS A collection agency for a CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION.

They are Clearly Harrassing this guy. It is very obvious that the IRS is flexing its muscle here. They may get away with it... but they shouldn't if this guy has a good lawyer.



_______________________________________________________


The Hovinds are charged with a total of 58 counts of tax evasion.

***Counts one through 12 include Kent Hovind’s alleged failure to collect nearly $470,000 in employee taxes.

***Counts 13 through 57 include both Kent and Jo Hovind. They are charged with structuring cash transactions of $430,500 to avoid reporting requirements.

Count 58 includes the following charges against Kent Hovind:

**Filing a frivolous lawsuit against the IRS, demanding damages for criminal trespass.

(note: Filing a lawsuit, is not a crime, only a judge can decide if it is frivolous)

**Filing an injunction against an IRS agent.

(Note: this is not a crime either. That IRS agent probably just got pissed off and wanted to show him how powerful he is)

**Making threats against investigators and those cooperating with the investigation.

They better have witnesses for that charge

**Filing false complaints against the IRS for false arrest, excessive use of force and theft.

If he was falsely arrested it is not a false complaint.