Do you believed the Big Bang and evolution theory?

[yen]

Yes, I can imagine God to have use gradual evolution. I mean what\'s stopping Him anyway?

However, recent discoveries have led many scientists to question the validity of Darwinian evolutionary theory. One of the most crippling discoveries is the lack of consistency in the fossil record. Because of these discoveries, a growing number of scientists, largely ignored, repressed and caricatured by the media, have put forward an alternative hypothesis to explain the origin of life-- Intelligent Design.

Just something to think about: if the homo sapiens weren't fully developed yet, did the ancestors have a "soul?"

If so what makes our species any different from the homo erectus, did those species not have a "soul"?

No, I'm no aetheist but I wonder what is the Catholic teaching on this matter...

That is in the premise of evolution being a fact... although I've heard of a missing link between the homo erectus and the homo sapiens that is if I got the names of the species right.

Ah. I heard about Intelligent Design. It was featured in Newsweek or Times several months ago. If I remember correctly... think it was a anti-ID article, something about a fish with eyes on top. I'll see if I can find the article.

MrBiddle, you've just reminded me of the show National Geographic showed last week about the Genographic Project.

[yen]

Lol.Â* Reread the article.Â* There's a fight between Darwin's Theory and Intelligent Design.Â* =)Â* Kinda makes me glad my scientific field of interest is physics, not biology. The article about fish with eyes on top was a different article. Hmm... maybe it was in Times.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9580324/

[zengatsu]

Not sure about Albert Einstein, but he was such a nice and humble person.

eistein is a believer.. naa sya quote nga
When the solution is simple, God is answering.

[yen]

Not sure about Albert Einstein, but he was such a nice and humble person.

eistein is a believer.. naa sya quote nga
When the solution is simple, God is answering.

Yay!Â* I'm nuts about Einstein.Â* =)Â* He's such a nice person that I actually feel defensive if someone criticizes him.

He also says funny things.Â* I love that quote of his about gravitation and love.Â* I'm not sure if I remember it exactly; it went something like this:

--- Gravitation cannot be held responsible for two people falling in love.

LOL Albert Einstein

[HoundedbyHeaven]

OT: Naa man.

Cite the source, please. Very intriguing to know.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Just something to think about: if the homo sapiens weren\'t fully developed yet, did the ancestors have a \"soul?\"

If so what makes our species any different from the homo erectus, did those species not have a \"soul\"?

No, I\'m no aetheist but I wonder what is the Catholic teaching on this matter...

A Catholic who agrees in Darwinian evolution (which I am not) would give a better answer to these questions. The Catholic Church, I guess, would consider only Homo Sapiens alone to have a soul, if a Catholic chooses to believe in evolution. Thus, the other hominids would have no rational soul.

The Catholic Church has not made an infallible statement whether Darwinian evolution or another mechanism was used by the Creator to create life. What it has taught is that God was absolutely in control of whatever mechanism was set into motion to create life. And of course, that man has an eternal soul and that the entire human race genetically descended from one man and one woman.

There is also a debate as to whether the other hominids are either of the Homo Sapiens species but afflicted with genetic abnormalities or totally unrelated to said species. Recent discoveries, particularly in DNA research, seem to favor the latter-- Homo Sapiens is a species of its own and could not have descended from other hominids.

That is in the premise of evolution being a fact... although I\'ve heard of a missing link between the homo erectus and the homo sapiens that is if I got the names of the species right.

Hmm. Cite it here then. Very intriguing to know that too.

Pax.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

It's that... it's more complicated to create something that can evolve/change/improve on its own than something that is just as is (no change).

Well, I seem to disagree with that because instant creation ex nihilo is far more complicated, if not absolutely incomprehensible, than the process of evolution. With evolution, you could figure out some laws governing the process, perhaps even derive mathematical equations from it, at least. To some extent, it is predictible akin to the Mendelian laws of heredity. But not with instant creation ex nihilo. To illustrate my point, consider this quote:"...And even if there is only one unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to govern? Is the ultimate unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist? I don't know the answer to that." Stephan Hawking, Black Holes and Baby Universes, The Origin of the Universe (1987). New York: Bantam Books, pp. 98-99.

By the way, I think science and religion can get along quite fine. =) Isaac Newton, for example, was a devout believer in God (in fact, he was very devout). Not sure about Albert Einstein, but he was such a nice and humble person. Don't know much about Darwin though.

True, true, true. They do get along fine, and always have been...until Atheism and Agnosticism came along. I've known of no founder of any branch of science who was not a believer in some deity.

Pax.

[yen]

HoundedbyHeaven, lol... err...

Time out here. I'm confused. Do you think I'm against Darwin's Theory or for it?

Just to clarify, I'm neutral on Darwin's theory. For me, it's ok, I've nothing to complain about it, but neither am I going to insist to others that they should support Darwin's theory. When it comes to theories, I think people should be free to choose which theory they like.

I'm more of a Newton and Einstein fan. ^^

[zengatsu]

OT: Naa man.

Cite the source, please. Very intriguing to know.

hala aw o bitaw..wala ko ni nabantayan gabii dah..hehehe..pls cite the source..

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Lol. Reread the article. There\\\\\\\'s a fight between Darwin\\\\\\\'s Theory and Intelligent Design. =) Kinda makes me glad my scientific field of interest is physics, not biology. The article about fish with eyes on top was a different article. Hmm... maybe it was in Times.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9580324/

Not merely a fight but an intellectual, philosophical and cultural war already. And even I.D. is being attacked by both old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists camps. Many are complaining on the monopoly of Darwinian evolution in the school textbooks and the lack of mention, if not silence, for its increasing number of flaws.

Pax.