Churches rejecting science altogether

[donsnow]

Hi Don,

I’m not looking for detailed scientific explanations. I only ask the OP, or anyone else, to point to a specific Church that tells its followers science is evil. So far, all I’m seeing is the usual science defines everything argument, which, of course, Christians know is not true.

It is common for anti-theists to put down those fundies. Apparently, freedom of religion, in the case of Fundamendalist non-Catholics, bothers them for some reason. It would be nice to have some evidence that supports their view as opposed to blanket declarations that there are Churches rejecting science altogether. Where? Which ones? Do we know why they think like that? That would make for a good discussion.

Peace,
Ed

Hi, Ed,

I see your point and certainly don’t disagree with it, including it as well as my perspective.

This seems to be the day that Perfect Timing doesn’t appear to have that.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

kbachler is a perfect example of someone that is wearing glasses with a science only filter. So much else cannot get through. He practices scientism. Science trumps Divine Revelation.

Now one must ask - should our reasoning of the world be illuminated by science alone or illuminated by the truth of Revelation? I go with the latter. Divine Revelation trumps everything. (but I was not always that way, a number of years ago kbachler and I would be in agreement on much.)

I believe I know his answer.

Well, buffalo,

To the best of my knowledge, Revelation may include science, but I seldom see science including Divine revelation.

G’night all, this approaches the end of my daily internet routine. I have one other website to attend to, before I leave the 'net.

God loves you,
Don

 

[edwest2]

Don,

You missed Richard Dawkins’ reply on TV when he was asked: Did God breathe life into man’s nostrils and make him a living being?

“NO.”

How about biology textbooks? Filled with philosophical and totally untestable conclusions based on “science.”

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

C’mon, Don. What is all that nonsense doing in our kids’ textbooks?

Peace,
Ed

 

[kbachler]

Well, kbachler,
Animals do not have a mind which transcends space and time,

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

which the Mind of Christ does have, and we have access to His mind through our minds.

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

And, so, are blessed to catch glimpses of His divine nature and thoughts with our minds.

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

Humans do not meet the proscribing definition of animal, because that term remains incomplete when defining and describing the totality of human nature.

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

The limits of animal-ism fall far short of any working label, definition nor description of the total human nature. That’s why.

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

Citizen kbachler, just because people prioritize the tenets of their belief system differently from your prioritizing of your belief system;

The definition of “animal” doesn’t priortize the tenets of a belief system. Therefore this statement is not relevant.

just because people have a different kind of education than you do; just because people think differrently than you and the instructor who taught you how to think that way in a classroom or laboratory; does not make those people ignorant.

And this statement has nothing to do with the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

Such people may well have a rich and vibrant education and mode of thought that encompass far more than the ways you were taught.
Pleeeeaaasse, Citizen kbachler, try not to confuse different types of knowledge and experience than yours as ignorance.

Again, this has nothing to do with the definition of animal, and so is not relevant.

Don, you failed to address the question. How is a human not an animal? Here is a definition of animal:

A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.

On what basis does a human body not fall inside that definition?

 

[davidv]

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

The definition of “animal” doesn’t priortize the tenets of a belief system. Therefore this statement is not relevant.

And this statement has nothing to do with the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

Again, this has nothing to do with the definition of animal, and so is not relevant.

Don, you failed to address the question. How is a human not an animal? Here is a definition of animal:

On what basis does a human body not fall inside that definition?

A human body without its spiritual soul is dead. Dead things are not properly classified as animals.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

A human body without its spiritual soul is dead. Dead things are not properly classified as animals.

Did anyone propose somehow removing a spiritual soul from a human body? A cow without a heart is dead too – that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t an animal while it was alive.

 

[kbachler]

A human body without its spiritual soul is dead. Dead things are not properly classified as animals.

Sorry, no one said the body had no soul. What was said was that we were only classifying the body.

 

[davidv]

Sorry, no one said the body had no soul. What was said was that we were only classifying the body.

How else were we to take this statement from you?

kbachler:

On what basis does a human body not fall inside that definition?

The human is a person, not a body.

 

[grannymh]

A human body without its spiritual soul is dead. Dead things are not properly classified as animals.

Excellent.

 

[donsnow]

Don,

You missed Richard Dawkins’ reply on TV when he was asked: Did God breathe life into man’s nostrils and make him a living being?

“NO.”

How about biology textbooks? Filled with philosophical and totally untestable conclusions based on “science.”

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

C’mon, Don. What is all that nonsense doing in our kids’ textbooks?

Peace,
Ed

Shucks, Ed,

The home schooled and church schooled kids have the best chance for an unbiased education.

I guess I verbally put down Mr. Charles Darwin because it seems a lot of people treat him like a god and verbally put down my God, the Most High Holy Trinity.
But, I am glad to see that Mr. Charles Darwin is being questioned by some contemporary authors.

I think this relates to the OP by showing how people rally round Jesus the Christ, when followers of an icon like Mr. Charles Darwin tend to pooh-pooh our religion. I reckon we need more church types to pray for Mr. Charles Darwin’s soul and to pray for his and other science icons followers instead of pushing those sinners away.

God loves you,
Don

 

[grannymh]

On what basis does a human body not fall inside that definition?

Personally, I like the definition which starts with being a vertebrate.

Actually, I support various elements of evolutionary theory; but for me, that does not automatically eliminate the spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent.

Ah, one says. The spiritual cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. Thus, it is possible to explore the intrinsic value of human life which is beyond the technical limits of evolutionary theory.

Scientifically one could say that you and I live in an animal world only in different kinds of houses. If that is correct, then we would be living in the animal kingdom without the restrictions of said kingdom.

But if you and I do not have to abide by the animal kingdom’s restrictions, what is the point of placing us there?

Blessings,
granny

---

**THE HOLY EUCHARIST **
****IS THE LIGHT, STRENGTH, AND LIFE OF OUR SOULS.

 

[donsnow]

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

This is not part of the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

The definition of “animal” doesn’t priortize the tenets of a belief system. Therefore this statement is not relevant.

And this statement has nothing to do with the definition of animal, and is therefore not relevant.

Again, this has nothing to do with the definition of animal, and so is not relevant.

Don, you failed to address the question. How is a human not an animal? Here is a definition of animal:

On what basis does a human body not fall inside that definition?

Gee, kbachler,

After all my points which differ humans from animal, to which you replied, “This is not the definition of animal”, and you don’t see how animals and humans differ?
You’ve stated your self at least a half dozen times, that humans do not meet the definition of animal. In this post. Read what you wrote.
On every point you labeled “Not definition of animal” does a human body (intrinsicly also a soul and spirit) not fall into the definition of an animal.

The only time you have a human body that 's not a soul is when it’s dead. Living human bodies and their intrinsic human characteristic of being a soul many not be regarded separately, unless the body is dead. That’s where human body falls out side the definition of a living animal.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Did anyone propose somehow removing a spiritual soul from a human body? A cow without a heart is dead too – that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t an animal while it was alive.

Hi,Filippo Bruno,

I am a soul; I am a living soul; only when dead may I not be regarded as a living soul. This also applies to you and all other living humans.

Dead bodies of humans fall out side the definition of a living animal, don’t they?

God loves you,
Don

 

[edwest2]

Don,

Here is the problem: If some Churches reject science then we are told, that will push people away from the Faith. OK?

The Catholic Church accepts science and has a Pontifical Acadmey of Sciences. Not a problem. It seems to me that some want to staple a science book onto the Bible. That science is necessary to bring people to the faith. By God’s grace, I’ve done street witnessing. Nobody ever asked about science. Nobody.

You’re right. We need to pray for those who distort certain scientific issues. I have no ill will toward such people. But we need to understand their thinking as well.

Peace,
Ed

 

[donsnow]

Hi, All,

I think that kbachler and Filippo Bruno present good examples of what alienates some church types from some science types. I think their two posts demonstrate how some churches are provoked to reject the people who speak or behave thus.

But, I also think that the OP is in error when it states that some churches reject science. I think that only the label of animal is rejected and sometimes the person who tries to label all these living soul as animal are rejected. But, not science in toto. That’s my observation on the OP at this point.

God loves all of you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Don,

Here is the problem: If some Churches reject science then we are told, that will push people away from the Faith. OK?

The Catholic Church accepts science and has a Pontifical Acadmey of Sciences. Not a problem. It seems to me that some want to staple a science book onto the Bible. That science is necessary to bring people to the faith. By God’s grace, I’ve done street witnessing. Nobody ever asked about science. Nobody.

You’re right. We need to pray for those who distort certain scientific issues. I have no ill will toward such people. But we need to understand their thinking as well.

Peace,
Ed

Thanks, Ed,

For showing me a new perspective, “…that some people want to staple a science book onto the Bible. That science is necessary to bring people to the faith.”
You see, I always thought that a lot of church people tried to justify the Holy Bible with science. Maybe that’s true. But, you have shown me where some Christians think they need bring science into the faith.

The faith has always implicity included all Creation, which does include science.

So, we don’t have to stretch and strain neither the Holy Bible nor Science to make them meet. All we need do is find and describe the simple truth of my above statement.
Do I have that right?

God loves you,
Don

 

[edwest2]

Don,

I wish it was that simple. It should be. Let’s not forget the story of the young man who is taught a literal 6 Day Creation. As the story goes, he gets to college and finds out “They lied!” and turns into an atheist or agnostic. The part they never point out is that the life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ gets thrown out as well.

That’s the issue here. A major part of it anyway.

Peace,
Ed

 

[donsnow]

Don,

I wish it was that simple. It should be. Let’s not forget the story of the young man who is taught a literal 6 Day Creation. As the story goes, he gets to college and finds out “They lied!” and turns into an atheist or agnostic. The part they never point out is that the life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ gets thrown out as well.

That’s the issue here. A major part of it anyway.

Peace,
Ed

My first attempt at college was after the USMC had forged me into a Marine, and I wasn’t likely to take to heart any anti-God viewpoint of a professor; however, I didn’t run into that, then in 1970. However, during my second foray into college during 1998 I had two classes where professors dumped their personal views on the students, depriving me of some of the time and information I was spending my money and time for. When it came time for me to review my reasons for going to college (chasing the almighty dollar), those two classes had an impact and I withdrew, deciding my next time in college would be for what I desired (astronomy 101 and vocal music), not to make more money.

Basically, at 55yo, I just didn’t have to put up with what the professors of those two classes were mouthing off about.

God loves you,
Don.

 

[grannymh]

Don,

I wish it was that simple. It should be. Let’s not forget the story of the young man who is taught a literal 6 Day Creation. As the story goes, he gets to college and finds out “They lied!” and turns into an atheist or agnostic. The part they never point out is that the life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ gets thrown out as well.

That’s the issue here. A major part of it anyway.
Peace,
Ed

I have heard the “story” before. What it does is to eliminate the possibility that young people do have the ability to think things through before becoming atheistic or agnostic. There is a period of questioning and searching.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55.

 

[edwest2]

I have heard the “story” before. What it does is to eliminate the possibility that young people do have the ability to think things through before becoming atheistic or agnostic. There is a period of questioning and searching.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55.

Yes, young people can look at the issue and decide for themselves, but it may be difficult if those around them discourage the idea.

Peace,
Ed