Churches rejecting science altogether

[grannymh]

But there are scientists who use science to deny the souls existance. Just like it appears is being done with the taxonomy to discount any unique difference of kind between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

It is just one more example of the gulf between human nature and the rest of the animals.

There are plenty of non-scientists on CAF who freely interpret current research or use lack of physical evidence to deny the responsibility of a soul. A few push to have the Church reject its teachings in favor of science.

 

[buffalo]

That’s not what the statement I copied and pasted from their website said.

Moreover, if that’s what it says, then it has a difficulty with free will.

Sigh. Buffalo, can you possibly listen to what someone says, rather than reading your own meaning into it. I am already up to date. All I stated before was with respect to Dawkins/Davies/Venter - Good

Wow, in one sentence you say so much that is untrue. Didn’t neglected, didn’t neglect it through anything, and btw there’s even more evidence of impact from viruses.

Yes.

As I noted, there are 3 ways. If we speak as Christians God did 1, God did 2, or God did 3. If we speak as scientists then 1, 2, or 3.

The concept of course, is ridiculous, since there are cumulative changes in encoding over time. - correct - due to mutations, environment, epigenetics - however e coli is still e coli, humans are still human. I have no argument with adaptations within.

And as I note, then you’re at odds with your own beliefs, or you don’t understand them, or they are just misstated. In any case, its not particularly convincing. I will keep trying.

You’re aware that you do actually share genetic code with other animals (and other living things) right? absolutely and I don’t find that all surprising. Designers use common ideas and things all the time, programmers uses the same snippets of code for many different purposes.

You do understand that Venter wasn’t saying that there are NO relationships, he was just saying that there’s more than one tree. So yes, Davies/Dawkins might be very related to a chimp, but not particularly related to Mycoplasmas. I guess we will wait to see how this develops over time and how he answers further questions.

Don’t overstate his case.

No, it isn’t. You’re overstating the case. Go back and listen to everything Venter said. All he’s saying is that instead of one group of 100% of the organisms having common descent to one original creature, maybe (for example) there are three groups, and one has 85% of life as common descent in its tree, and another has 10% in its tree and another as 5% in its tree. I guess we will wait to see how this develops over time and how he answers further questions. Hmmmn - you might want to read that Nature article.

He’s not arguing, for example, that all primates are not related. He would still contend that they are - but they are likely on a different tree than Mycoplasmas. I guess we will wait to see how this develops over time and how he answers further questions.

Man is in the kingdom of animals. He is clearly related to the other animals. Eukarya are in a different domain than bacteria. We will soon find out more as we explore genetics.

The IDvolution website states otherwise. If everything is encoded in advance then it doesn’t allow for the fact that changes gene structures have occurred over time. So it doesn’t work. It would also have an issue with free will, and may have an issue with QED. Exactly opposite - God encoded the information that was pristine (preternatural gifts), then Adam’s free will choice corrupted (original sin) and this sin corrupts it to this very day.

Really bad idea. Fantastic idea - don’t you wish you thought of it?

 

[grannymh]

The CHRISTIAN belief system also prefers natural events giving rise to life. .

I’ve noticed something similar. Apparently, true Catholicism stands alone on some issues.

 

[donsnow]

Well, one issue with this is that this is not a defining characteristic of animals. It would be like saying that a house is not a building because it isn’t 50 stories high, and skyscrapers are 50 stories high and are buildings, so houses must not be.

Animals aren’t defined on the basis of what they design or think. If so, why wouldn’t you argue that a dog is an animal but a mollusk is not?

Even so, the differences are usually less than what they appear.

Some instances of apes using hides has been reported.

Apes have been observed sharing food, tools and making multiple tools for use by another. They have been observed in some primitive barter.

The lack of this is likely primarily due to an inability to communicate well.

And mollusks haven’t been reported fishing termites out of a hole with a stick, but apes and mollusks are both still animals.

And you’d be completely wrong. If one house is blue and another is red - they are both still houses.

Consider:

The above are the things that define animals. I had assumed you knew what the word animal meant, and now I see I am wrong.

Given the list of the above, in what ways is a human not an animal?

kbackler,

The topic is not the characteristics of animals. I parry your rhetorical diverting device, and bring my post back to my point, not yours. The topic of my post is the characteristics of humans. Dont’ try to change the subject again.

All of your example type arguments compare apples to oranges. I quietly put them aside.
Come to think of it, comparing humans and animals also compares apples to oranges.

In short, citizen, your arguments don’t touch the topic, and your anonymous statement about the characteristics of animals is not the topic. The topic is the characteristics of humans.

Your rhetorical devices do not change the facts of my comparison. Apes did not design the hides they played with. Probably, some human gave the apes the hides. Which corrupts the experiment. Apes, if the do make knives, do not use knives to skin other animals, so the whole ape with hides report is a transparent flim flam.

It’s people like the ones who gave the apes the hides, that make science look bad to the faithful.

kbachler, I have no intention of attacking you nor science. You’re not an authority over me and I’m not an authority over you. Thank you, for ceasing your personal attacks on my abiltiies…Because of your change in tactics, I am not, repeat not, putting you on my ignore list. I am grateful you have let up on me.

God loves you,
Don

 

[grannymh]

There is no implication other than “man is an animal.” Any additional implication is what you’re adding onto it.

Science doesn’t deal with “additional implications” of this sort. It deals with what is said.

If someone tries to tell you otherwise - for example - that there is no soul - just explain that you are not aware of any experiments that established that. (There are subatomic particles that are nearly impossible to catch, or impossible to catch, and we believe in those because of the way they fit a theory. The physical evidence is not significantly different from the physical evidence for a soul.) And while some choose to believe that there is no soul, you choose to believe that there is - but to mistakenly claim that there is a proof either way is to misrepresent science.

Are you trying to tell people that man, as an animal, is limited because only science is available? That doesn’t sound like a very happy worldview. I’m so sorry.

 

[shoe]

I think some of the things that separate humans from the animal kingdom is that humans have the God given ability to reason and to project that reasoning ability into language, speech, technology, imagination, and awareness; but I think more important than that is that humans also have the God given ability to realize and understand ethics, morals, and justice. I think that the evolutionists have spent so much time and energy attempting to train certain animals to act like humans that the evolutionists seem to have developed a proclivity to put animals doing tricks on equal footing with human emotions such as love, joy, and affection.

 

[grannymh]

There are plenty of other examples. But it doesn’t mean that man isn’t an animal.

Man is a fish? Someone gave me that book about inner fish but I misplaced it.

 

[grannymh]

I think some of the things that separate humans from the animal kingdom is that humans have the God given ability to reason and to project that reasoning ability into language, speech, technology, imagination, and awareness; but I think more important than that is that humans also have the God given ability to realize and understand ethics, morals, and justice. I think that the evolutionists have spent so much time and energy attempting to train certain animals to act like humans that the evolutionists seem to have developed a proclivity to put animals doing tricks on equal footing with human emotions such as love, joy, and affection.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think we need to quibble over the word appear. The point is that the argument that ONLY humans reason is not a correct one.

In your view, what do humans reason about and how do they reason?

If you don’t have an answer, how do you know that humans reason?
Maybe humans just appear to reason. What’s your story about this?

 

[PerfectTiming]

Man is a fish? Someone gave me that book about inner fish but I misplaced it.

Your logic is incredibly flawed. A sparrow is a bird. So is an eagle. That doesn’t mean a sparrow is an eagle. They both fall under the same ‘umbrella’ category but are still fundamentally different. In body, humans are animals - we share the same structures and mechanisms and systems. That doesn’t mean we are the same as other species - we are fundamentally different due to the soul, not the body. I don’t even see how this is contrary to faith. Even without speaking of evolution, God created us all. Why is it so implausible to suggest He used some of the same physical building blocks ie. DNA to make humans and other animals?

 

[grannymh]

Your logic is incredibly flawed. A sparrow is a bird. So is an eagle. That doesn’t mean a sparrow is an eagle. They both fall under the same ‘umbrella’ category but are still fundamentally different. In body, humans are animals - we share the same structures and mechanisms and systems. That doesn’t mean we are the same as other species - we are fundamentally different due to the soul, not the body. I don’t even see how this is contrary to faith. Even without speaking of evolution, God created us all. Why is it so implausible to suggest He used some of the same physical building blocks ie. DNA to make humans and other animals?

My position is that humans are peerless. We are different in kind – kind being a term which differentiates one species from another. I would appreciate it if you could tell me where my logic is incredibly flawed. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough about the differences between animals and humans? I have been trying to respect this forum’s ban on evolution discussion.

 

[PerfectTiming]

My position is that humans are peerless. We are different in kind – kind being a term which differentiates one species from another. I would appreciate it if you could tell me where my logic is incredibly flawed.

A sparrow is a bird. So is an eagle. That doesn’t mean a sparrow is an eagle.
A human is an animal. So is a fish. Does that mean a human is a fish? No, it doesn’t. That is where your logic was flawed when you said “Man is a fish?”.

We are different to other animals and we are hierarchically superior - I would not deny that. But that is because we have a soul, the immortal soul that makes us in the image of God and gives us the moral and intellectual superiority. But in body we are not that different.

 

[donsnow]

The information I provided also discusses macroevolution, including quantum speciation. Such changes have been observed in the lab and in the wild.

kbachler,

What kind of specie has been observed in the wild, during quantum speciation? Are we talking about germs, viruses, algae or larger life forms? Please, no sarcasm, I’d like to know. The article I looked up to learn quantum speciation didn’t give who observed what nor when nor where. Did you have the same problem at your source?

God loves you,
Don

 

[kbachler]

kbachler,
What kind of specie has been observed in the wild, during quantum speciation?

My bad, the prior wording is bad. I meant speciation has been observed both in the wild and the laboratory. I did not mean to include quantum speciation.

Are we talking about germs, viruses, algae or larger life forms? Please, no sarcasm, I’d like to know. The article I looked up to learn quantum speciation didn’t give who observed what nor when nor where. Did you have the same problem at your source?

God loves you,
Don

See these sources, I haven’t read these particular sources but they are supposed to address the question.

^ Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). “Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years”. Evolution 47 (6): 1637–1653. doi:10.2307/2410209. Retrieved 2008-05-19.
*Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). “Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?”. Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 19 (3): 111–4. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.008. PMID 16701238.
*Boxhorn, J (1995). “Observed Instances of Speciation”. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
*Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D (1992). “Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory”. Evolution 46 (4): 1214–20. doi:10.2307/2409766.
*Kirkpatrick, Mark; Virginie Ravigné (2002-03). “Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments”. The American Naturalist 159 (3): S22–S35. doi:10.1086/338370. ISSN 00030147. PMID 18707367. Retrieved 2010-03-11.

 

[grannymh]

A sparrow is a bird. So is an eagle. That doesn’t mean a sparrow is an eagle.
A human is an animal. So is a fish. Does that mean a human is a fish? No, it doesn’t. That is where your logic was flawed when you said “Man is a fish?”.

We are different to other animals and we are hierarchically superior - I would not deny that. But that is because we have a soul, the immortal soul that makes us in the image of God and gives us the moral and intellectual superiority. But in body we are not that different.

Ooops. You arrived at the end of a long discussion with kbachler. I objected to the concept that “man is an animal.” Logically, a human being is a person.

Human nature, in itself, unites the material and spiritual worlds. This unique unification is why our nature is rational/corporeal; material/non-material; spirit/matter. There should not be any implication that the body belongs in the animal kingdom because it comes from the same kind of matter as other living organisms while the soul belongs outside because only animal nature in its kingdom can be proven by science.

I would reply further but there is a ban on evolution discussion in this Forum.

“The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 362-368.

I realize that you are posting the above in your own words. Consider this as both an affirmation and an extension of reality.

 

[kbachler]

In your view, what do humans reason about and how do they reason?

I’ve always been partial to Whitehead’s “The Function of Reason” the entire text is available here archive.org/stream/functionofreason031865mbp/functionofreason031865mbp_djvu.txt

It begins with:

The topic here considered The Function of Reason is one of the oldest topics for philosophical discussion. What is the function of Reason amid the welter of our mental experiences, amid our intuitions, our emotions, our purposes, our decisions of emphasis ? In order to answer such a question we have to consider the nature of Reason, its essence. Of course this is a hackneyed theme. Its discussion stretches back to the very beginnings of philosophic thought. But it is the business of philosophers to discuss such fundamental topics, and to set them on the stage illuminated by our modern ways of thinking.

It later states:

Yet, in despite of this warning to avoid a mere phrase, I will start with a preliminary definition of the function of Reason, a definition to be illustrated, distorted, and enlarged, as this discussion proceeds.

The function of Reason is to promote the art of life.

There is more to that than first meets the eye…don’t immediately judge it as leaving out God, as that is an assumption that should not be made.

Even the more intimate actions of animals are activities modifying the nvironment. The simplest living things let their food swim into them. The higher animals chase their food, catch it, and masticate it. In so acting, they are transforming the environment for their own purposes. Some animals dig for their food, others stalk their prey. Of course all these operations are meant by the common doctrine of adaptation to the environment. But they
are very inadequately expressed by that statement ; and the real facts easily drop out of sight under cover of that statement. The higher forms of life are actively engaged in modifying their environment. In the case of mankind this active attack on the environment is the most prominent fact in his existence.

I now state the thesis that the explanation of this active attack on the environment is a three-fold urge: (i) to live, (ii) to live well, (iii) to live better.

In fact the art of life is first to be alive, secondly to be alive in a satisfactory way, and thirdly to acquire an increase in satisfaction. It is at this point of our argument that we have to recur to the function of Reason, namely the promotion of the art of life. The primary function of Reason is the direction of the attack on the environment.

In conclusion we must recur to our initial question, which is the title of this discussion, The Function of Reason. If we survey the world as a physical system determined by its antecedent states, it presents to us the spectacle of a finite system steadily running down losing its activities and its varieties. The various evolutionary formulae give no hint of
any contrary tendency. The struggle for existence gives no hint why more complex, delicate organisms should arise. In the same way, earthquakes give no hint as to why there should be cities. Again the crowding of houses is no explanation why houses
should be beautiful. But there is in nature some tendency upwards, in a contrary direction to the aspect of physical decay. In our experience we find appetition, effecting a final causation towards ideal ends which lie outside the mere physical tendency,
In the burning desert there is appetition towards water, whereas the physical tendency is towards increased dryness of the animal body. The appetition towards esthetic satisfaction by some enjoyment of beauty is equally outside the mere physical order.

But mere blind appetition would be the product of chance and could lead nowhere. In our experience, we find Reason and speculative imagination. There is a discrimination of appetitions according to a rule of fitness. This reign of Reason is vacillating, vague, and dim. But it is there.

We have thus some knowledge, in a form specialized to the special aptitudes of human beings, we have some knowledge of that counter-tendency which converts the decay of one order into the birth of its successor.

If you don’t have an answer, how do you know that humans reason?

I think, therefore I am. I believe in much of what my senses tell me (read Bishop Berkeley). Therefore I believe that there are others like me. Therefore, I know that humans reason.

Maybe humans just appear to reason. What’s your story about this?

See above. I believe in free will, and QED theory supports free will conceptually. One of the appeals to me of M-theory is that I believe it will further support free will.

 

[donsnow]

Please provide any quote where I said that you said Darwin was an idiot.

1. I am not going to render a source for every single piece of information. There has to be some assumption that people have some familiarity with science. I don’t wish to spend my entire day find references to educate you on fundamentals, nor do I wish to insult you by quoting fundamentals to you.
2. On other instances I HAVE provided references
3. If ASKED I have provided references.

It is not as though references were ever lacking, Don.

What one source was anonymous?

As noted, I’m not going to quote references on every item - I assume some knowledge of science. If you don’t know, ASK, and I will happily provide a reference.

Modern primate speciation? I doubt it. From the fossil record? Certainly.

God loves you,
Don

In your post #232 on page 16 of this thread, the fourth paragraph of your text on that page, the ending sentence reads, “Does that make Darwin an idiot? No.”
That same quote also appears in your quoted text of my post #296 on page 20, same place in your text, “Does that make Darwin an idiot? No.”.

I’ve never termed Darwin an idiot. Why would you ask that, which implies I did?

Your high esteem of Darwin does not undo the harm his works have done to both science and Christendom… But, the man was not an idiot.
A dupe of Uniformtariansist evolution proponents?
Yes.
An idiot?
No.

Back to the OP. Why do churches reject science?
Because the proponents of science tend to beat people over the head with their superiority.
Because science makes a better servant than a master.
Because science has no native authority, but tries to bring an authority which belongs only in Academia into the larger world. A world where science is one establishment among many others. A lot of those other establishments can survive the collapse of science, technology and economics that makes up the present technocracy.

Oh, Ok. Back to the OP.
Because the technocracy usurping our rights and liberties is possible only with science.

And, back to the OP.
All you can teach an adult is what that adult chooses to learn; if an adult’s heart is set on learning astronomy and you try to get that adult’s attention to biology, all you’re going to do is alienate that adult, at the very least.

Does any of this make sense to you?
These are all basic facts of life in the world at large.

God does love you,
Don
P.S.
Could we please quit arguing evolution and resume questioning what part of the establishment of science’s poor Public Relations it is that alienates, or irritates or offends people of faith?
thank you, dds

 

[donsnow]

A sparrow is a bird. So is an eagle. That doesn’t mean a sparrow is an eagle.
A human is an animal. So is a fish. Does that mean a human is a fish? No, it doesn’t. That is where your logic was flawed when you said “Man is a fish?”.

We are different to other animals and we are hierarchically superior - I would not deny that. But that is because we have a soul, the immortal soul that makes us in the image of God and gives us the moral and intellectual superiority. But in body we are not that different.

Well, PerfectTiming,

Please tell me what animal has human vocal chords?

Thank you.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

My bad, the prior wording is bad. I meant speciation has been observed both in the wild and the laboratory. I did not mean to include quantum speciation.

See these sources, I haven’t read these particular sources but they are supposed to address the question.

^ Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). “Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years”. Evolution 47 (6): 1637–1653. doi:10.2307/2410209. Retrieved 2008-05-19.
*Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). “Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?”. Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 19 (3): 111–4. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.008. PMID 16701238.
*Boxhorn, J (1995). “Observed Instances of Speciation”. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
*Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D (1992). “Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory”. Evolution 46 (4): 1214–20. doi:10.2307/2409766.
*Kirkpatrick, Mark; Virginie Ravigné (2002-03). “Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments”. The American Naturalist 159 (3): S22–S35. doi:10.1086/338370. ISSN 00030147. PMID 18707367. Retrieved 2010-03-11.

Aw, kbachler!

Please, only the sources you have read and edited for yourself. That’s all I’m interested in.
BTW, have some of your sources irritated you by failing to provide who saw what kind of animal do speciation, where and when?

A report without “Who, what, when and where” is useless.
In philosophy, we can also tack on, “Why?”

We all need to apply critical reading and/or thinking to each and every science report, whether in the Journal Nature, Time magazine or any other media. I’m still learning to do that.

God loves you,
Don

 

[kbachler]

Aw, kbachler!

Please, only the sources you have read and edited for yourself. That’s all I’m interested in.
BTW, have some of your sources irritated you by failing to provide who saw what kind of animal do speciation, where and when?

A report without “Who, what, when and where” is useless.
In philosophy, we can also tack on, “Why?”

We all need to apply critical reading and/or thinking to each and every science report, whether in the Journal Nature, Time magazine or any other media. I’m still learning to do that.

God loves you,
Don

Don, I don’t have sources here at the office and don’t have that much time to dig back through journals. It is generally easier to find a general source and then to quote their references.