Churches rejecting science altogether

  • Thread starter Thread starter PerfectTiming
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a poor article for 3 reasons:
  1. Behe hasn’t demonstrated irreducible complexity of flagellum; the argument is up to him to make and deliver proof.
  2. The author of this article (whomever he is, I don’t seem to be able to find a full name) doesn’t seem to have a good biochem understanding.
  3. Even if there were irreducible complexity actually shown, it wouldn’t imply design. It would most simply imply either a) "genetic chance or b) an additional (as yet) undiscovered process or processes to create a complex structure.
 
This is a poor article for 3 reasons:
  1. Behe hasn’t demonstrated irreducible complexity of flagellum; the argument is up to him to make and deliver proof.
  2. The author of this article (whomever he is, I don’t seem to be able to find a full name) doesn’t seem to have a good biochem understanding.
  3. Even if there were irreducible complexity actually shown, it wouldn’t imply design. It would most simply imply either a) "genetic chance or b) an additional (as yet) undiscovered process or processes to create a complex structure.
Take away any part of the bacterial flagella and what do you have?
 
No evidence has been presented that a disregard for science is either unhealthy or detrimental. It would be helpful to get very specific reasons why these two things might be so.

All I 'm seeing so far is: Agree with science or else. The “or else” part is not explained.

Peace,
Ed
 
A post to all. Ignore all of Buffalo’s posts because kbachler claims they are always wrong. 😃 😉

It is easy to post.

Buffalo is wrong
Buffalo is wrong
Buffalo is wrong.

Got it everyone? Buffalo is wrong.

Ohh - one more - Buffalo tells lies.

Geesh…:banghead:
Oh, Buffalo,

I didn’t know that.

He says I’m wrong, too.
All I want to know, what is wrong with my defining myself outside of a biological bracket?
My mind, spirit and emotions are not confined by my body, and will survive my body, so I think a biological label falls short of an adequate definition of me.
I don’t think that’s wrong.

God loves all of you,
Don
 
Avoiding what this thread has transformed into… and to the original poster’s point.

Stop. Breathe. There now.

You should be a little more circumspect on how you “cut the pie” regarding any type of philosophical, religious, or political community in regards to making a generalization of belief.

From a personal perspective: The people who work in my lab are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists at al. I can tell you plainly that all of them obviously respect the utility of the scientific method for uncovering truth.

This is of course anecdotal - i could somehow be living in a sea of calm in the midst of a storm of rabid anti-intellectual theists. I am simply living a “blessed” exception. Or I can flip that around and say the community you belong to is an exception amongst a morass of the wider population that bears the label “Christian.”

The thing you encountered is not new. Its just a magnification of the whole situation regarding evolution. Some churches like this one, the epsicopalians, the Orthodox and other religious faiths such as pretty much all versions of Judaism, moderate Sunni Islam, and esp. Buddhism (which condones it as a precondition for their own philosophy!) see no harm.

No harm, no foul, no need to get uppity.

then you have another set who if by accepting evolution, it would be tantamount (in their heads at least) to something quite dramatic. Perhaps, say, denying the Resurrection, disbelieving the Laws of Karma, belittling that the Koran was in fact dictated to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel, etc. etc…

Well, then there’s a reason to get uppity indeed and attack the discipline that started the problem in the first place…
Hi, TheAtheist,

Thanks for spreading your vial of oil on our troubled pond.

In my time, I’ve worked with all kinds of people, but a few at a time instead of all together like you do. I’ve always respected the people with whom I’ve worked. In person, I don’t demand to know about their religion, science preference, politics nor level of education. We just focused on getting the job at hand done.

Here in the philosophy forum of Catholic Answers, a thread often strays from the OP. Also, we are not to discuss neither evolution nor atheism because of what you have seen here.
For my part on this thread, my perusal of my private records here at home show I’ve been out of sorts Tuesday and Wednesday. (yesterday morning I talked with my VA medic and she adjusted the dosage on my anti-depressant, which dosage I first took when I went to bed last night.) Maybe I can post with more charity, today.
Nevertheless, I’ve you’ve read through the thread, you will see that several of us have tried to stick to the OP. And, I did manage to stick to my conclusion that church types may well be rejecting only one biological label, instead of all of science. Once I came to that conclusion.

So, welcome to the thread and I appreciatate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

You are loved,
Don
 
Oh, Buffalo,

I didn’t know that.

He says I’m wrong, too.
All I want to know, what is wrong with my defining myself outside of a biological bracket?
My mind, spirit and emotions are not confined by my body, and will survive my body, so I think a biological label falls short of an adequate definition of me.
I don’t think that’s wrong.

God loves all of you,
Don
You are not. You indeed will survive your body. And yes a limited biological explanation falls short.
 
Which one of the thousands of varieties of bacterial flagella are we considering?

newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html
In my previous post I already made the point that parts can be found in other assemblies with other functions. So a gathering up of parts to build a specified machine to serve a specific function needs all of its specified components. Take away one and it fails its function.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=730

Figure A: An arch is irreducibly complex: if one removes a piece, the remaining pieces will fall down. (Note: For the purpose of illustration, I am temporarily ignoring the common objection that an irreducibly complex arch might be made using natural erosional processes. I am aware of no appropriate “scaffolding” analogy within the biological realm, but it is not the present purpose of this discussion to rebut that objection.)

According to Miller, if we can find a function for some sub-piece, then a system is not irreducibly complex. Now, let’s now break this arch into sub-pieces:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=729

Figure B: Here an arch has been broken up into subpieces. Similarly, Miller has apparently found a flagellar sub-piece (the TTSS) which can perform some other function. The TTSS comprises no more than 1/4 of the total flagellar parts. Similarly, in this arch, there is one large sub-section (labeled “S”) which comprises approximately 1/4 of the total arch. Sub-section “S” can have a function outside of the arch (i.e. here, it can stand on its own). However, this exposes the fallacy of Miller’s test: the ability of sub-section “S” to stand on its own does not therefore dictate that the arch is not irreducibly complex. Thus if one were to removes the top piece (t), the arch crumbles, even if sub-section “S” can still remain standing

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=728

Even if sub-section “S” can have a function (i.e. stand) on its own outside of the arch, this does not imply that the arch as a whole is not irreducibly complex — capable of being built in a step-by-step manner. Thus, the appropriate test of irreducible complexity asks if the entire system can be built in a step-by-step manner using small, slight-modifications. It is important to note that the system does not become “reducibly complex” simply because one part remains functional outside of the final system.
 
And, I did manage to stick to my conclusion that church types may well be rejecting only one biological label, instead of all of science.

You are loved,
Don
I agree with you.

Many church types who know science will reject a specific biological label such as animal instead of human; but they do not necessarily reject all of science. While it is true that different science disciplines often intersect, the discerning church type can figure out if a specific biological label such as animal is actually an essential do-or-die component in research, for example studying earthquakes.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
You have quite an interesting method of responding to my post. Rather than quoting it so that I can easily recognize a response, you post a separate response with the post#.

The Catechism affirms that the Bible is the story of how Man fell from a divinely created nature, and that since then God reaches out to Man and Man responds. It recounts a continual unfolding of the nature of God, and Man’s continually clinging to olde models, until only about 300 BC (Maccabees, Wisdom) the Covenant people finally recognize that there is only one God, all others are imaginary. God is not “the King over all the Gods” (Psalm 95 I believe). There are no other Gods. Only after the Covenant people recognized this, as the prophets had expressed, did God offer the most perfect and complete self-revelation, the Incarnation of Himself as Jesus Christ
Hi, Peter John,

Please forgive me for redacting most of your post. I did that to focus on what gained my attention.
I have put into bold, the interpretation of the Holy Bible you present as associated with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Because, I have not seen that referred to in the Catechism.

However, in the section of that Catechism discussing the Nicene Creed, Section III of Article 3, on page 130 of the paperback edition of that Catechism, is the title, "True God and True Man.
The paragraph under that title is #464. In that, and in following paragraphs, I have found no reference explicitly stating that there are no others gods.
However, knowledge of Satan does present us with a fallen angel who wants to be worshiped as God. Or, who wants to be a god.
I just wanted to bring this to your attention, because the idea of other gods came from somewhere, and is not limited to its origin from the human mind. The human mind, pagans, could have got the initial nudge of other gods from Satan, I think. My opinion, there, as I didn’t take the time to look up Satan.

In my heart, I wonder if the proclamation of no other gods is more a modern saying than Catechism, because it denies the glory and power of the True God in overcoming rebellious spirits of His creation. And, I’m confident, without looking, that our Catechism does not deny the existence of other spirits (angels). It seems to me, that such denial of the spirit world smacks more of secularism than of Catholicism.

God loves you,
Don
 
I agree that the human mind transcends the physical state of the human body. I must dispute that it “transcends space an time” as this suggests no beginning. If each of us was specifically created, our mind cannot transcend time.
That is a good point. Perhaps I should have said that the mind transcends the brain (or matter); that it is found neither in space nor time; and that it doesn’t require time or space to function.
I disaggre that only humans are capable of reason, and I have already responded with descriptions of this to which thus foar I have seen no reply.
About reasoning: I do think that animals are clever in their own unique way, but they cannot change the basic aspects of that part of their nature that prevents them to “reason” things out in order to gain a better understanding of various situations. For example, animals can’t reason, “If I make a bigger or better tool, life could be easier” or “If I do such and such a thing now, then such and such a thing will happen later.” Animals simply are unable to reason things out to their logical conclusion.

Birds, for instance, have the ability to make very complicated nests; but they do so without understanding the power of reasoning to make them. Birds instinctively know how to build nests without the help of parents or teachers or engineering degrees. Building complicated nests are something birds do without much thought. The same holds true for their flying ability. God made them that way. Quite a few animals, though, are able to use rudimentary tools, which they discovered either through rewards or through trial and error; but these animals certainly don’t show any signs of possessing the reasoning skills that would enable them realize just how those tools could be improved upon.
 
An arch is irreducibly complex: if one removes a piece, the remaining pieces will fall down.
That definition of irreducible complexity makes the concept useless for demonstrating intelligent design – e.g. a carbon dioxide molecule is irreducibly complex: if one removes an atom, the remainder is deadly poison. Or a carbon atom is irreducibly complex: if one removes a neutron, the remainder is a radioactive isotope that decays to depleted boron.
 
That is a good point. Perhaps I should have said that the mind transcends the brain (or matter); that it is found neither in space nor time; and that it doesn’t require time or space to function.

About reasoning: I do think that animals are clever in their own unique way, but they cannot change the basic aspects of that part of their nature that prevents them to “reason” things out in order to gain a better understanding of various situations. For example, animals can’t reason, “If I make a bigger or better tool, life could be easier” or “If I do such and such a thing now, then such and such a thing will happen later.” Animals simply are unable to reason things out to their logical conclusion.

Birds, for instance, have the ability to make very complicated nests; but they do so without understanding the power of reasoning to make them. Birds instinctively know how to build nests without the help of parents or teachers or engineering degrees. Building complicated nests are something birds do without much thought. The same holds true for their flying ability. God made them that way. Quite a few animals, though, are able to use rudimentary tools, which they discovered either through rewards or through trial and error; but these animals certainly don’t show any signs of possessing the reasoning skills that would enable them realize just how those tools could be improved upon.
Yes the mind being immaterial, expresses itself through the brain. If the brain dies, the mind lives on. The human is unique and thus is in a class of its own.
 
Classifying humans as an animal is not an error. If it is, please state how humans do not meet the definition of animal.

I’m sorry, allowing ignorance is a bigger sin than irritating someone who has told me that I’m irritating them.
Well, kbachler,

Animals do not have a mind which transcends space and time, which the Mind of Christ does have, and we have access to His mind through our minds. And, so, are blessed to catch glimpses of His divine nature and thoughts with our minds.
Humans do not meet the proscribing definition of animal, because that term remains incomplete when defining and describing the totality of human nature. The limits of animal-ism fall far short of any working label, definition nor description of the total human nature. That’s why.

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

God loves you,
Don
 
Please return to the topic of discussion or this thread will be closed.

Here is the OP for those who are interested in continuing the discussion:

God bless

Rachel
Hi, Rachel Malloy,

Thank you.

I have been reading through the thread from where I left off yesterday. I just now got to your post.

I’ll focus more on the OP.

God loves you,
Don
 
No evidence has been presented that a disregard for science is either unhealthy or detrimental. It would be helpful to get very specific reasons why these two things might be so.

All I 'm seeing so far is: Agree with science or else. The “or else” part is not explained.

Peace,
Ed
Hi, Ed,

Very good post.

I would like to point out, that this is a philosophical thread on a Catholic forum. So, imho, a detailed understanding of science would not actually be required.

Especially with the OP in mind, which has the two explicit components of Church and Science and the implicit information referring to human nature in the two different components.

And, to the church side of this OP, which churches (any member name or church location?) are reported to have rejected science as a whole?
The first one that comes to mind could be the Amish. But, if and only if that is so, which member at which location can be said to have rejected science in toto?

We could say that fundalemental churches like the Holiness Church or Assembly of God reject science, but again, which member of at what location of said church has been reported rejecting science in toto?

So, I think I’ve demonstrated that we are dealing with philosphical opinions not only about churches and science, but also the thread so far has offered only opinions about both rejection of science and disparaging of churches and precious little comment on the human nature of Church types and Science types who could be sparking the assertions of the OP. Names of specific science types or publlications who claim to have been rejected by which church would certainly add to the discussion.
We can have a real neat debate just from the above paragraph.

Anyway, this would be a good time for Perfect Timing to make an appearance and see if that worthy can present us with some of the requested “Who, what, when, and where” so we can intelligently discuss the “why” of this OP.

God loves all of you,
Don
 
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
 
Well, kbachler,

Animals do not have a mind which transcends space and time, which the Mind of Christ does have, and we have access to His mind through our minds. And, so, are blessed to catch glimpses of His divine nature and thoughts with our minds.
Humans do not meet the proscribing definition of animal, because that term remains incomplete when defining and describing the totality of human nature. The limits of animal-ism fall far short of any working label, definition nor description of the total human nature. That’s why.

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

God loves you,
Don
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.
 
Hi, Ed,

Very good post.

I would like to point out, that this is a philosophical thread on a Catholic forum. So, imho, a detailed understanding of science would not actually be required.

Especially with the OP in mind, which has the two explicit components of Church and Science and the implicit information referring to human nature in the two different components.

And, to the church side of this OP, which churches (any member name or church location?) are reported to have rejected science as a whole?
The first one that comes to mind could be the Amish. But, if and only if that is so, which member at which location can be said to have rejected science in toto?

We could say that fundalemental churches like the Holiness Church or Assembly of God reject science, but again, which member of at what location of said church has been reported rejecting science in toto?

So, I think I’ve demonstrated that we are dealing with philosphical opinions not only about churches and science, but also the thread so far has offered only opinions about both rejection of science and disparaging of churches and precious little comment on the human nature of Church types and Science types who could be sparking the assertions of the OP. Names of specific science types or publlications who claim to have been rejected by which church would certainly add to the discussion.
We can have a real neat debate just from the above paragraph.

Anyway, this would be a good time for Perfect Timing to make an appearance and see if that worthy can present us with some of the requested “Who, what, when, and where” so we can intelligently discuss the “why” of this OP.

God loves all of you,
Don
Don, one of the reasons it always shows up in philosophy because evolutionism is philosophy.
 
Seeking God in Science
Code:
               [                     An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design
](https://www.broadviewpress.com/product.php?productid=952&cat=0&page=1)

The doctrine of intelligent design is often the subject of acrimonious debate. Seeking God in Science cuts through the rhetoric that distorts the debates between religious and secular camps. Bradley Monton, a philosopher of science and an atheist, carefully considers the arguments for intelligent design and argues that intelligent design deserves serious consideration as a scientific theory.
Monton also gives a lucid account of the debate surrounding the inclusion of intelligent design in public schools and presents reason why students’ science education could benefit from a careful consideration of the arguments for and against it.

Comments:
"Seeking God in Science is a refreshing and fair-minded exploration of intelligent design arguments. Unlike the many ideologically-driven detractors of intelligent design, Monton refuses to set up a straw man, poison the well, or dismiss it as unscientific. Bradley Monton writes as “a friendly atheist”—one who seriously and honestly considers claims that challenge atheism. As such, this book is a welcome breakthrough."– Douglas Groothuis, Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary
“This is a brave and important book. Monton does not defend ‘intelligent design’ as true – he thinks it is most likely false. Instead, he defends it as a hypothesis worth taking seriously. He argues convincingly that it can be formulated as a scientifically testable hypothesis, and that there is some important empirical evidence for it – not as much evidence as its supporters claim there is, but some evidence. Virtually all voices in this debate insist either that ID is not even worth taking seriously or else that it is manifestly the truth. It is refreshing to see a talented philosopher give the thesis its due and make a serious attempt to weigh the evidence for and against it, without the weight of the ‘culture wars’ hanging over every sentence.” – John T. Roberts, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

"It’s about time that a competent analytic philosopher took a look at design-theoretic arguments in the sciences – and this because analytic philosophers have until now responded to serious challenges to prevailing orthodoxy by squirting out ink and indignation in equal measure. Bradley Monton’s book should be read by philosophers, biologists and physicists willing to keep their minds open long enough to let out the stale air and let in a few arguments." – David Berlinski, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture

“Bradley Monton has done the intellectual community an enormous service in writing this defense of intelligent design. As an atheist, he defends ID not because he thinks it is true. Rather, he shows how it raises important questions and how many critics, in their enthusiasm to kill the baby in the cradle, are short-circuiting a discussion that needs to happen. Monton understands that important questions are never resolved by ignoring or marginalizing them. By employing his considerable skills as an analytic philosopher, he brings clarity to this much controverted question of intelligent design.” – William A. Dembski, author of The End of Christianity

Bradley Monton is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top