A
Abbadon
Guest
Wow I did not know that one about the sun… But yes we are in agreement then…
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
As one who thoroughly appreciates the beauty of evolution, I am thankful that I don’t have to reinterpret my religion when I read beautiful but non-scientific poetry. (Psalm 19: 2-7)
I can listen in joy to the passionate voice of one who is deeply in love with God.
I can hear the deep tones of triumphant music, through all the earth, singing praises to nature.
While astronomy is my guide, it is not needed as an interpreter in order to gaze, with every inch of my being, at the twinkling lights in the night sky. My soul is refreshed with their beauty. My mind seeks the word of their loving Creator.
My heart smiles with comfort knowing that nothing escapes the warmth of God’s love.
Even in the midst of raging storms, I can be at peace because I know who the “He” is which begins verse six. I know the “He” Who has pitched the tent of the universe. “He” is like a loving bridegroom eager to give us the gift of wisdom so that we as scientists may explore and grow in understanding of His handiwork
Blessings,
granny
All humanity benefits from God’s glorious universe.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Grannymh, I like your sentiment, particularly the last line above. My one caveat would be about your first line: I don’t think praises are sung to nature, but rather the inverse: nature sings praises to the Creator.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Abbadon, where scripture speaks poetically, we interpret them accordingly. Psalm 24:2 says that God “hath founded it [the earth] upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.” I don’t believe literally that the earth floats on water. Nor do I believe that the earth is immobile in space: “Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” (Psalm 104:5
StAnastasia
G
garysibio
Guest
The entire study of the origins of the universe and the life it contains is outside the realm of science. Science can tell us what might have happened but it can’t tell us what actually did happen. That belongs to the field of history and requires an eyewitness. God is the only eyewitness to our origins and we have His testimony about how it happened. You can find it in Gen 1-2.
Gary
G
garysibio
Guest
Sorry, you don’t get to make that call. Truth is truth regardless of which field of study it comes from.
Gary
G
garysibio
Guest
Where is the indication that the beginning of Genesis is to be taken as anything other than history? If it is, where does Genesis stop being poetry and start being history?
I just started reading Chance or Purpose by Cardinal Schoenborn and I’m finding it a major disappointment. He starts off by saying that we should not take the early chapters of Genesis literally but then says that God created the universe and quoting Gen 1:1. That is a very literal reading of that verse. He didn’t follow his own advice.
Gary
N
Namesake
Guest
The cool thing about science is that truth changes as we learn more. Religion is static, might even say stagnant.
P
Patrick_Bestall
Guest
To Cassini: You misrepresent the Conference on evolution as if it had the authority of the Magesterium and folks like us are bucking the Church. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. To St. Anastasia: You misrepresent the Conference as if it spoke for the scientific community, and those who refute evolution are psuedoscientists. It didn’t, and they aren’t. Read Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis for the testimony of biologists from chapter 8. To Garysibio: You state that religion is “static, even stagnant” as if evolutionists’ discoveries were full of life. My goodness, it isn’t, and they aren’t! Religion as I know it is not static but consistant, and full of exciting discoveries, including those by astronomers, geneticists, archaeologists, geologists etc. All new observations by the latter groups fit better into the theory of special creation than into the theories of evolution! No kidding! That’s powerful. Get books like the Death of Evolution by Wallace Johnson and just look at the table of contents and references. Do that now. Go to: tanbooks.com/doct/death_evolution.htm
The poetry of the Bible is indeed beautiful, but not nearly as awesome as beholding the incredible complexity of creation when it aligns perfectly with scripture. For instance, Genesis speaks of light and day and night before the formation of suns. Science is finally speaking of this as the Hubble telescope showed huge bodies of light (gaseous formations) out of which stars are forming. Genesis also speaks of 4 kinds of humanoid creatures in chapter 6: sons of God, daughters of men, the Nephilim, and their children who were different again. Science just now tells us (after a few mistakes) about Homo Sapien, Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensus and Neandrathal man, who all co-existed. Religion isn’t dead and science alive. They both are very much alive, and both are consistant too, when you treat them as two sides of the truth coin.
The poetry of the Bible is indeed beautiful, but not nearly as awesome as beholding the incredible complexity of creation when it aligns perfectly with scripture. For instance, Genesis speaks of light and day and night before the formation of suns. Science is finally speaking of this as the Hubble telescope showed huge bodies of light (gaseous formations) out of which stars are forming. Genesis also speaks of 4 kinds of humanoid creatures in chapter 6: sons of God, daughters of men, the Nephilim, and their children who were different again. Science just now tells us (after a few mistakes) about Homo Sapien, Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensus and Neandrathal man, who all co-existed. Religion isn’t dead and science alive. They both are very much alive, and both are consistant too, when you treat them as two sides of the truth coin.
G
garysibio
Guest
N
Namesake
Guest
Yup. Science is always trying to figure out more stuff. Religion doesn’t ask questions because all you need to know is right there. For some it’s all in one book.Or religion gets it right the first time, at least Catholicism.
Gary
A
Abbadon
Guest
Yes and I agree that is the only real way to look at those passages. When it comes to matters of science you cannot possibly take the bible literally.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Often, science can do just that. Would you like some examples?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
As poetry the authors did not intend it to be understood literally. The problem with a literal reading is that it creates atheists – people who grow up, discover the wide world of science, and reject scripture because the only way they understand it s through a literal reading.
I think you might have enjoyed the Rome conference last week, as the lectures by both scientists and theologians were brilliant. Once so-called “intelligent design” was discarded as irrelevant, the way was paved for some very fruitful discussions about the meaning and significance of evolution.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
That’s not true at all. Cosmologists and astronomers know a great deal about the origins and early history of the universe. And biologists, paleontologists, and geneticist now know a lot bout the history and development of life on earth.
StAnastasia
G
garysibio
Guest
No, they don’t. They can speculate on what might have happened, prove that some things are possible, others impossible, but you cannot prove what actually happened. That is history, not science, and it is untestable in the laboratory.
Gary
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes, cosmologists they know a lot about the early history of the universe. Do you read astronomy and other science journals? You will not find articles in there about a young earth, global, flood, etc. That’s because those ancient symbolic claims from Babylonian mythologies are irrelevant to science as we now know it, however much they might still be relevant to the liturgy.
StAnastasia
A
Abbadon
Guest
It is important to remember Gary that when we observe something that is 500 000 light years away, what we are actually observing is light from 500 000 years ago. So when we see that event occurring what we are actually witnessing is history.
Y
Yeremyah
Guest
Hi Barbarian,
I am wondering why you are actually not embarrassed by your statistics since of all the thousands of Phd.s in biology have not been able to put forth a scientific theory for even biochemical evolution. Perhaps it is because biology and evolution have nothing in common. All the Phd.s in the world aren’t and can not help save evolution from the trash bin. No biologist supports evolution in any meaningful scientific way. It is more of a moral kind of support. Biologists work on the assumption that evolution is somehow, probably true. But none of their work actually relies on it being true. It simply is there to provide a kind of contextual background.
I am wondering why you are actually not embarrassed by your statistics since of all the thousands of Phd.s in biology have not been able to put forth a scientific theory for even biochemical evolution. Perhaps it is because biology and evolution have nothing in common. All the Phd.s in the world aren’t and can not help save evolution from the trash bin. No biologist supports evolution in any meaningful scientific way. It is more of a moral kind of support. Biologists work on the assumption that evolution is somehow, probably true. But none of their work actually relies on it being true. It simply is there to provide a kind of contextual background.
A
Abbadon
Guest
Hi I’m a biologist (biochemistry/genetics majors) and evolution has stood up against the trials and tribulation of time. It’s a growing and concise theory that helps us with treating and identifying virus’ and harmful bacteria. It helps us in agriculture, artificially and naturally breeding better crops. In medicine where we can apply principles we learn in mice into other lifeforms. In genetics so we can apply principles we learn from Drosophila into other life forms.
Understanding Evolution is fundamentally important to many aspects of biology and medicine.
- Status