A
Ahimsa
Guest
The $27 million Creation Museum opened it’s doors in Northern Kentucky on Monday. Hundreds of people lined up to the building, which argues that the Bible is more accurate than evolutionary science.
- Status
J
jkeenley
Guest
“A literal Genesis is actually the foundational history for the rest of the Bible for all doctrine.”
Which, of course, runs exactly contrary to Catholic teaching.
Jim
Which, of course, runs exactly contrary to Catholic teaching.
Jim
S
steveandersen
Guest
Things like that give Christianity a bad reputation. 
How are we supposed to do apologetics to a technically educated population when there is stuff like that around?
How are we supposed to do apologetics to a technically educated population when there is stuff like that around?
H
Hebrews_4_12
Guest
I’m pretty sure from my own study and from the opinions expressed on other threads on this forum that the above is not exactly a true statement. The Roman church has not dogmatically defined the required beliefs of the laity in regards to Genesis 1 thru 11. One can freely believe the above statement about the foundational nature of Genesis without running “contrary to Catholic teaching”
DRIPPING SARCASM] Really? Things like believing God’s word from the very first verse, yeah that is terrible. How dare they ! /DRIPPING SARCASM]
This statement betrays an ignorance of the many dedicated scientist associated with organizations like ICR and AIG. Scientist at both facilties do first hand research trying to think God’s thoughts after him. The difference is they acknowledge their limitations and humbly accept God’s declarations of what he has done in His time by His own hand. Facts do not exist in a neutral vacuum, they are always subject to the interpretations of one’s worldview. I am a engineer and work regularly with non-believers whom I can go toe to toe with on any supposed scientific evolutionary evidence because of the broad technical responses offered by both ICR and AIG. I suggest throughly reading both their websites before being so dismissive of their ministry.
S
steveandersen
Guest
Yes really. Faith and reason cannot contradict. By trying to create a split between the two they give non-believers the wrong impression
In all charity ICR and AIG contain very bad science.
H
Hebrews_4_12
Guest
AIG and ICR are exactly NOT trying to create a split between science and faith. Do NOT belive the secularist who say they do. Real science backs up the Creator and His Word everytime, they are trying to show that they are in fact non-contradictory when they are viewed properly. Billions of years is artificial assumption, many natural processes limit the age of the earth to far less and quite a few limit it to several thousands which is consistent with the Biblical timeline. As for starlight there are working theories that explain with the distortions of time by gravity how we could in fact have an earth timeframe of less than 10,000 years at the same time(excuse time reference) have billions of years in the edge of the universe for distant starlight observances.
Please cite an example? Bad science or just bad for scientists who demand God stay out of His creation? Remember what is the actual definition of full blown Evolution, we are not talking about the undeniable, non-contested, actually observed phenomena of natural and/or artificial selection and genetic drift, we are talking EVOLUTION = molecules to man. Remember the specific inclusion of random and undirected forces into most textbook definitons of EVOLUTION. Those words are specifically in there to discount the idea of a Creator who directs life as we know it. I see a violation of the law of non-contradiction, God is either the Soveriegn of the Universe or He is not. Theistic evolution violates both the presuppositons of Biblical Christianity with it’s belief in the clarity of scripture (think original sin and origin of death) and the strict requirements of secular evolutionary scientist who cannot “allow a divine foot in the door”.
M
matt1985
Guest
I don’t have a problem with the museum. Darwin’s ideas should be challenged, as with any scientists ideas.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I don’t have a problem with the museum either. It doesn’t appeal to me, because I do not accept the biblical literalism on which it is based. But I do support the right of people to believe in such a faith, and if the museum makes their lives better or brings them closer to God then I would say the museum is a good thing.
Its just not my thing.
Its just not my thing.
S
steveandersen
Guest
I didn’t say they were. The folks who opened the museum that shows children playing with dinosaurs as if it were a fact rather than an episode of the Flintstones are trying to create the split.
What makes you think that I believe what someone is telling me rather than the evidence before me?
Those are hypothesis (to be charitable) and not theories
They are not supported by the preponderance of the evidence and they create the dilemma of a Trickster God.
What’s they old joke?
The Earth is only 6,000 years old but SOMEBODY went through a lot of trouble to create rock layers, burry fossils, set the rate of radioactive decay, and the speed of light so we better believe that it is 14 billions years of if we know what is good for us.
I’ll do that tonight when I have a little more time.
Science does not demand any such thing. It is a tool for investigating the natural world and as such it is not competent to delve into the supernatural.
While there are some scientists who have taken public anti-religion stances they do that in literature and opinion pieces and not in their scientific papers.
The actions of a few does not condemn the institution as a whole; just as someone who commits a crime in the name of God doesn’t make all believers criminals.
Well you can’t be a little bit evolved. Either it happens or it doesn’t
Once you admit that natural selection takes place your stuck with it unless you can propose a mechanism that stops it at some arbitrary point.
Actually evolution is a highly deterministic process and not truly random.
(Not that there is anything wrong with randomness per se, think of all the random factors that went into your conception. You are highly unlikely.)
Besides, who’s to say that the few random events involved are not the Hand of God?
sez you
I see it as a bringing together of the two worlds.
Do you think that evolution is beyond God’s power to conduct? A billion or so years and a molecule by molecule process seems perfectly fitting for a transcendent, eternal being.
And I’m not sure who you’re quoting with regards to scientists and God’s foot but remember there are Christian scientists, atheist scientists, Hindu Scientists, etc but all their science is the same. You don’t want them to throw God into the mix. Who’s God would they use? It is out of the scope (no pun intended) of their work.
E
edwest2
Guest
Attempts are ongoing to separate God from His creation. The purpose is simple. Evolution gives the reason why some view themselves as just animals (not created in the image and likeness of God) and natural explanations exclude God. This supports a worldview where the authority of God is ignored and people feel justified to do whatever they want. Pope Benedict has made it clear that God cannot be excluded from Creation.
The usual retort is to say that God is outside of the scope of science, but that does not answer the question of “where does your worldview come from?” Those who believe in evolution generally do not believe in God. There are some who believe that God was somehow involved in evolution but I doubt you could get any scientist to acknowledge that as factual. Do you see what I’m saying? The Church does meet with and listen to scientists but God is part of Creation, not outside of it.
God bless,
Ed
The usual retort is to say that God is outside of the scope of science, but that does not answer the question of “where does your worldview come from?” Those who believe in evolution generally do not believe in God. There are some who believe that God was somehow involved in evolution but I doubt you could get any scientist to acknowledge that as factual. Do you see what I’m saying? The Church does meet with and listen to scientists but God is part of Creation, not outside of it.
God bless,
Ed
M
melensdad
Guest
I’m under the impression (actually have been told specifically) by our parish priest, and the parish priest at the school my daughter attends (her school is 2 towns north of ours) that the Catholic Church supports the theory of evolution. Further at the recent “Catechism Bowl” for the middle school, it was a question asked and answered correctly that the Catholic Church supports the theory of evolution.
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
That’s some bad phrasing. Certainly not dogma. The Church supports the search for the Truth insofar as scientists do that the Chirch supports them. I have never heard that the Church “approved” evo. Sounds like someone wants more to be popular in man’s world than teach clear theology.
M
melensdad
Guest
Perhaps so. Let me rephrase, the Church may or may not officially support evolution, however it does not oppose it. It allows for it to exist within the context of our understanding of the Bible, Catholic teaching and our understanding of science. It does not see those three things to be in conflict.
H
Hebrews_4_12
Guest
I believe we have a failure to communicate. AIG is responsible for the creation museum that is mention in the initial post of this thread. So there is no distinction between the two.
Fossils and rock layers are better explained by the sudden world wide flood on Noah’s day rather than slow uniformitarian processes. Same evidence different worldview. I already mentioned a working explanation for distant starlight compatible with a young earth and conforming to the general theory of relativity and observations of gravity distorting time. So the speed of light proves nothing contrary to the Genesis account. Radioactive dating has many assumptions beside the rate of decay, a closed system, the ratio of parent to daughter at initial formation of the rock etc. Remember a date is not inscribed on the rock, a measurement of the ratio of two isotopes is taken and recorded from there man speculates as to the age of the rock based on his preconceptions - why else do labs that date rock ask for the expected age prior to the measurement and reporting of results?Those are hypothesis (to be charitable) and not theories
They are not supported by the preponderance of the evidence and they create the dilemma of a Trickster God.
What’s they old joke?
The Earth is only 6,000 years old but SOMEBODY went through a lot of trouble to create rock layers, burry fossils, set the rate of radioactive decay, and the speed of light so we better believe that it is 14 billions years of if we know what is good for us.
No ! Natural selection is celebrated by creationists it is not owned exclusively by evolutionist. Evolution requires an increase in gene information content. Natural selection can only act on pre-existing genetic information. No mutation has ever been know to increase information content, it can only act on existing information.
Random events guided by the hand of God? That sir is nonsensical an event is either random or guided - pick one.
My conception random ? Not according Gord’s Word !
Psalm 71:6
From birth I have relied on you; you brought me forth from my mother’s womb. I will ever praise you.
Psalm 139:13
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
Isaiah 44:24
"This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself…
Ephesians 1
4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight…
The God of the scriptures is completely in control of this universe.
NOTHING is beyond His control, BUT… BUT… the limit I place on this discussion is squarely on the ability of fallen creatures to actually discern truth without reliance on the special revelation of the One True eye witness to the events of creation. I limit myself to letting God tell me what He has done in time rather than vice versa.
S
steveandersen
Guest
OK slightly OT as and much as it pains me, here we go
Where to begin
There is just so much stuff at each site. They have been working on it for years and I only have a few minutes.
(1) Both groups start with a premise that God created the universe
Now I believe that, you believe that, every one believes that…… BUT in science you can’t start off with an answer in mind and work towards it.
Bad science
(2) ICR consistently cites the Bible as proof of the Bible. (See Morris May 2006) It is called begging the question. Circular reasoning; bad science. Worse logic.
(3) Dr. Morris’ Feb. 2006 article on ICR (in addition to being merely an opinion piece) states that there is no direct observation of evolution while in reality there have been many observed instances of speciation. Bad science if not out outright lies. (Dr. Morris’ PhD is in geological engineering; how this qualifies him to pontificate on biology I’m not quite sure). (PS I’m an engineer, I know the limits of my education)
(4) Dr. Morris’ April 2006 article on ICR (in addition to being merely an opinion piece) states that “No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We’ve never seen one. They’re still missing.” This of course is untrue. He gives no point by point paleontological refutation of any discoveries, he merely dismisses them. Typical of this sort of straw man attacks he fails to identify what would satisfy him as evidence of transitional fossils (the old moving goal post trick). Bad science
My head is hurting let’s move on to the other site
(5) AIG…I tried…really I tried but there is just so much stuff there and absolutely no science. It is just astonishing.
(6) From AIG’s text “we don’t want to be known primarily as ‘young-Earth creationists.’ AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.” An a priori assumption is always very bad science. (Leaving aside the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for a young earth and most anti-evolutionists have abandoned the idea as indefeasible) Also see #2 above
(7) AIG has two articles on Piltdown Man as if that is relevant news. Piltdown Man was identified as a fraud by scientists over 50 years ago. (a less charitable man would mention that the number of science frauds is miniscule compared to religious hucksters…but I couldn’t possibly say that). The exposure of Piltdown Man is a testament to the robustness of the scientific system; it is competitive and self correcting. Implying that one fraud from 1912 compromises every other discovery is hyperbole and…bad science. (note: both sites seem to quote a lot of things from say before 1950 as if modern molecular biology is some how non existent or relevant to the topic at hand)
(8) Similarly AIG has several articles suggesting that reclassification of certain fossils is somehow an indictment of the system rather than just the way it works. They seem to want to treat science as a religion with one set of concepts set fort up front with no changes allowed to accommodate additional data. Bad science.
I could go on and on and on but there is so much there and as Pauli said “it not even wrong”
S
steveandersen
Guest
by whom?
and natural explanations exclude God.
Please provide an example of a natural explanation that would include the supernatural.
How could this be accomplished?
Free will is a gift of God
As Adam showed us people can (and do ) do what ever they want for good or ill.
His Holiness is a wise man.
Non sequitur
Please provide you basis for this statement
This forum has its fair share of Catholics who accept evolution on the basis of the evidence.
IIRC Phil Vaz has a whole section of his website devoted to the subject.
How can science treat faith as factual?
There is a reason hat they call it “faith” (see John 20:29)
You can’t put God on a Petri dish
Nor can you solve for Him as X
A scientist can only report on what can be measured or calculated
Anything else would be overstepping the bounds
Of course God is part of Creation
He is the motivating force of Creation
What does that have to do with evolution?
Like gravity, it is just one more mechanism of God’s creation.
E
edwest2
Guest
I strongly disagree. The science of evolution is being used by the unGodly to promote a “there is no God worldview.” Sit down with any teenager and ask if they think God made them or that they are just the result of evolution. The answer is the difference between life and death.
Once again, the “evidence” for evolution is being used to lead people away from God.
God bless,
Ed
Once again, the “evidence” for evolution is being used to lead people away from God.
God bless,
Ed
D
Dale_M
Guest
But this is a false dichotomy, which forces a false choice. It is very possible to believe both. I think its the responsibility of the older generations to help young people reconcile faith and reason rather than choosing one over the other.
S
steveandersen
Guest
Oy! one more strike against them.
Nonsense.
(1) Fossils are located WITHIN rocks and not on top of them as if they were deposited by a single event
(2) a single flood would have distributed bones by mass which is not they way they are found. (any child who has stood on the beach will tell you that heavier objects will sink in a fluidized bed)
Physics has noting to do with worldview. Something either happens or it doesn’t
yes you mentioned it
any one test is of course subject to limitations
the beauty of evolution is that it is independently verified by multiple disciplins
to determine which test to use
why else?
I’ve seen many people here use that same language and I have no idea what that means.
All evolution “requires” Is that if you separate two populations of a species they will differentiate genetically.
That is all it says. No more no less
Once again I have no idea what that means
Mutations are fairly common. You and I have, on average, 2 or 3.
The addition of proteins is as common as the deletion.
Some species are distinguished from close relatives by the duplication of entire genes.
My brother has Down’s Syndrome; his life is dominated by the addition of half a chromosome’s worth of “increased information”
they may appear to be random from our point of view
for instance; for most of its history Earth was considerable warmer and wetter than it currently is. The Paleozoic ice ages were atypical and pivotal in the evolution of man.
Hand of God?
only faith can say
Your mother was born with thousands of egg cells, each genetically different. She only matured a few hundred in her lifetime.
Your father produced millions of sperm daily. Once again wide genetic differences
In a family forum I won’t begin to discuss the other random factors involved BUT
The odds of you being you are very slim
Any small change could have resulted in a brother or sister of you…but not you
Still have a problem with random events?
And you still haven’t addressed the deterministic aspects of evolution.
So you agree that any perceived randomness in evolution could be attributed to God?
Thank you.
I would not suggest telling the Deity what to do
BUT
He has given us minds and made us in His image
He as given us dominion over the physical world around us
He has given us minds to understand, study, and appreciate His Creation.
Genesis is great poetry and contains great Truth
It is not a science text book.
S
steveandersen
Guest
A hammer can be used to build a shelter or hit someone.
It isn’t the hammer’s fault.
Men used religion to crash jet planes into the WTC…it isn’t religion’s fault.
- Status