Creation or Evolution

[beeliner]

So much to learn

Gailileo was not put into prison for his science. The issue the Church had was his forays into philosophy. Galileo did not spend time in prison.

Pope JPII also realized this and was not able to sustain the definitive judgement he had made earlier.

“Like the majority of his adversaries, Galileo did not make a distinction between what is the scientific focus of the natural phenomena and the philosophical considerations about nature that generally follows it”

JPII was absolutely right.

The fact is, he was sentenced to prison, threatened with torture and death, specifically for his advocacy of the heliocentric solar system, and forced to abjure his own findings before the Inquisition. His writings on heliocentrism remained forbidden to Catholics until 1835. That was the central issue. There were obviously philosophical undertones on both sides.

You are hiding behind the technicality that his imprisonment took the form of what would now be called house arrest.

 

[edwest2]

Here is the story about Galileo from the Library of this site:

catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

God bless,
Ed

 

[beeliner]

So I don’t understand statements that say the Church accepts, fully accepts, certain facts about evolution.

If they are FACTS, and the Church doesn’t accept them, then the Church is wrong, by definition.

 

[beeliner]

Here is the story about Galileo from the Library of this site:

I find no misstatement of fact in the link, though it omits much.

I know of no otherwise reliable secular or non-Catholic source which claims that Galileo was tortured.

In terms of the present discussion, however, it seems to me that the most interesting sentence in the link is this one:

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended.

Unfortunately, methinks that the author of the piece has your number.

 

[edwest2]

If they are FACTS, and the Church doesn’t accept them, then the Church is wrong, by definition.

This is what I read at other sites. The Church is wrong. However, the Church is right when it tells Catholics that woman was fashioned by God from Adam’s rib. This is just as much a fact as any scientific fact.

Miracles happened and continue to happen. Science is not the whole answer, and what is left out of science is very important for Catholics to know.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Nature is apparently in the business of making blatantly philosophical pronouncements (claiming that dignity cannot be used as a foundation for moral judgement).

I said that Nature journal was not in the business of making theological pronouncements. How could it be? Science is a universal project undertaken by those with a wide range of beliefs including those with no theistic beliefs. Your particular theology is not shared by the majority of the scientific community, so why should an editorial in the primary scientific journal engage in something that is biased to one set of beliefs and irrelevant to the majority of the members of the community.

The ethics of research is a different matter. Scientists have a common interest in and instructive opinions on the ethics of research.

I note your absurd insistence that scientists have no right to hold or publish opinions on the the ethics of research programmes. It seems that you would only allow professional moral philosophers to have the right to hold and publish opinions on ethics in scientific research. In that case, if you are to be consistent, you should desist from expressing your opinion. I bet you won’t.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[wildleafblower]

"The contribution of scientists is of primary importance. Together with the progress of our capacity to dominate nature, scientists must also contribute to help understand the depth of our responsibility for man and for nature entrusted to him.

On this basis it is possible to develop a fruitful dialogue between believers and non-believers; between theologians, philosophers, jurists and scientists, which can offer to legislation as well precious material for personal and social life." (ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON NATURAL MORAL LAW, Clementine Hal, Monday, 12 February 2007)

Alec is a scientist!

 

[edwest2]

God is of first importance. Science is a secondary matter. The Church does not and cannot support scientific research that is unethical and its voice should be heard by the scientific community.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I said that Nature journal was not in the business of making theological pronouncements. How could it be? Science is a universal project undertaken by those with a wide range of beliefs including those with no theistic beliefs. Your particular theology is not shared by the majority of the scientific community, so why should an editorial in the primary scientific journal engage in something that is biased to one set of beliefs and irrelevant to the majority of the members of the community.

The ethics of research is a different matter. Scientists have a common interest in and instructive opinions on the ethics of research.

I note your absurd insistence that scientists have no right to hold or publish opinions on the the ethics of research programmes. It seems that you would only allow professional moral philosophers to have the right to hold and publish opinions on ethics in scientific research. In that case, if you are to be consistent, you should desist from expressing your opinion. I bet you won’t.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

You wrote: “Your particular theology is not shared by the majority of the scientific community…”

How do you know that?

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.

The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive’s existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.
talkorigins.org/
www.talkorigins.org/

edwest2 and reggie, do you both agree with Talk.orgins “rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences”?

 

[edwest2]

I do not recognize talkorigins as any sort of authority in regard to the political version of intelligent design or the political version of creationism.

Catholics should understand that “political ID” and “political creationism” are distinct and separate from honest investigation into both questions. It is clear from the tenor of some posters here that the primary issue for them is politics and not established Church teaching.

For me, established Church teaching exists independent of outside manipulation by those with some political goal.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

It’s enough to see the bias in this matter and how the scientific community will accept philosophical materialism but not traditional theological concepts (which are the foundation for the Bill of Rights in the U.S. for one thing)…

Not so. I think you need to learn a little history. The American Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the US constitution) of 1791, Tom Paine’s Rights of Man published also in 1791, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789, expanded in 1793, all arose from the thinking of the Age of Enlightenment building on Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire and Tom Paine provided the intellectual framework for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the US Bill of Rights. This was a project entirely based in Enlightenment values to enshrine the rights of the individual to free thought and free practice of religion, and to protect the individual against the improper exercise of princely, federal and religious power. It had nothing whatsoever to do with " traditional theological concepts", at least as propounded by the Roman Catholic Church which fought all of these liberal Enlightenment projects tooth and nail.

As late as 1864, 71 years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the arch-conservative Pius IX, smarting from the loss of the Papal States and the curtailment of the temporal power of the Church, published the Syllabus of Errors. It is hard to imagine a prospectus that flies more radically in the face of Enlightenment values, the rights of the individual and democratic determination, that more thoroughly condemns the values in the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. Amongst many other things, the Syllabus of Errors **condemns **the right of individuals to practise religion freely, the separation of Church and State, the right of the secular authorities to regulate the actions of the clergy, the power of reason, any limit on the temporal power of the church, including limiting the use of force by the church, the interference of secular authorities in the curriculum or standards of church schools and universities, the right of science and philosophy to reach conclusions which differ from church authority, the right of people to replace monarchy with democracy, the existence of a marriage contract in the absence of church sanction and so on. Traditional theological concepts, or at least those concepts represented as such by the Roman Church of the day weren’t the foundation of the Bill of Rights but its dire opponents. For the foundation of the Bill of Rights, you have to look to Rationalism and Enlightenment values.

Incidentally, what was the American Catholic response to Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors? Well, they ignored it. Many of the liberalising values that the Church fought against (unsuccessfully) during the enshrinement of individual rights in the late 18th century and that it condemned in the Syllabus of Errors have been codified in the constitutions and practice of all democratic modern states. Jolly good thing too.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

“rationalism” “enlightenment values” I feel like I’ve returned to the other forum I moderate. Note the topic is Creation or Evolution, but it has turned to its actual driving force: politics.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

You wrote: “Your particular theology is not shared by the majority of the scientific community…”

How do you know that?

God bless,
Ed

Do you think that the majority of scientists from Beijing to New York, from Bangalore to London, from Tokyo to Cairo, from Moscow to Frankfurt are practising Roman Catholics?

Just look here at this survey of the US National Academy of Sciences that found in 1998 that only 7% of US scientists believed in a personal God. We don’t know how many of that 7% was Roman Catholic and how many were of other Christian or non-Christian faiths. Now extend that to the whole world.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

“rationalism” “enlightenment values” I feel like I’ve returned to the other forum I moderate. Note the topic is Creation or Evolution, but it has turned to its actual driving force: politics.

God bless,
Ed

Simply a **response **to an erroneous claim by Reggie that “traditional theological concepts” are the foundation for the US Bill of Rights. I didn’t raise the topic. He did.

Alec

 

[edwest2]

America was founded on certain religious principles. I see this brought up so often as being wrong that I’ve found found more than enough evidence to the contrary. During the 1960s when the Cold War could turn hot in a matter of minutes, the government reminded its citizens of our Judeo-Christian Heritage fairly often and that we were in a battle with Godless Communism.

A few images that might interest people here:

thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/church-and-state-in-art.html

God bless,
Ed

P.S.
By posting this, I want to state I am not a member of this or any other association on the internet.

 

[hecd2]

Unless you are claiming that Alec is God, he might be wrong. There are scientists who disagree with his views.

I obviously am imperfect like everyone else, I might indeed be wrong and there are scientists who disagree with some of my views.

I am embarrassed by and deplore the personal comments by others which lead you to rightly post this comment.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

America was founded on certain religious principles. I see this brought up so often as being wrong that I’ve found found more than enough evidence to the contrary. During the 1960s when the Cold War could turn hot in a matter of minutes, the government reminded its citizens of our Judeo-Christian Heritage fairly often and that we were in a battle with Godless Communism.

A few images that might interest people here:

thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/church-and-state-in-art.html

God bless,
Ed

P.S.
By posting this, I want to state I am not a member of this or any other association on the internet.

You obviously need to learn some history too.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

edwest2 and reggie, do you both agree with Talk.orgins “rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences”?

wildleafblower, no I don’t agree.

 

[reggieM]

As late as 1864, 71 years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the arch-conservative Pius IX, smarting from the loss of the Papal States and the curtailment of the temporal power of the Church, published the Syllabus of Errors. It is hard to imagine a prospectus that flies more radically in the face of Enlightenment values, the rights of the individual and democratic determination, that more thoroughly condemns the values in the US constitution and the Bill of Rights.

It’s an interesting theological exposition. I appreciate your opinions on Catholic teaching. It’s been a matter of debate whether the Vatican II documents such as Dignatis Humanae can be reconciled with the Syllabus of Errors or not. You’ve drawn a definite conclusion here that they cannot be reconciled. I have to accept that as a matter of conjecture from an untrained, non-Catholic layman but your thoughts certainly have some value to consider.

The fact that the U.S. Bill of Rights was created in part through Enlightenment principles does not necessarily mean that it is incompatible with traditional Catholic theology to some extent. I was referring only to the text that refers to the origin of man’s rights as coming from the Creator.