And yet again, you have not given even one example of a high school biology textbook the excludes God. You have claimed that there are books like that, but you can’t or won’t give an example that can be verified.Tim,
When Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69, tells me that evolution without divine providence simply cannot exist, that’s a fact. That’s all there is to it.
Peace,
Ed
That is the purpose of the book - to well define.100% religion, 0% science. So?
And as the publisher admits in the first sentence, even the religious aspect is in internal dispute - no well-developed theology of creation exists in Catholicism.
And if it did, it would still be just that - theology - not science.
Where’s the conflict?
Would you (and others here) respond to my post 596?That is the purpose of the book - to well define.
Natural science creates a conflict with theology. Science dose not.
Would you respond to my post 596?100% religion, 0% science. So?
And as the publisher admits in the first sentence, even the religious aspect is internally disputed - ‘no well-developed theology of creation’ exists in Catholicism.
And if it did, it would still be just that - theology - not science.
Where’s the conflict?
I was referring to the scientific taxons like genera and primate,not to traditional names like fish and animal. The traditional names have to do with what creatures are,not just what characteristics they have in common with other creatures. The scientific taxon lend themselves to reductio ad absurdam. You could invent a word that covers all species that have chromosomes and say that they are all related.Gulls are animals, chimpanzees are animals. Gulls cannot reproduce with chimpanzees, so by your definition “animal” is a category which “goes beyond the bounds of reproductive relatedness”. Ditto ant, primate, fish, shark, mollusc, octopus and a great many other useful scientific and vernacular classifications of organisms. I find your point here overly restrictive.
The DNA evidence and fossil evidence just shows “common characteristics” between creatures,not that they are historically related by reproductive events. Common characteristics between species do not prove common descent.But when the appearance is backed up by DNA and other scientific data it does mean something. Scientists have been refining their classifications since Linnaeus in the 18th century. Those classifications represent an immense amount of work by many people.
Yes – the word “kind” can refer to a “biological concept” species or a sub-species. And biologists use the word “species” in the same ways. There is a macro level and micro levels of the term “species”,because reproductive isolation between groups is one reality,and reproductive isolation within a group is another.You sometimes use “kind” to mean a single species, you sometimes use “kind” to refer to a larger grouping of different species that cannot all interbreed.
This is an example of what I was just talking about. You say that there are many species of ants that cannot breed with each other.You are laughably wrong. There are many different spcies of ants which cannot breed with each other. Mammals can only breed with mammals but that does not mean that any mammal can breed with any other mammal. Lions cannot breed with Kangaroos, elephants cannot breed with armadillos. “Ant” is no more of a species than “mammal”. You are very, very wrong here.
You can’t say “all of whose members can interbreed”. The inability of some members of a group to interbreed does not mean those members are a distinct species.There is a very real difference. All gulls within a single species can breed with each other. All gulls within a single Family cannot breed with eath other. Kittiwakes cannot breed with Herring Gulls. Kittiwakes can breed with Kittiwakes; Herring Gulls can breed with Herring Gulls. Species is a group all of whose members can interbreed.
The higher taxons have only to do with common characteristics between species. They are categories of false relations.The higher taxons include members who cannot interbreed. Your failure to recognise this is weakening your arguments.
And ants cannot breed with anything but ants.It is you who are misusing the word. Above you referred to ants as a kind/species yet there are many different species of ants that cannot breed with each other.
Sure, why not?Would you respond to my post 596?
According to Catholic doctrine, nothing at all can exist without God. Without God there would be no electricity. Do you criticise Electromagnetism textbooks for not including God? Should my computer textbook include mention of God before explaining how computers work? All science textbooks omit any mention of God, not just biology textbooks. Chemistry books, Physics books, Maths books - all leave out any mention of God.
Because the theory of evolution purports to explain the origins of living things. It trespasses onto theological ground from the get-go.Why do you focus specifically on evolution rather than on astronomy or solid state physics? How much of either could exist without God?
The separation of the continents, the scientifically accurate separation of sky and oceans, evolution, and the origin of life starting in the seas and culminating with humanity (after the other species) are not things humans could be expected to figure out on their own, yet Genesis 1 records them. That does imply divine inspiration, though it does not prove it. Other ancient creation stories don’t have records anywhere near so scientifically precise.Genesis 1 is really not that far off if the ‘days’ are taken as billions of years, and even there, substantial leeway is given.
But that need not be the result of Divine inspiration but rather a logical progression from the simple to the more complex, which is basically what science has found.
I agree that evolution’s having existed doesn’t deny or confirm God’s existence or guidance (aside from the fact that Genesis 1 refers to it).Attributing that progression to various forms of evolution through those billions of years in no way denies God’s existence or guidance - nor does it confirm same.
No, it does not. In fact, it’s just a more detailed description of the creation of humanity- Genesis 1 is not detailed about this critically important event. There are no clear contradictions between the two accounts.You ignore, of course, the fact that Genesis 2 gives a completely different account.
There is a lot of factual history there, in language appropriate to the time of writing. I pointed that out in my post about the Genesis/Science parallels.If Genesis is Divinely inspired - literally, not allegorically - why did God not simply inspire both writers to give the actual, factual history, in language appropriate to the time of writing?
Correct - and those that rely solely on natural science have limited their own understanding greatly. Science is imcomplete.[rossum]
Because the theory of evolution purports to explain the origins of living things. It trespasses onto theological ground from the get-go.
Since methodological naturalism,which comes from philosophical naturalism,disallows talk of God in scientific work,it denies God working in nature. So that leaves an ontologically naturalistic theory of natural history. If a Creator who always creates is not acknowledged,then the ontological origin of living things becomes nature itself.
To say “Science can’t address God” means that science denies God working in nature.
A refusal is also a denial.
No, it means that science is limited in its scope. How can the study of nature address the supernatural, that which is outside of nature?[rossum]To say “Science can’t address God” means that science denies God working in nature.
A refusal is also a denial.
1a. Nonsense. Both accounts are based on centuries-older pagan creation myths, and there are many other such myths, still extant, that are even older. You underestimate the human imagination.1a. The separation of the continents, the scientifically accurate separation of sky and oceans, evolution, and the origin of life starting in the seas and culminating with humanity (after the other species) are not things humans could be expected to figure out on their own, yet Genesis 1 records them.
1b. That does imply divine inspiration, though it does not prove it. Other ancient creation stories don’t have records anywhere near so scientifically precise.
- I agree that evolution’s having existed doesn’t deny or confirm God’s existence or guidance (aside from the fact that Genesis 1 refers to it).
- No, it does not. In fact, it’s just a more detailed description of the creation of humanity- Genesis 1 is not detailed about this critically important event. There are no clear contradictions between the two accounts.
- There is a lot of factual history there, in language appropriate to the time of writing. I pointed that out in my post about the Genesis/Science parallels.
- There is also symbolic or allegorical imagery in visions, because this beautiful way of speaking can convey multiple truths simultaneously, and as truth is central to God’s being (Jesus said, “I am the truth.”), this is a natural overflow of God’s nature.
- That is the purpose of the book - to well define.
- Natural science creates a conflict with theology. Science dose not.
Well, play along and be gullible - buy it and read it and then let’s discuss it. You may be surprised. I will buy it for you if you wish.Any religious body can make whatever pronouncements it wishes regarding any aspect of science. No matter how doctrinaire, and no matter what punishment is threatened for denial or doubting, the laws of science and nature remain fixed. Thus the famous quote spuriously attributed to Galileo, ‘Still, it does move.’
- Well, (defined), here I will be a bit cynical and say that my guess is that the purpose of the book is to sell books - to the gullible. Of course, Catholics are under no obligation whatever to accept the conclusions and speculations of any such book, even as religion, much less as science.
- You are just playing with words. There are criteria for empirical science that must be met. Religious doctrine is whatever its promoters decide it should be.
In modern times, the Catholic Church - wisely - leaves such matters in the hands of scholars. That is why Catholic institutions of learning are among the finest in the world while Protestant fundamentalist ‘Christian schools’, which teach the most ridiculous nonsense as scientific fact, are little more than laughing stocks.
Many, but not all. Baylor University, an officially Southern Baptist university is a highly-regarded school, with a good reputation.In modern times, the Catholic Church - wisely - leaves such matters in the hands of scholars. That is why Catholic institutions of learning are among the finest in the world while Protestant fundamentalist ‘Christian schools’, which teach the most ridiculous nonsense as scientific fact, are little more than laughing stocks.
I think I already pretty much know what’s in it. Long on claims and short on substantiation. And let’s not forget, it clearly identifies itself as a book of theology - not science.Well, play along and be gullible - buy it and read it and then let’s discuss it. You may be surprised. I will buy it for you if you wish.
Religion without Revelation is whatever we decide. Emperical science really only deals with the here and now.
With the aid of Revelation we have been told certain truths.
That’s all I can ask.I think I already pretty much know what’s in it. Long on claims and short on substantiation. And let’s not forget, it clearly identifies itself as a book of theology - not science.
There is no question, however, that such books can be entertaining and thought-provoking. The literary success of such screwballs as Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye is proof of that.
If I can find it at the library, though, I’ll definitely charge it out and give you my appraisal - that’s a promise.
No. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the way life began. And it’s been that way from the start. Darwin made no claims about the way life began, except to say that God did it.Because the theory of evolution purports to explain the origins of living things.
Now you know better.It trespasses onto theological ground from the get-go.
Nope. It comes from the recognition that inductive processes can work only on evidence from the physical universe.Since methodological naturalism,which comes from philosophical naturalism,
Wrong again. It cannot comment on the supernatural, and thereby can neither affirm nor deny the existence of God.disallows talk of God in scientific work,it denies God working in nature.
And now you know better about that, too.So that leaves an ontologically naturalistic theory of natural history.
Nope. If plumbing methods can’t verify God, that doesn’t mean that plumbing denies God. What a silly idea.To say “Science can’t address God” means that science denies God working in nature.
Theology cannot explain the origin of the first living thing, see Psalm 42:2. Abiogenesis is working on an explanation for the origin of the first material living thing on earth. Evolution explains how that first material living thing became the many different species we see today.Because the theory of evolution purports to explain the origins of living things. It trespasses onto theological ground from the get-go.
Methodological naturalism defines the boundaries of science. Science is a search for natural causes of natural events. God is not a natural cause, but a supernatural cause, so God and His actions are outside science.Since methodological naturalism,which comes from philosophical naturalism,disallows talk of God in scientific work,it denies God working in nature.
Science can indeed not address God. Suppose I wanted to test the effect of God on the germination of seeds. I set up two pots of earth with seeds in them. One pot I allow God to influence, the other pot I exclude God’s influence, that way I can see what effect the influence of God has on my germinating seeds. You may have done a similar experiment with seeds, water and light at school. How can I exclude the influence of God from part of my experiment? How can I check that my God-excluder is working correctly? Where can I purchase a God-o-meter to measure how much influence God is having on my experiment? Of course I will also need a Shiva-o-meter, a Zeus-o-meter, a Manitou-o-meter etc. as well. Allowing God/gods into science is just not practical.To say “Science can’t address God” means that science denies God working in nature.
Science is practical. Allowing God into science can have no practical effect because we cannot measure God’s presence, nor can we exclude it from a control experiment. What science cannot measure it cannot study. How can science measure God?A refusal is also a denial.
rossum -According to Catholic doctrine, nothing at all can exist without God. Without God there would be no electricity. Do you criticise Electromagnetism textbooks for not including God? Should my computer textbook include mention of God before explaining how computers work? All science textbooks omit any mention of God, not just biology textbooks. Chemistry books, Physics books, Maths books - all leave out any mention of God.
Why do you focus specifically on evolution rather than on astronomy or solid state physics? How much of either could exist without God?
I strongly suspect that the Catholic Church is more sensible than to insist that Noah’s flood was worldwide and less than 5,000 years ago. The Pope is far better advised on matters of science than Duane Gish or Ken Ham to name but two.
rossum
I never used the word forbids. Science is not as important as scripture regarding this issue.Would anyone else like to try to explain it to him? Someone experienced in child care, perhaps?
- No, Ed, YOU are misrepresenting Church teaching, and when you claimed, a few posts back, that the Catholic Church forbids Catholic college students from taking any science courses that do not mention God, you really went off the deep end. You need to retract that or provide documentation.
- Fine. That is 100% religion, 0% science. No one is disputing the Catholic religion’s or any other religion’s right to be self-referential.
- Nonsense. The Church is well aware of the true origins of Genesis and teaches nothing to the contrary, except as allegory
- Those things were considered fact long ago. When such beliefs were proven untenable, the Catholic Church abandoned them, except as allegory.
- Provide evidence of any such claim. Title, publisher, date, ISBN number, actual quotes if possible. We are talking about school textbooks here.