"Creation Science ?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tah_Dah_Man
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The orthodox and the heretic alike take the Bible seriously. However, as a Roman Catholic, you are not to form your own interpretation of it.
Good point. However, I would qualify that statement by saying, “As a Roman Catholic, you are not to form your own interpretation of Scripture contrary to Church teaching”. It’s not that Catholics can’t form their own interpretation of Scripture, but that interpretation must be informed and formed by Catholic teaching. That’s why there are certain passages that Catholics have a certain freedom in interpretation (Genesis 1, for example - Catholics are free to believe the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days or not).
 
so quick to Criticize, but I bet you have never looked at the other side read any of their books.
You lose. I have read both AiG and ICR. I have also read the Bible, does that count as a creationist book?
Many a Creation Scientist do have PhDs. There are over 600 Scientists in major universities in this country and around the world stating that they do not believe in the type of Darwinism that is being taught today.
Yes, but how many on that list are called Steve? The list of Steve’s supporting evolution is now at 854 on the Steve-o-meter, that is equivalent to about 85,400 scientists if all names are allowed. All those scientific Steve’s support this statement:Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.

There is also the Clergy Letter Project, with over 11,000 signatures from Christian clergy:We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.
SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Most Darwinists could sign up to that since “random mutation and natural selection” does not include sexual selection, neutral drift, founder effect and other evolutionary mechanisms. It does not say what I suspect you think that it does.
Do you have a science degree?
Yes.

rossum
 
The documents you site weigh very little over all in the scope and sequence of things. These documen in relation to genesis are not infallible documents and are not official teachings of the church in these matters, these are beliefs of two individual Popes but again they are not official teachings in this matter and they are not infallible statements of either of these two Poples. So your reference point is weak at best.
Okay, its clear now where you are coming from. You have a personal theology and from your point of view, even though 2 popes disagree, their writings are not authoritative, so you can continue to believe what you want. No problem. I agree the Church still allows you to believe in a literal 6 day creation. Why you want ot need to is not my business of course.
 
Yep. That is the web site of our buddy PhilVaz.

Peace

Tim
Yes I’m most aware of that. I have it listed on my blog as a Catholic resource, which it is. I try to give a reasonably broad array of Catholic thinking. Some of his stuff is quite good I find, though on this issue of course I find his opinions essentially as stating…“this is the best evidence we can come up with” rather than a real 'defense" of creationism. I find such a defense logically nearly impossible to make.
 
Yep. That is the web site of our buddy PhilVaz.

Peace

Tim
Tim, I miss PhilVaz.🙂 He used to help us. He knows everything. Now, he has disappeared.😦 Phil’s been around for eons. He can knock down every wall of opposition with kindness and knowledge. Phil is one of our most valuable assets! 😃 And, he is never rude or mean just funny. 😃
 
Interesting that you guys bring all this up because this Friday December 21st Catholic Answers Live will air a pretaped call in program on this topic (Evolution).

I just happened to get the message on here when Jerry Usher asked for people to call in and ask questions of the good Cardinal and have since received his book (a gift from CA Live for calling in that day! 😃 )

I asked Cardinal Schönborn about this very thing and was happy to hear his answer as well as all the rest of his talk.

I STRONGLY recommend that every one who is interested in this issue get and read his new book, Chance or Purpose?.

I think you’ll find his remarks both logical and scientific as well as faithful to Catholic teaching.Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
good advice. I read the Cardinal’s book last month, and as a scientist and a believer, I found it to be a very reasonable viewpoint that may allow bridges to be built between the worlds of science and faith.
 
good advice. I read the Cardinal’s book last month, and as a scientist and a believer, I found it to be a very reasonable viewpoint that may allow bridges to be built between the worlds of science and faith.
Wait till you hear him on the radio this Friday! 👍
 
By the way, someone have a link of the sermons supporting Darwin by a fine chap called John Henry Newman, a man that believed so much on evidence that the switched to the Catholic Church after dwelling deep into history. It was the same love for evidence that made him support Darwin when his book was published in the XIX century.
I believe some exfundamentalists in this forum have gone from creationists to Catholic theist evolutionist following the Venerable Newman path in the XXI century,
Links please.
 
so quick to Criticize, but I bet you have never looked at the other side read any of their books.
I for one have read *Creation Science *and Darwin’s Black Box. I have also checked out checked out various other articles and websites on creationism and ID. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve spent far too much time on Creationist material.
Many a Creation Scientist do have PhDs. There are over 600 Scientists in major universities in this country and around the world stating that they do not believe in the type of Darwinism that is being taught today.
Whether a person has a PhD. doesn’t mean that they are right on any particular issue. It does not magically convey insight. However, if you think that having a Phd. means that you have some extrordinary power of deduction, and that large numbers make a claim more likely to be true, then you really should believe in Evolution. Many, many, many more people with PhD.'s believe in Evolution than don’t.

600 scientists is a drop in the bucket. Thousands of people get their PhD.'s every year. Most of the scientists on that list don’t have degrees in Biology, or even a closely related field. At least two people have said that they wanted their names removed from the list as they misunderstood the purpose of the petition. Many of the people on the list are listed as being associated with much more prestigious schools than they are currently affiliated with. The petition lists honours such as “Nobel Prize Nominee”. Which is impressive, since the Prize committee keeps nominations in strict the strictest confidence.
But you would somehow treat them all like blazing idiots.
You know the feeling you get when someone in the media lies about Catholicism? Something really simple and stupid like “Catholics worship Mary” or “Catholics have to do everything the Pope says”. You could understand it if someone were to misunderstand something complicated. But something so simple and easy to check… well that’s just annoying. It makes you wonder, “Are they being stupid, malicious, or do they not care enough about the truth to check the most basic of facts.”

One person spreading an untruth would be bad enough, but the lie always spreads. People hear a lie on CNN and nothing you can do will shake them from believing it. You can prove something a hundred times over, and they just won’t let go of the false belief.

The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. Saying that Evolution is suspect is like saying that believing in gravity is suspect. Evolution has been held up to intense scrutinity from the day it began, and it has always prevailed. Evolution predicted that there were heiritable traits passed from generation to generation. We call them genes now. It predicted that we would find transitional forms in the fossil record. Not only have we found transitional forms in the fossil record, but we have found transitional forms in the genome. Even people who reject macro-evolution must accept that a species of bacteria that lives on Nylon could not have been around before there was Nylon to feed on.

We need a new flu shot every year because of Evolution. You need to finish all of your antibiotics because of Evolution. We have enough food to feed six billion humans instead of capping out at a few million because of Evolution.

The scientists who are critical of Evolution aren’t attacking the theory scientifically. They aren’t coming up with alternate hypotheses and testing them. They are just spouting opinions and red herrings.

Michael Behe, for instance, hasn’t run a single test of his hypothesis. What he is proposing can’t be tested. It’s a judgement call, an opinion, that he is calling a fact. And people who don’t know science are being sucked in by his degree.

They don’t do the research to find out that Michael Behe announced, under oath, that Intelligent Design is a science to the same degree that astrology is a science. Did you catch that?If creationism is a science, then astrology is a science.

We live in a culture where lies outweigh the truth. Tony Robbins, homeopathy, chiropractics, tarot, spoon bending, esp, seances… People are being blungeoned with baloney. They don’t have time to examine all the hooey and come to a rational, infromed opinion. They don’t, often, even know how to decide what is rational.

That’s why Evolutionists get so angry. We see lies being paraded around with impunity, and we are questioned on every single detail until we are exhausted. That’s why we collapse in a heap shouting, it’s just so stupid. So, so stupid.
Do you have a science degree???
Yes, in Anthropology.
 
Michael Behe, for instance, hasn’t run a single test of his hypothesis. What he is proposing can’t be tested. It’s a judgement call, an opinion, that he is calling a fact.
Actually he did do a test, and his paper shows that it is possible for an Irrducibly Complex system to evolve, even with just a subset of allowed mutations. His paper is Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. The abstract summarises his results as:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10[sup]8[/sup] generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10[sup]9[/sup].
When cross examined on this paper at the Kitzmiller v Dover trial Behe agreed that 10[sup]8[/sup] generations was about 20,000 years and that a population of 10[sup]9[/sup] bacteria was relatively small for bacteria. There are about 10[sup]16[/sup] bacteria in a ton of soil, that is 10,000,000 times the population Behe mentions in his abstract. The trial testimony is here.

In the paper itself Behe says:Our model is restricted to the development of MR features by point mutation in a duplicated gene. We strongly emphasize that results bearing on the efficiency of this one pathway as a conduit for Darwinian evolution say little or nothing about the efficiency of other possible pathways. Thus, for example, the present study that examines the evolution of MR protein features by point mutation in duplicate genes does not indicate whether evolution of such features by other processes (such as recombination or insertion/deletion mutations) would be more or less efficient.
So according to Behe’s own work, evolution can build Irreducibly Complex features with one hand tied behind its back.

rossum
 
So according to Behe’s own work, evolution can build Irreducibly Complex features with one hand tied behind its back.

rossum
That is so great! Thanks for your post, it made my morning. And thanks for the link to the trial, it makes for entertaining reading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top