R
ricmat
Guest
So you are willing to inquire, but not to change your decision.
:coffeeread:
You’ll figure it out eventually.
You’ll need to go back a few hundred posts on multiple threads…
- Status
You’ll figure it out eventually.
You’ll need to go back a few hundred posts on multiple threads…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Who did the measuring?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I suppose the guy with the tape measure.
R
ricmat
Guest
ALERT! ALERT!
Somebody has been watching our “discussions”, and has created book about it…
Well, I’m just kidding, but now that I’ve got your attention, here is a “debate” between Michael Behe (ID guy) and Keith Fox (Theistic Evolutionist guy). Reading through the summary transcript, especially the “paraphrased” part that starts about 1/3 of the way through, it looks just like our discussions here on CAF. The same arguments we hear here on both sides. It was outrageously funny. [Why aren’t the actual conversations here at CAF just as funny
] No doubt, the TEs and /or other non-ID folks have their own actual transcripts to laugh about too.
There’s an mp3 link shown. I admit that I didn’t listen to the mp3, but will get to it when I have time.
winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/michael-behe-and-keith-fox-debate-theistic-evolution-vs-intelligent-design/
Somebody has been watching our “discussions”, and has created book about it…
Well, I’m just kidding, but now that I’ve got your attention, here is a “debate” between Michael Behe (ID guy) and Keith Fox (Theistic Evolutionist guy). Reading through the summary transcript, especially the “paraphrased” part that starts about 1/3 of the way through, it looks just like our discussions here on CAF. The same arguments we hear here on both sides. It was outrageously funny. [Why aren’t the actual conversations here at CAF just as funny
] No doubt, the TEs and /or other non-ID folks have their own actual transcripts to laugh about too.There’s an mp3 link shown. I admit that I didn’t listen to the mp3, but will get to it when I have time.
winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/michael-behe-and-keith-fox-debate-theistic-evolution-vs-intelligent-design/
E
edwest2
Guest
It was amusing in the sense that it boils down to a worldview issue: I can’t believe a supernatural entity did anything, and if He did, well, why wasn’t He more explicit about it, you know, in that book?
The Bible?
Peace,
Ed
The Bible?
Peace,
Ed
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Cute, but a very inaccurate position to take considering that the entity in general terms, is not being ruled out. It’s always on the table.
It is a possibility.
The bible just makes the possibility so much smaller, as it does not impart any facts about the natural world we know that a divine creator could impart as evidence for his existance. He chose to love those who picked faith over all that stuff.
So why does the Catholic Church keep claiming science and faith are compatible? Even now?
V
valentino
Guest
I agree that Darwinism should be continued to be studied and see if they can ever prove it conclusively to encompass the whole of creation.There is still so much to learn.Christianity should be taught in its proper place.Home or church.This applies to public schools only.
V
valentino
Guest
I think the discussion will always be inconclusive.No one can prove with 1oo% accuracy that God created everything instantaneously.Likewise since no one alive today lived back 7000 yrs.ago no one will ever be able to be able to prove with 100%accuracy that he didn’t.There is simply noway to get all the facts.We can say a fossil is found in dirt 1 million yrs.old but we can’t prove that the dirt was actually created over time as we know 1million yrs ag
ne can say it appears this way or logically it looks this way but you still can’t prove it.
ne can say it appears this way or logically it looks this way but you still can’t prove it.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please be patient with me. It is people, including many Catholics, who do not understand Catholicism who are making this claim. Because the science/faith compatible bit is such a cute and handy sound bite, very few people besides you have the guts to ask how can that be?
The first step is to recognize God as the source of all truth. I will pause here to give you the chance to think about that. Let me know what you come up with.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Valentino, do you understand how science works? It doesn’t prove things. Rather, scientists propose hypotheses and then seek to disconfirm them. The longer they stand without being disconfirmed, the stronger they become as explanatory frameworks. The explanatory framework of evolution has withstood the tests of science for 150 years, has been revised, has incorporated auxiliary hypotheses, and is more cogent than ever. That’s why almost all biologists accept it, and why Catholic theologians, priests, bishops, and popes accept it.
StAnastasia
G
grannymh
Guest
And what about creationism and life in general as in the OP?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What about it?
G
grannymh
Guest
Do you have any opinions about creationism and life in general as in the OP.
Personally, when I look at life in general, the Catholic position regarding two sole parents of humanity makes a lot of sense.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Indeed, I do. All Catholics are creationists in the sense that we believe the world is ontologically dependent for its existence upon a cause external to it. Catholics are not required to be creationists in the popular, anti-scientific sense of the term. People can believe in pink elephants or a six-thousand year earth so long as it doesn’t frighten the horses. But neither pink elephants nor a six-thousand year earth belong in science classes.
G
grannymh
Guest
Catholics are required to believe in two sole parents of humanity. This insures the unity of mankind as it insures that each person is created in the Image of God. Being in the Image of God refers to our spiritual soul. It also means that we are called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. We possess the dignity of a person.
We are not a something in a world “ontologically dependent for its existence upon a cause external to it.” (see post 490)
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Do you not believe the world is dependent for its existence upon God?
R
ricmat
Guest
I think most Catholics would use the term “God” instead of “a cause external to it.”
I know of no one, not one Catholic, who thinks he is required to be “a creationist in the popular, anti-scientific sense of the term.” Are you hallucinating?
Your defense of the integrity of science in the classroom is commendable (to some). But as you recently pointed out, science cannot prove anything “that’s not how science works.” So scientific Truth is a misnomer, and scientific truth a moving target, and even at its best, as you say “it cannot prove anything.” And there is no science test for entry to Heaven, as we all know.
You advertise yourself as being a Catholic theologian in a university teaching role. It seems to me that your concern, rather than being scientific lower case t truth should instead be Truth. But it seems that for you, where the changing truth of science happens to conflict with the Truth as taught by the church, your side with the lower case truth-of-science-du-jour. I’m speaking here of your scientific truth that updates itself daily, and never quite gets to the capital T, and by definition never will.
When I read many of your posts (and I’ve ready many of them since you joined CAF), I regularly see a fog of doubt and speculation being cast on church teaching. A strange thing for a Catholic theologian to do. Perhaps it is to stimulate thinking on complex issues
You know, in that pluralistic society you talk about so much, we must be tolerant of, and grant equal status to such things as alternative creation “stories”, for to be intolerant is apparently the second greatest sin in the world of StA. The first sin is, of course, being unscientific.If the theological doubt of Truth that you sowed were later blown away by your own insightful and orthodox commentary worthy of a Catholic theologian in a university teaching position, it would be another matter. But we haven’t seen that yet. What we typically see in response are more questions, more doubt, more speculation, more defense of science, and even more questions.
Personally, it looks to me like you are in the wrong job. I’m not sure if there is an occupation called “science advocate”, but it seems more suited to you than your present position.
E
edwest2
Guest
Normally, when a person is presented with scientific information, he or she is given enough to understand it. Once it’s understood, that should be the end of it. Here, and elsewhere, there is a constant, ongoing attempt for acceptance of evolution. Why? What does it matter? It appears scientific literacy is valued above actual literacy. But you can’t really get science if you can’t read, and the number of illiterate and functionally illiterate people in the United States is significant.
Biology is primarily concerned with things that are alive now. We can observe many of these things for ourselves and through microphotography. The Church has been quite clear but instead, we are told that the Church simply accepts. But, there are elements of creation that fall outside of the scientific sphere:
“Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.” From Communion and Stewardship.
As Catholics, we must always be aware of the rest of the story.
Peace,
Ed
Biology is primarily concerned with things that are alive now. We can observe many of these things for ourselves and through microphotography. The Church has been quite clear but instead, we are told that the Church simply accepts. But, there are elements of creation that fall outside of the scientific sphere:
“Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.” From Communion and Stewardship.
As Catholics, we must always be aware of the rest of the story.
Peace,
Ed
T
tonyrey
Guest
The main objective of advocates of Design is to reveal the inadequacies of the scientific account of human beings which are most evident in NeoDarwinism and the assumptions of many neuroscientists that they can in principle explain all the activity of the human mind. Natural selection is an incomparably weaker explanation of biological development than intelligent selection… To omit all mention of the Design argument from science teaching gives the false impression - now widespread in our society thanks to the educational system and propaganda on television - that evolution is **the sole explanation **of our existence. A flagrant sin of omission…
- Status