G
grannymh
Guest
Personally, I prefer how Catholicism describes God.
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Agreed!Personally, I prefer how Catholicism describes God.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
V
valentino
Guest
I’m saying Darwinism should be studied in the classrooms.
R
rossum
Guest
You might get a better response if you used the standard scientific term. What you are talking about is Artificial Selection. Darwin devoted the opening chapters of Origin to the subject.
rossum
I
inocente
Guest
Aviation Safety Audit? Amigos Siempre Amigos? American Standards Association? If it’s anything to do with AAAS, can you ask them to please stop sending me offers to join every six months.
-ish. We are experimentalists, we test out theories. Now you know of two engineers.
G
grannymh
Guest
From grannymh, post 516
Personally, I prefer how Catholicism describes God.
Pardon me. It seems that some of your posts have disagreed when God’s description as Creator did not blend in with some of the science theories. For example, in one of your posts, the description of God’s Power of Creation became “granny’s magical mystery tour” in reference to the reality of two sole parents of the human species, Adam & Eve. This was at a time when various threads were either closed or pulled.
Nonetheless, the Catholic description remains. Divine Revelation trumps!
Yes, I realize, from your descriptions of the people you know, that there is opposition to some basic Catholic doctrines.
FYI – opposition to basic Catholic truths and vague substitutions for doctrines do not have the power to bring down the Catholic Church.
Blessings,
granny
John 3: 16 & 17
T
tonyrey
Guest
Nothing but Darwinism?
T
tonyrey
Guest
I love your typo " boilogy". It sounds as if you bring the chemical broth to the boil and lo and behold - life emerges in all its splendour!
I wasn’t aware that the Krebs cycle and Riemannian mathematics are closely related to random mutations and natural selection…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Don’t you ever employ it? Or do you leave your decisions to chance?
T
tonyrey
Guest
I’m beginning to wonder what role there is for God in your scheme of things?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes - when ordering at restaurants “intelligent selection” is useful.
P
Protector
Guest
Very true grannymh. Also, accepting the literal six days of Creation leads to one of the most contraversial questions in Christendom, “What of the seventh day?”
Protector.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Infinite. God is almighty creator of the universe. I don’t see God as a tinkerer who needs to take a coffee break from the angelic poker game (does God even play dice?) to hang around earth every few minutes nudging this or that species to evolve, or pushing the North American and European continents apart.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
God’s creative power is infinite - it does not need “to blend in.”
No. What I said was that the genetic evidence from the number of alleles points to the fact that humans emerged as a group of 3,000 - 10,000 breeding pairs during the last few hundred thousand years. At no point did the population drop to a single breeding Adamic pair. So the possibilities are that either (1) God faked the human genome to appear as though human numbers had never fallen below 3,000 pairs, or (2) Genesis 1-2 may be read allegorically, which is how most Catholic theologians today read it.
Not from my Catholic colleagues.
Good - that would be terrible!
G
grannymh
Guest
“Intelligent selection” is what some people claim when they deny the reality of two sole parents of humankind. Intelligent naming is when they refer to the reality of Adam & Eve as granny’s magical mystery tour. On the other hand, maybe some of these people have analyzed the data … and now realize that God the Creator can create.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
“Darwinism” is an outdated term; it’s like referring to modern physics as “Newtonism.” If you mean the “Neo-Darwinian synthesis,” that might work.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Aviation Safety Audit? Amigos Siempre Amigos? American Standards Association? If it’s anything to do with AAAS, can you ask them to please stop sending me offers to join every six months.
American Scientific Affiliation. It’s a delightful group of Christians who work in science, and who meet annually in July. This year it will be in Illinois.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
They’re not. I was pointing out that textbooks on these subjects don’t normally invoke God as an explanation for how the theory works out. God doesn’t need to take a coffee break to cause the glucose to break down to pyruvate, so textbooks don’t insert that information. God doesn’t take a coffee break to add another layer of neuronal complexity to make humans evolve from their parents, so textbooks don’t insert that information.I wasn’t aware that the Krebs cycle and Riemannian mathematics are closely related to random mutations and natural selection…
God is great. God is clever enough to create a reality that unfolds with its own integrity. God is also infinite – the whole of reality exists within the divine reality, so God is immanent to every aspect of creation. I suppose you could include that in the preface to a Catholic biology textbook, without inserting on the Krebs cycle page “now here God performs a miracle.” Of course, you could do the latter, and see what the textbook censors would say!
StAnastasia
R
ricmat
Guest
You work at a university? Find a good university with an engineering department, and talk to some people.
Engineers are trained in science. Other than perhaps (I don’t recall exactly) 5 or 6 courses in non-science subjects, all of my college classes were in chemistry and physics. Electric fields, properties of matter, that sort of thing. Electrical engineers, such as myself, shared most of my classes with the physics majors, and my own degree is in electrical engineering and applied physics.
Engineers have many roles, but most of them involve actually “making something happen” using science. Unlike “pure” scientists, who can theorize about things (black holes for example, or evolution), and never have to put-up-or-shut-up, engineers make scientific predictions during their work which are proven by reality (i.e. the computer actually works, or the bridge doesn’t fall down). Generally speaking, when the computer doesn’t work or the bridge falls down, the engineer loses his job. Not so with pure science, since as you often admit “nothing can be proven by science.” You can get a nobel prize in physics for describing the characteristics of a black hole, when no one has even proven such a thing even exists.
Engineering is not “tinkering” as you seem to think. Although in a non-professional sense, in our garages, some engineers like to do that as well.
- Status