Creationist Catholic 2007

[hildegaard]

Science does not find THE TRUTH[sup]TM[/sup], …

This is true. That is why the Church guided by the Holy Spirit is the best guide we have. Thus when three popes spoke and acted on the geocentrism issue (specifically), we should listen to what they say. That does not mean turn your brain off and not look at alternatives, but I an telling you that science explicity refuses to even consider the possibility thast the earth does not move and appears central, even though many, if not most observations indicate this. So not only does science not find THE TRUTH[sup]TM[/sup], they dogmatically refuse to consider it. This is documented extensively in *Galileo Was Wrong *(you should have a look- I will take a look at the Asimov book if I come across it, thanks).

 

[edwest2]

Ed asks:

Barbarian explains:
Science is merely a way of learning about the physical universe; nothing else we do comes close to being as effective for that. It has been useful in making our lives better, but it is primarily just for learning about this world.

But it can’t address the supernatural. Just can’t. The supernatural can’t be tied down to evidence and inferences from it.

Ed completely misses the point:

No, Ed. It’s “science can’t shore up your faith, if your faith isn’t strong enough on its own.”

If you can’t do that, science can’t do it for you. Can’t, Ed. And it shouldn’t have to. God gave you everything necessary to accept Him. Just do it, and quit hoping science will do it for you.

It can’t.

Your reply is very strange and represents an alien viewpoint. It is as if you have read none of my previous posts. I am assuming now, but I am quite ceretain you have become infected with certain ideas being spread on the internet. Most of them false or only partly true.

The dread expressed over introducing students to Intelligent Design or Creation in science class. This is nonsensical since it ignores the fact that in the early history of the United States, the Bible itself was used in classrooms. In more recent times, students who went to public schools also went to Sunday schools to learn about Creation, and this is where the great disconnect occurs, still went on to become scientists.

Gregor Mendel was a monk and yet, somehow, he established the laws of inheritance.

The first message transmitted by the inventor of the telegraph, Samuel Morse, was: “What hath God wrought?”

You have apparently fallen for the new mindset being promoted by people like Sam Harris who speaks of the “alien hiss of religion” that he hears among scientists. How he likens people who look like scientists and act like scientists to “pod people” and why? Because some quote the Pope when discussing embryonic stem cell research.

The overarching goal, especially in the past 20 years, is to remove any sign of God from as many places as possible and to rewrite history as if many great scientists gave no credit to God at all or didn’t consider Him for a microsecond while carrying out their work.

I encourage you to wake up from the cloud of propaganda that is currently being spread.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Have you ever read Jeremy Rifkins book Biotech Century?

It’s a very insightful book in my opinion, even if it does have its detractors. In it, he addressed many of the concern that you rightfully raise regarding this debate in a very positive and constructive manner that seeks to offer some solutions to the modern day problems we face.

I would highly recommend it for anyone.

Thank you very much for pointing out this book to me. Man’s desire to be like gods continues unabated. I would like to recommend to you the book Engines of Creation by Drexler. It covers nanotechnology in a comprehensive way.

I am a professional writer and focus on high technology. I can assure that no matter how the future is painted or by who, human greed will always be at the forefront. The primary concern of the rich is remaining rich. Second, the military will always get first use of any new technology, and later, maybe, a few things will trickle down to the peasants.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Please explain how to formulate an experiment that starts with the proposition you claim must be made: God is the author of what I am trying to investigate. Just one example will do. How does one bring God into the theoretical equation? You claim it must, so show us how to do it.

I claim it? The Church claims it. Read Human Persons Created in the Image of God. Read Humani Generis. You are blinded by science and see science and revealed truth as two separate things. Pope Benedict has made it quite clear that science is one form of reason and what we know from divine revelation another. The two are not opposed but complementary.

I regard both types of reason as facts. Get it? So does the Church. Science cannot prove the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Science, according to some, cannot prove Jesus Christ even existed.

I think you should realize that each one of us will be judged by the same physical Jesus Christ, wounds and all, that acended into heaven 2,000 years ago. What did Jesus say to those who didn’t believe Him about things that actually happened? He asked them then how will you believe me about spiritual things?

If you prefer to be a naturalist and a materialist, go right ahead. But the actual physical Jesus Christ exists at this moment and I think in a place called Catholic Answers, I cannot stress this point enough. Science will not be your savior when you die.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Donald45]

Gregor Mendel was a monk and yet, somehow, he established the laws of inheritance.

Yet, if you were to read Mendel’s scientific papers on genetic inheritance, you wouldn’t find a single reference to “God,” “divine providence,” or “creation.” Why not? Because God is simply beyond the reach of scientific investigation, and Mendel was perfectly aware of this fact. Unlike yourself, Mendel had no problem with distinguishing his theological convictions from his scientific conclusions.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[edwest2]

Well, Don. You seem to think that science is in one room and theology is in another. You fail to notice how the Church combines science and theology all the time and teaches the faithful all the time about scientific issues based on science and theology. That is the way I’ve always looked at it. Always.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Donald45]

Well, Don. You seem to think that science is in one room and theology is in another.

Same room, different shelves.

…the Church combines science and theology all the time and teaches the faithful all the time about scientific issues based on science and theology.

Can you provide examples of the Church doing both of these?

Don
+T+

 

[hecd2]

There’s also problems with the outcomes of the studies that you have cited as well.

What precisely is the problem with Masters et al?

Are you saying that people who purport the effectiveness of prayer are actually engaging in fraud or delusion?

No of course not. I am saying that the results of one fraudulent researcher were included in the Hodge meta-analysis thereby invalidating it.

Only because they don’t want to see it in the first place.

It’s not that I or any other researcher doesn’t want to see it. It is that it isn’t there. The very best you can say, if you bend over backwards to be biased in favour of the efficacy of prayer, is that there is a tiny beneficial effect (if the effect was substantial there would be no controversy), which could be an artefact of the experimental design. The fact is that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that there was no effect detected. You, of course are free to believe whatever you like, but your claim that the efficacy of intercessory prayer has been proven by science is wrong and that is what I pointed out.

When the prayers are given to the person in order to ‘reduce bias’, this alone actually negates the direct effects of the intercessory prayer Alec.

How do you know that? Or is that a faith position, because it sure as hell is not evidence based.

Do you actually know what prayer is or what these studies are seeking to prove?

Yes. Yes. And taken together the consensus of the scientific community is that there is no statistically significant effect to be gained by intercessory prayer on behalf of patients, whether we include or exclude the STEP study, to the extent, as I have said, that IP would not be approved by the FDA as an efficacious therapeutic intervention.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You do not need to do that, specifically. You can start with a hypothesis, perhaps: “the world is less than 15000 years old” or “the earth is not moving”, then see if you can find evidence to supprt or reject the hypothesis. In the case of the earth not moving, you will find loads of evidence, but science will not ask the question nor make the investigation. In fact what science did (in the case of the earth movement question) was to completely revamp science to cover the fact the the earth appears stationary (thus matter shrinks, time dilates, space warps, etc.). After all the smoke and mirrors, the earth appears to move!

Hildegaard, you just go right on and believe whatever floats your boat as they say. The rest of us and the world will continue to believe that evolution is the correct model for describing how life evolved. And as to the geocentism? Lord the Church doesn’t teach that. A Catholic priest for goodness sakes was the first to coin the phrase “big Bang” . I think I may have fallen into the 18th century.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is true. That is why the Church guided by the Holy Spirit is the best guide we have. Thus when three popes spoke and acted on the geocentrism issue (specifically), we should listen to what they say. That does not mean turn your brain off and not look at alternatives, but I an telling you that science explicity refuses to even consider the possibility thast the earth does not move and appears central, even though many, if not most observations indicate this. So not only does science not find THE TRUTH[sup]TM[/sup], they dogmatically refuse to consider it. This is documented extensively in *Galileo Was Wrong *(you should have a look- I will take a look at the Asimov book if I come across it, thanks).

See I can’t believe what you say unless I turn off my brain. Please read JPII and Benedict.

 

[reggieM]

In short we all agree with you reggieM on this point. I think there’s very good reason to think that humanity is indeed getting less intelligent in some sense of The Word as time goes by.

Thanks Mr. Ex Nihilo – and thanks also for this quote from Wilhelm Schmidt:

Actually the history of religion here constructs a new proof for the existence of God: the oldest religion of mankind cannot be understood in its entirety, fullness and unique character, unless one assumes the existence and operation of God who created it created it in that He Himself personally instructed the men of that age in their beliefs, moral commandments and acts of worship.

Thus, as it appears to me, science can indeed speak about the supernatural and actually conclude that God exists.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I claim it? The Church claims it. Read Human Persons Created in the Image of God. Read Humani Generis. You are blinded by science and see science and revealed truth as two separate things. Pope Benedict has made it quite clear that science is one form of reason and what we know from divine revelation another. The two are not opposed but complementary.

**Yes and he also said that science has simply no place in talking about God since they have no expertise there. It is for the church. You are the one who cited this and then argued the direct opposite. You have continnually stated that you require science to speak to the God issue. So tell me how they formulate an experiment including God in the hypothesis? **

I regard both types of reason as facts. Get it? So does the Church. Science cannot prove the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Science, according to some, cannot prove Jesus Christ even existed.

**Then if you regard both science and the Church teaching as fact what is the issue? Get it? Bravo, you are right, science can’t prove transubstantiation. And he sure can’t prove Jesus ever existed either. bingo. History can do science a bit better on that issue, its their field. **

I think you should realize that each one of us will be judged by the same physical Jesus Christ, wounds and all, that acended into heaven 2,000 years ago. What did Jesus say to those who didn’t believe Him about things that actually happened? He asked them then how will you believe me about spiritual things?

**Why on earth would you not think we all know this? Oh Ed, that’s a convenient choice of scripture. You obviously know it has nothing to do with this discussion. **

If you prefer to be a naturalist and a materialist, go right ahead. But the actual physical Jesus Christ exists at this moment and I think in a place called Catholic Answers, I cannot stress this point enough. Science will not be your savior when you die.

**No, I prefer not to. Ed. let me ask you a question. Have you ever looked at my blog? Do you really think I’m some atheist posing as a Catholic? I’m not asking science to be anything but true to itself and I sure hope it keep coming up with good ideas that technology can make useful for humanity. I don’t need to be lectured about Jesus and where he. The Spirit is present everywhere everytime always. **
Ed

You continue sadly to throw out your ugly little “got it” and implications that others aren’t good Catholics like you are. You continue to deliberately refuse to acknowledge the truth. I’m more than convinced you understand, since when you are cornered you just start a new thread. Yes indeed Ed, Jesus will definitely really be there at the end.

 

[reggieM]

The overarching goal, especially in the past 20 years, is to remove any sign of God from as many places as possible and to rewrite history as if many great scientists gave no credit to God at all or didn’t consider Him for a microsecond while carrying out their work.

I’d be pretty surprised to find any Catholics (e.g. believers here on Catholic Answers) who would disagree with that. The evidence is abundantly clear. Europe has been almost totally secularized. America is following quickly after them. One of the key most destructive forces used in this anti-God campaign, of course, is materialist-Darwinism.

To simply ignore that an defend Darwinist theory as if it is something of a neutral or positive value alone is a distortion. Then to go farther and claim that “fundamentalist Christianity” is somehow worse than the extremes of Darwinism shows a serious bias.

Science has not been very successful in bringing people to God, through His Church and then to heaven. Sadly, it has been used for just the opposite effect in a very significant way – and it has dominated our society with a belief that the only things that really count are what is here and now – in the material world of nature and its processes.

This explains the very harsh reaction that many religious people have against science. It may be that some of those reactions are too extreme and that good science is threatened.

But the way to defend science is not to embrace Darwinist-materialism (and put God in there somewhere).

 

[hecd2]

AND YET THEY CONTINUE TO FIND THE EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH.

Who does?

I find it interesting that you would side with those who assume or presuppose billions of years because they are tied to a chair demanding that they give natural causes to everything.

I think the word you are struggling to find when you write “assume” or “pre-suppose” is “conclude”. Don’t you think you should learn a little science or philosophy of science before you make an utter dork of yourself? Have you ever heard of methodological naturalism, the sine qua non of science?

Science is biased in their assumptions and foundations that are presupposed to fit a worldview without God…but, clearly, the scriptures tell of a six day creation and God can do so as He pleases. I think you need to read up on what Creation Science is doing and finding.

What would that be then, because everything I have ever seen from the Creation “Science” community is utter unmitigated garbage.

I suppose that you do not believe in Noah’s flood either. I find it very interesting that Moses included something about a catastrophic event that took place at all. After all, scientists know that something did indeed happen…yet they say it was 65,000,000 years ago. If that was the case, how would Moses have know that he needed to include such an event in the record? He knew because 4500 years ago, there was a flood that wiped out the earth except for those on the ark (in addition that the Holy Spirit inspired his writings).

Sigh - there have been many local and global catastrophes, not just the Chicxulub bolide 65 million years ago. There is overwhelming evidence for that. Conversely there is no evidence for a global flood ever, never mind 4,500 years ago.

Does science explain people living to be 900+ years before the flood?

No, because they didn’t.

It never rained…it seems that the earth was some sort of terrerium (if that is how you spell it)…

And the evidence for that is…?

what are palm tree fossils doing in Alaska…Tigers in Siberia…tropical plants at the poles???

Ever heard of plate tectonics? I thought not. As for the Siberian tiger, they exist now, you know:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Tiger
You are very funny.

The Bible has the answers that fit the evidence…most just choose to ignore it and throw it out; dimiss it and explain it away because of their presuppositions.

Ah yes - instead of the honourable presupposition that the bible is literally and inerrantly true?

The reason…they do not want God OR - they want to compromise with science.

I’d just rather use my reason and intellect to decide things rather than rely on the sort of ignorance displayed here that would not be out of place in the mouth of an unusually badly educated mediaeval peasant. We have moved on you know.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Same room, different shelves.

Can you provide examples of the Church doing both of these?

Don
+T+

Just see my previous posts. I will no longer be discussing this issue with you Don. Take care.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’d be pretty surprised to find any Catholics (e.g. believers here on Catholic Answers) who would disagree with that. The evidence is abundantly clear. Europe has been almost totally secularized. America is following quickly after them. One of the key most destructive forces used in this anti-God campaign, of course, is materialist-Darwinism.

To simply ignore that an defend Darwinist theory as if it is something of a neutral or positive value alone is a distortion. Then to go farther and claim that “fundamentalist Christianity” is somehow worse than the extremes of Darwinism shows a serious bias.

Science has not been very successful in bringing people to God, through His Church and then to heaven. Sadly, it has been used for just the opposite effect in a very significant way – and it has dominated our society with a belief that the only things that really count are what is here and now – in the material world of nature and its processes.

This explains the very harsh reaction that many religious people have against science. It may be that some of those reactions are too extreme and that good science is threatened.

But the way to defend science is not to embrace Darwinist-materialism (and put God in there somewhere).

Very well said. The ‘just say yes to evolution’ crowd is not defending science here but seek universal acceptance of Darwinist-materialism.

Eat, drink and spend your money now. Living a simple, moderate and restrained Christian life means you are less likely to buy goods and services. And that is bad for the ‘this life is all there is’ crowd. People should understand that peaceful, stable cooperative living among human beings is just bad for the economy.

God bless,
Ed

 

[zian]

The ‘just say yes to evolution’ crowd is not defending science here but seek universal acceptance of Darwinist-materialism.

God bless,
Ed

Not me, Ed.
Not Tim.
Not rossum.
Not Phil.
Not wildleafblower.
Not … etc etc etc

Perhaps you can find someone who is. Good on you. But just because you have a broom doesn’t make your sweeping generalizations valid.

For clarification, Ed,
Just see my previous posts. I will no longer be discussing this issue with you Ed. Take care.

zian

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’d be pretty surprised to find any Catholics (e.g. believers here on Catholic Answers) who would disagree with that. The evidence is abundantly clear. Europe has been almost totally secularized. America is following quickly after them. One of the key most destructive forces used in this anti-God campaign, of course, is materialist-Darwinism.

To simply ignore that an defend Darwinist theory as if it is something of a neutral or positive value alone is a distortion. Then to go farther and claim that “fundamentalist Christianity” is somehow worse than the extremes of Darwinism shows a serious bias.

**your logic is lacking. You would throw out a perfectly good scientific model because some people use the doctrine completely out of its field to claim it disproves God. Indeed it does not and that argument is nonsensical. I am not sure what you mean by fundamentalist Christianity. Yes there are fundamentalists and sad to say some fundamentalist Catholics althought the Church warns against such narrow reading of the bible.There is no idea that we compare fundamentalism against scientific theory and make some choice. That I submit makes no sense whatsoever. **

Science has not been very successful in bringing people to God, through His Church and then to heaven. Sadly, it has been used for just the opposite effect in a very significant way – and it has dominated our society with a belief that the only things that really count are what is here and now – in the material world of nature and its processes.

What science do you think is qualified to talk about God? Do you think astronomers or biologists are best suited to discuss their personal opinions of God? How people decide to view facts are not within the control of the fact giver. That is essentially killing the messenger because you find the message unpalatible according to your personal view of things. Since the Church requires no such narrow archaic belief, why do you?

This explains the very harsh reaction that many religious people have against science. It may be that some of those reactions are too extreme and that good science is threatened.

**Ya think? **

But the way to defend science is not to embrace Darwinist-materialism (and put God in there somewhere).

LOL…okay, we reject good science because it needs to put God in there “somewhere”…You expect science to figure that out and you apparently don’t have a clue either. Why is their scieintific training better than a theologians?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Just see my previous posts. I will no longer be discussing this issue with you Don. Take care.

Ed

An excellent method by which one can conclude who has won the argument.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Very well said. The ‘just say yes to evolution’ crowd is not defending science here but seek universal acceptance of Darwinist-materialism.

Shame shame Ed. making those patently false statements again. Nobody here is arguing that Darwin provides a complete answer. Nobody and YOU KINOW IT>

Eat, drink and spend your money now. Living a simple, moderate and restrained Christian life means you are less likely to buy goods and services. And that is bad for the ‘this life is all there is’ crowd. People should understand that peaceful, stable cooperative living among human beings is just bad for the economy.

**I have no idea what bend in the road you just turned. Now its all about economics instead of godless atheism. Or maybe its both now? **

Ed