E
edwest211
Guest
But the Bible is being attacked here and God.
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
Divine Revelation is true knowledge. Stop insulting religious believers.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution , provided that Christians believe that God created all things and that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
Do you have personal divine revelation, or are you just reading what others claim?
I don’t want to insult people, but I am not going to avoid facts, evidence, and logic juts because it bothers you.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You can lay claim to what is scientific, but you cannot claim the word “knowledge” too. That word applies generally to knowledge gained from one’s faith too. Let’s not give science a bad name by trying to grab too much under the umbrella of science.o_mlly:
If it is based on faith, it is by definition NOT knowledge.
This thread is about whether evolution is scientific. It definitely is, because it follows the rules of science - the scientific method.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No, the only thing that evolution is attacking is one narrow interpretation of scripture that is not even part of Catholic dogma. It might be part of dogma of certain Protestant sects, but that is not equivalent to attacking the bible or God.
E
edwest211
Guest
Yes, it is. Evolution cannot attack anything. Only some scientists do, using the same evidence.
U
Uriel1
Guest
Ah I see. You are unable to cut And paste such a teaching; I’m not surprised
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Art cannot attack anything. Only some artists do, using the same medium.
Writing cannot attack anything. Only some writers do, using the same printed word.
Science cannot attack anything. Only…ah, you get what I mean.
Only actually, you don’t.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I agree. And I do not support any scientist who misuses science in that way. After all, they would be attacking me too if they said “science proves there is no God” or something equally outrageous.
E
edwest211
Guest
Yet no other scientists call them out of for it. Imagine Richard Dawkins using his title and position to deny things written in the Bible on TV. How many calm scientists appear on TV, make their argument and go home?
O
o_mlly
Guest
All science is based on faith.
Since the science lacks adequate evidence, the best claim science can make is “Don’t know. Try another method.”
O
o_mlly
Guest
No, the church does not make technical judgements.
B
Bradskii
Guest
I think you are confusing the term ‘faith’ with ‘reasonable expectation’. And that’s being very generous.LateCatholic:
All science is based on faith.
So the speed of light in a vacuum as measured yesterday is a fact. That it is exactly the same today is a fact. That it will be exactly the same tomorrow is, to all intents, a fact. But being generous we will say that we have a ‘reasonable expectation’ that it will be the same.
In fact, that phrase is inherent in all scientific claims. It just saves a lot of typing if we leave it out and assume that all reasonable people with a basic understanding of science will allow for it.
B
Bradskii
Guest
‘Adequate evidence’ is only that which is required to back up any given theory. The more detailed the theory, the more evidence will be required. The simpler the theory, the less evidence is required.
A theory stands until such time as evidence that does not fit the theory outweighs evidence that does and the theory either changes or is abandoned and a new one proposed.
So if you want someone to abandon the ToE then you will need something a little better than fundamentalist’s’ demand that a religious interpretation is the correct one 'cos the bible says so.
U
Uriel1
Guest
Your analogy ref the “fact” of the speed of light is both interesting and apt. The speed of light has NOT been constant
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Unless it was different yesterday to what it is today, then we have no problem in using it as an example. But let me know if it was a bit faster yesterday if that’s the case.
And for your further reading pleasure:
‘… we can just define them (dimensionful constants) to be whatever we want by changing units. For example if we define units in which the speed of light and Planck’s constant are both exactly equal to one (which is commonly done in theoretical Physics), then the fine structure constant is just equal to the charge on an electron squared, and the question has no meaning.’ Did the speed of light change over the history of the universe? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
L
LateCatholic
Guest
You are still missing the point. First of all, it IS a constant in a vacuum. It MAY have been slightly different in the distant past, and MAY be slightly different in the distant future. It is irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that, we have a reasonable expectation that the speed of light in a vacuum will effectively be constant now and going forward. We can make useful predictions on this. Heck, we’ve decided to spend billions of dollars on it. You use your phone’s GPS every day based on this.
How did we come up with this “reasonable expectation”? Experiments (lots of them). Other evidence. Logic. Math. It is NOT faith. Will you bet your house on an experiment that proves the Eucharistic wine is really blood? What type? What’s the white blood cell count? And so forth. Of course not. But millions of people very day bet their lives on science.
Typically, when religious folk say science is based on “faith”, they are just throwing out a red herring because they’ve lost some argument. If you want to really say science and faith are the same thing, define each.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
AGAIN:
In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution , provided that Christians believe that God created all things and that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
Science can only prove or disprove that which is adequately defined and can be measured. Until someone defines God, there’s no point. However, when people do begin to define God, all sorts of problems arise, such a Euthyphro’s Dilemma, the Cosmological argument mess, and so on.
If you are willing to define God, you can have rational discussions on whether God exists or your definitions are reasonable. But until then, leave science out of it.
- Status