Design

[Charlemagne_III]

I think Hoyle and Lemaître shared a disdain for drive thru religion.

George LeMaitre Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

 

[buffalo]

I think Hoyle and Lemaître shared a disdain for drive thru religion.

Hoyle says creationism is pseudo religion as well as pseudo science: “The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur’an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men.”

Lemaître is scathing about those who quote scripture as if it were science: “The idea that because they [bible writers] were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.”

He argues against attempts, such as in intelligent design, to make God a subject of science: “Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis.”

Lemaître goes so far as to say: “For the believer, it [his big bang theory] removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace’s “flick” or Jean’s “finger [of God agitating the ether]” consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah’s speakking of a “Hidden God,” hidden even in the beginning of creation.”

Yet the very first line of scripture was correct and science has just recently confirmed it. In the beginning (time) God create the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

 

[inocente]

However, there is a difference between the definitions of “unnatural” and “supernatural.” And the terms “evolution” and “natural” are not interchangeable.

From a theist, “natural” means orderly, uniform processes which are therefore intelligible and (in principle) repeatable. The processes Francis Bacon believed science should investigate to restore God’s dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28 and improve the human condition.

Whereas the whole raison d’être of intelligent design is to suppose non-uniform one-off events such as, in the words of the OP, “Irreducible Complexity on Steroids”, which could only be the result of supernatural intervention rather than natural processes.

 

[inocente]

George LeMaitre Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times

Of course, as I quoted him.

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Yes, he rejected the big bang, he was no stranger to being wrong. Many scientists would object that Hoyle’s common sense does not prepare us for such things as GR, QM or big bang. On the other hand, evolution is very common sense.

 

[inocente]

Yet the very first line of scripture was correct and science has just recently confirmed it. In the beginning (time) God create the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

Nope, science says nine billion years passed between the big bang and the creation of the Earth.

The Genesis 1 cosmology is mostly wrong. I was always taught that the light is spiritual light, not photons, since God is spiritual light, not photons. I think scripture must be read spiritually. As Lemaitre said “The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation.”.

 

[buffalo]

Nope, science says nine billion years passed between the big bang and the creation of the Earth.

The Genesis 1 cosmology is mostly wrong. I was always taught that the light is spiritual light, not photons, since God is spiritual light, not photons. I think scripture must be read spiritually. As Lemaitre said “The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation.”.

Genesis 1 seems to be written by God Himself. Also, the Tablet Theory show support for this and Moses compiled the tablets he had in His possession.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course, as I quoted him.

Yes, he rejected the big bang, he was no stranger to being wrong. Many scientists would object that Hoyle’s common sense does not prepare us for such things as GR, QM or big bang. On the other hand, evolution is very common sense.

Gerald Schroeder is a Jewish physicist and Talmudic scholar who wrote The Science of God, an interesting study of Genesis, the Big Bang, the history of the universe and evolution.

More scientists than ever are seeing parallels between scripture and science. It’s certainly true that Genesis is not scientifically accurate in all the particulars about the Creation. That was not the main point of Scripture in the first place. But parallels are parallels as opposed to direct contradictions.

For example, we know through science that the universe is not eternal and infinite, as Einstein once thought. It was created. We know that life began in the sea, moved to the land and air, and that man was the last and most recent creation OF ALL THE WORLD’S ANIMALS. All of this is in scripture and is consistent with science. Strangely parallel to modern discoveries in science.

Atheists ought to be getting suspicious and worried about the fact that ancient prophets got to this knowledge ahead of modern science.

 

[tonyrey]

Gerald Schroeder is a Jewish physicist and Talmudic scholar who wrote The Science of God, an interesting study of Genesis, the Big Bang, the history of the universe and evolution.

More scientists than ever are seeing parallels between scripture and science. It’s certainly true that Genesis is not scientifically accurate in all the particulars about the Creation. That was not the main point of Scripture in the first place. But parallels are parallels as opposed to direct contradictions.

For example, we know through science that the universe is not eternal and infinite, as Einstein once thought. It was created. We know that life began in the sea, moved to the land and air, and that man was the last and most recent creation OF ALL THE WORLD’S ANIMALS. All of this is in scripture and is consistent with science. Strangely parallel to modern discoveries in science.

Atheists ought to be getting suspicious and worried about the fact that ancient prophets got to this knowledge ahead of modern science.

It is worth repeating the words of Sir John Eccles:

“I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition . . . . we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.”

 

[inocente]

Genesis 1 seems to be written by God Himself. Also, the Tablet Theory show support for this and Moses compiled the tablets he had in His possession.

Apparently there’s a wide spectrum of views of the bible among American Catholics, from 1 in 5 who say the bible is the actual word of God to be taken literally, through to 1 in 5 that it’s “just another book of teachings, written by men and containing stories and advice”. - nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com.es/2016/08/sacraments-today-updated.html

 

[o_mlly]

Apparently there’s a wide spectrum of views of the bible among American Catholics, from 1 in 5 who say the bible is the actual word of God to be taken literally, through to 1 in 5 that it’s “just another book of teachings, written by men and containing stories and advice”. - nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com.es/2016/08/sacraments-today-updated.html

Shopuld be – 1 in 11 (9%).

I cannot find the study documents stating method(s) for selecting respondents. Without that information, the results must be interpreted as “of those surveyed” as in the old “9 out 10 doctors surveyed recommend (insert product name).” Do you have a link that discloses CARA’s sample selection method? I trust the sample was not limited to Georgetown students and alumni.

 

[inocente]

Gerald Schroeder is a Jewish physicist and Talmudic scholar who wrote The Science of God, an interesting study of Genesis, the Big Bang, the history of the universe and evolution.

More scientists than ever are seeing parallels between scripture and science. It’s certainly true that Genesis is not scientifically accurate in all the particulars about the Creation. That was not the main point of Scripture in the first place. But parallels are parallels as opposed to direct contradictions.

For example, we know through science that the universe is not eternal and infinite, as Einstein once thought. It was created. We know that life began in the sea, moved to the land and air, and that man was the last and most recent creation OF ALL THE WORLD’S ANIMALS. All of this is in scripture and is consistent with science. Strangely parallel to modern discoveries in science.

Atheists ought to be getting suspicious and worried about the fact that ancient prophets got to this knowledge ahead of modern science.

It’s quite an understatement to say Genesis is merely “not scientifically accurate”.

The Genesis 2 creation myth involves the spontaneous generation of a fully formed adult human male, followed by the spontaneous generation of a wife, with God walking through a garden where the laws of nature involve no hardships, replete with a tree of knowledge and talking serpent. I suggest you may be in for disappointment if you to think “more scientists than ever are seeing parallels” between any of that and science.

But you also have to ignore much of the Genesis 1 myth, while reading what little remains through rose tinted glasses, to see any of it as scientifically accurate. Even then, chances are those bits only happen to be right by -]chance/-] Chance.

Even then, you have to ignore that both myths are very similar to Babylonian myths, and ignore the culture of the writers and their audience, while supposing that the intention of the 6th century BC authors was to speak to readers who know a bit of 21st century AD science.

I was taught that the take-home messages are deeply spiritual. I still think that’s correct.

 

[inocente]

Shopuld be – 1 in 11 (9%).

I cannot find the study documents stating method(s) for selecting respondents. Without that information, the results must be interpreted as “of those surveyed” as in the old “9 out 10 doctors surveyed recommend (insert product name).” Do you have a link that discloses CARA’s sample selection method? I trust the sample was not limited to Georgetown students and alumni.

Well spotted, sorry, yes, the second stat is wrong, I copied it from another thread which also included those who say the bible isn’t inspired by God.

They have info about their methods on their website, see:

cara.georgetown.edu/caraservices/CARACathPoll.html
cara.georgetown.edu/caraservices/CCPMethods.html

 

[o_mlly]

Well spotted, sorry, yes, the second stat is wrong, I copied it from another thread which also included those who say the bible isn’t inspired by God.

They have info about their methods on their website, see:

cara.georgetown.edu/caraservices/CARACathPoll.html
cara.georgetown.edu/caraservices/CCPMethods.html

Thank you.

CARA admits the statistical difficulties of selecting a sample of Catholics representative of the Catholic population in the USA. Sampling errors range from ± 9.8 ppts to a best case of 3.5 ppts.

“CARA polls are conducted either through random digit dial (RDD) telephone methods or are self-administered by respondents …” Since I seldom answer my phone from unknown callers and never talk to robots, it would be impossible for persons of my profile to be sampled.

Noting that of those sampled, only 14% (± 3.5%) of millenials attend Mass weekly (the homily being a primary source of catechesis) explains why ~ 86% of nominal Catholics are poorly informed Catholics.

The study certainly suggests that catechesis is lacking but, thankfully, like heaven the Church is a hierarchy, and its truths are not dependent on the majority opinion.

 

[inocente]

Thank you.

CARA admits the statistical difficulties of selecting a sample of Catholics representative of the Catholic population in the USA. Sampling errors range from ± 9.8 ppts to a best case of 3.5 ppts.

“CARA polls are conducted either through random digit dial (RDD) telephone methods or are self-administered by respondents …” Since I seldom answer my phone from unknown callers and never talk to robots, it would be impossible for persons of my profile to be sampled.

Noting that of those sampled, only 14% (± 3.5%) of millenials attend Mass weekly (the homily being a primary source of catechesis) explains why ~ 86% of nominal Catholics are poorly informed Catholics.

The study certainly suggests that catechesis is lacking but, thankfully, like heaven the Church is a hierarchy, and its truths are not dependent on the majority opinion.

I don’t know. This Gallup poll (all faiths) finds a gradual decline in the belief that the bible is the actual world of God, and the belief is correlated with frequency of church attendance, level of education, and even political view.

This Pew poll finds that (ironically) atheists get highest scores on average for religious knowledge, and reports “More than four-in-ten Catholics in the United States (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ. About half of Protestants (53%) cannot correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation”.

Indicates to me that there’s a wide spectrum of knowledge and beliefs, and a lot fewer in the middle than I expected, but don’t know why.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s quite an understatement to say Genesis is merely “not scientifically accurate”.

The Genesis 2 creation myth involves the spontaneous generation of a fully formed adult human male, followed by the spontaneous generation of a wife, with God walking through a garden where the laws of nature involve no hardships, replete with a tree of knowledge and talking serpent. I suggest you may be in for disappointment if you to think “more scientists than ever are seeing parallels” between any of that and science.

But the fact is that many scientists do see these parallels and are aware that the technical discrepancies can be overlooked because it would have been impossible for the ancients to understand in detail all the elements of the Big Bang theory, for example, or the Darwinian dogma of Natural Selection.

Genesis 1, 1000 B.C. : And God said, “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Francis Collins Leader of the Human Genome Project
“It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.”

Robert Jastrow First Director of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee
Concerning the Big Bang: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[buffalo]

Apparently there’s a wide spectrum of views of the bible among American Catholics, from 1 in 5 who say the bible is the actual word of God to be taken literally, through to 1 in 5 that it’s “just another book of teachings, written by men and containing stories and advice”. - nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com.es/2016/08/sacraments-today-updated.html

This is what the Church teaches:

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
   118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
   The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
   The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
   But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

 

[Aloysium]

This is what the Church teaches: . . .

It’s interesting how people come here to argue not appreciating the basics of Catholicism.
But then, if they did they wouldn’t be arguing, I suppose.
And, they’d be going to the sources, as that above, rather than polls, blogs and such.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Apparently there’s a wide spectrum of views of the bible among American Catholics, from 1 in 5 who say the bible is the actual word of God to be taken literally, through to 1 in 5 that it’s “just another book of teachings, written by men and containing stories and advice”. - nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com.es/2016/08/sacraments-today-updated.html

I don’t know why you keep pointing to the theological divisions among Catholics unless it is to prove something: either that Catholics are not united and are becoming Protestantized in that respect (we already know this), or that Catholicism is a democracy where every point of view counts for something. The only point of view that is real, substantial, official and counts for anything is the point of view of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Would you like to cite that Catechism as to whether the bible “just another book of teachings, written by men and containing stories and advice”?

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t know why you keep pointing to the theological divisions among Catholics . . .

I would never speak for the poster you are addressing, but it seems pretty clear that atheists, deists, and protestants alike, do not see the Church to be the body of Christ.
The reality of the church is greater than the clergy and religious, sacred scripture, the history, theology and philosophy, the consecrated buildings, the art and music as well as the individual who has a personal relationship with God.
These all are joined on our journey together as stated in the first two words of the Lord’s Prayer - “Our Father”.
Heaven is a banquet, where we are united in love, we who are here sinners, lost in our ignorance, trying to grow in the Way that is Jesus Christ.

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t know why you keep pointing to the theological divisions among Catholics …

I think the citations point not to divisions in theology but to ignorance of theology. Baptized Catholics who do not practice, i.e., go to Mass, are like enrolled students who never go to class. No wonder those students can’t read.