Evolution and God

[Orogeny]

Thousands of years ago, a man put paint on a bowl and liked it. Was he an artist? An artisan? A craftsman? Was he a scientist?

And thousands of years later, somebody gives him a label.

Science doesn’t do science, only human beings do something labeled science.

Of course science doesn’t do science. What a bizarre claim.

Does science exist, Ed? Are you willing to retract your silly statement?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

C’mon Tim, we know they are not for they are only paper entities. But America thinks they are evil. And the government has found a way to tax a non-person.

But corporations exist, right? Just like science exists?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Retract what? It makes perfect sense. Science does not do science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Retract what? It makes perfect sense. Science does not do science.

Ok, I guess I will have to keep asking you because perhaps you have a problem with reading comprehension. Do you retract your statement that science doesn’t exist?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

But corporations exist, right? Just like science exists?

Peace

Tim

No such thing as a corporation, just a buch of people in a building doing stuff. Some guy walks by and puts a label on their activities.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

No such thing as a corporation, just a buch of people in a building doing stuff. Some guy walks by and puts a label on their activities.

Does science exist, Ed?

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

Science doesn’t exist. It’s not an object or person.

You can do better than this Ed: “Christianity does not exist. It is not an object or person.”

But scientists are denying God regularly, based on science.

Atheists are denying God regularly, based on the Bible. And your point was?

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

You can do better than this Ed: “Christianity does not exist. It is not an object or person.”

Actually, I don’t think he can. I don’t think he understands what he wrote.

Peace

Tim

 

[strugglingalong]

Does science exist, Ed?

Peace

Tim

Science does not have existence. It is not a thing. It does not have being. It is only a label for a group of people who are involved with research in a certain intellectual area. If you take away the actual people involved, science does not exist. I think Ed’s point was that you cannot separate science as if it was something other than the people who are involved with it.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[rossum]

Science does not have existence. It is not a thing. It does not have being. It is only a label for a group of people who are involved with research in a certain intellectual area. If you take away the actual people involved, science does not exist. I think Ed’s point was that you cannot separate science as if it was something other than the people who are involved with it.

How about:Theology does not have existence. It is not a thing. It does not have being. It is only a label for a group of people who are involved with research in a certain intellectual area. If you take away the actual people involved, theology does not exist.

or:

Christianity does not have existence. It is not a thing. It does not have being. It is only a label for a group of people who are involved with a certain set of beliefs. If you take away the actual people involved, Christianity does not exist.

This argument can help save the planet be greatly decreasing the size of dictionaries, and hence reducing the number of trees that need to be cut down to make the paper to print them on.

All this argument talks about is the difference between concrete and abstract nouns. “Science”, “theology” and “Christianity” are all abstract nouns. “Scientist”, “theologian” and “Christian” are all concrete nouns.

rossum

 

[strugglingalong]

How about:Theology does not have existence. It is not a thing. It does not have being. It is only a label for a group of people who are involved with research in a certain intellectual area. If you take away the actual people involved, theology does not exist.

or:

Christianity does not have existence. It is not a thing. It does not have being. It is only a label for a group of people who are involved with a certain set of beliefs. If you take away the actual people involved, Christianity does not exist.

This argument can help save the planet be greatly decreasing the size of dictionaries, and hence reducing the number of trees that need to be cut down to make the paper to print them on.

All this argument talks about is the difference between concrete and abstract nouns. “Science”, “theology” and “Christianity” are all abstract nouns. “Scientist”, “theologian” and “Christian” are all concrete nouns.

rossum

All I am saying is that it seems to me the argument was about science being closely aligned to atheism. How do you make an argument on science, as a construct of the human language, and atheism? Science qua science holds no position in itself - only those who are scientists have a position. You can’t look at science about whether it is aligned with atheism but only by looking at the people involved. It doesn’t mean that the pursuit of scientific discoveries has to be atheistic but it is a telling fact when the vast majority of scientists are atheists or agnostics. I think that was the issue and the point Ed was making, that you can’t look at the abstract noun to determine how science is infected with atheism but you have to look at the concrete people involved. Maybe I am wrong in that and someone can correct me. I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[RickAstley]

I remember this being covered before, hold on, I’ll grab a link for you:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4055654#post4055654

I Hope this helps out

 

[strugglingalong]

Here is a frightening quote that illustrates the danger of evolution, at least when it is joined to atheistic philosophy. This quote illustrates my concern:
Richard Bozarth:

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of His death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.4

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[edwest2]

Science does not have existence. It is not a thing. It does not have being. It is only a label for a group of people who are involved with research in a certain intellectual area. If you take away the actual people involved, science does not exist. I think Ed’s point was that you cannot separate science as if it was something other than the people who are involved with it.

Pax Christi tecum.

Thank you. I used a literary example to show that science cannot be referred to as if it was a person. So saying science is silent about God or whatever, simply means that scientists have painted themselves into a corner. This is why the other areas of reason held by the Catholic Church, and individual people can allow them to discover God on their own, through natural reason.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

All I am saying is that it seems to me the argument was about science being closely aligned to atheism. How do you make an argument on science, as a construct of the human language, and atheism? Science qua science holds no position in itself - only those who are scientists have a position. You can’t look at science about whether it is aligned with atheism but only by looking at the people involved. It doesn’t mean that the pursuit of scientific discoveries has to be atheistic but it is a telling fact when the vast majority of scientists are atheists or agnostics. I think that was the issue and the point Ed was making, that you can’t look at the abstract noun to determine how science is infected with atheism but you have to look at the concrete people involved. Maybe I am wrong in that and someone can correct me. I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again.

Pax Christi tecum.

Don’t be too confident in your ability to be wrong. Strengthen your fact checking abilities.

Yes, most leading scientists reject God according to Nature magazine. This is a significant point. The fact is that the relationship between an object and the observer changes when this bias is introduced.

The pressure being brought to bear here on Catholics is this: the evolutionist interpretation of the evidence seems to contradict certain things in the Bible. They cannot, it seems, even as individuals, conceive how God works through miracles. They just keep repeating over and over, well, there’s no evidence for it.

I’ll remind our atheist, agnostic, free thinker and secular humanist readers that today, 2008, through the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the Church needs two miracles (that’s right, science cannot explain them events) to allow someone to be declared a saint. You are not going to read about this in your secular newspaper. It would appear most people are unaware of how this process works.

Example: In South America, a submarine was struck by a surface vessel. It sank and the captain tried to open a door under the resistence of tons of water pressure. He asked a candidate for sainthood for their help, saw a bright light and was able to open the door. He saved the lives of men who would have died. Naval experts were brought in and helped to rule that what he did was humanly impossible. The Pope himself makes the final ruling after significant research and testimony for and against, which usually takes years.

Yes, miracles still happen, but some just don’t want to hear or having heard, hold their own understanding and knowledge as the only true way to understand their life and the world around them. I understand this. But if you ask God sincerely and humbly, He will reveal Himself to you.

God bless,
Ed

 

[masterjedi747]

Science qua science holds no position in itself - only those who are scientists have a position.

Of course.

You can’t look at science about whether it is aligned with atheism but only by looking at the people involved.

…I thought we just agreed that “science qua science holds no position in itself”. So it can’t be inherently “aligned with atheism”. The natural sciences an area of knowledge that, qua natural science, stands apart from philosophical interpretations of itself. It can point philosophers in a general direction, sure, but it is not, as itself, inherently aligned with one or the other.

It doesn’t mean that the pursuit of scientific discoveries has to be atheistic but it is a telling fact when the vast majority of scientists are atheists or agnostics.

Telling of what? …that the vast majority of scientists are not well-educated in anything beyond their own very narrow realm of expertise, I think.

I think that was the issue and the point Ed was making, that you can’t look at the abstract noun to determine how science is infected with atheism but you have to look at the concrete people involved.

And my response is that science (“the abstract noun”) can’t be infected with atheism. Only the scientist can, and even then, not qua scientist, but qua philosopher.

 

[edwest2]

And when scientists do turn to atheism, their relationship to what they call the evidence changes, doesn’t it? Richard Dawkins didn’t write The God Delusion with nothing more than his disgust over the actions of the God of the Bible. No, he and Sam Harris and PZ Myers, credit what you refer to as the science, which should properly be called the results of their research, observations, and conclusions.

No one, except God, was there when man was created. He passed this knowledge to the Church through divine revelation. You don’t like that, fine. You don’t believe it, fine. But don’t come here and post the non-scientifically provable conclusion that, well, it must have gone this way which contradicts the Bible. God is God. He can and does, and still does, peform miracles. You might say science can’t study that. Sure it does. Every time doctors or scientists or other specialists are called in by the Vatican to render their expert opinions on miracles in 2008.

Knowledge is great, but drawing certain and irrevocable conclusions about events in the Bible? Why are you concerned about that? Is it about truth or just the idea that you think you can prove the Church is wrong about something?

God bless,
Ed

 

[JRKH]

Don’t be too confident in your ability to be wrong. Strengthen your fact checking abilities.

Yes, most leading scientists reject God according to Nature magazine. This is a significant point. The fact is that the relationship between an object and the observer changes when this bias is introduced.

The pressure being brought to bear here on Catholics is this: the evolutionist interpretation of the evidence seems to contradict certain things in the Bible. They cannot, it seems, even as individuals, conceive how God works through miracles. They just keep repeating over and over, well, there’s no evidence for it.

I’ll remind our atheist, agnostic, free thinker and secular humanist readers that today, 2008, through the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the Church needs two miracles (that’s right, science cannot explain them events) to allow someone to be declared a saint. You are not going to read about this in your secular newspaper. It would appear most people are unaware of how this process works.

Example: In South America, a submarine was struck by a surface vessel. It sank and the captain tried to open a door under the resistence of tons of water pressure. He asked a candidate for sainthood for their help, saw a bright light and was able to open the door. He saved the lives of men who would have died. Naval experts were brought in and helped to rule that what he did was humanly impossible. The Pope himself makes the final ruling after significant research and testimony for and against, which usually takes years.

Yes, miracles still happen, but some just don’t want to hear or having heard, hold their own understanding and knowledge as the only true way to understand their life and the world around them. I understand this. But if you ask God sincerely and humbly, He will reveal Himself to you.

God bless,
Ed

Ed,
Nicely written and cuts to the core of the matter. True Scientists will try to hold themselves open to new evidence. However - - People, of every walk and in every proffession, cannot help but bring their own bias and/or conclusion to things. It is the nature of things.

Of course in these matters there are those who speak/write and those who listen/read. Those who do the listening/reading can either accept or reject the conclusions. This they will do based on a number of factors. In addition, most people will choose to read/believe those items that most closely align with their own, current, world view rather than try to widen their world view by broad based reading.
Again, it is just the nature of things.

We can be greatful for those, like yourself, who work to counteract some of the “Poor Science” that is out there. I mean that sincerely. Of course, we’ll have to watch you too to make sure you don’t practice “Poor Science” by introducing your own bias.

Peace
James

 

[strugglingalong]

What do you guys make of the following:

What are we to make of the “scientific” evidence claiming extraordinary age for the earth? Evolutionary chemists use radiometric techniques to “prove” this planet to be about 4.8 billion years old. A favorite method is the potassium-argon system, used to date many fossilized specimens. The layers of gradual accumulation of sediments “over millions and millions of years” gives vivid “proof” of an ancient earth. These layers are dated using “state of the art” methods firmly establishing, they say, the notion of gradual evolutionary change; the simple, older organisms at the bottom and the more complex, younger life forms at the top. According to evolutionary thought fossilized remains have been entombed in sediment over millions of years, leaving a record of gradually evolving life forms to “prove” that evolution carefully molded every living organism.

This dating technique was recently tested for accuracy and failed.15 Three independent laboratories were sent a sample of basalt produced by an Hawaiian volcanic eruption less than 200 years ago. The testing results varied from 20 million years to 3 billion years.16, 17

On the other hand, let’s consider a global flood depositing sediments world-wide. The fossil record gives evidence of violent death.18 Thousands of wide-eyed fossilized fish, fins still extended. Apparent rapid and violent live burial of clams with intact closed shells. (Slow sedimentary burial would result in open shells unhinged by decayed ligatures.)19

It is known that a frothing phenomenon in a liquid environment, such like what a global deluge would cause, rapidly leaches out potassium and argon isotopes, much like dunking a tea bag rapidly into 20 cups of hot water. (Certainly, there isn’t much “flavor” left after the twentieth dunking!) The remaining potassium and argon isotopes in rocks are the very ones which, because of their small remaining concentrations, allow evolutionists to claim an ancient earth. On the contrary, it is on account of the leaching of these precise isotopes in a probable violent flood that rocks have these minute concentrations, not because they are billions of years old.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[JRKH]

What do you guys make of the following:

Pax Christi tecum.

My first question would be to ask what the source is for the portion in quotes.

My second observation would be that it is interesting, but since I am not well versed on principles and processes discussed I do not feel particularly qualified to comment.

Third and most important. Such conclusions, whether correct or not, should not disturb a Catholic. Our Faith is in God. Our Hope is in God. Our Trust is in God. If our faith is disturbed by trifles such as the age of the earth, then our faith is not strong and we must work on refocusing our faith firmly upon God.

Peace
James