You appear to be unconvinced by your own argument, Ed. I agree with the spirit of what you have to say: “If a miracle can be explained then it would fall out of the realm of the supernatural to the natural.” That’s why I say science can say nothing about a miracle, other than that we don’t yet know the cause of something. But faith can say an immense amount about miracles.
Nor would I disagree with his definition. In fact, I subscribe to what he calls “evolutionism”, although I would not call it a philosophy at all but a statement of fact.
I don’t know that it does, only that somehow the discussion on evolution went down a path at the end of which you said something to the effect of “if God does something or commands something that results in the killing of innocents, then God is a raving psycho”, and I don’t see how that logically follows.
Yours is a faith statement about science, nothing more. It is consistent with a strictly materialistic mind set. In order to believe in God, the truth of history is included. The disciples didn’t just tell people to take the gospel on faith, but showed them in Scripture, which they searched diligently to see if the things they said were true.
Mike, of course I don’t think God is a psycho. That’s why I don’t hold God responsible for the horrific catalog of rapes, murders, and child sacrifices atheists assume biblical literalists must hold God responsible for. See the “Evil Bible” at evilbible.com/.
Ed, if a miracle can be explained, it is no longer supernatural, but merely natural. Science has nothing to say about the resurrection or miraculous healings.
But that is the essential difference between evolution and evolutionism. I do not get from your posts you believe in materialistic evolution. Do you?
Can science be done without scientists? Scientists - most leading scientists - reject God. Dawkins, Harris, Myers and others are on a campaign to discredit the Bible, God and miracles based on science. Do you not see the connection?
Her comments are consistently like that, blatant irreverence for what she claims is her religion and teachings. She reaaly never contributes much to the discussion. Maybe it’s time for a mass ignore.
I am aware that the Church teaches that we are all born in original sin. The ‘sin’ in original sin was committed by Adam and Eve, not by the babies in question. Since it was not a consciously willed action by those babies they are innocent of those actions, though they do suffer the impact of those actions. A person can be affected by a crime without being guilty of that crime. You have failed to show that the Midianite babies are not innocent.
Empirical science can be done by anyone. Of course more sophisticated empirical evidence is gathered by experts and with needed money.
You make a fundamental mistake here. You cling to the idea that life on earth is the goal. Most of us do. Even faithful believers do not want to die.
I think you’re making a fundamental mistake here. The moral law tells us what humans ought or ought not to do. God is not a human. There’s no sense in saying “God broke the rules” if the rules don’t apply to God in the first place.
No, Ed, I guess I don’t see the connection. I’m a Catholic teaching in a Catholic institution, and among our biologists and physicists are priests and brothers. While admittedly there are many scientists who are atheists, apart from those who step outside science to do their atheism promotion (e.g., Dawkins) I see mostly scientists practicing science, and Catholic scientists practicing science and Catholicism (but not Catholic science).
Defend in what sense?
True. Of course, if one has a background in accounting, the idea of entropy may be a bit of a problem. Evaluating the results of a flume test may be a bit of a problem. Identifying the function of cytochrome c might be a bit of a problem. Evaluating the optical properties of a camera lens might be a bit of a problem. A lot of things may be a bit of a problem. But I do agree with you that emperical science can be done by anyone. The question is will it have any value?
Why? Rich, unsophisticated people can gather evidence, too, can’t they?
Well, and the gathering of that data. Proper data collection is important. GIGO.
Clearly, you could interpret the fact that water crystalizes at 32 deg F and, when it does, the molecules always form the same internal structure as the work of angels. Or maybe tiny crystal pixies. Seems to me, the list of possibilities is pretty endless. Or you could consult a chemist who has actually studied physical chemistry who would tell you about how that actually happens.
Good ole Ben Stein propaganda raising its ugly head I see. Too bad.
He is working on the initial understanding of entropy that without energy states go from order to disorder. That conclusion has not been proven false on a grand scale. But we digress. I did not present his article as a scientific article on evolutionism. (Perhaps I should have found a better one).
I don’t think “supernatural” or “natural” are the categories we should be using. We tend to define a “natural” thing as something that can be explained through natural causes and a “supernatural” thing as something that cannot be explained through natural causes…but that boundary is only “firm” until the next natural process is discovered.
Actually, I used him only because you gave his article as a point of discussion and because of his obvious lack of scientific understanding.
Not at all. I agreed with you.
I know of no one who claims perfection other than those opposed to science. I do think that science is very good at finding problems with ideas and that leads to self-correction as data is collected.
Science is the basis of industries. There is money available for scientific research, but there is also money available for art, literature, music, sports, journalism and many more disciplines. I don’t see that as a negative thing. Do you?