Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemonbeam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
Here it is:

nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/full/447753a.html

Read the first sentence in bold type.

Now, how can they back that up with science?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
First off, it’s an editorial comment and therefore does not require the scientific rigor that you want.

Second, the opinion is that ideas about special creation are not appropriate in scientific work. Who could possibly argue with that. Once you invoke a supernatural feature in a scientific endeavor you have destroyed the scientific value of the work.

The opinion is that religion is fine and science must remain separate from religion, therefore science must not accept special creation because it isn’t science, it’s religion. No scientific proof needed, just logic and careful understanding of definitions.
 
Namesake said:
First off, it’s an editorial comment and therefore does not require the scientific rigor that you want.

Second, the opinion is that ideas about special creation are not appropriate in scientific work. Who could possibly argue with that. Once you invoke a supernatural feature in a scientific endeavor you have destroyed the scientific value of the work.

The opinion is that religion is fine and science must remain separate from religion, therefore science must not accept special creation because it isn’t science, it’s religion. No scientific proof needed, just logic and careful understanding of definitions.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So scientific rigor is not required in an editorial in a specialist science magazine? I wonder if you can tell me how the writer can so conclusively state that man being created in God’s image is surely not the case?

If scientific rigor is not required then at least a knowledgeable and logical review of the subject matter should have been undertaken. The Church, via the Bible and tradition, tells us about God’s qualities. We were created to be in a loving relationship with our Creator and with each other. It is also contradictory to say, conclusively, one thing and then, in the body of the editorial, say, well, maybe kinda sorta man is some kind of reflection of God - maybe. And God is described as being slow to anger and quick to forgive. No, He’s not a human being as the editorial writer points out, but we humans share some of His divine nature through our capacity to love and create.

I had to be reminded a while ago that anything said by an employee of any large or powerful group or corporation can and will be used by the public to slam that corporation or group. This usually leads to an apology along the lines of, Mister So and So said what he said. His comments were inappropriate. Or, they were not accurate. We disavow them, etc.

Editorial or not, I’m sure the writer is aware of his journal’s standing in the scientific community and its ability to influence the way that community perceives issues.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Interesting. So scientific rigor is not required in an editorial in a specialist science magazine? I wonder if you can tell me how the writer can so conclusively state that man being created in God’s image is surely not the case?

If scientific rigor is not required then at least a knowledgeable and logical review of the subject matter should have been undertaken. The Church, via the Bible and tradition, tells us about God’s qualities. We were created to be in a loving relationship with our Creator and with each other. It is also contradictory to say, conclusively, one thing and then, in the body of the editorial, say, well, maybe kinda sorta man is some kind of reflection of God - maybe. And God is described as being slow to anger and quick to forgive. No, He’s not a human being as the editorial writer points out, but we humans share some of His divine nature through our capacity to love and create.

I had to be reminded a while ago that anything said by an employee of any large or powerful group or corporation can and will be used by the public to slam that corporation or group. This usually leads to an apology along the lines of, Mister So and So said what he said. His comments were inappropriate. Or, they were not accurate. We disavow them, etc.

Editorial or not, I’m sure the writer is aware of his journal’s standing in the scientific community and its ability to influence the way that community perceives issues.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, the opinion is that science should not be framed within the concept of design. Science must be objective.

It doesn’t say that science should reject God. It says that science cannot include God. That’s what religion is for.

It’s much less threatening than you suppose.
 
Clearly, the editorial writer was upset by a comment made by a politician. Then, not for anything concerning design, made a dogmatic comment about the Christian God in response. This was a case of science, through an editorial, meddling in a case where a religious belief was stated that the writer didn’t like. It would have been far more objective for the editorial writer to have simply ignored what was said since, according to your comments, science cannot contain religion. The editorial was entirely without basis since it commented on a being that science cannot objectively say anything about.

To put it another way, if a politician said anything about leprechauns, would the journal Nature have been right to write an editorial concerning a being that they cannot study or verify the existence of?

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
To put it another way, if a politician said anything about leprechauns, would the journal Nature have been right to write an editorial concerning a being that they cannot study or verify the existence of?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Sure. If a prominent person starts campaigning for inclusion of leprechauns in scientific endeavors someone in a position of authority should come forward to reject that. Yes indeed!
 
buffalo said:
No Catholic is afraid of true science. It is faulty reasoning that can be the issue. Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the very same God.
Click to expand...
I agree with this statement of buffalo. For when science or reason sticks on its correct path, surely it would not collide with Catholic Faith, that is, of matters respecting man’s relationship with God.
 
The Senator was not suggesting the inclusion of anything. He was stating something that I also believe that some claims made by science about the mind as an “unassailable fact” should be “firmly rejected as atheistic theology posing as science.” I could not agree more.

The brain could have been involved in some sort of developmant but to assign the mind to a purely mechanistic origin turns man into a biological mechanism and nothing more. I will continue to point out the Church’s position that man is much more than his obvious biology. This is also another example of the false how/why argument. Science seeks to convince, and mislead, everyone when it states the mind is mere mechanism.

You and I are not just more complicated snowflakes.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I will continue to point out the Church’s position that man is much more than his obvious biology.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
You seem to want biology to do more than biology can do. Most of us science types are OK with science doing science and excluding religion. Somehow that’s not comfortable for you and that is unfortunate.

Science just isn’t interested in God and that’s exactly as it must be. If you want God in your life then religion is the right place for that.
 
Namesake said:
You seem to want biology to do more than biology can do. Most of us science types are OK with science doing science and excluding religion. Somehow that’s not comfortable for you and that is unfortunate.

Science just isn’t interested in God and that’s exactly as it must be. If you want God in your life then religion is the right place for that.
Click to expand...
Yes, science is interested in God. I’m not going to support a dictatorship of science that seeks to impose its unassailable facts on others. You say you don’t want religion in science, I’m pointing out that the Church can and does comment on this subject. It touches on man’s true origin and as Pope Benedict states: we are not haphazard mistakes.

Peace,
Ed
 
No Catholic is afraid of true science.
Click to expand...
That’s maybe a bit too tough on Ed and Reggie. Some Catholics love God and care a great deal about the truth, but just have a few Protestant tendencies when it comes to evolution. It’s O.K. The Church doesn’t require them to accept evolution.
 
edwest2 said:
Yes, science is interested in God. I’m not going to support a dictatorship of science that seeks to impose its unassailable facts on others. You say you don’t want religion in science, I’m pointing out that the Church can and does comment on this subject. It touches on man’s true origin and as Pope Benedict states: we are not haphazard mistakes.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
It’s a problem when you take such a massive leap from the idea that science isn’t interested in God to a dictatorship of science. Your view is way too harsh.

I think your struggle is with ultra-Darwinists, not with mainstream science.

Evolution science doesn’t say that we are haphazard mistakes. It isn’t even fair to say that Darwinian evolution theory operates by natural selection exclusively. Darwin did not believe that and most biologists today don’t believe that. Evolution theory doesn’t rule out a creator. Evolution theory as it exists today just isn’t interested in God, or any concept of a designer. Keep those ideas within religion where they belong.
 
As long as scientists continue to spread the propaganda that religion is a problem, I will speak up about it. Most leading scientists reject God, so it’s worth bringing that to the attention of my fellow Catholics.

There is a distinctly Marxist approach to this. The goal is to spread propaganda against religion, especially in State run schools. Same pattern here.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
As long as scientists continue to spread the propaganda that religion is a problem, I will speak up about it. Most leading scientists reject God, so it’s worth bringing that to the attention of my fellow Catholics.

There is a distinctly Marxist approach to this. The goal is to spread propaganda against religion, especially in State run schools. Same pattern here.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Sorry Ed. You are suffering from a paranoid delusion. What you fear isn’t real. Catholics have nothing at all to fear from science.
 
If you think it supports your ideas, Ed, tell us what you think the most supportive part is.

If you don’t know, how do you know it’s right?
 
Namesake said:
Sorry Ed. You are suffering from a paranoid delusion. What you fear isn’t real. Catholics have nothing at all to fear from science.
Click to expand...
I believe that the correct term is scientism which is “The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable in all fields of inquiry.” from The American Heritage College Dictionary.

In my humble opinion, the real delusion is that Americans have nothing at all to fear from scientism and its distant cousin relativism. Since other posters have addressed this, there is no need for me to go into further details.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of being cared for.
Check FOCA for its impact in the medical field.
 
I believe that the correct term is scientism which is “The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable in all fields of inquiry.” from The American Heritage College Dictionary.
Click to expand...
In my humble opinion, the real delusion is that Americans have nothing at all to fear from scientism and its distant cousin relativism.
Click to expand...
We probably have more to fear from Costa Rica than scientism. Haven’t seen a poll yet that put at more then 3-9% of Americans accepting it.
 
edwest2 said:
I invite my fellow Catholics to read this:

news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/15/the-atheist-indoctrination-project/

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
That’s an excellent link edwest2 and I would recommend any parent to carefully consider what these “leading lights” of education are really indoctrinating our children with.

Their goal is to swap the Christian belief our children have with an Atheistic/Humanist religion and faith. A humanist faith that has a faulty foundation in the belief that “Man is the measure of all things”.
 
Namesake said:
Sorry Ed. You are suffering from a paranoid delusion. What you fear isn’t real. Catholics have nothing at all to fear from science.
Click to expand...
Newton was an Arian in denying the Trinity which means his investigations into creation does not acknowledge inspiration as a means to provide clearer details of terrestrial/celestial phenomena and show that we inhabit a much older and grander planetary stage.When Christ said 'Without me you can do nothing" I take it that those blessed with the intuitive intelligence to recognise just how inspiring he is also experience the same inspiration when dealing with creation and all creative activities.I assume those who are not Christians would take the saying of Jesus to mean something less than inspiring and even dictatorial when it is a truly lovely within the Trinity.

That’s the problem,when you are all head and no heart you see science and religion as separate entities pursuing separate agendas - ‘religion teaches you how to go to heaven,science teaches you how the heavens go’ sort of junk,when you have that Christian inspirational touch it is possible to know how to treat creation in a broad context and how to be precise when needed,at least in matters of terrestrial/celestial investigation.

Newton basically give empiricism a footing in attempting to reduce astronomy down to the level of the lab by distorting astronomical insights just as an Arian would do.The more agressive stance is that empiricists and their agenda will run for cover when exposed by a Christian who is not enamored by Arian/empirical principles.Pity that Christians are tangled up with the symptoms of empiricism such as Darwin’s injection of a ‘cause’,not so much those who play along with empiricism and its ugly Arian head but those Christians who simply wish to praise and understand God at their own level of understanding.I like Oscar Wilde’s commentary on this -

“Like all poetical natures Jesus loved ignorant people. He knew that in the soul of one who is ignorant there is always room for a great idea. But he could not stand stupid people, especially those who are made stupid by education: people who are full of opinions not one of which they even understand, a peculiarly modern type, summed up by Christ when he describes it as the type of one who has the key of knowledge, cannot use it himself, and does not allow other people to use it, though it may be made to open the gate of God’s Kingdom.”

Fear science indeed !,it is time for Christians to regain their scientific heritage from the hijacking of it and its insights by dumb empiricists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top