Evolutionsits turned Creationists

[Matthias123]

I am not proposing we go along with every “theory” science teaches. I believe that Noah’s flood was anthropologically global even though there is no scientific evidence to support this. I hold this because of the authority of the Church Fathers and scripture. Now there is a genetic bottleneck around the time humans were in Africa. Only in extreme models does it predict the death of the entire human race (save a few), therefore science is not on my side. But I hold the authority of scripture over that of science because it is the infallible Word of God. I also hold to the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Now let’s say theoretically that science has given evidence to the extent that I am forced to accept the fact that most of the human race was not killed by a disaster. In that case since this is not an infallible teaching of the Magesterium I will abandon this in favor of a non-anthropologically global deluge. Otherwise non-believes may ridicule the scriptures and see them as an obstacle to faith in Jesus Christ our Lord.

I think that one must always give the scriptures the respect they deserve, and always give ones supreme fidelity to scripture and sacred tradition, but we are responsible to listen to what science teaches on such matters just as science should listen to the church as an expert voice in the matters that are competent to her.

 

[liquidpele]

“science has proven for certain”? I am constantly told here that science doesn’t prove anything. That proofs are for mathematics and alcohol. Certainty in science? Like last week when scientists just happened to notice the difference between the bone structure of birds and the dinosaurs they were supposedly descended from?

That is what I will be on my guard for – always. The certainty of proven science which is wielded here constantly.

Peace,
Ed

Would call a politician a flip flopper, even if he changed his mind on something for a very valid reason? Science adapts and changes, but it’s not random, it’s based on new evidence. The progression of humanity, with medicine, cars, computers, schools, stock markets, space shuttles, and modified crops are testaments to this. You seem to think that science is based on dogma, but I would imagine you take for granted the things based upon the work you so carelessly disregard.

 

[Matthias123]

There is nothing wrong with science per se, but there is everything wrong with scientism and the “celebrity scientists” who champion it.

Scientism is the superstitious belief that science has dominion over philosophy and the metaphysics, and thus they attempt to promote it as a way to describe all of objective reality. Science is the study of natural things (material things), the problem is people have been studying matter for so long that they have fallen into the temptation to deny the existence of the immaterial.

This is a superstition that both theists and atheists should fight back against. If one believes that there is no such thing as the immaterial, then one should not commit an appeal to authority fallacy and call on the authority of science. This is a metaphysical question that should be debated using metaphysical arguments