Faith and Science

[Namesake]

Please see this article, especially the last paragraph:

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=71

I reject the false analogies posed here about scientific authority. I took chemistry in high school and performed experiments that worked exactly as my instructor described they would. I learned how to write out formulas. No, I wouldn’t let the Pope do a heart operation or even plumbing, but I think a man of his university background has the wisdom, intelligence and necessary people with credentials to give him the information he needs to criticize science. On the matter of human origins, I trust the Church more than I trust scientists.

Peace,
Ed

Well, that’s what you believe. In science there is no room for belief. It’s all about evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, that’s what you believe. In science there is no room for belief. It’s all about evidence.

but since you are discussing epistomology as applied to the papal situation and not ‘science’ ed is right, the pope can well speak on matters scientific and does so with the (name removed by moderator)ut of some of the finest scientists on the planet. he doesnt need personal credentials to evaluate the data, any more than the president is unable to speak on economic, military, health, or governmental matters because he doesnt possess a direct education in these fields, no, he has teams of trained advisors so that he ca speak intelligibly on these issues

the Pope is the leader of more than a billion people, a much larger group from which to draw qualified advisors on these issues.

so you cannot logically infer that the Pope has no ability to speak on scientific matters. He has the exact same ability to do so that any other head of state does, and he has the further ability to cast these in the light of Faith and Morals, infallibly in our belief, in fact it is not only his ability it is his job

 

[StAnastasia]

no, he has teams of trained advisors so that he ca speak intelligibly on these issues

A team of advisors who have rejected geocentrism, Young Earth Creationism, and Intelligent Design Creationism as scientific nonsense.

StAnastasia

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A team of advisors who have rejected geocentrism, Young Earth Creationism, and Intelligent Design Creationism as scientific nonsense.

StAnastasia

yup. but people seem to misunderstand that those ideas are mostly a matter for protestants, since they believe in Sola Scriptura a defense of Holy Scripture as literal is very important to their underlying doctrines. we don’t have that problem. im not sure why we discuss them so much here.

further, i was speaking about the ability of the Pope to speak on issues scientific, and the fact that ed is right on that issue.

as to the rest, they dont conflict with the Church position, so i dont care. however i dislike scientific orthodoxy or those who scoff at any notion that might be in opposition to them. there are counter arguments to every theory

 

[StAnastasia]

as to the rest, they dont conflict with the Church position, so i dont care. however i dislike scientific orthodoxy or those who scoff at any notion that might be in opposition to them. there are counter arguments to every theory

Point me to the “Department of Antievolutionary Biology” in any university.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Point me to the “Department of Antievolutionary Biology” in any university.

funny that, but im pretty sure that there are people educated in the field who feel different than you do on the topic. barbarian says that he thinks their arguments are all twaddle. i dont really know or care but i find a condescending attitude to be the first sign of a fool.

like i said there are counter arguments to every theory, and being part of a university would have no bearing on their validity. i have spent quite a bit of time in school and i have noticed no monopoly on truth, but i see a whole lot of emphasis on orthodoxy. dare to say something different than the norm and kiss your chance of tenure goodbye, so i discount the inclusion in a university as a indicator of validity of thought. there is obvious pressure to conform to an academic norm.

but its funny that you focus only on the last third of my post. the point of it was in the middle third, could it be that i said that ed was right about something?

 

[Orogeny]

Is this a trick question or am I supposed to say because the earth is spinning and orbiting the sun at 72,000 mph. Now let me guess the answer, I know, because the earth does not spin and does not orbit the sun. Do I win the prize?

No, it is a serious question. You should be able to show some physical reason that g is different at the poles than it is at the equator. You are an expert in this, right?

So, cassini, why, if I take a gravity meter to the south pole and then to the equator, will the measured value of g be different?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

evolution as taught in the biology textbook - it excludes God.

Another Ed Chick claim…again.

Ed, what is it called when someone continually makes a claim that they know is false? Unless you can give one biology textbook that excludes God (which you have been asked for on multiple threads and have yet to produce), you have now entered that realm.

So, how about it, Ed. Reference please? Either you supply that reference or you will have admitted knowingly making a false statement.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Science is only a method.

Funny, you have claimed on another thread that science doesn’t exist. Which is it, Ed? Is science only a method or does it not exist? Both claims cannot be true.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Another Ed Chick claim…again.

Ed, what is it called when someone continually makes a claim that they know is false? Unless you can give one biology textbook that excludes God (which you have been asked for on multiple threads and have yet to produce), you have now entered that realm.

So, how about it, Ed. Reference please? Either you supply that reference or you will have admitted knowingly making a false statement.

Peace

Tim

By definition - every “science” textbook excludes God.

 

[StAnastasia]

By definition - every “science” textbook excludes God.

Dentistry excludes God. My dentist is a Roman Catholic, but God is not in his drill. A drill in his had works as well as does a drill in the hands of an atheist, a Protestant, a Muslim, a Jewish, or a Hindu dentist.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

Dentistry excludes God. My dentist is a Roman Catholic, but God is not in his drill. A drill in his had works as well as does a drill in the hands of an atheist, a Protestant, a Muslim, a Jewish, or a Hindu dentist.

StAnastasia

Nice try. It’s bogus.

Science by its own definition is natural. It does not include God in any of its explanations, therefore it excludes God. Scientistst look at the universe and conclude it is just a matter of time before we close all the gaps. Every gap we close makes the concept of God weaker. And on and on it goes.

The result is that the scientific community maintains barriers to inquiry. It is entirely antithetical to the reason for science, discovery. We just have to make sure we do not discover God.

How can anyone not see this is a self limiting approach to understanding.

 

[edwest2]

Another Ed Chick claim…again.

Ed, what is it called when someone continually makes a claim that they know is false? Unless you can give one biology textbook that excludes God (which you have been asked for on multiple threads and have yet to produce), you have now entered that realm.

So, how about it, Ed. Reference please? Either you supply that reference or you will have admitted knowingly making a false statement.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim,

This is hair splitting. As I have read many business contracts, I’ve learned a simple rule: if it’s not included, it’s excluded. That’s all I’m saying. The Church is in the same position.The biology textbook excludes God who the Church regards as a direct causal agent, without which, evolution cannot exist. Evolutionary theory is the little engine that can’t. It is unguided and unintelligent. It operates toward no purpose. Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. You can find that at the Library on this site.

I am growing tired of people here who add the word God to make an incomplete theory palatable to Christians. I’m not buying it. I also reject the Deist view that God kick started everything and then sat back and relaxed. God is active and detectable in nature. He is the Creative Reason that orders and sustains and guides. Here, God is just a word to help market an ideology.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Science by its own definition is natural. It does not include God in any of its explanations, therefore it excludes God. Scientistst look at the universe and conclude it is just a matter of time before we close all the gaps. Every gap we close makes the concept of God weaker. And on and on it goes.

The result is that the scientific community maintains barriers to inquiry. It is entirely antithetical to the reason for science, discovery. We just have to make sure we do not discover God.

How can anyone not see this is a self limiting approach to understanding.

Dentistry by its own definition is natural. It does not include God in any of its explanations, therefore it excludes God. Dentists look at the mouth and conclude it is just a matter of time before we fill the teeth, or bridge all the gaps. Every tooth we fill makes the concept of a “God who cares about dental health” weaker. And on and on it goes.

 

[buffalo]

Dentistry by its own definition is natural. It does not include God in any of its explanations, therefore it excludes God. Dentists look at the mouth and conclude it is just a matter of time before we fill the teeth, or bridge all the gaps. Every tooth we fill makes the concept of a “God who cares about dental health” weaker. And on and on it goes.

And this is a perfect example of where to look for God and not.

The dentist is not concerned with the higher questions.

 

[StAnastasia]

And this is a perfect example of where to look for God and not. The dentist is not concerned with the higher questions.

A biologist qua biologist is not concerned with the higher questions any more than is the dentist qua dentist. A medical biologist is concerned qua biologist with the evolution of drug resistant bacteria (even if as a Catholic she is concerned about God and salvation). A herpetologist is concerned with the evolution of more and more potent venom in Crotalus confluens arizona over the past century. A theologian or a philosopher is concerned with the higher questions, although she or he may also have a non-professional interest in evolution.

Biology is as non-theistic as is dentistry. That doesn’t preclude my former colleague, Fr. Dennis Parnell, from saying Mass in the college chapel before heading off to his biology laboratory.

StAnastasia.

 

[buffalo]

A biologist qua biologist is not concerned with the higher questions any more than is the dentist qua dentist. A medical biologist is concerned qua biologist with the evolution of drug resistant bacteria (even if as a Catholic she is concerned about God and salvation). A herpetologist is concerned with the evolution of more and more potent venom in Crotalus confluens arizona over the past century. A theologian or a philosopher is concerned with the higher questions, although she or he may also have a non-professional interest in evolution.

Biology is as non-theistic as is dentistry. That doesn’t preclude my former colleague, Fr. Dennis Parnell, from saying Mass in the college chapel before heading off to his biology laboratory.

StAnastasia.

Good - then they should stick to observations and empiricism. As long as they do not stray into philosophy I am OK with their pursuit of knowledge.

So - who then should interpret the data?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Good - then they should stick to observations and empiricism. As long as they do not stray into philosophy I am OK with their pursuit of knowledge.

That’s what science does. It only deals with things that can be empirically demonstrated.

So - who then should interpret the data?

Whoever understands math well enough to do the analysis.

Interpretation of data is generally reported in confidence intervals, obtained by well-established statistical methods. The same ones used in industry for quality control, and other critical processes.

 

[edwest2]

Dentistry excludes God. My dentist is a Roman Catholic, but God is not in his drill. A drill in his had works as well as does a drill in the hands of an atheist, a Protestant, a Muslim, a Jewish, or a Hindu dentist.

StAnastasia

Science excludes God. Only the Catholic Church can combine revealed truth in light of scientific findings, but as Cardinal Schoenborn has stated, scientism has invaded science. Too many nonscientists are walking around thinking they are only animals. Too many have rejected God in favor of an unguided, directionless, unintelligent theory of evolution.

Visit some atheist web sites (not recommended for those new to the faith) and read how Science is their god. The reason they can boldly go, along with scientists, out into the world and proclaim science and man as the new gods.

Remember the serpent in the Garden, “Ye shall be as gods.” Think about that the next time you speak to someone doing embryonic stem cell research.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TMC]

The current Pope has not denied or spoken against evolution as a theory of the origin of species. He has repeatedly said that we do not know or understand everything about creation. Has has also said that we cannot accept an atheistic version of creation - that all of creation is happenstance. But the theory of evolution is not inherently atheistic. Cardinal Schönborn has made comments in the past that some have interpreted as anti-evolution, but he has clarified that evolution and Catholicism are not in conflict:

There is no incompatibility between the scientific theory of evolution and the Christian understanding of creation, says the archbishop of Vienna.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn affirmed this Friday at the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which ends tomorrow. The academy is considering “Scientific Insight Into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life.”

The prelate explained that there is no contradiction between evolution and a belief in creation, but rather a “conflict between two diverse concepts of man and his rationality, between the Christian vision and a rationalism that pretends to reduce man to the biological dimension.”

Citing various addresses from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before and after his election as Pope, the Austrian cardinal explained that “there are many proofs in favor of evolution.”

Nevertheless, he stressed, “though this theory enriches our knowledge of life, it doesn’t respond to the great philosophical question: Where does everything come from and how did this everything take a path until coming to be man?”

Therefore, Cardinal Schönborn contended, the key is discovering “that a preceding idea exists, that man is not the fruit of chaos, but that he ‘has been thought of,’ ‘wanted’ and ‘loved’” by the Creator.

zenit.org/article-24145?l=english

Whenever a Church official says something like this - that science cannot explain the love of God or that God preexists creation or that humans are not merely random occurences, or anything that mentions God and science within 100 words of each other - its touted as denying science or denying evolution. That is not what Shoenborn is saying.