Faith and Science

[warpspeedpetey]

All h rhetoric

.

what rhetoric?, do you want me too list all the probes that we have sent all over the solar system? pictures, mathematical proofs, etc?

Again I TELL you, no sane scientist or philosopher today will deny the RELATIVITY that exists between the movements of the sun and earth. If you find one treasure him for you need one badly.

of course the movements are relative to each other, all movement is relative to every other movement, as a matter of mathematical determinism. it could be no other way.

yet that does not support geocentrism, frame independent phenomenon dispute it, the equatorial bulge, corialis forces, deep space probes, and pictures from them.

nasa uses a heliocentric model of the solar system to calculate trajectories for spaceecraft and probes, these bodies reach their destinations, where under a geocentric model they wouldnt. the earth obviously spins, its rotation is observed from orbit, its both witnessed by astronauts, and by inertial systems reliant on gyroscopes creating a separate frame of reference. even the GPS is dependent on providing a separate frame of reference in order to calculate positions on the surface.

and most damning to your theory is the fact that other worlds in other systems revolve around their stars, in fact every system revolves around the most massive thing in that system

and since these systems are removed most definitely from the frame of reference of the relative motion of bodies in this solar system, it would seem to completely destroy the theory of geocentrism.

Accordingly, there is no scientific proof for H.

looks like a ton of observational proof to me. the relative motion you are referring to is easily accounted for. a simple coordinate system, like the ones used in any 3-dimensional navigation are meant for exactly that.

Lots and lots of CONSENSUS that you have proofs, but consensus is not the result of science but of a belief system.

if it is just consensus you would be right, but its direct observational evidence, what more could you need, or even acquire?

The Church of 1616 then was NEVER proven or shown to be wrong by the scientific method

it is proven by all the observational data, and the church now accepts heliocentrism

only by the illusion of the DEVIL’s tricks.

ah, now we come to the meat of the matter, instead of accepting the churches position that science is not a threat to faith, you choose your own position. that the church is wrong, and you are right.

Now I see H even warps the concept of Catholic. Catholic is now described as one that belioeves the Copernican churchmen, the heretics, and not the Church of Pope Paul V, urban VIII and St Robert Bellarmine.

i believe the church of JPII, and Benedict XVI, unless you just stepped out of a time machine than you should too, frankly you have no support from the church,and have had none for several hundred years.

now you have been offered proof of heliocentrism, and the modern churches position, will you recant these foolish theories, or do you defy the church?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Re: Post 182

From my view in the trenches, it is very important to discuss issues surrounding Faith and Science.

Then maybe others besides myself will see how the trickledown effect of the supposition --Faith and Science are at odds-- is actually affecting our society in a negative way. One example: on another thread, there was a discussion concerning some kind of survey about stealing/cheating by students. Some posters expressed a kind of shock. Others pointed out that this type of behavior took place when they were in school, etc. What was really shocking to me as a reader was that it took a number of posts before anyone expressed concern that the interviewed students thought that they themselves were basically or generally good and some better than average. (This is written from memory and my own reaction of “What’s wrong with this picture?”)

I bet the guys on Wall Street and financial street etc., think of themselves as good. – What was that on a recent news program about some executive asking for at $10 something bonus?

No matter how one words faith and science , faith and reason, spiritual and material, creationist and evolutionist, you and me or me and you whichever – there is a need to raise our
consciousness to the fact that it is the relationship between faith and science which is breaking apart.

For some reason or reasons we are told that we should break free of the vice of religion which covers a multitude of sins or we should break free of science because its base of materialism interferes with our spiritual insights or we should skip both and be good for goodness’ sake.

How do I know that the current range wars between some factions of the religious communities and some factions of the science communities are partly responsible for corroding moral, or religious or ethical or humanist behaviors? It is the same type of inductive reasoning I used when, as a mother of 6, I found broken glass in the trash and could figure out which kid was the cause.

Blessings,
grannymh

unfortunately people feel as though one position or the other is right, but the fact is that they are completely compatible.

your right the wrong thing is being focused on.

 

[StAnastasia]

ID doesn’t have a God of the gaps theology. ID looks for evidence of an intelligent (i.e. non-random) designer. You have ID confused with YEC.

Yes, ID is very much a god-of-the-gaps theology. When Michael Behe locates God hiding in Darwin’s mitochondrial “black box” he is engaging in precisely this kind of reasoning. Now the cell workings that so mystified Behe are understood by graduate students, so we needn’t look to that “gap” as a locus for God.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Bottom line: Intelligent Design is real.
Peace,Ed

Then the designer must be a klutz, explaining why some children are born without arms or legs, or born painfully conjoined, and why rabbits have to eat their feces because their digestive tracts are so poorly designed…

 

[ricmat]

Yes, ID is very much a god-of-the-gaps theology. When Michael Behe locates God hiding in Darwin’s mitochondrial “black box” he is engaging in precisely this kind of reasoning. Now the cell workings that so mystified Behe are understood by graduate students, so we needn’t look to that “gap” as a locus for God.

StAnastasia

It seems I had this discussion previously, with drpmjhess using almost exactly the same words you do. What a coincidence.

So how can you, as a Catholic scientist(?), view the world and NOT see evidence of God almost everywhere, including the gaps? If you live your life avoiding evidence of God, that’s not much of a life.

Perhaps you should arrange a dinner with Behe instead of Coyne, and see if he is really mystified. So far as I know, Behe has not yet been reprimanded by any Cardinals, so talking to him should be a safe spiritual outing for you.

 

[buffalo]

Then the designer must be a klutz, explaining why some children are born without arms or legs, or born painfully conjoined, and why rabbits have to eat their feces because their digestive tracts are so poorly designed…

But that wouldn’t have happened had there not been a fall.

 

[ricmat]

Then the designer must be a klutz, explaining why some children are born without arms or legs, or born painfully conjoined, and why rabbits have to eat their feces because their digestive tracts are so poorly designed…

So far as I know, rabbits are fairly prolific. If eating their own feces is part of what they do, it must be working very well.

 

[StAnastasia]

So how can you, as a Catholic scientist(?), view the world and NOT see evidence of God almost everywhere, including the gaps? If you live your life avoiding evidence of God, that’s not much of a life…

I do see evidence of God in my life, but not as a scientist. I see tectonic plates grinding against each other and causing earthquakes, not God getting angry. I see hurricanes increasing in force as globally warming seas increase their intensity, but I don’t see God smiting backsliders. I see sodium combining with chlorine and I see chemistry at work.

The problem of the God of the gaps argument is that it is too facile: we don’t yet understand X, so God must have caused it. We don’t understand how eyes work, or how they evolved, so they must be irreducibly complex. The danger of this argument is that as these gaps in our knowledge are filled in, if they have become the locus of the divine there is less and less room for the divine. God is crowded out as the gaps are filled, if we have filled the gaps with God.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

But that wouldn’t have happened had there not been a fall.

What do you mean?

 

[ricmat]

Then the designer must be a klutz, explaining why some children are born without arms or legs, or born painfully conjoined, and why rabbits have to eat their feces because their digestive tracts are so poorly designed…

The D in ID does not refer to God directly causing every single effect in the world. We have free will, so we cause effects too.

Why does God, in your view, allow the existence of evil effects of any type? This has nothing to do with God being a designer, or not.

 

[StAnastasia]

So far as I know, rabbits are fairly prolific. If eating their own feces is part of what they do, it must be working very well.

ID fans usually disregard the less-than-happy teleologies, or sweep them under the rug. Does Intelligent Design or evolution account more elegantly for female spiders consuming the mates during sex? If this is by a designer, he must a mind that runs in very different tracks than mine!

StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

I do see evidence of God in my life, but not as a scientist. I see tectonic plates grinding against each other and causing earthquakes, not God getting angry. I see hurricanes increasing in force as globally warming seas increase their intensity, but I don’t see God smiting backsliders. I see sodium combining with chlorine and I see chemistry at work.

Me too. Behe too. ID too.

The problem of the God of the gaps argument is that it is too facile: we don’t yet understand X, so God must have caused it.

Well God did cause it. Do you disagree with this?

We don’t understand how eyes work, or how they evolved, so they must be irreducibly complex.

I’m not an expert on irreducible complexity, but your statement above is not correct. There are many things we don’t understand that have nothing to do with irreducible complexity.

The danger of this argument is that as these gaps in our knowledge are filled in, if they have become the locus of the divine there is less and less room for the divine. God is crowded out as the gaps are filled, if we have filled the gaps with God.

So you believe that the ID folks limit God to only things that cannot be understood? This is not the case. Someone has misinformed you. This sounds more like an atheist argument. They have confidence that eventually science will “know” everything, and they’re setting God up for a fall when they have the gaps filled. “See, now we know everything, you have no need for God.”

 

[ricmat]

Does Intelligent Design or evolution account more elegantly for female spiders consuming the mates during sex? If this is by a designer, he must a mind that runs in very different tracks than mine!

I have no doubt that God’s mind (if such a thing can even be characterized as mind) works in much different tracks than mine.

God does not always meet up to our expectations. But then, who are we to set such expectations anyway?

 

[The_Barbarian]

The danger of this argument is that as these gaps in our knowledge are filled in, if they have become the locus of the divine there is less and less room for the divine. God is crowded out as the gaps are filled, if we have filled the gaps with God.

So you believe that the ID folks limit God to only things that cannot be understood?

They don’t have much choice. Everytime we figure out something about nature, there’s no design to be found.

This is not the case. Someone has misinformed you. This sounds more like an atheist argument. They have confidence that eventually science will “know” everything, and they’re setting God up for a fall when they have the gaps filled. “See, now we know everything, you have no need for God.”

But it does happen that the gaps get filled in, and those who were told the gap was evidence for God, are sometimes induced to lose their faith thereby.

Better not to play that game.

 

[grannymh]

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

Dear Ed,

Thank you for this post because it also helps explain Post 190 by buffalo who also indicated that if science did not include God in any of its explanations, then it excluded God. I especially liked “God is active and detectable in nature.” I think there was a lst century historian which referred to this phenomenon. So, please keep posting your thoughts.

However, I would like to approach God being included in biology textbooks from a different, not necessarily an opposing, angle.
May I offer my personal opinion of the either/or position of either/or including or excluding God in science textbooks. I do understand why this position is being taken…because of the problem of “atheistic evolution”.

With contract law, you are using the mutually exclusive “or” which is correct because that is what the legal system has determined. In my opinion, comparing science to the legal system is like comparing apples to giraffes. I can’t quite put this into the right words–I’m still learning about this topic–but the science concept should be more like a free spirit (not to be confused with a freethinker).

The idea of academic freedom was one of the points of the recent Ben Stein documentary. Whether or not he presented enough evidence to back up his point is for others to decide. My point is that science should have the freedom to explore inside and outside the universe. If science were truly free than it would not be necessary to use the mutually exclusive “or” regarding God’s presence. Then there would be the reverse of a sentence in post 190. Instead of " Every gap we close makes the concept of God weaker." there would be “With every gap in our scientific knowledge closed, the concept of God grows stronger and stronger.”

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

hey im an amateur cosmologist and a Catholic, the two are not inseparable. they tend to be complementarity its only a problem when one tries to use cosmology in such a way as to exclude a Creator.

hey warpspeedpetey,

I’m an amateur which gives me the freedom to explore everything and anything. I am also a woman which gives me the right to 1. change my mind and 2. ask for directions.

Please hang on to your 1913 dictionary. Or did I read the date wrong in an old post? When I’m through visiting with kids and grandkids, I have a word for you to look up which is no longer in current dictionaries.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

They are not allowed to put God in the textbooks.

Perhaps the preface could read -

Science admits that God is our creator. The following textbooks are our best guesses as to how He did it.

Think we could get that in?

It’s late and I have been matching wits with 4 year olds and 5 year olds plus other assorted grandchildren. But I just had to add a line to your preface above.

Science admits that God is our creator. The following textbooks are our best guesses as to how He did it. And scientists are the best guessers.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[warpspeedpetey]

hey warpspeedpetey,

I’m an amateur which gives me the freedom to explore everything and anything. I am also a woman which gives me the right to 1. change my mind and 2. ask for directions.

Please hang on to your 1913 dictionary. Or did I read the date wrong in an old post? When I’m through visiting with kids and grandkids, I have a word for you to look up which is no longer in current dictionaries.

Blessings,
grannymh

cool, but its just the dictionary that comes with my ubuntu (linux)

 

[grannymh]

Ah, but God created everything. I think it is an athiestic plot to remove God from accounting. Once you do that, you get…

God has already been removed from accounting.

Remember the Chicago firm Arthur Andersen? Or any of the other firms including the dot com ones (or whatever they were called). If that is too far back in history, what about the current creative accountants in today’s financial messes?

ENRON!!!

Peace

Tim

 

[grannymh]

I think it is great to add “Intelligent” to the list of adjectives for God such as personal, loving, merciful and so on.