D
Digger71
Guest
Of course, “the first humans” needs definition. Maybe Adam and Eve where the first animals to have souls?
- Status
D
Digger71
Guest
Reality does that. “Bad reality, naughty reality, spank don’t do it again”
O
Ortho
Guest
Who were those giants the bible talks about? Where did Cain’s wife come from?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Not everything published by the Vatican presses “present an official church position” - that does not make those publications valueless.
A lot of academic material is published by the Pontifical Biblical Institute, for example.
The “Osservatore Romano” is a semi-official Vatican newspaper - that doesn’t imply anything about the precise status of its contents, which are varied. How does news about the nomination of bishops or the division of dioceses or of interviews with politicians, represent “an official church position” ? Only in a very broad sense. ##
J
john_doran
Guest
because, when i claimed to have described a principled way to differentiate between random mutation and intelligently directed evolution, you made this claim:
and if there is no way of formulating any kind of statistical model concerning the likelihood of the diversity of life by random mutations, then the premise of randomness is unfalsifiable. randomness is an inherently sootchastic concept, and if the relevant probabilities cannot be calculated, how would one falsify the premise?
not really - god could tell us that he didn’t do it. or increases to our biological knowledge-base might alter our calculation of the probabilities involved, making the premise of randomness more reasonable.
but whatever. falsifiability is only one solution to the demarcation problem, and not one that is shared by everyone, nor one that can only be rejected on pain of irrationality.
what do you mean “somewhere” in the universe? it doesn’t matter how likely or not it might be on some planet circling some star in the vicinity of the greater magellanic cloud - it matters how (un)likely it is here.
i’m having difficutly understanding your resistance to the use of statistics in the epsitemic analysis of scientific hypotheses. i mean, when researchers propose models for the emergence of one kind of thing (be it the original self-replicating molecules or the avian lung), those models are evaluated on, among other things, the statistical likelihood of the mechanisms they elaborate. just look at the literature that is footnoted on the talkorigins site (literature with which i know you to be already familiar).
so. statistical modelling for evolutionary biology doesn’t seem to be as obscure as you make out. so all one needs to do is take the likelihoods of each particular step (likelihoods which seem to be at least as well-understood as they would need to be to function as theoretical constraints on the generation of at least principally plausible models), and then combine them to come to a conclusion concerning the systemic likelihood of the whole story, nave to chaps.
it may not be perfect, but it’s certainly enough to do the epistemic work required.
but maybe i’m missing something in your objection, alec. i don’t know.
J
john_doran
Guest
you’re wrong: ID can (and it’s adherents, i am sure would argue that it does) support a strong research program.
but lakatos never suggested a solution to the demarcation problem - his entire enterprise was to demonstrate that the difficulty remains alive and elusive.
incidentally, what do you believe was wrong with laktos’ criticisms of falsifiability? i assume you must feel he made an error somewhere, as you (and most aorund here) seem to adhere to what i can only call dogmatic falsificationism.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
#1 - Raymond Arroyo on The World Over said that it wasn’t.
#2 - Obviously it’s just the opinion of some Vatican scientist.
#3 - The NY Times article even says, “The article was not presented as an official church position.”
M
mike182d
Guest
Evolution denies the theological truth that there was no death before sin. Death is necessary for natural selection to take effect and thus if humans are a product of evolution, a great number of deaths over several hundred million years must have taken place prior to the “sin” of the first man.
I don’t see how this can be reconciled.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Where in evolution theory is sin ever considered for anything?
Peace
Tim
M
mike182d
Guest
Sin = death
Death is necessary for evolution to take place. The Catholic Church holds that there was no death before sin. If there was no death before the first man, whoever it was, how did things evolve?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
mike << I don’t see how this can be reconciled. … The Catholic Church holds that there was no death before sin. >>
Even fundamentalists have been able to reconcile this, and they seem to have more problems with the issue than Catholics. Plenty of articles I linked in past threads dealing with animal death before the Fall. Even evangelical John Ankerberg has come to terms with this, and he seems to have been at least sympathetic to young-earthism. His latest debate features Ken Ham vs. Hugh Ross, and he comes down on the side of old earth. Romans 5:12 (“death came to all men, because all sinned”) and 6:23 (“wages of sin is death”) for example, he considers a reference to spiritual death, or separation from God. His articles here (many misunderstandings about evolution still, but he is now clearly old earth).
What you won’t find in Catholic theology or the Bible, are texts that demand absolutely nothing died before the Fall: that no animals, no insects, no plants, and no CELLs died before the Fall. That isn’t Catholic dogma. For example, cite me the Council, papal encyclical, or definition of dogma that there was no cellular death before the Fall.
Even AnswersInGenesis accepts plant death before the Fall. Accepting any kind of death before the Fall nullifies that theological objection, otherwise the objection suffers the death (pun intended) of a thousand qualifications.
Phil P
Even fundamentalists have been able to reconcile this, and they seem to have more problems with the issue than Catholics. Plenty of articles I linked in past threads dealing with animal death before the Fall. Even evangelical John Ankerberg has come to terms with this, and he seems to have been at least sympathetic to young-earthism. His latest debate features Ken Ham vs. Hugh Ross, and he comes down on the side of old earth. Romans 5:12 (“death came to all men, because all sinned”) and 6:23 (“wages of sin is death”) for example, he considers a reference to spiritual death, or separation from God. His articles here (many misunderstandings about evolution still, but he is now clearly old earth).
What you won’t find in Catholic theology or the Bible, are texts that demand absolutely nothing died before the Fall: that no animals, no insects, no plants, and no CELLs died before the Fall. That isn’t Catholic dogma. For example, cite me the Council, papal encyclical, or definition of dogma that there was no cellular death before the Fall.
Even AnswersInGenesis accepts plant death before the Fall. Accepting any kind of death before the Fall nullifies that theological objection, otherwise the objection suffers the death (pun intended) of a thousand qualifications.
Phil P
O
Orogeny
Guest
The death that occured following the first sin is spiritual death. Why else would sin be the point of demarcation? Since sin could only occur once an animal (humans) was given a soul, death prior to ensoulment is not a problem for the Catholic faith.
Peace
Tim
W
wildleafblower
Guest
CindyGia posted in message 1, “Here is something in the New York Times I read today which all will be interested in reading…
nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html”
A quote from The New York Times article ‘Design’ vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome’ by IAN FISHER and CORNELIA DEAN, January 19, 2006 mentioned in the above url states:
Many Roman Catholic scientists have criticized intelligent design, among them the Rev. George Coyne, a Jesuit who is director of the Vatican Observatory. “Intelligent design isn’t science, even though it pretends to be,” he said in November, as quoted by the Italian news service ANSA. “Intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.”
Whereas, a quote from Catholic Online’s article 'Vatican official refutes intelligent design theory’ written on 11/20/2005 states:
*Jesuit Father George Coyne, the director of the Vatican Observatory based south of Rome, is the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
Placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples with oranges, he said.
“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be,” the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne [Jesuit Father George Coyne, the director of the Vatican Observatory based south of Rome] as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."*
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=17691
The only way to resolve this dilema is to contact Father Coyne! E-Mail: gcoyne@as.arizona.edu It’s up for grabs!
My personal opinion is that ID shouldn’t be taught in light of the horrific deception by its founders to pass it off as science.
The word ‘intelligent design’ was prefabed by them and is tainted with lies. And, where in the bible does it state the words ‘intelligent designer’ or ‘intelligent design’? NO-WHERE! 
I lvoe God too much to ever put a ‘label’ on him or attached to him. God is God! God is love. 
Good God, I’m getting a headache again. :whacky:
nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html”
A quote from The New York Times article ‘Design’ vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome’ by IAN FISHER and CORNELIA DEAN, January 19, 2006 mentioned in the above url states:
Many Roman Catholic scientists have criticized intelligent design, among them the Rev. George Coyne, a Jesuit who is director of the Vatican Observatory. “Intelligent design isn’t science, even though it pretends to be,” he said in November, as quoted by the Italian news service ANSA. “Intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.”
Whereas, a quote from Catholic Online’s article 'Vatican official refutes intelligent design theory’ written on 11/20/2005 states:
*Jesuit Father George Coyne, the director of the Vatican Observatory based south of Rome, is the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
Placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples with oranges, he said.
“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be,” the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne [Jesuit Father George Coyne, the director of the Vatican Observatory based south of Rome] as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."*
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=17691
The only way to resolve this dilema is to contact Father Coyne! E-Mail: gcoyne@as.arizona.edu It’s up for grabs!My personal opinion is that ID shouldn’t be taught in light of the horrific deception by its founders to pass it off as science.
The word ‘intelligent design’ was prefabed by them and is tainted with lies. And, where in the bible does it state the words ‘intelligent designer’ or ‘intelligent design’? NO-WHERE! I lvoe God too much to ever put a ‘label’ on him or attached to him. God is God! God is love. Good God, I’m getting a headache again. :whacky:
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Behe is supposed to be a Roman Catholic! I don’t know any Roman Catholics that believe in astrology. None of my friends, including myself, believe in New Age stuff!The Vatican website has an article published by the PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CULTURE, PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE, JESUS CHRIST
THE BEARER OF THE WATER OF LIFE
A Christian reflection
on the “New Age”
An adequate Christian discernment of New Age thought and practice cannot fail to recognize that, like second and third century gnosticism, it represents something of a compendium of positions that the Church has identified as heterodox. John Paul II warns with regard to the “return of ancient gnostic ideas under the guise of the so-called New Age: We cannot delude ourselves that this will lead toward a renewal of religion. It is only a new way of practising gnosticism – that attitude of the spirit that, in the name of a profound knowledge of God, results in distorting His Word and replacing it with purely human words. Gnosticism never completely abandoned the realm of Christianity. Instead, it has always existed side by side with Christianity, sometimes taking the shape of a philosophical movement, but more often assuming the characteristics of a religion or a para-religion in distinct, if not declared, conflict with all that is essentially Christian”.(6) An example of this can be seen in the enneagram, the nine-type tool for character analysis, which when used as a means of spiritual growth introduces an ambiguity in the doctrine and the life of the Christian faith."
It also states within that document,
"2.1. What is new about New Age?
For many people, the term New Age clearly refers to a momentous turning-point in history. According to astrologers, we live in the Age of Pisces, which has been dominated by Christianity. But the current age of Pisces is due to be replaced by the New Age of Aquarius early in the third Millennium.(14) The Age of Aquarius has such a high profile in the New Age movement largely because of the influence of theosophy, spiritualism and anthroposophy, and their esoteric antecedents. People who stress the imminent change in the world are often expressing a wish for such a change, not so much in the world itself as in our culture, in the way we relate to the world; this is particularly clear in those who stress the idea of a New Paradigm for living. It is an attractive approach since, in some of its expressions, people do not watch passively, but have an active role in changing culture and bringing about a new spiritual awareness. In other expressions, more power is ascribed to the inevitable progression of natural cycles. In any case, the Age of Aquarius is a vision, not a theory. But New Age is a broad tradition, which incorporates many ideas which have no explicit link with the change from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius. There are moderate, but quite generalised, visions of a future where there will be a planetary spirituality alongside separate religions, similar planetary political institutions to complement more local ones, global economic entities which are more participatory and democratic, greater emphasis on communication and education, a mixed approach to health combining professional medicine and self-healing, a more androgynous self-understanding and ways of integrating science, mysticism, technology and ecology. Again, this is evidence of a deep desire for a fulfilling and healthy existence for the human race and for the planet. Some of the traditions which flow into New Age are: ancient Egyptian occult practices, Cabbalism, early Christian gnosticism, Sufism, the lore of the Druids, Celtic Christianity, mediaeval alchemy, Renaissance hermeticism, Zen Buddhism, Yoga and so on.(15)
Here is what is “new” about New Age. It is a “syncretism of esoteric and secular elements”.(16) They link into a widely-held perception that the time is ripe for a fundamental change in individuals, in society and in the world. There are various expressions of the need for a shift:
– from Newtonian mechanistic physics to quantum physics;
– from modernity’s exaltation of reason to an appreciation of feeling, emotion and experience (often described as a switch from ‘left brain’ rational thinking to ‘right brain’ intuitive thinking);
– from a dominance of masculinity and patriarchy to a celebration of femininity, in individuals and in society.
(continued)
A
Ahimsa
Guest
wildleafblower said:
I know some Roman Catholics who believe in (and even practice!) astrology, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that Behe can logically argue that astrology can be taught, if ID is also taught, since both, using his definition (and I’m paraphrasing from memory here), are systems of knowledge that attempt to explain phenomena. This does not mean that Behe believes in astrology, just like Behe doesn’t believe in the sufficiency of natural selection to account for complex systems, yet Behe would not deny teaching about natural selection. Thus, by his own definition of science, he could not deny the teaching of astrology in science classes.
Which is why I wouldn’t go by Behe’s definition of what counts as science.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
In these contexts the term “paradigm shift” is often used. In some cases it is clearly supposed that this shift is not simply desirable, but inevitable. The rejection of modernity underlying this desire for change is not new, but can be described as “a modern revival of pagan religions with a mixture of influences from both eastern religions and also from modern psychology, philosophy, science, and the counterculture that developed in the 1950s and 1960s”.(17) New Age is a witness to nothing less than a cultural revolution, a complex reaction to the dominant ideas and values in western culture, and yet its idealistic criticism is itself ironically typical of the culture it criticizes.
A word needs to be said on the notion of paradigm shift. It was made popular by Thomas Kuhn, an American historian of science, who saw a paradigm as “the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community”.(18) When there is a shift from one paradigm to another, it is a question of wholesale transformation of perspective rather than one of gradual development. It really is a revolution, and Kuhn emphasised that competing paradigms are incommensurable and cannot co-exist. So the idea that a paradigm shift in the area of religion and spirituality is simply a new way of stating traditional beliefs misses the point. What is actually going on is a radical change in world- view, which puts into question not only the content but also the fundamental interpretation of the former vision. Perhaps the clearest example of this, in terms of the relationship between New Age and Christianity, is the total recasting of the life and significance of Jesus Christ. It is impossible to reconcile these two visions.(19)
“Science and technology have clearly failed to deliver all they once seemed to promise, so in their search for meaning and liberation people have turned to the spiritual realm. New Age as we now know it came from a search for something more humane and beautiful than the oppressive, alienating experience of life in Western society. Its early exponents were prepared to look far afield in their search, so it has become a very eclectic approach. It may well be one of the signs of a “return to religion”, but it is most certainly not a return to orthodox Christian doctrines and creeds. The first symbols of this “movement” to penetrate Western culture were the remarkable festival at Woodstock in New York State in 1969 and the musical Hair, which set forth the main themes of New Age in the emblematic song “Aquarius”.(20) But these were merely the tip of an iceberg whose dimensions have become clearer only relatively recently. The idealism of the 1960s and 1970s still survives in some quarters; but now, it is no longer predominantly adolescents who are involved. Links with left-wing political ideology have faded, and psychedelic drugs are by no means as prominent as they once were. So much has happened since then that all this no longer seems revolutionary; “spiritual” and “mystical” tendencies formerly restricted to the counterculture are now an established part of mainstream culture, affecting such diverse facets of life as medicine, science, art and religion. Western culture is now imbued with a more general political and ecological awareness, and this whole cultural shift has had an enormous impact on people’s life-styles. It is suggested by some that the New Age “movement” is precisely this major change to what is reckoned to be “a significantly better way of life”.(21)”
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html
There is more…Please read the WHOLE DOCUMENT in its entirety.
My opinion is that the Intelligent Design Movement is nothing more than a New Age Movement. There’s isn’t any way possible that the Catholic Church will approve of it being taught in schools under the disguise of religion, theology, or philosophy.
:nope: The Catholic Church is too wise to promote the Intelligent Design Movement!
A word needs to be said on the notion of paradigm shift. It was made popular by Thomas Kuhn, an American historian of science, who saw a paradigm as “the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community”.(18) When there is a shift from one paradigm to another, it is a question of wholesale transformation of perspective rather than one of gradual development. It really is a revolution, and Kuhn emphasised that competing paradigms are incommensurable and cannot co-exist. So the idea that a paradigm shift in the area of religion and spirituality is simply a new way of stating traditional beliefs misses the point. What is actually going on is a radical change in world- view, which puts into question not only the content but also the fundamental interpretation of the former vision. Perhaps the clearest example of this, in terms of the relationship between New Age and Christianity, is the total recasting of the life and significance of Jesus Christ. It is impossible to reconcile these two visions.(19)
“Science and technology have clearly failed to deliver all they once seemed to promise, so in their search for meaning and liberation people have turned to the spiritual realm. New Age as we now know it came from a search for something more humane and beautiful than the oppressive, alienating experience of life in Western society. Its early exponents were prepared to look far afield in their search, so it has become a very eclectic approach. It may well be one of the signs of a “return to religion”, but it is most certainly not a return to orthodox Christian doctrines and creeds. The first symbols of this “movement” to penetrate Western culture were the remarkable festival at Woodstock in New York State in 1969 and the musical Hair, which set forth the main themes of New Age in the emblematic song “Aquarius”.(20) But these were merely the tip of an iceberg whose dimensions have become clearer only relatively recently. The idealism of the 1960s and 1970s still survives in some quarters; but now, it is no longer predominantly adolescents who are involved. Links with left-wing political ideology have faded, and psychedelic drugs are by no means as prominent as they once were. So much has happened since then that all this no longer seems revolutionary; “spiritual” and “mystical” tendencies formerly restricted to the counterculture are now an established part of mainstream culture, affecting such diverse facets of life as medicine, science, art and religion. Western culture is now imbued with a more general political and ecological awareness, and this whole cultural shift has had an enormous impact on people’s life-styles. It is suggested by some that the New Age “movement” is precisely this major change to what is reckoned to be “a significantly better way of life”.(21)”
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html
There is more…Please read the WHOLE DOCUMENT in its entirety.
My opinion is that the Intelligent Design Movement is nothing more than a New Age Movement.
There’s isn’t any way possible that the Catholic Church will approve of it being taught in schools under the disguise of religion, theology, or philosophy.:nope: The Catholic Church is too wise to promote the Intelligent Design Movement!
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Ahimsa wrote, “I know some Roman Catholics who believe in (and even practice!) astrology, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that Behe can logically argue that astrology can be taught, if ID is also taught, since both, using his definition (and I’m paraphrasing from memory here), are systems of knowledge that attempt to explain phenomena. This does not mean that Behe believes in astrology, just like Behe doesn’t believe in the sufficiency of natural selection to account for complex systems, yet Behe would not deny teaching about natural selection. Thus, by his own definition of science, he could not deny the teaching of astrology in science classes. Which is why I wouldn’t go by Behe’s definition of what counts as science.”
Hi Ahimsa,
Roman Catholic Micheal Behe believes that it’s perfectly fine to teach astrology, therefore, as a Catholic, Behe supports advocates of astrology. If you support advocates of astrology then you automatically believe in it to some extent. Astrology is bogus bunkism to the max!
Hi Ahimsa,
Roman Catholic Micheal Behe believes that it’s perfectly fine to teach astrology, therefore, as a Catholic, Behe supports advocates of astrology. If you support advocates of astrology then you automatically believe in it to some extent.
Astrology is bogus bunkism to the max!
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Hi WildleafAhimsa wrote, “I know some Roman Catholics who believe in (and even practice!) astrology, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that Behe can logically argue that astrology can be taught, if ID is also taught, since both, using his definition (and I’m paraphrasing from memory here), are systems of knowledge that attempt to explain phenomena. This does not mean that Behe believes in astrology, just like Behe doesn’t believe in the sufficiency of natural selection to account for complex systems, yet Behe would not deny teaching about natural selection. Thus, by his own definition of science, he could not deny the teaching of astrology in science classes. Which is why I wouldn’t go by Behe’s definition of what counts as science.”
Hi Ahimsa,
Roman Catholic Micheal Behe believes that it’s perfectly fine to teach astrology, therefore, as a Catholic, Behe supports advocates of astrology. If you support advocates of astrology then you automatically believe in it to some extent.
,I teach about the Nazi party in my classes, but that doesn’t mean I believe in it, to any extent whatsoever. Many Christian professors might teach about Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Marxism, or Sunni Islam, yet that doesn’t mean that they believe in it? Are you suggesting that Christians should not teach about other religions?
W
wildleafblower
Guest
I doubt the majority of parents worldwide would pay to have their children taught ‘Astrology’ at a university or college. People interested in astrology can learn about it for free on the Internet if they are interested. I wouldn’t be one of them. Again, I repeat, I think it’s bogas bunkem and a waste of time. However, I realize there are people interested in it, but the fact remains that Roman Catholics aren’t encouraged to do so and rightfully so in my opinion.
Again, I repeat, I think it’s bogas bunkem and a waste of time. However, I realize there are people interested in it, but the fact remains that Roman Catholics aren’t encouraged to do so and rightfully so in my opinion.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
I’ve found more about Prof. Michael Behe! Everyone, please READ the Department of Biological Sciences of Lehigh University’s statement.
lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
This is not good, not good, not good news for proponents of ID.
(I’m sorry, but…but…but I find myself in a laughing mode. Please forgive me, but I can’t help it. I’d like to return when i stop laughing which might be never!
)- Status