Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[The_Barbarian]

Science (lately) refuses to even investigate those non-supernatural things which might lead someone on a path to the conclusion that God exists, or tell us something of his nature

It’s been about 400 years that Europeans separated science from religion. It happened about 500 BC in Greece. Lately? In geological terms.

BTW, I’d sure like to see some examples of natural things that might validate God, which science refuses to investigate

It is not an inherent defect in science that it cannot search for God,

Yes it is, and the Pope has pointed out that when scientists try to use it to make conclusions about God, they have left the proper area of science.

It’s a method that cannot use the supernatural.

So let’s use science to come up with an incomplete and unproven picture of who and what God is, just like we do for less important things like evolution.

Can’t do it. Science is too weak a method to study God. Fortunately, there are ways, which the Catholic Church can teach you. Why won’t you learn those? What about the magesterium do you think is inadequate for that purpose?

Some will counter that “If we search for God and don’t find him, then that gives ammunition to the atheists.”

Already happened. First it was “God is real because we can’t synthesize organic molecules.” Then someone did. Then, it’s “God is real because we can’t explain heredity.” And then, someone did. And then, it’s “God is real because we have never seen a speciation.” And then we observed some.

“God of the Gaps” is a serious problem, as ignorant people put their prejudices forth as truth, and unbelievers assume that they are typical Christians.

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn." St. Augustine

My counter to that is that what we’re doing now is a slow retreat in a vehicle that has only a reverse gear. We need to start going forward.

Creationism will always be like that. But Catholicism continues strong as ever. For the first time since the Reformation, slightly more than half of all Christians are Roman Catholics. Fundamentalism is not doing so well.

You’re on the wrong bus.

 

[ricmat]

And BTW, science never avoids exploring. What non-supernatural things does science refuse to explore that could lead to the conclusion that God exists?

Uhh…Intelligent Design? Searching for evidence of design in the universe? Again, there will be no conclusive proof. Just like evolution.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Namesake
And BTW, science never avoids exploring. What non-supernatural things does science refuse to explore that could lead to the conclusion that God exists?

Uhh…Intelligent Design?

ID is a religion. The Dover Trial merely established that fact legally. As you might know, the Wedge Document, by the people who invented ID, admits that it is to advance their religious ideas.

Searching for evidence of design in the universe?

SETI was kind of a bust. So far, no one’s been able to find any design, but hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in the attempt.

Again, there will be no conclusive proof. Just like evolution.

The Pope disagrees with you. He says it’s virtually certain, and that there is a great body of evidence supporting it.

 

[edwest2]

From Pope John Paul II: Science can purify religion from error and superstition, religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."

Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict realize what harm science in the wrong hands can do. There are those here who want to keep science and religion totally separate. That’s a lie. It’s never been true. There is a relationship between the Catholic Church and science. It is one reason there is a Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

To my fellow Catholics: By the word of God we live. Ignore those few who say: “Go ahead, pray and worship in your buildings, it matters not. The mind of man has found out everything.” This is idolatry. “Ye shall be as gods…” was spoken to Eve in the garden by the serpent. Who shall you love and who shall you serve? Those who only concern themselves with temporal things? Who have written God out of their lives, out of science?

The Catholic Church remains as a bulwark against the idolatry of the mind of man and false absolutes.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Uhh…Intelligent Design? Searching for evidence of design in the universe? Again, there will be no conclusive proof. Just like evolution.

ID is the wedge strategy designed to get creationism into the science classroom.

ID as science is very bad science. You need to accept the notion that science simply is not interested in supernatural subject matter. That’s it!

And, before you search for evidence of design you must first believe that there is a designer. Science doesn’t deal with that sort of thing at all, ever, never.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict realize what harm science in the wrong hands can do.

Indeed. Science is about the truth. But what is true about nature can be exploited by man to do evil. That’s not a reflection on science, but on man.

There are those here who want to keep science and religion totally separate. That’s a lie. It’s never been true.

The Pope says that when scientists presume to use science to comment on God, they have left the proper place of science. You’re accusing the Pope of lying.

The Catholic Church remains as a bulwark against the idolatry of the mind of man and false absolutes.

Quite so. It offers creationists no comfort.

 

[ricmat]

Barbarian,

You misunderstand me. Or pretend to.

I’m not suggesting that science investigate God directly, as in let’s bounce some neutrons off him and see what diffraction pattern it produces. Of course, science is inadequate for that.

But, God’s creation is a reflection (albeit imperfect) of God himself. Things like order & beauty exist in creation because they first exist in God. And the reason we can sense beauty and order is because God wants us to.

We can certainly investigate his creation, but with God in mind. That’s actually what you are (or should be) doing with your biological studies. It’s what scientists did until very recently - say, about the mid-1800s.

You help the atheists by taking God out of the discussion.

And I no where suggest that we should explain things away by saying “God is real because we can’t explain something” (God of the gaps.) I’m not suggesting that science is wrong, but almost exactly the opposite - that science should expand it’s vision. I know that God is real (without science involvement at all), but I also have a deeper appreciation of what God is by using the intellect he gave me to see his wonders in the light of science. As some see his beauty in the light of music, or art, or evolution.

Barbarian, you continue to call me a creationist. Creationists believe that the world was created in 6 days, etc. I don’t believe that. You know this because I’ve told you this perhaps a dozen times already. Do you have something wrong with you?

 

[ricmat]

ID is the wedge strategy designed to get creationism into the science classroom.

ID as science is very bad science. You need to accept the notion that science simply is not interested in supernatural subject matter. That’s it!

And, before you search for evidence of design you must first believe that there is a designer. Science doesn’t deal with that sort of thing at all, ever, never.

ID is the search for design (or purpose) in the universe. Using standard scientific techniques, and data that has been accumulated by standard scientific techniques.

Motives have nothing to do with science. Is your science invalid because you believe in God? There are many ID scientists who are not creationists. ID is actually directly opposed to YEC. You don’t know nearly as much about ID as you think you do.

If ID is really creationism in disguise (because a few creationists decided to do this), then I guess that makes evolution really atheism in disguise, because some (a lot actually) atheistic scientists use it as their own wedge.

As for the science of ID being bad - OK, that’s something that can be discussed. Talk about methodology, interpretation of results, etc. It’s either good or not. That would be a rational debate.

God is supernatural. But his Creation is not.

Are you afraid that someone will see the beauty of creation through a scientific lens, and…gasp…begin to think about God through a religion lens? How horrible!

If God didn’t give us science as one more path to discern his beauty and majesty, why did he give it to us?

 

[edwest2]

Indeed. Science is about the truth. But what is true about nature can be exploited by man to do evil. That’s not a reflection on science, but on man.

The Pope says that when scientists presume to use science to comment on God, they have left the proper place of science. You’re accusing the Pope of lying.

Quite so. It offers creationists no comfort.

Your accusatory tone has no value. Even if some claim science should be silent about God, this is not what the Church teaches. And science is done by who? Man. And science is used by who? Man.

Science is not separate from man and science is not separate from the Catholic Church. Just ask the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Stop twisting and turning. It has no value.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

ID is the search for design (or purpose) in the universe. Using standard scientific techniques, and data that has been accumulated by standard scientific techniques.

Say that as often as you want, it isn’t true. ID is a political strategy. ID does not use the scientific method. It cannot because the scientific method requires falsifiability.

Motives have nothing to do with science. Is your science invalid because you believe in God? There are many ID scientists who are not creationists. ID is actually directly opposed to YEC. You don’t know nearly as much about ID as you think you do.

Science is not invalidated by a belief in God, no way!

ID doesn’t necessarily relate to YEC. ID does however relate to creationism generally. ID was specifically designed, and the originators have admitted it, to form a wedge between science and creationism. Basically to sneak in the back door of the science classroom. On this point you are seriously uninformed.

If ID is really creationism in disguise (because a few creationists decided to do this), then I guess that makes evolution really atheism in disguise, because some (a lot actually) atheistic scientists use it as their own wedge.

Not at all true. ID was designed to be a wedge, but science doesn’t need such a concept. Science just keeps at the business of discovery leading to truth. Science neither believes nor rejects the idea of a designer. Science isn’t interested in the idea of a designer. That isn’t atheism in any sense. It is total disinterest. You might want science to be interested in God, but science isn’t in the least interested in God. That is the concern of religion.

God is supernatural. But his Creation is not.

Are you afraid that someone will see the beauty of creation through a scientific lens, and…gasp…begin to think about God through a religion lens? How horrible!

I, and I would surmise because of experience so do many scientists, see science through a religious lens all the time. But, I am quite well enough disciplined to separate religion from science so that I can maintain the purity of both.

If God didn’t give us science as one more path to discern his beauty and majesty, why did he give it to us?

That’s exactly why He gave us science. At the same time He gave us reason so we might preserve the integrity of both religion and science.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Your accusatory tone has no value. Even if some claim science should be silent about God, this is not what the Church teaches.

The Pope says so. Last I heard, he was the most authoritative teacher for Catholics.

Stop twisting and turning. It has no value.

Considering the way you misrepresented the Church’s teaching on science, I would think you’d want to be very inconspicuous when that subject came up.

Would you like a reminder of what it was you did?

 

[ricmat]

Say that as often as you want, it isn’t true. ID is a political strategy. ID does not use the scientific method. It cannot because the scientific method requires falsifiability.

ID doesn’t necessarily relate to YEC. ID does however relate to creationism generally. ID was specifically designed, and the originators have admitted it, to form a wedge between science and creationism. Basically to sneak in the back door of the science classroom. On this point you are seriously uninformed.

Not at all true. ID was designed to be a wedge, but science doesn’t need such a concept. Science just keeps at the business of discovery leading to truth. Science neither believes nor rejects the idea of a designer. Science isn’t interested in the idea of a designer. That isn’t atheism in any sense. It is total disinterest. You might want science to be interested in God, but science isn’t in the least interested in God. That is the concern of religion.

That’s exactly why He gave us science. At the same time he gave us reason so we might preserve the integrity of both religion and science.

Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I do respect your opinion, but think you’re wrong.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You misunderstand me. Or pretend to.

I don’t think so, but you can explain.

I’m not suggesting that science investigate God directly, as in let’s bounce some neutrons off him and see what diffraction pattern it produces. Of course, science is inadequate for that.

But, God’s creation is a reflection (albeit imperfect) of God himself. Things like order & beauty exist in creation because they first exist in God. And the reason we can sense beauty and order is because God wants us to.

Yes, and as a Christian, I can see that clearly. I just can’t get science to do it for me. If you doubt this, show me a way that science can show anyone God.

We can certainly investigate his creation, but with God in mind.

Interesting idea. Show me a scientific investigation that can be done with God as part of it.

That’s actually what you are (or should be) doing with your biological studies. It’s what scientists did until very recently - say, about the mid-1800s.

More like the 1600s.

You help the atheists by taking God out of the discussion.

You help atheists by insisting science can do what it can’t. That is the creationist argument, one that has been rejected by the Church.

And I no where suggest that we should explain things away by saying “God is real because we can’t explain something” (God of the gaps.)

That’s what it amounts to.

I’m not suggesting that science is wrong, but almost exactly the opposite - that science should expand it’s vision.

The Pope says that science should not become involved in commenting on God.

I know that God is real (without science involvement at all), but I also have a deeper appreciation of what God is by using the intellect he gave me to see his wonders in the light of science. As some see his beauty in the light of music, or art, or evolution.

I have no way of doing that with science. I can, as a Christian see it. And knowing what I know of science, I can be enriched by it. But science can’t do that.

Barbarian, you continue to call me a creationist. Creationists believe that the world was created in 6 days, etc.

YE creationists do. They aren’t the only creationists.

Do you have something wrong with you?

It’s that duck thing, you know.

 

[Namesake]

Interesting idea. Show me a scientific investigation that can be done with God as part of it.

Uh…recall the god particle? I know, a silly rejoinder. Forget it already…

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian,

Your statements are generally false.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ACSCI.HTM

God bless,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

I don’t think so, but you can explain.

Yes, and as a Christian, I can see that clearly. I just can’t get science to do it for me. If you doubt this, show me a way that science can show anyone God.

Interesting idea. Show me a scientific investigation that can be done with God as part of it.

More like the 1600s.

You help atheists by insisting science can do what it can’t. That is the creationist argument, one that has been rejected by the Church.

That’s what it amounts to.

The Pope says that science should not become involved in commenting on God.

I have no way of doing that with science. I can, as a Christian see it. And knowing what I know of science, I can be enriched by it. But science can’t do that.

YE creationists do. They aren’t the only creationists.

It’s that duck thing, you know.

:yawn:

 

[The_Barbarian]

Is there anyone here who really thought he’d be able to give any examples?

 

[ricmat]

Is there anyone here who really thought he’d be able to give any examples?

:yawn:

 

[anthony022071]

Be honest with yourself. Pope Benedict XVI has acknowledged the fact that evolutionary theory is supported by a vast body of evidence. Natural selection is part of that theory. Don’t try to pettifog your way out of this.

Natural selection is the part of the theory that he thinks is absurd.
So again,where is the pope’s statement that natural selection is compatible with God being the cause of causes?

Barbarian observes:
I can’t believe you’re serious. Pope John Paul II said:
“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusions. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its Creator.”

No mention of whales evolving from other ungulates either. Don’t play games.

Since the pope did not mention natural selection,why did you use that quote as proof that the popes have said that natural selection is reconcilable with God being the cause of causes?

Two ways of saying the same thing. Methodological naturalism is a method that relies on evidence.

Methodological naturalism is not a method,it is a principle for interpreting natural evidence. Any principle of interpretation can be said to “rely on evidence” of the object under study.

What evidence do you think supports sola scriptura?

Protestants believe that scripture itself supports it,and they believe that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.

If there isn’t any, your argument collapses.

What evidence supports the principle of methological naturalism?
If there isn’t any,then your argument collapses.

Perhaps you never learned the difference between evidence and faith.

Perhaps you never learned the difference between evidence and a principle of interpretation.

You really think that’s what evolutionary theory says? Amazing. Of course not. What happens is that elephants with tusks tend to get shot, so the alleles for tusks tend to become more and more scarce, and so tusks get smaller or absent altogether. This is 8th grade science. Why don’t you know it?

I do know it. But that is not an example of natural selection. The only selection that is going is on the part of the hunters,who are blowing away the elephants with tusks.

And you didn’t know that this was what evolutionary theory predicts?

If evolutionary theorists call that an example of natural selection,they are idiots.

 

[elt1956]

It is interesting how some people can take something someone says and throw it off in an entirely different direction, I suggested you spend time in Church with Jesus, in the Tabernacle, and you came up with this “God is everywhere” and I explained the that is true but Jesus is present in a Special way in the Tabernacle, and now you come up with this quote.
I wasn’t questioning that “God is everywhere” But you seem to be saying there is NO difference between His presence in the Tabernacle than anywhere else. AND there is . You claim your a Catholic with a Catholic education, well what does that prove, you don’t sound like one or you would KNOW the difference. Our Pastor always says that the longest journey we’ll ever make is the 12 inches between the head and the heart.

Your pastor is right, I suggest you listen to him.