Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution

[PhilVaz]

lazer << There is a lot of good evidence in favor of evolution. >>
Yes there is.

lazer << There is also a lot of good evidence against it. >>
No there is not.

lazer << Similarly, there is a lot of good evidence for Creation science. >>
No there definitely is not. “God did it” is not scientific evidence, even though I as a theistic evolutionist agree that God did it.

lazer << There is also a lot of good evidence against it. >>
Yes there is.

Just so we’re clear. I don’t know what the heck you are reading, but 3 books for you: Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller (Catholic biologist), Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller (evangelical geologist), and Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk (evangelical biologist). Read those and in 3 months come on back.

Phil P

 

[Lazerlike42]

Joseph Bilodeau:

I would appreciate an explanation of this sentence. All Catholics are Christians, this seems to suggest otherwise. Did you mean something else? Thank you.

I meant to say

so some Christians accept it, whether Catholic or not

 

[Lazerlike42]

Something I like to tell atheists is that it takes a LOT more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God. I tell them this because a lot of them see evolution as as some sort of disproof of God. Of course it isn’t, but that’s their line of thinking so I have to go at it from that angle.

That being said, I will reiterate that I am not a firm believer in either evolution or creation science. However, I am STAUNCH in my belief that creation science deserves a CHANCE which it is not given.

No there definitely is not. “God did it” is not scientific evidence, even though I as a theistic evolutionist agree that God did it.

The fact that you would sum up creation science as “God did it” shows that you don’t even really know what it is. Creation science is NOT the idea of saying “God did it” and leaving it at that. It is the idea of asking, “Everyone says God did it this say, but could He have done it that way?” and then using empiricism and the scientific method to attempt to answer the question.

The fact is that if a person actually takes the time to read creation scientists’ work instead of just blowing it off, they present a lot of very good ideas. It’s not proof, but it is ABSOLUTELY enough to make a person realize that things are NOT so cut and dry as “non-creation” scientists put it.

I honestly don’t even know why there is a distinction. If one scientist proposes X, and another proposes Y, both ideas are given credibility, and both are studied further until more definite conclusions can be reached. But if Y just happens to agree with the idea of creation, it’s discounted, ignored, and all but ridiculed.

When I first learned about science, I learned that all ideas were given equal footing and were looked at equally. But suddenly there is this objection to considering any idea that suggests that God did it the way the Bible says literally.

Did He need to do it literally? No. Could He have used evolution? Of course!

But the fact is WE SIMPLY DON’T KNOW.

People have forgotten the sins of humanism. We all have this idea that we can explain everything and understand it in our terms. There’s nothing wrong with trying, but the fact is we MUST be willing to admit that there are limits to our knowledge. We MUST be willing to admit that we can make mistakes. If we can’t do this, it’s because we haven’t really given ourselves completely to God.

Of course an evolutionist can give himself completely to God, so long as he keeps himself open to the idea that he may be wrong. A creation scientist also has to keep this openness. Unfortunately, people RARELY do this.

I DON’T claim creationists have all the answers. But I do insist that they deserve a chance. And I know darn well that evolutionists don’t have them either. I have read countless works by different evolutionists who admit that there are currently very large holes in the theory. Those holes could be cleared up, but it’s also possible that those holes are there because the theory is just plain wrong.

I just find it ridiculous that Quantum mechanics comes out and contradicts Relativity so much so and is such a polar opposite of it that we STILL can’t reconcile the two and all we have are very loose and developing ideas, and yet everyone rushes to embrace it. Then creation science comes out and yet for some reason people attack it.

The fact is that string theory, the attempt to reconcil quantum mechanics and relativity, has MAJOR problems such that many scientists are beginning to question not only whether it can be fixed but whether it has any validity at all. I don’t see these scientists being ridiculed just because they have a different idea from the norm.

Just to show the way conventional science looks at things, I want to reference an article from Scientific American a few months back. I forget what it was called, but it was about the harmony of the universe being off or something along those lines. At the end, basically a scientist was quoted as saying (I paraphrase because I don’t have the article), 'So this first idea that we introduced may explain things, but probably not because of this problem. The second solution is a littl more likely, but still not much so. Nevertheless, we have to cling to this second idea because the only other alternative is to believe this third idea that strongly hints at the idea that God exists and that’s a ridiculous thing to say."

 

[Ghosty]

Please let us in on this little secret. I say secret, because in my years of science, I have not come across a single piece of evidence AGAINST evolution.

Indeed, it’s an insanely robust theory. I’d say it’s open to less criticism than the Theory of Gravity, which is supposedly based on plain observation.

The reason that Catholics in general are against Creation Science isn’t really reasonable, and history demonstrates (despite radical claims to the contrary), that the Catholic Church is reasonable to a fault. Heck, the fact that we’re obsessed with reason is one of the prime complaints by Eastern Christians against Latins! While creationism (meaning that there is an intelligent Creator) is eminently reasonable in the context of theology, which Catholics consider an even harder science than scientific theory, it is not reasonable within the context of scientific theory.

See, scientific theory is really, really handy for doing God’s work. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that scientific theory is itself a miracle. We can literally bring the dead back to life thanks to the scientific method. This is not us usurping the powers of God, but rather our embracing a gift that God has given us. I think Catholics in general respond negatively to any attack on the scientific method precisely because of our reverence to God. We don’t like people corrupting the scientific method because we are called by God to care for the sick, and we do a much better job caring for the sick by utilizing science in its place than we ever could have without it. In fact, I would say that we have done more with to take the hot air out of the atheists with the scientific method (thank you Fr. Lemaitre) than we have ever been able to do with pure theology.

Speaking for myself, I react hostily towards the watering down of science by “Creation Scientists” precisely because it’s simply not necessary, and we as Catholics do better to prove the Faith by drawing within the lines of science than we ever do by scribbling everywhere we please. As PhilVaz has said, relying on messing up the boundaries of science has a huge potential of backfiring, as it gives our rivals the same leeway, and can leave us doubting God when they are better at breaking the rules of reality than we are.

We must have faith that not only are the lines clear, but that they are set by God and God alone, and God will not let the Gates of Hell prevail against His Church. The rules of the world are God’s rules, and by that virtue they are OUR rules as God’s Church. Maybe I’m prideful, but I feel that, as God’s Church, science is ours, and we lose nothing by letting atheists and others play in God’s playground. When they begin to run wild with fudged Theories of General Relativity, we counter with the Big Bang Theory and leave them desperately scratching their heads and back-pedaling to the beginning of time itself.

Basically, I see no reason to throw out a method that we dominate, and that so substantially backs up our more “esoteric” understandings. I’ll wait to throw out the scientific method until it directly attacks God; so long as it’s our baby, and is used to destroy atheism, I say we cherish it as a gift from the Creator.

 

[Ghosty]

The fact is that if a person actually takes the time to read creation scientists’ work instead of just blowing it off, they present a lot of very good ideas. It’s not proof, but it is ABSOLUTELY enough to make a person realize that things are NOT so cut and dry as “non-creation” scientists put it.

This is most definately true, and I doubt anyone here would deny that. The point is that it presents philosophical arguments, not scientific ones. If kept to the realm of philosophy, Creation Science is a relatively unstoppable 800-pound gorilla; when left purely in the scientific realm it’s defeated as easily as you can say “Pssh, whatever”.

The point is that “Creation Science” isn’t properly science, it’s philosophy. Whatsmore, it’s an ace-in-the-hole for our philosophy. The point is that we can easily fight atheism to a stalemate within the bounds of pure science, and then invite it into the realm of philosophy and utterly devour it. This has been the Church’s strength for 2000 years, and there’s no reason to jeopardize that now, espescially considering the fact that atheists are more haughty about their accomplishments now than ever before!

I realize I’m making this out to be some kind of contest, or battle of wits, when really it’s just a matter of fundamental Truth, but I’m saying it this way to illustrate a point. God’s ways are unbeatable, period. As Catholics we accept this on fundamental principle. So long as the “game” is playing in our favor (and it must so long as it uses natural law and rational thought) why change the rules? That’s both prideful and foolish, IMO. We must show enough trust and faith in God to utilize our natural gifts: talents that God Himself imbued humanity with as part of our being “made in His image and likeness”.

Essentially, our faith must be too great to abandon science and reason. God deserves no less than that honor.

 

[Lazerlike42]

You’re missing my point. Creation Science is NOT an attack on the scientific method or on reason.

Creation Science is am embrace of the scientific method. Science is always testing one group of ideas to see if they are true, using the scientific method. Creation Science is just the practice of taking those ideas that Science ignores and testing them with the scientific method, too. Creation Science is basically just the idea of saying, “hey these ideas deserve equal treatment.”

I’ll make the point against. Relativity was predominant, then quantum mechanics came along. The ideas are FAR more opposed to one another than are standard science and creation science, yet the two sides didn’t attack one another. They just said, “hey, we both have good ideas that must fit together somehow, lets figure out how.” But when creation science comes along, the standard scienctists say, “oh, no… we don’t want your type around here.”

Remember: the majority of science is driven by unreligious folk. There are plenty of devout scientists, but the majority of scientists are atheists, agnostics, or so indifferent that they never bothered to decide. Because of that, mainstream science has come to reject most or all ideas that seem to rely heavily on God. This leads to these ideas being dubbed as unrational, or unscientific, or taboo in the scientific community. Because of this, when a scientist comes along with a strong faith, he won’t accept these ideas because they have already been dubbed as unrational by ungodly people.

When I hear people say creation science is unrational, I have to assume that they’ve never even looked into it, or at least looked into the good stuff. Sure, there is ridiculous stuff out there that makes no sense. There’s also stuff that used to be the state of the field in creation science that has been disproven. I think a lot of people look at creation science as though it’s this stuff. The fact is that a lot of new ideas have come out that are stongly supported by evidence. The fact is that whereas in the past a lot of so called “creation scientistists” just threw out the scientific method, today’s creation scientists don’t, and follow it the same way as do traditional scientists.

I don’t like differentiating the two ideas. If one scientist has one idea, and another has another, let it be that. Don’t dub one “creation science” because it puts more of direct emphasis on God (I say direct because standard science can put emphasis on God too. We can say God used evolution, or we can say He just plopped Adam down. When I say more direct I simply mean that the idea of plopping Adam down is direct God—>man, but evolution is God—>evolution—>man. It’s hard to explain but I hope you realize what I am saying, which is not that standard science necessarily rules out God).

In any case, we can’t just accept the status quo. A LOT of the scientists we hold as the greatest of history became that great because they looked at what science was teaching, saw a flaw, and took the next step and discovered the thing that fixed that flaw. For instance, there are a lot of pretty big problems that science has trouble explaining (e.g., why is the hydrogen content of the atmosphere completely inconsistent with the proposed age of the earth?). If someone comes along and points out this flaw, why should we attack them for it?

 

[Lazerlike42]

This is most definately true, and I doubt anyone here would deny that. The point is that it presents philosophical arguments, not scientific ones. If kept to the realm of philosophy, Creation Science is a relatively unstoppable 800-pound gorilla; when left purely in the scientific realm it’s defeated as easily as you can say “Pssh, whatever”.

As I point out below, in the past Creation science was just philosophy, using philsophical arguements. Today, some folks do this, but I wouldn’t call that creation science. I’d call that philosophy. When I talk about creation science, I am talking about folks who use the scientific method to arrive at and test hypothesis, and to develop theories, and whom happen to focus on ideas that traditional science has abandoned.

In fact, I think that traditional science has just jumped right in a lot of times. In other words, those ideas creation scientists test weren’t abandoned because they were disproven so much as because other ideas came up. Some of the ideas were disproven, and creation scientists say, “now wait a minute lets look and see if the disproof of this is really solid after all,” but a lot of times they just test ideas that were never considered before. I think a lot of times, scientists got SO excited about a particular idea that they just ran with it and left everything behind.

Loosely, it’s similar to a crime investigation. Sometimes, detectives come to the crime scene and they poke around, and then they come with a suspect that they get REALLY exicted about, so much so that they all but stop investigating to see if there are any other suspects that warrant interest. Sometimes that suspect gets found not guilty and then nobody gets convicted because the detectives stopped their investigation and its just too late to go back and look into other people.

But with science it’s never too late, and you can always go back to those ideas. Doesn’t mean they’ll turn out to be right, but you never know unless you try!

Over there in the smoking discussions, you have two groups. One group says obviously smoking is bad science has told us that forever. The other group says not so fast. I personally think they’re wrong, but the point is whoever is right is right at least in part because of an agenda. If it’s the antismoking people, we have to admit they have an agenda and they really are forceful about it. If it’s the prosmoking people, they have an agenda too. The fact is that a lot of the scientific evidence on BOTH sides is there because someone WANTED to come to that conclusion, so they ignored this or they ignored that or in some way geared the study toward their pov. The same can be said about science. I am positing that traditional science has attacked God to the point where they gear things to try to go against creation ideas. I have no doubt this is true. Similarly, it would be naive to say that the creation scientists don’t do the same thing (although we MIGHT be able to give them a slight advantage because as people of God they at least are more likely to try to be honest). That’s why we have to look at what the science says, not who is presenting the science.

 

[Ghosty]

Lazerlike42: I’m not familiar with any Creation Scientist that does anything more than say “Hey, this finding is kind of odd. Don’t you think that a creator is a rational explaination of this?”

The problem is that this is not science, because the scientific answer to that would be “Maybe, but we can’t say for certain, since we’re not seeing an actual creator, but only the probability of one.” That’s not hard science, because probability automatically means wiggle-room. The Creation Scientists are asking us to take the most probable conclusion, based on their perception. That’s rational, but that’s not science. Science observes what is, not what might be. Even probability mechanics is a way of measuring what we do see, not what we might see. The minute you step into that realm of urging conclusions based on probability, you are stepping into philosophy. Creation Science is excellent, and I do mean excellent, philosophy, but it’s not science. That’s all I mean

 

[Lazerlike42]

I have seen plenty creation scientists who don’t even mention God or a Creator.

For instance, I referenced the hydrogen content of the atmosphere. They study this using the scientific method, and then state based on their results that if we used the hydrogen content of the atmosphere to date the earth, we arrive at an age of X. This is no different from a standard scientist studying the carbon content in a rock and stating based on his results that the earth is X years old. In this case, the scientists didn’t go and say, “The earth is X years old so there must be a God.” They simply said, “The hydrogen content of the atmosphere is very inconsistent with the age as defined by C-14 dating. This warrants further study to determine why.”

Then they studied the atmosphere some more. They also went to study C-14 dating and, using the scientific method, came to the conclusion that it may be accurate as we have believed, but that there are serious questions about it’s accuracy which might account for the discrepency. They don’t say “This proves God.” They don’t even assert or assume that their own dating method with the hydrogen is solid and not erroneous. They simply say there is a discrepency that ought to at least make people rethink the idea that we know solidly the age of the earth. They say, “look, there are a lot (a lot more than I’ve referenced here) of problems and inconsistencies with the age of the earth that we currently hold to be true. We have a lot more work to do before we can say conclusively that the earth is X years old.”

They adress scientific questions, like “how old is the earth,” and, “how old is this bone,” and, “what does the fossil record say about a historical flood,” and things like that, but they don’t add that little bit on at the end that this must prove God.

They just study things the same way other scientists do, but they study things that other scientists, out of bias, won’t.

 

[PhilVaz]

lazer << Creation science is NOT the idea of saying “God did it” and leaving it at that. It is the idea of asking, “Everyone says God did it this say, but could He have done it that way?” and then using empiricism and the scientific method to attempt to answer the question. >>

lazer << Creation Science is NOT an attack on the scientific method or on reason. Creation Science is an embrace of the scientific method. >>

I’ve read plenty of creation science books over the years, seen some of their videos, and printed out plenty of their online material. What I’ve concluded is that when they attempt to do science, it is very poor science or simply wrong science (e.g. misunderstanding of evolution, etc). When mainstream science (e.g. geology, biology, paleontology, etc) contradicts their interpretation of Genesis, their fallback is always God did it, or God made it look that way (e.g. age of earth is classic example), something that is non-testable and non-falsifiable and therefore not science.

Now here are some paragraphs you should consider, they were quoted by Judge Overton in the landmark "Arkansas Creationist Trial" (1981-82) where the creationists had their time in court for “balanced treatment.” Sorry but creation science was decided not to be science 25 years ago.

“Creation. By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation…We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” (Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, page 40, emphasis added)

“Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious).” (Gish, letter to editor of Discover magazine, July 1981, emphasis added)

“…it is…quite impossible to determine anything about Creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wished to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there…Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation!” (Henry Morris, Studies in the Bible and Science, page 114, emphasis added)

Henry Morris and Duane Gish are the modern founders of “creation science” (with books titled Scientific Creationism) and they flat out say creation science is not science. Henry Morris has stated many times “the Bible is a book of science” and that is also classic “scientific creationism.”

In direct opposition to “creation science” John Paul II has written:

“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

lazer << They say, “look, there are a lot (a lot more than I’ve referenced here) of problems and inconsistencies with the age of the earth that we currently hold to be true. We have a lot more work to do before we can say conclusively that the earth is X years old.” >>

And that’s all nonsense, read Dalrymple, the age of the earth was settled 50 years ago and been confirmed ever since. Two books for you:

The Age of the Earth from 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell (Geological Society Special Publication No 190, 2001)

The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple (Stanford University Press, 1991)

The ONLY reason “creation scientists” believe there are “problems” and “inconsistencies” is because there are problems and inconsistencies with the accepted age of the earth (4.5-4.6 billion) and their interpretation of Genesis requiring a young earth. That’s it. Let’s be truthful, it has nothing to do with science, nothing to do with geology, nothing to do with radiometric dating. It has all to do with their interpretation of Genesis (i.e. God did it this way).

Phil P

 

[dts]

The Other Creation Story
Catholic Exchange, Brian Killian, 9.15.2005
catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=30014

*No one seemed to take much notice when Pope Benedict, in his homily at his installation Mass, said that “we are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.” *

It wasn’t until Cardinal Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, published an article entitled “Finding Design in Nature” in The New York Times that a simmering controversy exploded into the public eye.

**. . . **

Schonborn is not alone. Over 400 scientists have signed a statement of dissent from Darwin’s theory of evolution, and school boards in the US and Australia are pushing to have Darwinism challenged and supplemented by ID. As polls have shown, a significant portion of the public does not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution, and not just because of religious beliefs, but because people know a con when they see it. Up until just a few years ago, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) began its definition of evolution as “an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process…”

Notice the adjectives “unsupervised” and “impersonal,” similar to “unguided” and “unplanned” that the cardinal was objecting to. A definition of evolution that uses these adjectives is not, in fact, a biological definition. It is more like a mission statement for atheism masquerading as biology. And so a double standard exists in public schools. Religion must not enter the domain of the science classroom, and yet the science classroom becomes a place to teach kids atheism in the guise of Darwinian evolution. Reluctantly, NABT dropped the offending words from their definition, but not the atheism-as-science attitude that spawned it.

Those who are suspicious of Darwinism are vindicated by the fact that the Darwinists themselves are not too subtle about their religious motives. A new research program at Harvard aims to study how life began. One of its researchers put it this way: "My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.” How can divine intervention be the subject of scientific research?

**. . . **

Darwinism is very much like a religion. Its historical narrative has become the creation myth of secular culture.

 

[Lazerlike42]

PhilVaz:

lazer << They say, “look, there are a lot (a lot more than I’ve referenced here) of problems and inconsistencies with the age of the earth that we currently hold to be true. We have a lot more work to do before we can say conclusively that the earth is X years old.” >>

And that’s all nonsense, read Dalrymple, the age of the earth was settled 50 years ago and been confirmed ever since. Two books for you:

The Age of the Earth from 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell (Geological Society Special Publication No 190, 2001)

The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple (Stanford University Press, 1991)

The ONLY reason “creation scientists” believe there are “problems” and “inconsistencies” is because there are problems and inconsistencies with the accepted age of the earth (4.5-4.6 billion) and their interpretation of Genesis requiring a young earth. That’s it. Let’s be truthful, it has nothing to do with science, nothing to do with geology, nothing to do with radiometric dating. It has all to do with their interpretation of Genesis (i.e. God did it this way).

Phil P

This is simply not true. The fact is that, just for instance, the hydrogen content of the atmosphere is all but impossible to reconcile with the idea of a 4 billion year old earth, at least with our current understanding.

They do interpret genesis a certain way, but I have read their workd and they flat out the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to devise and test hypothesis.

Who had the authority to “settle” the question of the age of the earth? I’d say only God can do that. All we as humans can do is have a person whom we trust to be correct state a certain thing. That doesn’t make it true. There are plenty of scientists who AREN’T creation scientists who disagree with the age of the earth.

Just because some say it’s settled it doesn’t make it so. The ONLY thing on this earth that can be settled is matters of faith and morals that the Pope gives his ok to. Anything else is subject to error, no matter how strong the evidence seems to indicate it to be so (although I would say that the evidence is split down the middle at this point, even if it leans towards the older age theories).

 

[PhilVaz]

lazer << Who had the authority to “settle” the question of the age of the earth? I’d say only God can do that. >>

OK, now you’re thinking like a creation scientist. I agree that’s what they say. Robert Sungenis to me:

"The only absolute certainty we have in this world is what comes from the mouth of God. In His word it states that He created the universe in six days, not six billion years or sixteen billion years. As for science, the facts are plain: we have found no irrefutable scientific evidence to deny this divine revelation, including that from Brent Dalrymple. – Robert A. Sungenis, M.A. Catholic Apologetics International 12-2004

Yeah, now can you give me the biblical verse where it talks about the validity of radiometric dating. I need to confirm whether all that data we have from Dalrymple and the Lewis/Knell book (carefully collected by geologists over the last 50 to 150 years) can be confirmed in the Bible. Thanks.

lazer << the hydrogen content of the atmosphere is all but impossible to reconcile with the idea of a 4 billion year old earth, at least with our current understanding >>

You honestly believe there is something from the creation scientitsts that the professional geologists haven’t dealt with in great detail the past 200 years? I’m sorry you’d be mistaken.

early atmosphere 1
early atmosphere 2
oxygen

Tim Thompson (physicist, Jet Propulsion Lab) on this issue:

CLAIM: Hydrogen in the universe. Hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it; therefore, if the universe were as old as the theory requires, there would now be very little hydrogen in the universe.

Notice that the statement is in the form of an assertion, but without any supporting evidence or argument. The simplistic creationist approach is to argue that the hydrogen “should have been used up” because no new hydrogen is being formed. But is that a sensible argument? At what rate is hydrogen actually being converted into helium in stars? That is what will determine how much of the hydrogen “should” have been used up by now. Our own sun converts mass into energy, in fusion reactions, at the rate of about 4.3 x 109 kg/sec (or about 4,200,000 tons per second, for fans of English units).

Yet, even at this prodigious rate, the sun will lose only about 0.071% (0.00071) of its total mass into energy. But the sun is about 73% hydrogen, and 25% helium on average, and if we assume that all of the mass lost is hydrogen (it’s not, but the difference is too small for us to worry over here), then the sun uses up about 0.097% of its total hydrogen content. So, despite what you might think, you can see that converting hydrogen into helium through nuclear fusion in stars, is not a very efficient process. Reality shows not that we expect very little hydrogen to be left in the universe, but that we expect very little hydrogen to have been used up in the universe.

VERDICT: Is the claim correct? No, the claim is false. Is the claim relevant? It would have been relevant had it been true. Does the claim constitute evidence for creation or against evolution? No, it does not.

CURSES, Creation science foiled again, darn.

lazer << There are plenty of scientists who AREN’T creation scientists who disagree with the age of the earth. >>

Who would those be? All the ones in this book are creation scientists (or simply young-earth creationists). Their primary reason for believing in a young earth? Genesis, not science. I have the book and I can quote from it if you like.

Phil P

 

[Lazerlike42]

My apologies as I erred. I wasn’t referring to hydrogen in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere. In any case, it wasn’t hydrogen in the universe.

I checked those websites, and none of them address the helium issue. Here is one article of many which address this issue.

But that is beside the point. The point is about arrogance. As I pointed out in another thread, one of biggest obstacles to believing in evolution and an old earth is the people who support the idea. Not only are the overwhelming majority of them atheists, but the theists who support it always say things like this:

“Yeah, now can you give me the biblical verse where it talks about the validity of radiometric dating. I need to confirm whether all that data we have from Dalrymple and the Lewis/Knell book (carefully collected by geologists over the last 50 to 150 years) can be confirmed in the Bible. Thanks.”

It sounds an awful lot to me here like this statement is putting down the Bible, or at the LEAST seems to indicate that these data are to be held to a higher level of faith than the Bible. The fact is that the Bible is inerrant. No human being is inerrant. No amount of scientific evidence can infallibly declare something to be true. Do I believe with great faith the teachings of science? Of course. Do I believe them with greater faith than I do God? Of course not! If God decided the sun wasn’t gonna come up tomorrow, it wouldn’t and that’s a plain fact.

Can science and faith coexist? Of course! They are intimately connected. They can’t contradict each other when each is carried out infallibly. However, we have to realize something. Only faith can be carried out infallibly through the magesterium of the Church. We can never be 100% sure about anything in the realm of science, or anything else, for that matter. We can be about as close to certainty as you can get without actually having it, but not infallibly certain.

What I’m getting at is not that we have to read the Bible as a science book and base all our conclusions or judge them all on that. What I’m getting at is that it’s just incredibly arrogant to assume that our human minds can teach us science without the possibility of error.

How strong is your faith? If the Pope infallibly defined that evolution was false, would you have to leave the Church? What if he infallibly defined that the hydrogen in the atmosphere is in line with the creationist arguement? (I’ve never heard the arguement but you denounce it so I use it as an example). We have to be at a point in our faith where our FAITH is all that matters above everything else. We don’t have to throw everything else out, but we had better be sure that our faith is strong enough that if it told us evolution is false we’ll accept it. We have to accept that contraception is wrong and we’d better be ready to accept anything else that comes along. Right now evolution and the age of the earth is not a matter of faith and is purely a matter of science. But what choice are we individually going to make if it becomes a matter of faith?

That’s why I have a problem with evolutionists and things like that. They make statements like the one above, almost mocking the Bible in comparison to some study that was done. Sure, the Bible probably doesn’t actually say much about science. But by statements like that above, I get the impression that if it did, people wouldn’t believe it. That’s a major problem. Similarly, statements like this bother me:

Who would those be? All the ones in this book are creation scientists (or simply young-earth creationists). Their primary reason for believing in a young earth? Genesis, not science. I have the book and I can quote from it if you like.

Yep, look at me, the yokel who just happens to not be sold on evolution. I guess it’s time I learned to read so I can check up on this stuff, huh? And maybe while I’m at it I should divorce my sister.

Why is it that every evolutionist I run into seems to talk down to me as though I’m some uneducated moron living 400 years in the past? That’s my biggest problem above all. I just really have a hard time seeing God behind that sort of attitude.

 

[PhilVaz]

lazer << My apologies as I erred. I wasn’t referring to hydrogen in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere. In any case, it wasn’t hydrogen in the universe. >>

Well duh, big difference. Let’s get our elements straight. Too much hydrogen, too little hydrogen, too much helium, too little helium, too much Hafnium, too little Hafnium, its all been answered at TalkOrigins.

Helium short answer

Helium long answer

Dr. Dino take on Helium

You said God (e.g. Bible) is the only one to tell us with authority how old the earth is. OK, so I asked can you give me the biblical verse that talks about radiometric dating so I can get this resolved? Or will you admit this is strictly a scientific question that must be resolved by science?

lazer << As I pointed out in another thread, one of biggest obstacles to believing in evolution and an old earth is the people who support the idea. >>

Then buddy, all I can say is that you are reading the wrong kinds of people:

See the Evolutionary Creationism article which I helped edit

More recently, Kenneth R. Miller professor of biology at Brown University, has written Finding Darwin’s God (Cliff Street Books, 1999) in which he states his belief in God and argues that “evolution is the key to understanding God.” Dr. Miller has also called himself “an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist” (the 2001 PBS special “Evolution”). Other Christian evolutionary creationists include Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick; R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London; evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller (no relation to Kenneth) of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003); biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999); biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science; theologian-philosopher John Haught of Georgetown University; Keith Ward, author of God, Chance, and Necessity; Rev. John Polkinghorne of Cambridge University; Fr. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory; paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe; and many other scientists and theologians, past and present.

Start reading the right kinds of scientists.

lazer << How strong is your faith? If the Pope infallibly defined that evolution was false, would you have to leave the Church? What if he infallibly defined that the hydrogen in the atmosphere is in line with the creationist arguement? >>

Its pretty strong, and that’s not gonna happen. Did it occur to you that the reason I am investigating evolution is because the modern popes have said evolution is probably true?

“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” (International Theological Commission 2004 statement approved by Ratzinger, especially paragraphs 62-70)

Also see Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) own commentary on Genesis 1-3 and what he says about creation and evolution being complementary.

I notice a pattern: I always (in my 4.5 billion posts on this topic in here so far) tend to go back to what the (modern) Catholic Church has stated on this subject, and to TalkOrigins for my (mainstream) science, while you (and others who don’t like evolution) tend to go to a fundamentalist group AnswersInGenesis or to statements the Church made 100, 300, or 1000 years ago before the rise of modern science. I find that very strange (unless you are fundamentalist).

And TalkOrigins has already infallibly defined the dumb creation-science Helium argument to be bogus.

Phil P

 

[buffalo]

PhilVaz:

lazer << My apologies as I erred. I wasn’t referring to hydrogen in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere. In any case, it wasn’t hydrogen in the universe. >>

Well duh, big difference. Let’s get our elements straight. Too much hydrogen, too little hydrogen, too much helium, too little helium, too much Hafnium, too little Hafnium, its all been answered at TalkOrigins.

Helium short answer

Helium long answer

Dr. Dino take on Helium

And TalkOrigins has already infallibly defined the dumb creation-science Helium argument to be bogus.

Phil P

Helium Evidence for A Young World Remains Crystal-Clear

Recently an anti-creationist geochemist, a part-time instructor at the University of Kentucky named Kevin Henke1], posted on the Internet a 25,000-word rejection2] of scientific evidence that the world is only about 6,000 years old, the helium-leak age of zircons (radioactive crystals) from deep underground. In politics, his procedure would be called “mud-slinging,” which in this case tries to bury truth under a mountain of minutiae. I normally don’t reply to Internet posts from skeptics because I want them to try to publish their criticisms in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the proper place to carry out scientific debates. However, in this case I want to take the opportunity to share updated information about our research which will appear later this year in the RATE3] “results” book4] and in the accompanying book for laymen.5] I also plan to submit technical details of this reply to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ). If Henke chooses to sling yet more mud, let him try to do so in a scientific journal. The RATE helium research has been peer-reviewed and published in several different scientific venues. Critics like Henke must gird up their loins and undergo the same kind of scientific discipline—if they want people to take them seriously. If they refuse to do that, I plan not to reply to them further.

First I’ll point out what it is that the skeptics are trying to obscure. Then I will go through Henke’s summary of his criticisms point-by-point. Amazingly, in his entire fifty pages he specifies only two real errors of mine: (a) I misspelled a name in one of my references, and (b) I was not precise enough in my geological description of a rock formation. The only other possibly significant items are (1) a quibble about how much helium should have been deposited in the zircons, and (2) a minor mistake I made (which Henke failed to discover) in summarizing our results. Last I’ll analyze Henke’s tactics and try to plumb his motives.

The Evidence Henke Wants to Hide

more…

 

[Lazerlike42]

PhilVaz:

And TalkOrigins has already infallibly defined the dumb creation-science Helium argument to be bogus.

Phil P

My point exactly. You seem to be being arrogant for one, and I have a hard time buying into something supported almost exclusively by people that come off with an attitude of arrogance. The fact is that plenty of Christians are arrogant about their faith, but plenty aren’t. I’ve yet to see one evolutionist however who doesn’t come off as arrogant.

If you aren’t being arrogant, which is certainly possible, then you truly mean it when you say that the issue of Helium has been proven infallibly. This is my point. We as human beings MUST be able to admit that no matter how sure we are of something scientifically, it’s NEVER infallible. When the Magesterium tells us something, that is the only infallible act a human being can make. That doesn’t mean we ought to ignore science. That simply means that we must always realize that we could be wrong. When people go around calling scientific ideas infallible, that not only goes against God, but that goes against science. I could be wrong, but I was always taught that in science we never call things a fact, we just call them a confirmed theory or something like that.

I think the most important thing posted in this thread so far has been the statement of the Pope:

“we are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

This doesn’t mean he’s gonna go declare evolution wrong, and it doesn’t actually have much weight being delivered in a homily. He is almost certainly simply referring to the fact that we can’t believe in a sort of evolution that makes everything out to be random.

Nevertheless, if I were a strong believer in evolution, that sort of statement would make me a little uncomfortable.,