Motives of anti-Creationists

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joyousguard said:
“Ascetics, as a branch of theology, may be briefly defined as the scientific exposition of Christian asceticism.” (newadvent.org/cathen/14613a.htm) Just one such example.
Click to expand...
Give me one example of a hypothesis-experiment-conclusion cycle in any branch of theology. Just one, and I’ll eat my words.
“For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”
Click to expand...
Easily worked around by Catholics with the idea of the special endowment of rational souls to Adam and Eve – which position, however admirable an attempt to reconcile myth and science, is not scientific and should not be taught as such. Original sin is not something a scientist can theorize about or experiment upon. That’s the bailiwick of the philosophers and theologians.
 
Mirdath said:
Original sin is not something a scientist can theorize about or experiment upon.
Click to expand...
You could do a survey of all cultures to see if all have a concept of morals. You could also see whether accusations of acting against the moral code were made frequently or rarely.

You could also try to see if chimpanzees have anything analgous.

It might throw a lot of light on “original sin”.#
 
Malcolm_McLean said:
You could do a survey of all cultures to see if all have a concept of morals. You could also see whether accusations of acting against the moral code were made frequently or rarely.

You could also try to see if chimpanzees have anything analgous.

It might throw a lot of light on “original sin”.#
Click to expand...
Sure, sociology will give you the answers to ‘what’ and perhaps ‘how’ – but ‘why’ is the domain of philosophy and ethics. And the idea of original sin is very much an attempt to explain the ‘why’.
 
Orogeny said:
.Behe? You mean the guy who admitted that in order to justify ID as science, he had to change the definition of science so much that even astrology would be considered a science?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t astrology be a science under Ken Miller’s definition:
*Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from confirmable data, the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science.*Astrology involves empirical observations and someone making inferences as such, and based on Miller’s definition here, could one not reasonably say it is science. This is a rhetorical question.
Orogeny said:
Your perception that they are condescending is a personal feeling you have because they were victorious and you support the losing side.
Click to expand...
If you don’t accept my analysis of Barbara Forest’s words and attitudes, then please don’t analyze mine to suit your own biases. 🤷
 
Mirdath said:
Give me one example of a hypothesis-experiment-conclusion cycle in any branch of theology. Just one, and I’ll eat my words.
Click to expand...
You are talking about the “Physical Sciences” which are a sub category of Science. The physical sciences make good use of the (physical) scientific method. In recent years the definition of a science as an organized body of knowledge has apparently been lost. The study of “words” is strictly speaking a science, but I don’t think eating them would provide much nourishment. I suppose that such studies could be said to nourish the mind.

There was a time of course in the history of the physical sciences when theology and philosophy entered into the laboratory. However that period has long passed. I would repeat that the Science of Theology, the Queen of Sciences, has no place in a physical science classroom. I am thinking that this thread has gone off topic as we are no longer dealing with motivation; perhaps because the motives of individuals are often relatively unfathomable 🤷
 
rwoehmke said:
You are talking about the “Physical Sciences” which are a sub category of Science. The physical sciences make good use of the (physical) scientific method. In recent years the definition of a science as an organized body of knowledge has apparently been lost. The study of “words” is strictly speaking a science, but I don’t think eating them would provide much nourishment. I suppose that such studies could be said to nourish the mind.
Click to expand...
Physical and social both. Solid empirical observation is necessary for the application of the scientific method, and that’s a little lacking in theology and philosophy.
There was a time of course in the history of the physical sciences when theology and philosophy entered into the laboratory. However that period has long passed.
Click to expand...
While I think them fascinating, I would call alchemy and other such disciplines protosciences.
 
“Not good for Catholicism to promote “their” beliefs? Excuse me? Guilt by association? We are not talking about Catholics becoming Baptists or Muslims.”

Ed, outside the US you will be hard pressed to find a Catholic, not even a pious nun or monk (or the Pope btw) that belives in a literal 6 days creation. Believe me. Theistic Evolution is the position of most Catholics world wide.
Only american style fund protestants or muslims insist in Creationism in the classrooms. Is a fact.
No one else whats it.
 
The world isn’t 6 to 12,000 years old, no matter how many ways you try to spin it. Almost every field of science testifies that it’s quite old. It just can’t be argued against.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Astrology involves empirical observations and someone making inferences as such, and based on Miller’s definition here, could one not reasonably say it is science. This is a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...
Originally it was. Astronomical observations made for the purposes of magic and divination were the cornerstone of ancient natural philosophy.

As science progresses some theories are discarded. Astrologers usually believed in synchrony - that which happened in the heavens above was reflected in events below. We no longer think that the world works like this. So there is now no plausible mechanism, and the predictions made by astrologers seem to be no better than chance. So the idea has been abandoned.
 
inthecloud said:
“Not good for Catholicism to promote “their” beliefs? Excuse me? Guilt by association? We are not talking about Catholics becoming Baptists or Muslims.”

Ed, outside the US you will be hard pressed to find a Catholic, not even a pious nun or monk (or the Pope btw) that belives in a literal 6 days creation. Believe me. Theistic Evolution is the position of most Catholics world wide.
Only american style fund protestants or muslims insist in Creationism in the classrooms. Is a fact.
No one else whats it.
Click to expand...
Traditionalist Catholics, like myself, around the world do believe in Creationism.

However, “theistic evolution” is what many alleged Catholics around the world believe. This is modernism. Evolutionism is a plague that should be stamped out from the Christian ranks.
 
DylanO said:
Traditionalist Catholics, like myself, around the world do believe in Creationism.

However, “theistic evolution” is what many alleged Catholics around the world believe. This is modernism. Evolutionism is a plague that should be stamped out from the Christian ranks.
Click to expand...
and do you also believe that the universe is 10,000 years old, even though any fool with a telescope and the known speed of light could prove otherwise?
 
DylanO said:
Traditionalist Catholics, like myself, around the world do believe in Creationism.

However, “theistic evolution” is what many alleged Catholics around the world believe. This is modernism. Evolutionism is a plague that should be stamped out from the Christian ranks.
Click to expand...
*Alleged *Catholics? Care to elaborate?

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
*Alleged *Catholics? Care to elaborate?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
You know, alleged. Like the past couple Popes, virtually all of the Church’s theologians, the vast bulk of the Church – lay and clergy alike. Those alleged Catholics.
 
TMC said:
You know, alleged. Like the past couple Popes, virtually all of the Church’s theologians, the vast bulk of the Church – lay and clergy alike. Those alleged Catholics.
Click to expand...
Being a traditionalist I consider John XXII - Benedict XVI heretical anti-popes. They are false prophets and have usurped the chair of St. Peter. In other words, I’m a sedevacantist. That is what I mean by ‘alleged’ Catholics.
 
cynic said:
and do you also believe that the universe is 10,000 years old, even though any fool with a telescope and the known speed of light could prove otherwise?
Click to expand...
known speed of light - that is the key area. It may be shown that light speed is slowing.
 
DylanO said:
Being a traditionalist I consider John XXII - Benedict XVI heretical anti-popes. They are false prophets and have usurped the chair of St. Peter. In other words, I’m a sedevacantist. That is what I mean by ‘alleged’ Catholics.
Click to expand...
Since you admit you are in schism from the Church, why do you come onto this forum and present your beliefs as the teaching of the Church? I wouldn’t come to your church, pretend to be a member, and proceed to try to mislead and confuse by presenting my ideas. Why do you do that here? I have no problem with you coming here and arguing anything you want. Why pretend its the teaching of the Church when you obviously know it is not?
 
DylanO said:
Traditionalist Catholics, like myself, around the world do believe in Creationism.

However, “theistic evolution” is what many alleged Catholics around the world believe. This is modernism. Evolutionism is a plague that should be stamped out from the Christian ranks.
Click to expand...
Why are you here? Ed was about to adopt you as his new creation proponent, but I think your stance will cause him to back off now. How does one live with a split brain?
 
buffalo said:
known speed of light - that is the key area. It may be shown that light speed is slowing.
Click to expand...
Buffalo could you give me a cite to a reputable scientific site that says this? Not one of your usual somebody giving their interpretation of what someone else says or thinks?

This would be way new to me… I thought the speed of light was a scientific constant. I most assuredly may be wrong, I am no scientist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top