Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

[L.Kraiger]

Oh, and if you are under the false impression that intelligent people and scientists MUST believe in atheistic evolution, try reading about this guy. He just so happens to have been the lead scientist for the Human Genome Project and yep…he’s a Christian too.

Interestingly enough, he’s also an outspoken evolutionary biologist, as you would have found out had you read the article in its entirety OR read Dr. Collins’ book The Language of God which devotes nearly half its pages to the validity of evolution.

…and I’ve thoroughly researched the subject.

Indeed.

 

[BrownR]

Interestingly enough, he’s also an outspoken evolutionary biologist, as you would have found out had you read the article in its entirety OR read Dr. Collins’ book The Language of God which devotes nearly half its pages to the validity of evolution.

I would encourage you to pay closer attention to my earlier posts. Here is a snippet…

Oh, and if you are under the false impression that intelligent people and scientists MUST believe in atheistic evolution, try reading about this guy. He just so happens to have been the lead scientist for the Human Genome Project and yep…he’s a Christian too.

Notice that I said “atheistic evolution” which would clearly distinguish itself from “theistic evolution”. Dr. Collins is a theistic evolutionist. Where he and I would disagree would be in regards to Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is extremely similar to theistic evolution but allows for “supernatural events” in the course of biological evolution. Theistic evolution does not allow for supernatural events but still purports God to be the designer behind the evolutionary process as a means to create all life on earth. The context of most evolutionary texts is to remove deism and the supernatural from the science of origins. *My purpose in mentioning him is to prove that there are some very intelligent scientists on the forefront of evolutionary science (genetics in this case) that are very strong Christians and theists. *

My problems with him and his book in particular is that he does not spend much time mentioning or exploring many of the gaping holes I’ve mentioned in neo-Darwinistic theory such as the handful that I illustrated earlier. Why does he not take time to discuss them in his book? Because few scientists have a cogent explanation for many of them at this point in time. He simply assumes that science will discover an answer at some point, but that this does not discount his theistic evolutionary belief in God. I would argue that the holes are sufficiently large to allow the plausibility of supernatural events. Also, some of his arguments for the belief in God are very similar to C.S. Lewis’ arguments which veer into the realms of morality, ethics, conscience, and behaviorism. He becomes unable to explain some of the observances in man within these contexts and attributes it to the supernatural design (insert manipulation) by God. So, my problem would be that if he can adhere to a theistic evolutionary model without supernatural intervention, yet allows for supernatural intervention within other contexts of man’s evolution, then there seems to be a clear incongruity in my mind. In his defense I don’t know that he’s overtly said those words exactly, but I’ve picked up the insinuations by reading his work.

The major point I’m making is that there are problems within neo-Darwinism (atheistic), just as there are problems with young Creationism (which doesn’t deserve to be in schools, but I don’t think I said it did…), just as there are problems (and solutions) with Intelligent Design. My “beef” so to speak is that I think all the major accepted theories should be included or touched on within textbooks instead of choosing one that has some pretty big holes, and just skipping over or explaining away the holes with “gap” theories that have little to no evidence to support them. My other problem is that most, if not all, evolution taught in schools is within an atheistic context and I think this impresses on youth the erroneous assumption that theism/deism is incompatible with science. I hope I’ve made myself clear.

If you’d like to discuss or disagree with some of my opinions then feel free as I enjoy an intelligent debate, and am by no means an expert, but don’t insult me.

Oh, and I’m NOT a young Creationist if you haven’t gathered that much by now.

 

[L.Kraiger]

Fair point in using Dr. Collins as an example of a theistic evolutionist. But two things: 1) While there may be gaps in the theory (which isn’t to say that those gaps won’t be filled, such as some perceived “gaps” in the fossil record have been in the past), Dr. Collins, along with the vast majority of scientists, hold the opinion that the evidence FOR the theory far overshadows gaps that may be only temporary.
and
2) If there were substantial gaps, don’t you think there would have been a scientist by now that would’ve taken the chance to overthrow one of the most widely held beliefs in the scientific world? Competition for any discovery/proof/disproof is absolutely cut throat in the scientific world. If these “gaps” that supposedly cast the theory in a suspicious light are obvious enough to be noticed by non-scientists, don’t you think a well educated research scientist would have published a paper on the issue by now? And don’t you think that article would create incredible world attention to that scientist, which is exactly what researchers strive for? The fact is, if there was enough evidence to even cast a shadow of a doubt on evolution, it would have been well reported.

My “beef” so to speak is that I think all the major accepted theories should be included or touched on within textbooks instead of choosing one that has some pretty big holes, and just skipping over or explaining away the holes with “gap” theories that have little to no evidence to support them.

All the major theories concerning the origin of life (the Big Bang and evolution, mainly) ARE included in the textbooks. What many fail to realize is that, as mentioned before, Intelligent Design is not, and never will be, a scientific theory. Remember that a scientific theory has been very well substantiated by evidence. Intelligent Design is more like what a scientist would call a hypothesis rather than a theory.

What I don’t understand is this: If people think that evolution should not be taught because it is a “theory”, or should be taught alongside other “theories”, why isn’t there an uproar about Atomic theory, or gravitational theory, or quantum theory, or the theory of general relativity, or music theory, for that matter, being taught as fact in schools?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

1. If there were substantial gaps, don’t you think there would have been a scientist by now that would’ve taken the chance to overthrow one of the most widely held beliefs in the scientific world??

You did hear about the threats that happened to the climatologists who spoke out against global warming, right? Who wants to be savaged over a theory (evo) that is neither provable or disprovable?

This ain’t like gravity where an einsteinian view can overturn a long accepted newtonian view by measurable calculation. These evo followers are a lotta folks with a lotta passion lookin at some bones and things happening X number of years ago and perhaps in many instances trying to justify atheism in the classroom wedged in by evolutionary theory and an offhand comment about how close we are to discovering abiogenesis.

or maybe I’m just a nut worried about nothing but the moral formation of our country’s children.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

.

What I don’t understand is this: If people think that evolution should not be taught because it is a “theory”, or should be taught alongside other “theories”, why isn’t there an uproar about Atomic theory, or gravitational theory, or quantum theory, or the theory of general relativity, or music theory, for that matter, being taught as fact in schools?

Because evo theory implies to the person without a spiritual background (which is not given in public school) that God is superfluous since all physical manifestation can occur via evo and abiogenesis.

It also defines man as animal which leads of course to man’s inhumanity to man by denying him his unique value.

 

[joeferrari15]

This ain’t like gravity where an einsteinian view can overturn a long accepted newtonian view by measurable calculation.

Not necessarily. A well thought out hypothesis that gives another view on the subject of the origin of species that is even more elegant and easily measured and observed, and makes scientific sense, could absolutely overturn evolutionary theory.

These evo followers are a lotta folks with a lotta passion lookin at some bones and things happening X number of years ago

If the evidence is so shaky, how did Darwin manage to convince a crowd that was almost entirely against any hypothesis other than the young earth divine creation as stated in Genesis?

…and perhaps in many instances trying to justify atheism in the classroom wedged in by evolutionary theory…

You will never hear atheism taught by a respectable scientist as science, nor will you ever hear religion taught as science. Science, by nature (no pun intended) deals with the natural. Religion deals with the supernatural. Science cannot, never has, never will prove or disprove religion, because it simply doesn’t deal with that realm.

…an offhand comment about how close we are to discovering abiogenesis…

Ha! We are close indeed. Heck, we’ve even found out that the basic molecules of life can come together in an environment much like that of a few hundred million years ago. That doesn’t sound at all like close. But evolution doesn’t beg abiogenesis as much as Cell Theory (all cells come from existing cells), which is generally not taught in conjunction with evolution.

So another question: Does the field of embryology, having basically mapped out biologically and chemically how it is that a sperm and an egg come together to form a human, threaten you like evolution does? After all, it seems like these advances basically take God out of the situation, something that we know as theists is incorrect. Would you support basic embryology being taught in public schools? Why or why not?

It also defines man as animal which leads of course to man’s inhumanity to man by denying him his unique value.

That’s the field of taxonomy, not evolution ( I realize that these two subjects are intrinsically linked. Nevertheless, evolution does not define man as an animal, as taxonomy does). This field deals with physiology (obviously). Do you think that humans are special because of our physical makeup? Or do you think that we are human because we have a conscience?

 

[BrownR]

Dr. Collins, along with the vast majority of scientists, hold the opinion that the evidence FOR the theory far overshadows gaps that may be only temporary.

I think you might be confused in assuming that I’m somehow arguing against the existence of evolutionary science within any context. I’m doing nothing of the sort. Please read my posts again. I would also invite you to do a little more research on evolutionary science. I’ve alluded to “gradualism” and neo-Darwinism, within difference contexts and they all present a particular perspective on “evolution science”. I think you are lumping all of them under one umbrella and missing some of the subtle points of my argument.

If there were substantial gaps, don’t you think there would have been a scientist by now that would’ve taken the chance to overthrow one of the most widely held beliefs in the scientific world?

I’m really glad you asked this because you are a perfect example of my earlier point. The masses in general just accept what is offered to them, without doing any research on their own to validate the information. They forget that even textbooks and scientists have agendas. As for not believing that there are any problems with gap theories, I invite you to do some personal research. You’ll find a plethora of information on the subject. The topics are very much alive and actively discussed within the scientific community. If nD was so fool proof, it would be rather silly for scientists to write and publish books exploring some of the holes and inconsistencies, no? Here’s one example of such a book out of many. Good book albeit with a few flaws.

Remember that a scientific theory has been very well substantiated by evidence. Intelligent Design is more like what a scientist would call a hypothesis rather than a theory.

What I don’t understand is this: If people think that evolution should not be taught because it is a “theory”, or should be taught alongside other “theories”, why isn’t there an uproar about Atomic theory, or gravitational theory, or quantum theory, or the theory of general relativity, or music theory, for that matter, being taught as fact in schools?

You are missing the picture. The scientific theories you mentioned can all be strengthened by empirical experimentation, mathematics and observation (scientific method). You can’t run empirical experiments on evolution within a lab. There are no mathematical models to work with for the most part when trying to explain certain things in darwinism. It would be like me thrusting “superstring theories” of the universe into textbooks as “proven and true” without enough evidence to make the full case.

Regardless of what you might think, it is impossible to explain the origins of the universe and life as we know it in a purely atheistic evolutionary perspective. That’s not only my personal opinion, but almost half of all the scientists in the world. ~40+%

I think Dr. Collins himself says it best:

[the Big Bang] “cries out for a divine explanation. … I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that.”

If only we could include a few of those comments by top leading scientists in a handful of our textbooks.

 

[BrownR]

Ha! We are close indeed. Heck, we’ve even found out that the basic molecules of life can come together in an environment much like that of a few hundred million years ago.

I’m not sure if you’re mentioning Stanley Miller’s “primordial soup” experiment from the 50’s or not but that was largely criticized and discounted for various reasons. He attempted it again correctly in the 80’s with no success. There is a Dr. Bada that recently tried a version of it again with some small success in creating a few amino acids, but this would still be a far cry from creating “the basic molecules of life coming together” as you said. Also, Bada’s experiment still hasn’t been properly evaluated.

 

[BrownR]

Do you guys think that we are still feeling the after effects of the Galileo controversy? Do you think that this gave the false impression to the world that the Church, faith and science are at war with each other? I sometimes wonder if the false assumption of incompatibility between faith and science is a result of atheistic influences among scientists or if it’s somehow a result of the Galileo affair. What do you think?

 

[paarsurrey]

However, I absolutely believe that all things were created by an Intelligent Designer.

Hi
I also agree with you.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam, bridging gaps between faiths/denomination/religions

 

[joeferrari15]

Regardless of what you might think, it is impossible to explain the origins of the universe and life as we know it in a purely atheistic evolutionary perspective. That’s not only my personal opinion, but almost half of all the scientists in the world. ~40+%

I 100% agree with you.

Originally Posted by joeferrari15 View Post
Ha! We are close indeed. Heck, we’ve even found out that the basic molecules of life can come together in an environment much like that of a few hundred million years ago.
I’m not sure if you’re mentioning Stanley Miller’s “primordial soup” experiment from the 50’s or not but that was largely criticized and discounted for various reasons. He attempted it again correctly in the 80’s with no success. There is a Dr. Bada that recently tried a version of it again with some small success in creating a few amino acids, but this would still be a far cry from creating “the basic molecules of life coming together” as you said. Also, Bada’s experiment still hasn’t been properly evaluated.

Sarcasm. Tough to convey using type.

I’m really glad you asked this because you are a perfect example of my earlier point. The masses in general just accept what is offered to them, without doing any research on their own to validate the information. They forget that even textbooks and scientists have agendas.

I am aware that scientists have agendas. But every scientist dreams of overturning some ancient (I realize that Darwinian evolution is anything but ancient), widely held belief. If scientists thought that there was such a problem with evolution (I’m grouping), someone would have spoken up by now.

But wait!

I find it humorous how neo-Darwinistic theory is purported to provide us with “scientifically plausible” theories, yet a theory of Intelligent Design or creation through an evolutionary process is not “empirical” enough.

See, this sounds a lot like what I personally believe, as well as what Dr. Collins believes: God has created mankind using evolution. Is this an accurate statement of your opinion?

 

[BrownR]

See, this sounds a lot like what I personally believe, as well as what Dr. Collins believes: God has created mankind using evolution. Is this an accurate statement of your opinion?

Yes, I think He definitely used evolution within a certain context to facilitate the creation of mankind. Personally, I’m somewhere in the middle between the ID and TE camps. With the current data that we have at our disposal, I find too many “supernatural” occurrences that defy the laws of science as we understand them. Regardless though, I think both TE and ID are completely compatible with Christianity.

 

[joeferrari15]

Yes, I think He definitely used evolution within a certain context to facilitate the creation of mankind. Personally, I’m somewhere in the middle between the ID and TE camps. With the current data that we have at our disposal, I find too many “supernatural” occurrences that defy the laws of science as we understand them. Regardless though, I think both TE and ID are completely compatible with Christianity.

Right-o, then.

 

[the_phoenix]

Regarding the OP’s thread title, “Pope says science too narrow to explain creation” …

Pope Benedict XVI must have read G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy.”

~~ the phoenix

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

You will never hear atheism taught by a respectable scientist as science, nor will you ever hear religion taught as science. Science, by nature (no pun intended) deals with the natural. Religion deals with the supernatural. Science cannot, never has, never will prove or disprove religion, because it simply doesn’t deal with that realm.

Human beings are fallen with agendas and ego. Teachers in the classroom are hitting on students these days. You don’t think the contempt atheists express for religion will not work its way through evolution class which is their prooftext?

Look if you promise to teach all the kids, I’m okay with it. Otherwise, leave it for college. It provides zero life skills other than as a clumsy metaphor or excuse to treat your fellow man as a tool or worse, a beast.

and people wonder why abortion is so accepted