Science and Religion - Compatabile?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TDC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Carl:
The irony of all this is that it took George LeMaitre, a young Belgian Jesuit and mathematician, to correct Einstein’s equations that falsely led to his view of an infinite and uncreated universe.
Click to expand...
What’s so ironic about someone being a good Catholic and a good scientist?

Maybe if so many Catholics weren’t discouraged from believing in the science of evolution as contrary to the faith, the field wouldn’t be dominated by athiests.
 
Originally Posted by Carl

*The irony of all this is that it took George LeMaitre, a young Belgian Jesuit and mathematician, to correct Einstein’s equations that falsely led to his view of an infinite and uncreated universe. *

CATHOLIC 2003,you said:

“What’s so ironic about someone being a good Catholic and a good scientist?”

I should explain myself.

The irony is not in the fact that one can be a good scientist and a good Catholic. The irony is that no one ever expected Einstein, the great genius of his age, to be corrected by someone who believed literally in Creation as a religious concept.

LeMaitre’s religious beliefs as a Jesuit predisposed him to be amenable to a mathematical equation that did not require “fudging,” which is what the cosmological constant was, as everyone, including Einstein, later admitted. Once LeMaitre eliminated the fudge, everything fell into place and the theory took off with confirmations right and left in the decades ahead. It still seems ironic to me that the dominant mood of atheism among scientists in Einstein’s era was later diminished by one little sentence in Genesis.

“Let there be light!”

Here’s an interesting and eloquent remark on the irony by physicist Robert Jastrow:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
 
I believe they are compatible.

As Albert Einstein stated:

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
 
PhilVaz,

Ok, most leading evolutionary scientists are atheists. I stand corrected.

Now, I’ve been to the talk.orgins website and I really enjoy the cartoons and drawings of whales with legs and reptiles with wings. To be honest however, I find the 29+ evidences of evolution to be suspect in many cases, and downright silly in others. For example, at least one of the fossils of Archeopteryx, on which the hypothesis relies was shown to be an absolute fraud, and the British Museum was totally hood-winked. I prefer to look at http://www.trueorigin.org/.

I’m not certain why you cited the statement on Evolution by John Paul II. He neither confirmed nor denied the truth of the science, but merely observed its participation as a field of scientific inquiry among others. The point of the address was to ensure the inviolable dignity of human beings and the eternal nature of the soul in light of evolutionary hypotheses.

I find Glenn Morton’s article a bit unconvincing. In any event, if human beings died before the Original Sin, then God made junk. Scripture and Tradition confirm that God made everything good. Death comes from a lie that is begotten of the darkness. What is the lie? You can be like God by usurping God’s power. Pride is the Original Sin, not literally eating fruit off trees.

I don’t necessarily accept a young earth or an old earth. I find it ridiculous to assert an old earth belief system simply to sustain a belief that evolution must have taken a very long time.

Science and faith are not the same, as I said, but they cannot lead to conflicting conceptions of reality. So, it is not incorrect to ask what Theistic Evolution has to say about the fact that Mary is the greatest of God’s creation.

I’m not going against the Catechism, the implications of belief in evolution, which include atrocities against humanity such as eugenics, lead one to a fatalistic view of life.

Science does deal in meaning and purpose within its sphere of competency. That which is unknowable by science, such as the moment of creation ought to be left to theology and philosophy.

Just a note: I don’t classify myself as a “creation scientist” because the Bible is not a science textbook and I fully understand that scripture is not entirely literal nor entirely figurative. On the other hand, I find it difficult to develop a faith in a science which is unproven and moreover, has been shown to have serious difficulties when its basic premises are unable to overcome challenges such as irreducible complexity, Haldane’s Dilemma, lack of fossil evidence, etc. Further, if evolution is true, why do its proponents so easily fall victim to hoaxes such as the peppered moth, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and more recently, Archeopteryx?

Finally, I noticed the posts regarding the Big Bang. The Big Bang hypothesis, most prominently put forth by Steven Hawking is totally unknowable by science. To say that God caused it to happen has nothing to do with science. Besides, the Big Bang hypothesis states that by purely natural causes, matter and energy converged on an infinitely small point and then….Bang. Problem is, nothing can traverse an infinity, so the idea is absurd from a scientific standpoint.
 
PART 1

Intr << For example, at least one of the fossils of Archeopteryx, on which the hypothesis relies was shown to be an absolute fraud… >>

There are currently about 8 specimans, they are not all frauds. All detailed here

All About Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx became famous since it was found shortly after Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, and there are both reptilian and avian (bird) characteristics in the specimans, so it is indeed “half-bird, half-reptile.” Sounds like a transitional fossil to me. TrueOrigin.org is primarily a young-earth site in case you didn’t know, so they reject virtually all of modern science (geology, biology, astronomy, physics is all an “absolute fraud” to them). Other examples of transitionals include:

– a quite complete set of dinosaur (reptile)-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps, represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others

– an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-to-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia

From Carroll’s 1988 book Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution:

During the past 20 years, our knowledge of fossil vertebrates has increased immensely. Entirely new groups of jawless fish, sharks, amphibians, and dinosaurs have been discovered, and the major transitions between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and dinosaurs and birds have been thoroughly studied. (Carroll, page xiii preface).

“In the case of the cetaceans [whales] and the perissodactyls [horses], their origin among the condylarths [hoofed animals] has been clearly documented.” (Carroll, page 505)

“Within the genus Elephas, species demonstrate continuous change over a period of 4.5 million years…the elephants provide excellent evidence of significant morphological change within species, through species within genera, and through genera within a family.” (Carroll, 575)

“The early evolution of the artiodactyls [pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc] is fairly well documented by both the dentition and considerable skeletal material and provides the basis for fairly detailed analysis of evolutionary patterns…the origin of nearly all the recognized families can be traced to the late Middle Eocene or the Upper Eocene…” (Carroll, 507)

These are quotations from the Transitional Fossils FAQ I verified myself from Carroll, a leading paleontologist, who you think would know this stuff. This is just the fossil evidence, there’s plenty more in that Theobald article. How much more evidence do you need?

Evidence for Evolution and Old Earth

Phil P
 
PART 2

Intr << I’m not certain why you cited the statement on Evolution by John Paul II. He neither confirmed nor denied the truth of the science… >>

Here is why, in short the Pope himself wrote in 1996 that evolution is “more than a hypothesis” and that a significant argument in favor of the theory is that it has been progressively accepted by researchers following independently conducted scientific work in various fields. Short of “evolution is probably true, folks” I don’t know how much clearer you can get that JPII thinks that God and evolution are compatible.

Intr << I find it ridiculous to assert an old earth belief system simply to sustain a belief that evolution must have taken a very long time. >>

In case you didn’t know, geologists knew the earth was very old well before Darwin, at least millions of years by the early 19th century, and billions after the discovery of radioactivity and isotopes with long half-lives in the early 20th century. The exact 4.5 billion figure was established in the 1950s by C.C. Patterson. All explained below and in Dalrymple in excruciating detail. 😃

Changing views on the history of the earth

Get G. Brent Dalrymple’s book The Age of the Earth (1991,1994).

Intr << Further, if evolution is true, why do its proponents so easily fall victim to hoaxes such as the peppered moth, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and more recently, Archeopteryx? >>

Oops, all this stuff is dealt with in much detail at TalkOrigins. I’ll just provide links

Peppered Moth short answer
Peppered Moth longer answer in reply to Jonathan Wells book Icons

Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

Piltdown Man short answer
Piltdown Man long answer

Intr << To say that God caused it to happen has nothing to do with science. >>

True, but modern cosmology does seem to point to the instance where the universe came into existence (the Big Bang). That’s where Genesis 1 “In the beginning…” enters in. Correct, it is not science to suggest a supernatural Being (God) started it all, that’s where faith starts, and science ends.

Phil P
 
AGNAME

*As Albert Einstein stated:

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”*

Science is lame when it creates armaments sufficient to kill the human race. Religion is blind when it sees no accomodation of Genesis with the theory of evolution.
 
Atheistic scientists will argue that there is no evidence of “Intelligent Design” anywhere in the universe, and that science cannot treat the subject because it is outside the domain of science. On the contrary; “intelligent design” is at the very core of all scientific thought. No scientist can prove anything without “intelligently designing” a proof for his theory. If science itself is full of intelligent design, how can it be said that science can have nothing to do with the idea of Intelligent Design? At least science ought to be able to concede the real possibility of the Thing it is helpless at present to prove.
 
40.png
TDC:
…I was just curious if anyone else had any kind of similar observations or reflections.
Click to expand...
TDC -

Welcome to the club! I studied physics as well at Villanova University in the 80’s and could never understand the conflict between any of the sciences and our Faith.

Heres a great meditation for you to try. Think about Genesis (i.e. “Let there be light…”) and consider the big bang theory which states that the first milliseconds of the Universe consisted of an explosion of…photons, pure energy, light!

There need be no conflict between science and religion if you grant a little poetic license to the interpretation of our Faith…
 
40.png
Carl:
Atheistic scientists will argue that there is no evidence of “Intelligent Design” anywhere in the universe, and that science cannot treat the subject because it is outside the domain of science. On the contrary; “intelligent design” is at the very core of all scientific thought. No scientist can prove anything without “intelligently designing” a proof for his theory. If science itself is full of intelligent design, how can it be said that science can have nothing to do with the idea of Intelligent Design? At least science ought to be able to concede the real possibility of the Thing it is helpless at present to prove.
Click to expand...
Science can do nothing with the theory of intelligent design because it makes no predictions. The links that PhilVaz posted contained plenty of predictions resulting from the theory of evolution, such that if those predictions fail to hold, the theory of evolution can be considered falsified.

What would constitute a falsification of the theory of intelligent design?
 
I would agree with Carl, Intrntsrch and Phil that creation is not, strictly speaking, a natural science; however, it is a supernatural action. I hope we can all agree that God created matter out of nothing; the question then becomes, at what point did His creating stop, and natural processes allowing some variations to take over?

It seems to me that most evolutionists contend that natural processes took over after some primordial “big bang” let matter loose. This implies the creation of living things from inanimate objects, and the subsequent ascent of new beings from previous versions. Or is there some other point that God leaves off creating?

I would contend that God designed and created living beings, allowing for some variations within species. Note that desirable characteristics can be bred in a species only if they already exist in the gene pool.

The main problem comes in that our faith tells us that the human being is made in the image and likeness of God. If man “descended” (or ascended) from some lower life form, what point did God decide the creature was developed enough to get this soul? Only man can sin; lower animals cannot be said to sin. Jesus came into the world as what scientists call *Homo sapiens, *to save us from our sins. It seems that only these creatures have human souls, and God will give each of us that make it to heaven a glorified body that will resemble the same creature. At least four people are known to be in heaven, body and soul (Enoch, Elijah, Jesus, and Mary; possibly Moses, and maybe others), and all of them are Homo sapiens with glorified bodies. This would seem to preclude further “evolution” at least for man.

I think this is at least one area where it is necessary for science to think from a religious perspective. Scientists need to consider life not only from a material perspective, but also the spiritual implications.

OK, have at me. I’ll check out the rocks when I can get back to a computer in about a week and a half…

Pax,

Dean
 
CATHOLIC 2003

“Science can do nothing with the theory of intelligent design because it makes no predictions.”

If the Intelligent Designer predicted a certain event, and the event happened, we would have verification rather than falsification.

“Let there be light.” (Genesis 1)

And the Big Bang occurred. Science verifies the Big Bang, the unleashing of light throughout the early universe.

Then why not deduce an Intelligent Designer?
 
One non-repeatable prediction lies within the realm of religion, not science.

The scientific method has a limited domain, and “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test” (Matthew 4:7) would seem to place God outside that domain.
 
CATHOLIC 2003

“One non-repeatable prediction lies within the realm of religion, not science.”

Not if the prediction deals with an event (the Big Bang) that has occurred, so far as we know, only once (though technically the Bang is still in force with our expanding universe).

“When we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition.” Thomas Jefferson

“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Charles Darwin, from the closing lines of Origin of The Species

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton, Physicist

Pax,
Carl
 
From Apolonio article << The answer is evolution should be taught as long as it does not imply philosophical naturalism/materialism and creationism should not be taught since it mentions God and the problem of God which is a metaphysical problem. >>

Excellent article, which is why I put it up! 😃

I should have made the distinction between “metaphysical” or “philosophical” naturalism and “methodological” naturalism in my earlier post. Dembski explains this in some of his books. I have his Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology published by Intervarsity Press (1999), which is a commentary on his Ph.D. dissertation The Design Inference (1998).

Basically metaphysical or philosophical naturalism/materialism says there is no God (which is atheism), while methodological naturalism/materialism says science deals only with nature or the physical universe by method (the scientific method), it doesn’t deal in God or religion or theology. At least that’s my understanding.

Alvin Plantinga on Methodological Naturalism and arguments for/against

Dembski says methodological naturalism as practiced by most scientists is compatible with theism (belief in God).

The Design Inference Website

Phil Johnson argues that evolutionary scientists such as Richard Dawkins push philosophical or metaphysical naturalism/materialism, and I would agree those scientists who do that are wrong to treat that as “science” or that “atheism” inevitably follows from an acceptance of macroevolution or “common descent.”

Phil P
 
Phil,

It’s very widely known that the Peppered Moth experiment was a hoax. It turns out that the moths were actually glued or pinned to the trees. It was later discovered that peppered moths don’t land on trees anyway. Why do you adhere to this outrageous fraud?

More importantly, IF the peppered moth story is true, why is that evidence for evolution when it only proves variation? (The moths didn’t become hummingbirds). Please give your own answer because I’m convinced you’re probably smarter than the talkorigins people.
 
Intr << More importantly, IF the peppered moth story is true, why is that evidence for evolution when it only proves variation? (The moths didn’t become hummingbirds). Please give your own answer because I’m convinced you’re probably smarter than the talkorigins people. >>

Off the top of my head I can’t give my own answer, since I don’t have the details of that story memorized. I have however printed out the long critique of Jonathan Wells book Icons of Evolution (2000) found on the TalkOrigins site, and was quite convinced by the critique. Wells basically doesn’t know what he’s talking about much of the time.

You said << It’s very widely known that the Peppered Moth experiment was a hoax. >>

First, Kenneth Miller of Brown Univ has a good response –

The Peppered Moth – An Update

SUMMARY: The basic elements of the peppered moth story are quite correct. The population of dark moths rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution, and the percentage of dark moths in the population was clearly highest in regions of the countryside that were most polluted.

Second, from the TalkOrigins critique of Jonathan Wells –

Icons of Obfuscation

The authoritative source for the peppered moth story is Majerus 1998 book Industrial Melanism: Evolution in Action. He has another more recent book just titled Moths (2002).

SUMMARY: Wells makes two claims in his book Icons of Evolution:

(1) Peppered moths don’t rest on tree trunks

On page 148, Wells discusses the natural resting places of peppered moths, under the heading “Peppered moths don’t rest on tree trunks.” But they do, at least sometimes. Here are the relevant datasets, which Wells does not quote or cite for his readers – see diagram HERE and HERE

(2) The peppered moth photographs were “staged”

The point of such photos is not to prove the truth of the ‘classic’ story, it is to illustrate the relative crypsis of moth morphs on different backgrounds. As it turns out, the differences between staged and unstaged photos are minimal. Readers who wish to see unstaged photos of peppered moths are advised to look up Majerus’ Industrial Melanism. Majerus says that all of the peppered moth photos taken by him in the book are unstaged.

There are several photos that show peppered moths on tree trunks, on more-or-less matching backgrounds. These photos look no different than ‘staged’ photos of moths on tree-trunks. The most ‘staged’ aspect about a ‘staged’ photo is that two differing moth forms are shown side-by-side, but Majerus’ photos indicate that even this is not impossible. So the entire photo issue is a mountain made of a molehill.

CONCLUSION: The discussion thus far has shown that Wells’ “most serious objection” to the peppered moth story is completely baseless: first, peppered moths do in fact rest on tree trunks (a significant portion of the time although not the majority of the time, according to Majerus’ data). Second, textbook photos are used to show relative crypsis of moth morphs, not to prove that peppered moths always rest in one section of the trees. And third, Majerus himself has taken unstaged photos of peppered moths on matching tree trunk backgrounds, and these are not significantly different than staged photos; this eviscerates whatever vestige of a point Wells thinks that he has.

===================

The “peppered moth story” is indeed evidence for microevolution (variations within a species). Macroevolution is not simply an extrapolation of microevolution, but is based on other evidence. What about all the evidence for macroevolution in that Theobald article?

My Cliffs Notes version here

You said earlier that Archeopteryx is a “fraud” but that’s not true either. Let’s be honest when we examine the case for evolution, and not rely on “creationist” critiques. An analogy is the Protestant who relies strictly on anti-Catholic fundamentalist sites for their understanding of Catholicism. Go to recognized, authoritative sources: the evolutionist scientists themselves, e.g. biologists, geologists, paleontologists, etc.

Phil P
 
40.png
PilgrimJWT:
…
No less than Thomas Aquinas (I wish I knew the source of the quote) said that truth is one, and that if science seems to contradict revelation it is because we have not correctly understood revelation.
Thanks for submitting such an interesting question!!
Click to expand...
Another point would be that people don’t correctly understand science. It is quite simple for someone to twist the facts to support any position they want. In science it is quite easy. Just interpret the numbers a certain way to support the truth you want. When you present it to someone who doesn’t know what you are talking about, they will nod their heads in agreement to show how smart they are.

Then, out of pride, they won’t argue with you. Nobody likes to look stupid. :o At this point, if someone understands what you have done and tries to point out the flaws in it, you have people to back you up.

In our culture, we tend to think we are the pinnacle of enlightenment; we attribute this to our science. But a lot of science is poorly done, and sticks with us for a long time. Look at what happened when homosexuality was removed from the list of disorders by the American Phsyciatric (sp?) community. Look at all of the “studies” done to try to justify it as a genetically inherited orientation. Look at the fact that the long-term effects of abortion on women are not really understood, and haven’t been studied. And of course, look at evolution. I am not saying that there is not some truth to some of the ideas of evolution. But the idea as it is being taught, is based on some questionable material. I spent one evening reading a variety of material linked from a web page describing a recently published book by Dr. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, and it really gave me pause for thought on everything I remember learning in school. If you read through enough material, you will find how a certain evolution proponent previously mentioned as a good source had defended some of the questionable material with some choice selections of statistics, designed to support his point. Unfortunately, if you read the actual statistics he used, they are not a large enough sample to draw the conclusions he makes. And he won’t even admit that there are problems with his position. He may have some valid points, but just dismissing issues instead of dealing with them is NOT good science.

No science is a servent or a tool of the person using it. If the person is REALLY interested in truth, you have nothing to fear from science (that is what true science is about). But if the person has an agenda, even if it is only to maintain their position in society as a scientist in a specific field, then you should turn and run from it.

BTW, I have a mechanical engineering degree with a focus on information systems and the application of them to engineering problems. I used to do structural analysis of engines. All I had to do (if I had wanted to mislead designers that is) is properly phrase the questions and conditions for the analysis and I could come up with an answer I wanted. In fact, I remember going head-to-head with another engineer who wanted to change the conditions of the analysis to support his position. He had a number of people working multiple shifts to support his design and prove me wrong. Cost a lot of money. Wasted a lot of time. And if I had backed down I could have avoided a lot of personal problems. Everyone would have just followed what he said.

Problem with that was, a lot of engines would have had, as they say a “catastrophic thermal event” (i.e., melted heat shields and a fire under the hood) while some poor soul was driving it.

Just my 2 cents…

Ken
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top