A
AnubistheJackal
Guest
It’s not a scientific assertion. I said it was a generalization from the very beginning.
- Status
T
tomarin
Guest
it’s because there is a tradition within protestantism of interpreting the bible literally without allowing for metaphorical truth. some but not all protestants are literalists. if you are a literalist then your views will inevitably clash with science, because taken literally the biblical creation story is incompatible with what science tells us about the age of the earth and how life got here.
as far as i know this literal approach has always been foreign to the catholic tradition, stretching back as far as the early church fathers, who themselves did not take genesis to be a scientific account of the origin of the universe.
P
Potato1
Guest
Anubisthejackal:
For you abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3385413 If you have followed this story my favorite part is the part about doing a rain dance to wash it away! 
Sounds like someone could give the evangelicals a run for thier money in the science department.
Tomarin: That post was interesting. I would love to read theearly Church Fathers on the Genesis topic you speak of. Where would I look?
For you abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3385413 If you have followed this story my favorite part is the part about doing a rain dance to wash it away! Sounds like someone could give the evangelicals a run for thier money in the science department.Tomarin: That post was interesting. I would love to read theearly Church Fathers on the Genesis topic you speak of. Where would I look?
P
Potato1
Guest
Anubisthejackal:
For you abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3385413 If you have followed this story my favorite part is the part about doing a rain dance to wash it away! Sounds like someone could give the evangelicals a run for thier money in the science department.
Tomarin: That post was interesting. I would love to read theearly Church Fathers on the Genesis topic you speak of. Where would I look?
For you abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3385413 If you have followed this story my favorite part is the part about doing a rain dance to wash it away! Sounds like someone could give the evangelicals a run for thier money in the science department.Tomarin: That post was interesting. I would love to read theearly Church Fathers on the Genesis topic you speak of. Where would I look?
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Rossum’s observation on additional sources of truth, recognized by Catholics, beyond Holy Scripture, is valid (if a bit awkwardly phrased). It touches on a very marked difference in approach between Catholics and Protestants, in particular the sola scriptura Protestants.
Before he was Pope, then-Cardinal Ratzinger once stated that if it was Catholic, it was not stupid, and that if it was stupid, it was not Catholic. Not just in science, but also in philosophy, Catholic though has been much more open to considerations from reason than the referenced Protestant groups. Of course, the content of the Deposit of the Faith is always authoritative, and cannot be set aside because of the meanderings of reason. But it is fully expected of Catholics that they use their collective faculties when they examine and explore the Deposit of the Faith, and also creation itself. Catholics hold that truth is also communicated in the natural law, which can be discerned by an examination of creation itself. It has been my experience that most Protestants either get very upset, or simply have their eyes glaze over, when I mention natural law in a discussion. It’s something they have either left behind, or else have purposefully rejected, and that step, coupled with sola scriptura, can impact on the view taken of science.
There is one point that can cause confusion on casual observation. The Church certainly has nothing against science, but she is unbendingly opposed to scientism, the idea that science is somehow the unique path to knowledge, and if it can’t be determined by science, it really isn’t “knowledge” at all. An uncritical glimpse of that opposition can sometimes give the impression that the Church is somehow anti-science, but she is not.
Blessings,
Gerry
Before he was Pope, then-Cardinal Ratzinger once stated that if it was Catholic, it was not stupid, and that if it was stupid, it was not Catholic. Not just in science, but also in philosophy, Catholic though has been much more open to considerations from reason than the referenced Protestant groups. Of course, the content of the Deposit of the Faith is always authoritative, and cannot be set aside because of the meanderings of reason. But it is fully expected of Catholics that they use their collective faculties when they examine and explore the Deposit of the Faith, and also creation itself. Catholics hold that truth is also communicated in the natural law, which can be discerned by an examination of creation itself. It has been my experience that most Protestants either get very upset, or simply have their eyes glaze over, when I mention natural law in a discussion. It’s something they have either left behind, or else have purposefully rejected, and that step, coupled with sola scriptura, can impact on the view taken of science.
There is one point that can cause confusion on casual observation. The Church certainly has nothing against science, but she is unbendingly opposed to scientism, the idea that science is somehow the unique path to knowledge, and if it can’t be determined by science, it really isn’t “knowledge” at all. An uncritical glimpse of that opposition can sometimes give the impression that the Church is somehow anti-science, but she is not.
Blessings,
Gerry
P
Potato1
Guest
Anubisthejackal:
For you abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3385413 If you have followed this story my favorite part is the part about doing a rain dance to wash it away! Sounds like someone could give the evangelicals a run for thier money in the science department.
Tomarin: That post was interesting. I would love to read theearly Church Fathers on the Genesis topic you speak of. Where would I look?
For you abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3385413 If you have followed this story my favorite part is the part about doing a rain dance to wash it away! Sounds like someone could give the evangelicals a run for thier money in the science department.Tomarin: That post was interesting. I would love to read theearly Church Fathers on the Genesis topic you speak of. Where would I look?
P
Potato1
Guest
Sorry about the multiple postings, computer was frozen.
T
tomarin
Guest
i think i read that reference in a papal encyclical written by pope john paul II on the relationship of science to faith – i’ll do a little research and get back to you.
T
tomarin
Guest
ok, the best i can do on short notice is this excerpt(rc.net/wcc/readings/fathers7.htm) from origen on the non-literalness of certain parts of the bible. i don’t think he mentions genesis by name, but it’s still interesting.
R
rossum
Guest
L
LDNCatholic
Guest
To be fair, even though its all complete nonsense, a lot of England is completely flooded now. Those pagans are probably feeling pretty smug right now.Anubisthejackal:
E
East_Anglican
Guest
The Roman Church knows it made a mistake calling Gallileo a heretic, hence it seperates the two realms of knowledge. Namely theology and science. Galileo was pre-reformation so most protestants don’t feel it was thier mistake as they think the church died after the 2nd century and got resserected at the time of the reformation.
G
garysibio
Guest
You are making an invalid assumption. To you, evolution is science and creation is religion. One need only read a few paragraphs in any Richard Dawkins book to see that he holds to evolution with as much religious fervor as any creationist.
The truth is that neither theory of our origins is scientific. Science is provable; how we got here is not. It’s a matter of history, not science. Even if you could prove that evolution could have happened, you cannot prove that it did. History requires a different type of evidence, specifically, eyewitness evidence and God is the only eyewitness who was around at the time.
You also seem to be mistaken in your view that scientific fact supports evolution. It does not. First, there are still huge gaps in the fossil record despite the fact that we have no shortage of fossils.
Secondly, the methods used to “prove” that the earth is billions of years old are faulty. The potassium-argon test was used on rocks formed from a volcanic eruption in the early 19th century and it gave a reading of billions of years. Evolutionists will object that the test is not applicable to rocks that are that recent and they are correct. However, if the creationists are correct, there are no rocks on this planet that would give an accurate reading; they would all produce false ages.
There are quite a few other problems with evolution as well. Modern discoveries in biochemistry show that evolution is impossible. Take photosynthesis for example. The process could not have evolved because, until it was completed, it wouldn’t work. It would not have been able to provide energy for the plants during the development of the process.
God bless,
Gary
T
tomarin
Guest
i know quite a few paleontologists who would disagree with you on that.
T
Trinity1984
Guest
This thread is about science and yet we have only managed to talk about one thing: Evolution.
I’ve heard a great deal of lament from Roman Catholic people in my life that the church has slowly been drifting toward fully embracing an evolutionary schematic toward human origins and all life in general.
It makes me wonder how many people have seriously thought out the deep theological issues that arise from such an intimate embrace?
Alister McGrath has stated that it is predominantly conservative protestants in North America who have had the most trouble; I would certainly agree with this. I can also completely understand why they do have such a difficult time with it.
If evolution is true, death has always been. Death was not something foreign to the Triune God’s plan of creating life. Death, on the contrary, was an intricate and essential part of actually making His creations perfect. It was impossible for Him to truly create perfectly: He had to wait billions of years, observe hundreds of billions of deaths, to eventually form the creatures He initially wanted.
St. Paul writes in Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.”
The Holy Spirit seems to be saying that prior to the fall of mankind into sin, death was a foreign thing to the world. Either that, or, death was not intended for mankind in general and all other forms of life were to remain subject to death.
Or take the account in Genesis where the first two people are tempted. Adam and Ever are told that if they ate of the tree they would be subject to death. The serpent comes and says, “…surely you won’t die.” Death, once again, seems to be something so foreign to the first humans that the threat of it isn’t even a deterrent.
Surely, in a creation formed by random mutation and evolution through natural selection, death would have been readily observable?
The problem conservative protestants have is preserving the integrity of the fall into sin and the truth of original sin. In an evolutionary schematic these precious truths, in all honesty, are thrown right out of the window.
This is primarily why authors like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennet rely so heavily on evolution and acclaim it with such accolades as being a “universal acid”. As Dennet writes in, “Darwin’s dangerous idea.” “Like universal acid, the theory of evolution eats through just about every traditional religious idea.” Including the religious idea that God is love, created us out of love to have everlasting fellowship with Him, and that we ruined it.
Just my 2 cents.
I’ve heard a great deal of lament from Roman Catholic people in my life that the church has slowly been drifting toward fully embracing an evolutionary schematic toward human origins and all life in general.
It makes me wonder how many people have seriously thought out the deep theological issues that arise from such an intimate embrace?
Alister McGrath has stated that it is predominantly conservative protestants in North America who have had the most trouble; I would certainly agree with this. I can also completely understand why they do have such a difficult time with it.
If evolution is true, death has always been. Death was not something foreign to the Triune God’s plan of creating life. Death, on the contrary, was an intricate and essential part of actually making His creations perfect. It was impossible for Him to truly create perfectly: He had to wait billions of years, observe hundreds of billions of deaths, to eventually form the creatures He initially wanted.
St. Paul writes in Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.”
The Holy Spirit seems to be saying that prior to the fall of mankind into sin, death was a foreign thing to the world. Either that, or, death was not intended for mankind in general and all other forms of life were to remain subject to death.
Or take the account in Genesis where the first two people are tempted. Adam and Ever are told that if they ate of the tree they would be subject to death. The serpent comes and says, “…surely you won’t die.” Death, once again, seems to be something so foreign to the first humans that the threat of it isn’t even a deterrent.
Surely, in a creation formed by random mutation and evolution through natural selection, death would have been readily observable?
The problem conservative protestants have is preserving the integrity of the fall into sin and the truth of original sin. In an evolutionary schematic these precious truths, in all honesty, are thrown right out of the window.
This is primarily why authors like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennet rely so heavily on evolution and acclaim it with such accolades as being a “universal acid”. As Dennet writes in, “Darwin’s dangerous idea.” “Like universal acid, the theory of evolution eats through just about every traditional religious idea.” Including the religious idea that God is love, created us out of love to have everlasting fellowship with Him, and that we ruined it.
Just my 2 cents.
R
ricmat
Guest
The thing that makes mankind unique is our soul, which did not evolve (actually, since it is spiritual, it CANT evolve). Prior to Adam - the first human soul - all death in the world was irrelevant. It is possible that God chose to create Adam via a mechanism of big bang, followed by billions of years of evolution. And a bunch of organisms without souls died. No problem.
Regarding the tree in the garden - it has been postulated that the serpents statement “…surely you won’t die” is actually a threat. In other words, “do what I say (eat the fruit) and you won’t die.” Adam’s sins were not just disobedience. He didn’t call on God when in need (from the Serpent’s threat). And he feared material/physical death more than he feared spiritual death. In this, Adam is like all of us, afraid of physical death, suffering, afraid to give up material things for something greater in the spiritual realm.
I don’t think that evolution is a silver bullet that kills religion (although they are trying very hard).
R
rossum
Guest
Atheism is not science, it is a form of philosophical or even religious belief. Dawkins’ atheism is separate from his science. There are religious scientists who agree with Dawkins’ science and atheist scientists who disagree with Dawkins’ science. If you had read Theodosius Dobzhansky you would see that he held to evolution with just as much fervour as his Christianity.
None of science is provable: “Proof is for mathematics and alcohol, not science.” All scientific theories are replacable by better theories so none of them can be provably true. Was Newton’s gravity provably true? Of course not because it was replaced by Einstein’s General Relativity. Is Einstein provably true? No, because it will eventually be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity. All science can say is “this is the best explanation we have at the moment.”
As I said, no scientific theory is proven. However evolution is certainly the best explanation we have for the diversity of life that we see around us.
As any lawyer will tell you, forensic evidence is more reliable than eye witnesses.
You are incorrect. The huge majority of biologists support evolution as does a mountain of scientific evidence. The case is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. It will never convince those who have unreasonable doubt.
Think for a moment as to why scientists would date rocks from a known volcanic eruption. They were calibrating the method to see if it worked on underwater eruptions (pillow lava). It doesn’t because the lava forms a hard skin trapping the argon gas. Other tests on land erupted lava have confirmed that the method works provided the argon can escape from the lava as it cools. That is the kind of thing that your creationist sources do not tell you. See Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective for more details.
Your source’s lack of knowledge of the subject is showing here. Photosynthesis evolved in bacteria a long time before the first plants. Look up Cyanobacteria. Bacteria have many energy sources besides photosynthesis. Plants only require photosynthesis because they have lost the other energy sources available to bacteria.
rossum
G
garysibio
Guest
I don’t doubt that they would but they would be wrong. You can no more scientifically prove that evolution occurred than you could scientifically prove the Peloponnesian War. You might be able to provide evidence that evolution could have happened but you cannot prove that it did happen. Do you see the difference?
Gary
G
garysibio
Guest
I understand that you can be an evolutionist and (inconsistently) still believe in God. I used to believe that way until, while studying anthropology in college, I took a good look at the facts and had to reject evolution as blatantly impossible. At any rate, theistic evolution is not really evolution. Evolution attributes the universe to random chance. Put God in the process and it’s no longer random. However, that wasn’t my point in mentioning Dawkins. I mentioned him because he is one of the most recent to presume that he can destroy religion.
re: None of science is provable
That’s just plain silly. Of course science is provable. Not only is it provable, it’s repeatable. It’s called the scientific method. Have you ever taken a chemistry class or some other science with lab work? What do you think you were doing in the lab but repeating someone’s proof?
Einstein’s theories did not replace Newton, it supplements him. He built on Newton’s work and refined it for special circumstances. The same is true of quantum physics. It doesn’t replace Einstein but adds to his work.
re: evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life
Not at all. How can randomness produce design? If you found a watch on the sidewalk would you say, “Amazing! All those iron atoms just randomly arranged themselves into just the right order to form a functioning timepiece.” No. Obviously the watch had a designer. The natural world is even more complex by orders of magnitude.This makes it even more ridiculous to attribute it to random chance.
re: The huge majority of biologists support evolution
I never said they didn’t. What I said was that an increasing number of biologists are rejecting evolution. I never used the word majority.
re: radiometric dating
Regardless of what factor led to the incorrect date, how can you prove that a rock of unknown origin wasn’t formed under the same circumstances? You don’t know.
Radiometric dating involves several assumptions which may or may not be true. First, it assumes that the ratio of the radioactive isotope to the non-radioactive isotope has always been the same. It assumes there was no end product in the sample when it was formed. It assumes the rate of decay has always been constant. It assumes that none of the isotope or end product has gotten into or been leached out of the sample.
The fact is that radiometric dating often gives results which geologists, even the evolutionists, find untenable. Most rocks are almost all fossils are dated by the layer of strata in which they were found.
re: Photosynthesis evolved in bacteria a long time before the first plants.
Irrelevant. The fact is that, wherever it developed, photosynthesis could not have developed. It had to appear all at once otherwise it wouldn’t work and the organism which depended on it would have starved to death rather than reproduce. Photosynthesis is an incredible complicated process. If I remember right, there are some forty steps in the process. The odds that it could have suddenly appeared in the biota, regardless of where that was,
are ridiculously small, small enough to safely say that it would be impossible. And remember, photosynthesis is just one of many such complicated processes which need to be present to support life. Get a copy of Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe.
Gary
re: None of science is provable
That’s just plain silly. Of course science is provable. Not only is it provable, it’s repeatable. It’s called the scientific method. Have you ever taken a chemistry class or some other science with lab work? What do you think you were doing in the lab but repeating someone’s proof?
Einstein’s theories did not replace Newton, it supplements him. He built on Newton’s work and refined it for special circumstances. The same is true of quantum physics. It doesn’t replace Einstein but adds to his work.
re: evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life
Not at all. How can randomness produce design? If you found a watch on the sidewalk would you say, “Amazing! All those iron atoms just randomly arranged themselves into just the right order to form a functioning timepiece.” No. Obviously the watch had a designer. The natural world is even more complex by orders of magnitude.This makes it even more ridiculous to attribute it to random chance.
re: The huge majority of biologists support evolution
I never said they didn’t. What I said was that an increasing number of biologists are rejecting evolution. I never used the word majority.
re: radiometric dating
Regardless of what factor led to the incorrect date, how can you prove that a rock of unknown origin wasn’t formed under the same circumstances? You don’t know.
Radiometric dating involves several assumptions which may or may not be true. First, it assumes that the ratio of the radioactive isotope to the non-radioactive isotope has always been the same. It assumes there was no end product in the sample when it was formed. It assumes the rate of decay has always been constant. It assumes that none of the isotope or end product has gotten into or been leached out of the sample.
The fact is that radiometric dating often gives results which geologists, even the evolutionists, find untenable. Most rocks are almost all fossils are dated by the layer of strata in which they were found.
re: Photosynthesis evolved in bacteria a long time before the first plants.
Irrelevant. The fact is that, wherever it developed, photosynthesis could not have developed. It had to appear all at once otherwise it wouldn’t work and the organism which depended on it would have starved to death rather than reproduce. Photosynthesis is an incredible complicated process. If I remember right, there are some forty steps in the process. The odds that it could have suddenly appeared in the biota, regardless of where that was,
are ridiculously small, small enough to safely say that it would be impossible. And remember, photosynthesis is just one of many such complicated processes which need to be present to support life. Get a copy of Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe.
Gary
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Being a life scientist (population genetics) myself, I think the conclusion that one cannot both believe in God, and have a place for evolution is somewhat extreme.
The problems that arise do so when too much is ascribed to the effects of evolution. The theory explains some observaitons, but other observations certainly call its applicability to many situations into question. And coupling it with “natural selection” to form the be-all and end-all and God-eliminating explanation for what has happened is a philosophical, not a scientific, step. (I happen to think it’s bad philosophy.)
Evolution would be not nearly so controversial if it were seen to be, and handled according to the rules, of scientific theories.
Blessings,
Gerry
The problems that arise do so when too much is ascribed to the effects of evolution. The theory explains some observaitons, but other observations certainly call its applicability to many situations into question. And coupling it with “natural selection” to form the be-all and end-all and God-eliminating explanation for what has happened is a philosophical, not a scientific, step. (I happen to think it’s bad philosophy.)
Evolution would be not nearly so controversial if it were seen to be, and handled according to the rules, of scientific theories.
Blessings,
Gerry
- Status