The Bible and Science

[Hans_W]

Good idea! Why read something that challenges what you believe?

And never waiver from your pre-conceived conclusion, even if there might be facts that disagree with it. That’s the new scientific method!

Unfortunately, when I was in school long ago, I was taught to go where the evidence leads, even if it leads away from what I thought might be true. That’s the old scientific method.

It was in the 1770s when a group of geologists (a very young science in those days) went out to prove that the earth was 6000 years old and look for evidence that the geological formations were created by the Flood 4000 years ago. There were all Young Earth creationists. Years later they came back with the conclusion that the earth must be millions of years old. Do you want to turn the clock back 250 years?

Please let’s not have a 4.6-billion-years vs 6000-years discussion here.

 

[Hans_W]

This discussion is getting ridiculous.

Please look up Fr Robert Barron on YouTube. He has lots of short videos on matters of faith and science. You can be assured that he doesn’t contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The Church doesn’t prescribe to you what you believe about the natural world, as long as you believe that God created it. You can be a YE creationist, but please don’t criticise people who accept Theistic evolution and all other modern science.

 

[Larry1700]

It was in the 1770s when a group of geologists (a very young science in those days) went out to prove that the earth was 6000 years old and look for evidence that the geological formations were created by the Flood 4000 years ago. There were all Young Earth creationists. Years later they came back with the conclusion that the earth must be millions of years old. Do you want to turn the clock back 250 years?

Please let’s not have a 4.6-billion-years vs 6000-years discussion here.

I was responding to your post in which you said, “Please, let’s not waste our time by reading articles from **creation **websites!!” (Emphasis mine.) I guess you didn’t want to waste your time clarifying that you only opposed young-Earth creationist websites.

 

[Hans_W]

I was responding to your post in which you said, “Please, let’s not waste our time by reading articles from **creation **websites!!” (Emphasis mine.) I guess you didn’t want to waste your time clarifying that you only opposed young-Earth creationist websites.

You are very welcome to believe in a 6,000-year-old universe. The Catholic Church doesn’t oppose this belief. If you believe that this belief is True, then the onus is on you to provide evidence.

 

[Larry1700]

You are very welcome to believe in a 6,000-year-old universe. The Catholic Church doesn’t oppose this belief. If you believe that this belief is True, then the onus is on you to provide evidence.

Nothing in my post suggested that I believe in a 6,000 year old universe. You’re assuming that.

HOWEVER…
Just as there is compelling evidence to suggest evolution and an old earth, there is compelling evidence to suggest a created Adam & Eve, a flood, and a younger earth than is currently posited and assumed by the secular community. Unfortunately, the evidence is only found on sites which posit such things, so you have to visit those sites to see it (duh!).

Here is only one article of many, many scientifically-based articles and videos which point to the possibility of a young earth: icr.org/article/7874

As you say, the Catholic Church does not require us to believe in a young earth. I don’t know if I do or don’t. I’ll admit that I would love to see conclusive evidence that proves the six-day creation, and the 6,000 year old history as indicated in the Bible. But, I also am someone who needs some pretty danged conclusive evidence. (Heck, it took me 20 years after my marriage to my Catholic wife to become fully convinced that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ, etc., etc., etc. I did 3 years of hard-core reading–encyclicals, apologetics, etc., for several hours a day, before becoming “fully Catholic.”) As for now, I’m only in the “Hmmm, that’s interesting” arena as regards the evidence for a literal interpretation of Genesis. I’m currently open-minded both ways.

The point I am trying to make is, there are folks with science degrees who provide a great deal of evidence about creation, the flood and a young-earth, and it should be quite obvious to anyone that the only place you would find such material is on a creationist-oriented website. So, again, to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit a pre-conceived conclusion is not true science. Sure, some of it is pseudo-science, but you’ll find the same thing in non-creation/evolution-oriented circles.

I strongly, strongly, encourage you to watch Ben Stein’s movie, “Expelled,” which clearly demonstrates how creation-oriented scientists and teachers are systematically pushed out of the mainstream. One of the root beliefs of Communism is that there is no God, and that the State is supremely responsible for our dignity and well-being. Quieting anyone who dissents from that view is a major goal of progressivism. Quelling debate about creation, evolution, etc., is not education, it is indoctrination.

 

[Hans_W]

Nothing in my post suggested that I believe in a 6,000 year old universe. You’re assuming that.

HOWEVER…
Just as there is compelling evidence to suggest evolution and an old earth, there is compelling evidence to suggest a created Adam & Eve, a flood, and a younger earth than is currently posited and assumed by the secular community. Unfortunately, the evidence is only found on sites which posit such things, so you have to visit those sites to see it (duh!).

Here is only one article of many, many scientifically-based articles and videos which point to the possibility of a young earth: icr.org/article/7874

As you say, the Catholic Church does not require us to believe in a young earth. I don’t know if I do or don’t. I’ll admit that I would love to see conclusive evidence that proves the six-day creation, and the 6,000 year old history as indicated in the Bible. But, I also am someone who needs some pretty danged conclusive evidence. Heck, it took me 20 years after my marriage to my Catholic wife to become fully convinced that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ, etc., etc., etc. I did 3 years of hard-core reading, hours a day. Encyclicals, apologetics, etc. As for now, I’m only in the “Hmmm, that’s interesting” arena as regards such evidence. I’m currently open-minded both ways.

The point I am trying to make is, there are folks with science degrees who provide a great deal of evidence about creation, the flood and a young-earth, and it should be quite obvious to anyone that the only place you would find such material is on a creationist-oriented website. So, again, to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit a pre-conceived conclusion is not true science. Sure, some of it is pseudo-science, but you’ll find the same thing in non-creation/evolution-oriented circles.

I strongly, strongly, encourage you to watch Ben Stein’s movie, “Expelled,” which clearly demonstrates how creation-oriented scientists and teachers are systematically pushed out of the mainstream. One of the root beliefs of Communism is that there is no God, and that the State is supremely responsible for our dignity and well-being. Quieting anyone who dissents from that view is a major goal of progressivism. Quelling debate about creation, evolution, etc., is not education, it is indoctrination.

I am familiar with Ben Stein’s movie. Let me assure you (I know that’s not possible because you are a sceptic, which is good) that this is very twisted and to a great extent false information. I started with a philosophy thesis on Intelligent Design some time ago, but stopped half-way through because it is nonsense from a scientific point and the philosophical arguments have been refuted long ago. I am currently busy on another philosophy thesis on the topic of science and religion.

The problem is that the attacks on creationism and ID most often come from atheists. Richard Dawkins is the darling of the creationist side and he does his best to underline the perception of science = evolution = atheism. But this is wrong!!!

The problem with the internet is that you can find lots of “evidence” for any belief. Let me assure you that there is not a single serious biologist who denies evolution (and I can name you a dozen Christian ones).

There is not a single serious geologist and palaeontologist who will deny that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. And you won’t find a cosmologist who doesn’t believe that the universe is 13.6 billion years old. Many are Christians.

There are crackpots. I have a book by Frank Tipler, a reputable physicist, in which he attempts to prove the resurrection of Christ through “electroweak quantum tunnelling, which violates baryon number and lepton number conservation …”. I have a whole pile of creation science and ID books. I have studied this controversy in great detail.

If you are not sure and want to know more, then I recommend you listen to reputable theologians and see what they have to say. Many of them write books on the topic of science and religion for the general public. I can warmly recommend:

• John Haught: “Science and Faith” (2012), “God and the New Atheism” (2008)
  John Haught is Senior Fellow in Science and Religion at the Theological Centre at Georgetown University. He is Catholic.
• Keith Ward: “The Big Questions in Science and Religion” (2008)
  Keith Ward is a Fellow of the British Academy and Professor of Divinity Emeritus at Oxford University.

Alvin Plantinga is probably the foremost philosopher of religion in America. I studied his books and papers extensively. He is a hard-core Protestant and takes the Bible very literally. He is leaning very strongly towards ID and is very sceptical of certain scientific interpretations. I can recommend his books as well, although I don’t agree with lots of things he asserts.

If you are more interested from a science perspective, there are lots of Christian scientists who have written books for the popular audience - let me know if you want some names.

 

[womanatwell]

But, say for instance, Noah and the Flood. There was never a bottleneck of eight people, yet the Bible says only eight were saved during the Flood.

Please read biologist Ann Gauger’s analysis of the genes which were used by evolutionists to prove their point about bottlenecks. She believes the genes can show that two persons could have carried our present allelles. I link to the article here.

evolutionnews.org/2014/07/on_human_origin087341.html

A good article about the complexity of the biology of the human brain has just appeared in the National Catholic Register. It shows how biological facts are emerging which can’t be explained by currently known natural laws. It is called, “The Half-Truths of Materialistic Evolution,” by Donald DeMarco, Ph.D.

ncregister.com/daily-news/the-half-truths-of-materialist-evolution
NCRegister

Just because evolutionists say something isn’t possible, you can’t let that stop you from learning the other side of the story. Like members of juries, we have to decide for ourselves.

 

[womanatwell]

Let me assure you that there is not a single serious biologist who denies evolution (and I can name you a dozen Christian ones).

Yes, HansW, we know you are on patrol npatrol: for all us pesky Creationists. You have your work cut out for you, because there are more and more of us. You can read about a recent study in which it was found that about 20% of Americans are a third category from the two-way war you depict of religion vs. science. We are called “post-secularists,” have good knowledge of science, retain our faith, and consider alternatives to the secular stories of life and human origins.

washingtonpost.com/national/religion/science-vs-religion-theres-actually-more-of-a-three-way-split/2015/01/29/6d8b246c-a7de-11e4-a162-121d06ca77f1_story.html

Your statement (#46 of this thread), “Let me assure you that there is not a single serious biologist who denies evolution,” I guess allows you to decide who is serious. The scientists at the Biologic Institute, who argue for Intelligent Design of biology, are graduates of some of the most prestigious schools in the world, including MIT, CalTech, and Cambridge. But if you say they are not serious, you expect us all to accept that.

biologicinstitute.org/people

Biology is a very complex subject, and none of us know all of it. We may have differing opinions, but some people accept that anything can happen in billions of years. This is not scientific. Billions of years is less than 10^20 seconds, and we can use our knowledge of chemistry and physics to figure if it is at all probable that the complexity of DNA could have come about in that time. A recent article in the National Catholic Register, called “The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution” by Donald DeMarco Ph.D. covers the recent discoveries about the human brain.

ncregister.com/daily-news/the-half-truths-of-materialist-evolution

We have to look at all sides of the argument, and continue to learn. We have a certain knowledge of natural laws, but even these are not completely understood at this time. There was just an article about scientists arguing for an eternal universe. This would upset the theory of the Big Bang. Scientific understanding changes over time.

phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

In fact, because scientific understanding changes, we should seek a foundation for our lives that is more solid. I believe it is the foundation provided by Jesus Christ.

 

[seanman611]

I hear you and it’s a tough conversation to have, but certainly an important one. I currently belong to the Episcopal Church and we do not have required dogmatic beliefs about Noah’s Ark and the flood. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the only 8 people living on the whole earth position either. I do believe that there was a flood and that there was an Ark, however, I’m not convinced that the flood was global in nature. I think it all comes down to how one understands the bible. If we are talking about theology and salvation, then I think the bible is 100% correct in matters dealing with these issues. Just because I don’t believe in the literal 8 people surviving doesn’t mean that I think the bible is wrong, it’s just that using the bible as a science textbook is going against the purpose of the book, in my estimation.

 

[Aslan10]

This topic was one of the most troublesome areas of discussion around 3 years ago for me, and even today still bothers me. I grew up in an ultra reformed Presbyterian Church, was always taught that evolution wasn’t true and that God created man. Somehow, the two ideas were counter to each other to my parents; I blame it on the times they grew up in.

During university I started to question my faith, mostly as a result of the divergent information between science and biblical literalism. It almost took me a full year to find out that there were so many brilliant theologians and good Christians that did not adhere to literal readings of Genesis and other texts. Most of these teachers being part of the Catholic Church and Anglican Church. This opened me up to whole new world of theology and history of the church. I started to read about the early church, the medieval church, etc…This made me question many of reformed beliefs and practices.

Finally, I made a jump to the Anglican Church were I felt so much more at home because I held traditional and protestant Christian views. But anyway, biblical literalism bothers me a lot because it causes so many to fall away from the faith and almost caused me to do so. I don’t get angry at people who hold these views, my whole family still holds to very literal readings of old testament scripture, but I try to contest them whenever these views are brought up.

 

[Gorgias]

CCC 1219 The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water”

Notice that this doesn’t assert that the flood was, literally, a global flood; it only points out – as 2nd Peter points out – that God “preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, together with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the godless world.” (2Peter 2:5).

And, of course, this is true; of those caught in the flood, only eight were saved. One does not have to believe in a literal global flood in order assent to this teaching.

(Of course, having assented to this teaching, one is not required to believe that these were the only eight living people on the earth. )

[CCC] 56 is especially important because it is through Noah being the patriarch of the only surviving family, and the covenant with him then applied to all his descendants.

Yes, but: “The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.” (CCC, 58)

 

[Faith1960]

Notice that this doesn’t assert that the flood was, literally, a global flood; it only points out – as 2nd Peter points out – that God “preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, together with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the godless world.” (2Peter 2:5).

And, of course, this is true; of those caught in the flood, only eight were saved. One does not have to believe in a literal global flood in order assent to this teaching.

(Of course, having assented to this teaching, one is not required to believe that these were the only eight living people on the earth. )

Do you man that 8 might’ve been saved in a local flood but there were still other people living on the earth?

 

[Kliska]

Notice that this doesn’t assert that the flood was, literally, a global flood; it only points out – as 2nd Peter points out – that God “preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, together with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the godless world.” (2Peter 2:5).

And, of course, this is true; of those caught in the flood, only eight were saved. One does not have to believe in a literal global flood in order assent to this teaching.

(Of course, having assented to this teaching, one is not required to believe that these were the only eight living people on the earth. )

But then that would mean everyone else, the majority of humankind, was saved outside of the method that reflects the symbol of baptism… and that leads to some interesting theology the RCC wouldn’t accept.

Yes, but: “The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.” (CCC, 58)

That doesn’t annul the direct reference and the “why” of the reference.

 

[adamhovey1988]

For those who aren’t Catholic and belong to churches that take the entire Bible literally, I’d like to know how you reconcile the Bible with science?

I have some friends of different faiths-- One is Lutheran, the rest belong to non- denominational churches. We don’t talk about religion because I’m not good at apologetics and I don’t want the get into an argument.

But, say for instance, Noah and the Flood. There was never a bottleneck of eight people, yet the Bible says only eight were saved during the Flood. There are other examples, but for now, I’ll stick with this one.

How do you reconcile your beliefs with science?

If they take the Bible literally, why do they not believe Jesus when he says “This is my Body”? Or “This is my blood”?

 

[ajecphotos]

For me, i think some people take the Bible TOO LITERALLY!! I am sure that these stories are meant to be read through the eyes of God. His understand. Our thinking and interpretation can be WAY off of the mark:

Matthew 13 - 10

***10 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says:

‘You shall indeed hear but never understand,
and you shall indeed see but never perceive.
15 For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and their ears are heavy of hearing,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should perceive with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their heart,
and turn for me to heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 17 Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.***

Does this mean that the Bible cannot be taken literally?

 

[Hans_W]

Yes, HansW, we know you are on patrol npatrol: for all us pesky Creationists.

No, I am out to protect the Christian belief. Go to post #36 to get a first-hand account of how people loose their faith when they are told to choose between God and science.

Creationism, and its younger sibling Intelligent Design, want to “prove” God scientifically. Sorry folks, this leads to bad theology and bad science.

 

[Hans_W]

Your statement (#46 of this thread), “Let me assure you that there is not a single serious biologist who denies evolution,” I guess allows you to decide who is serious. The scientists at the Biologic Institute, who argue for Intelligent Design of biology, are graduates of some of the most prestigious schools in the world, including MIT, CalTech, and Cambridge. But if you say they are not serious, you expect us all to accept that.

Please name me one biologist who doesn’t accept the theory of evolution.

If you mean Stephen Meyer, one of the fathers of ID, he is an engineer and has a degree in philosophy. I have been debating him last weekend here in Auckland, New Zealand. He insists on including supernatural explanation in science. Michael Behe, his associate (also not a biologist, but a chemist) admits that by including the supernatural into science, astrology would count as science as well …

 

[Faith1960]

Please name me one biologist who doesn’t accept the theory of evolution.

If you mean Stephen Meyer, one of the fathers of ID, he is an engineer and has a degree in philosophy. I have been debating him last weekend here in Auckland, New Zealand. He insists on including supernatural explanation in science. Michael Behe, his associate (also not a biologist, but a chemist) admits that by including the supernatural into science, astrology would count as science as well …

Reading some of these posts is making my faith wobbly. I heard from my pastor again but his answer isn’t clear. I’m waiting to hear back from my SD and another priest.

When I read things that say we must believe certain things that fly in the face of reputable science, it does mess with my faith.

 

[Kliska]

Please name me one biologist who doesn’t accept the theory of evolution.

answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Please name me one biologist who doesn’t accept the theory of evolution.

answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/

And then there were over a 100!