Cbailey2, I have found an excellent survey to be Catholicism and Science by Paul Allen and Peter Hess (Greenwood Press, 2008). Also excellent is Can I believe in God and Evolution?, by Marty Hewlett and Ted Peters (2006). The latter are a team of a biologist and a theologian.I would no more reject atomic theory, particle physics, or DNA due to their lack of presence in the first 1800 years of the Church then I would evolution. Finally, save your judgments on my faith. You have no right to lump me into your preconceived straw-man of unfaithful, “I love science more than I do God” catholics. I have not and will not question the sincerity of your faith. I respectfully ask you to do likewise.
You attacked a “straw-man” argument right after making a straw-man argument!I would no more reject atomic theory, particle physics, or DNA due to their lack of presence in the first 1800 years of the Church then I would evolution.
Finally, save your judgments on my faith. You have no right to lump me into your preconceived straw-man of unfaithful, “I love science more than I do God” catholics. I have not and will not question the sincerity of your faith. I respectfully ask you to do likewise.
Just to comment on this particular point. Scientists have measured the speed of light and the rate of radioactive decay back into the past by looking at distant astronomical objects. The speed of light has been confirmed to have been constant for at least the last 10 billion years by measurements of the Fine Structure Constant. Radioactive decay rates have been checked by observation of supernova SN 1987A which has confirmed that radioactive decay rates have not changed for at least the last 168,000 years.there is no proof that the speed of light has ever changed, nor is there proof that radioactive decay happens at any other than a mathematically predictable rate.
‘Creation science’, as you know well St Anastasia, is the examination of any physical structure in the light of a creative fiat. If that is a ‘fiction’ then life is a fiction. All scientific examination of any phenomena has to be open minded, with every possibility taken into account, otherwise it is false science or pseudo-science or in the case of evolutionism, ‘science by consensus’, i.e., science as dictated by agnostic science… Catholics like yourself, capitulated to uniformitarianism and evolutionism without a whimper for the simple reason they had lost all credibility in the field of faith and science after they denied the Church’s own doctrine on a fixed sun. Protestants, on the other hand, because they placed their faith in the Scriptures HAD to examine the evidence to see if it complied with the Genesis account. There now exists a MOUNTAIN of scientific research and opinion available to anyone to examine. There are hundreds of scientists - including a few Catholic ones, who have shown the evidence does not conflict with an immediate creation, all together in an eco system that works together without any nonsense like ‘Which evolved first a bee or a flower whose mutual existence depend on one another.’ or the ubiquitus ‘Which came first the chicken or the egg’ when in fact every farmer knows it had to be the CREATION of two chickens together, a male one and a female one.Because “creation science” is a fiction. It’s not science at all.
Luke65,You attacked a “straw-man” argument right after making a straw-man argument!
Do either “atomic theory, particle physics, or DNA” contradict the Word of God? No
Does the theory that the earth is billions of years old contradict the Word of God? Yes.
St. Augustine: “Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been… But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.” (The City of God, 12, 10)
Does the theory of evolution contradict the Word of God? Yes.
St. Augustine: “But if we should suppose that God now makes a creature without having implanted its kind (genus) in His original creation, we should flatly contradict Sacred Scripture, which says that on the sixth day God finished all His works. For it is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then. But we cannot believe that He establishes a new kind, since He finished all His works on the sixth day.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 5, 41)
And what should we do with theories that contradict the Word of God?
St. Augustine: “When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will cling to our Mediator, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” [Colossians 2:3], that we will not be led astray by the glib talk of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of false religion.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1, 41)
So let the world believe what they want about the history of the world, we can know the truth, because we have the Word of the only One who was there - God!
‘Science perishes by systems that are nothing but beliefs;
and Faith succumbs to reasoning.’
Albert Pike 33º --- Morals and Dogma (1871).One-sided interpretations? I’m sorry but that’s your opinion. What is the one-side? Human perception of physical reality? Again, I’d refer you back to the Catechism. God has written himself in this world and observable reality cannot contradict his Truth.The ‘science’ of heliocentricism, uniformitarianism, evolutionism and Big Bangism is nothing more than one-sided interpretations of discovered facts with assumptions based on them. Such interpretations have been used to reinterpret the literal reading of Genesis and make a pigs-end of the Scriptures.‘Science’ was allowed totally compromise theology. Now you tell me I cannot ask ‘science’ to explain how it can be compatible with theology
I’m sure you’re aware that the theory of the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. Up until that time, the dominant scientific theory was a steady state, constant universe, which of course would be explicitly against Catholic theology (the universe cannot always have existed because God created it). When he proposed the Big Bang theory, using math and observations of the physical world, his colleagues initially attacked his theory as ‘trying to inject theology into science.’ (Big Bang was originally meant as a derision). His faith guided his inquiryBig Bangism
“Knowledge of the physical world” does nothing to render knowledge of the mystery of God meaningless: they must ultimately be consistent. You’ve failed to explain to me why knowledge of the physical world and knowledge of theology are inconsistent.So ‘science’ was allowed to render theology meaningless with no possibility of it ever being reconciled with science. Creation science on the other hand, is ABSOLUTELY compatible with THEOLOGY. Why in God’s name would any Catholicv prefer or chose and promulgate the CHAOS they cause on the dogmas and doctrines as the truth of it?
Hi Ed,You can’t ask a theological question of science? Really? Then can you explain the people who post here that say that “science” says this or that event in your holy book never happened or it was mythical or just a story? And some of them post a ton of references to back up their claims, citing it as what they say is evidence.
Thanks for the recommended reading. I checked it out and I think we are talking past each other: this is the point I am trying to make. Physical observations of the world and of man can never totally explain everything because the world is made up of more than just physical reality. Materialistic theories ignore this: they claim everything has a physical basis and deny the soul. No one here is denying the soul, or humanity’s ensoulment by God.I strongly urge you to read part 64 of this document:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.
Fair enough - thanks for keeping me honest, although sometimes I do not know what natural observations Catholics will accept and what they will deny. There is not that far of a jump between denying the science of radioactive decay and denying atomic theory. If you understand how the atom works, you understand how radiation works.You attacked a “straw-man” argument right after making a straw-man argument!
With all due respect, you state that these views contradict the Word of God and then you quote Augustinian commentary of scripture.Does the theory that the earth is billions of years old contradict the Word of God? Yes.
Cassini, since creation is the doctrine that the world is ontologically dependent on God, all Catholics are creationists. But there is no evidence that the word is only six thousand years old, or that it was created in six days. Of course, you may pretend there is, but the world’s scientists don’t even know you are here, and they continue with their creative work in astronomy and cosmology, chemistry and biology, genetics and neuroscience You, meanwhile, spin your fantasies on an obscure Internet forum.‘Creation science’, as you know well St Anastasia, is the examination of any physical structure in the light of a creative fiat. … There now exists a MOUNTAIN of scientific research and opinion available to anyone to examine. There are hundreds of scientists - including a few Catholic ones, who have shown the evidence does not conflict with an immediate creation, …
Your’s is a belief statement. Looking for evidence of creation is a legitimate area of study.Because “creation science” is a fiction. It’s not science at all.
What you have just wrote will do absolutely nothing for the evolution supporters who post here regularly. Some firmly believe that what they falsely call science invalidates some Biblical truths. They are wrong and need to know why they are wrong.One of the early, holy Church Fathers (I’m sorry I don’t recall who it was) commented that the Church tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens got there.
I mention and paraphrase it only to make a point - i.e. all this argument about science and the Church means nothing. Ultimately, there can be no contradiction between the two and ultimatelly both support and verify each other. One caveat: The aforementioned assumes that the soul in question correctly understands both science and the Church. (this is a rare thing, in my experience).
Nevertheless, the Church is the Body of Jesus Christ; Jesus is the Way and the TRUTH…therefore, no contradiction can exist between Him and Himself. He IS Truth…so, the ultimate Truth about science and the ultimate Truth about the Church are one in the same…that Truth is not a ‘thing’; it is a Person!
Jesus created science and Jesus founded His Church. There cannot possibly be any contradiction or variaince between the two. The two are one.
** Humans love to argue about the # of gnats on the head of a pin, however, so if it pleases you to keep the argument going, have at it.
God bless everyone and grant us humility !
StAnastasia, from what I observe YOU have spun your philosophy and beliefs on this (obscure?) forum FAR more than I have. I now ALWAYS put tradition (the Catholic Faith) first and then look to see if science has shown something that would contradict the traditional literal understandings. I am sick of your and Dawkins chants ‘There is endless evidence of evolution’ and ‘there is no evidence that the word is only six thousand years old,’ I am just as intelligent as you - thanks be to God - and I do not accept the ‘evidence’ for billions of years is indisputable having considered it. I was once a hardened evolutionist like you and took great intellectual pride in my knowledge, in debates with literalists. But thanks be to God I got the grace to be humiliated by creation science and am now trying to make up for my previous propaganda. That is enough for me as inconclusive science no longer determines what I believe. I have also studied all the other proofs for this and that and reject them too as INCONCLUSIVE for me to change the faith of the Fathers. Obviously for you science has more credibility than the Fathers so you make up your new Catholicism but I will stay with the simple beliefs that are FLAWLESS in the realm of TRUE science and faith.Cassini, since creation is the doctrine that the world is ontologically dependent on God, all Catholics are creationists. But there is no evidence that the word is only six thousand years old, or that it was created in six days. Of course, you may pretend there is, but the world’s scientists don’t even know you are here, and they continue with their creative work in astronomy and cosmology, chemistry and biology, genetics and neuroscience You, meanwhile, spin your fantasies on an obscure Internet forum.
StAnastasia
alacoque, NO Church Father ever said that quote above. It was INVENTED by Cardinal Baronius, smitten by Hermitism, to be repeated throughout time in the wake of the Galileo U-turn, when Churchmen did a U-turn on the Church’s own immutable decree. It was the first MODERNIST quote inserted into Catholic folklore.One of the early, holy Church Fathers (I’m sorry I don’t recall who it was) commented that the Church tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens got there.
God bless everyone and grant us humility !
Cassini, you are of course free to continue arguing your case here. But if you want to make a lasting impact you need to let the world know your theory, in both theological and scientific conferences. If you don’t, the evolutionary perspective is the only one that will be heard.I am sick of your and Dawkins chants ‘There is endless evidence of evolution’ and ‘there is no evidence that the word is only six thousand years old,’ I am just as intelligent as you - thanks be to God - and I do not accept the ‘evidence’ for billions of years is indisputable having considered it.
And your point is??? It’s a valid point (albeit paraphrased and not technically attributable according to many). Argumentation on the point of the statement is, to me, missing the point…Scripture and the Church ARE about how to get us to Heaven; the Bible is not a ‘science text’ and the Church exists to save souls, not to usurp the field of scientists. That was my point in mentioning that statement.alacoque, NO Church Father ever said that quote above. It was INVENTED by Cardinal Baronius, smitten by Hermitism, to be repeated throughout time in the wake of the Galileo U-turn, when Churchmen did a U-turn on the Church’s own immutable decree. It was the first MODERNIST quote inserted into Catholic folklore.
The point is that this quip is meant to tell us the Scriptures are NO place to find scientific facts. To which I say:And your point is??? It’s a valid point (albeit paraphrased and not technically attributable according to many). Argumentation on the point of the statement is, to me, missing the point…Scripture and the Church ARE about how to get us to Heaven; the Bible is not a ‘science text’ and the Church exists to save souls, not to usurp the field of scientists. That was my point in mentioning that statement.
I stand corrected as to its origin; pardon my ignorance; i mean and meant no offense…only to call us back to the Truth of things.
God bless you
Look St Anastasia, when even the Vatican cannot follow the rule set out by Pius XII and debate BOTH sides of the evolution farce, not have ONE creationist on the PAS, what chance me ever getting a hearing. Indeed I have a book that records how the Masons and atheists kept creationists out of universities in the USA. You guys are winning by censorship. But our day will come, even if it is the last one.Cassini, you are of course free to continue arguing your case here. But if you want to make a lasting impact you need to let the world know your theory, in both theological and scientific conferences. If you don’t, the evolutionary perspective is the only one that will be heard.