The Church's position on faith and science - any objections?

[Stephentlig]

Ladies and gentlemen, the sound you can hear in the background is the sound of the goalposts moving.

I used your previous criterion to show that electronics was “developed outside the mind of the church”. So now the criterion has suddenly, and without any explanation, changed from “developed outside the mind of the church” to “was built and is factual”. Once I showed the ridiculousness of your previous position with the example of electronics you silently dropped that position, without acknowledging that you were shown to have been in error, and picked a new unrelated position to try and wriggle out of your mistake. This does not show you in a good light. If you make an error then it is polite to recognise that you were mistaken; that way you will be better able to learn from your mistakes and avoid repeating them in the future.

Your first criterion, “developed outside the mind of the church”, is obviously ridiculous as you would have realised if you had thought about it for a few minutes. The great bulk of modern science was “developed outside the mind of the church”. Albert Einstein was not a member of the Catholic Church. Isaac Newton was a Unitarian heretic and so forth. I will grant you that Georges Lemaître was a Catholic Priest and that the Curies were (nominal) Catholics but your original criterion excludes a great deal else.

How can a supposedly fictional theory allow bacteria to evolve immunity to antibiotics? How can a supposedly fictional theory allow mosquitos to evolve immunity to insecticides? How can a supposedly fictional theory allow some humans to evolve responses to malaria? How can a supposedly fictional theory allow some humans to evolve the ability to digest milk? How can a supposedly fictional theory allow a few humans to evolve the ability to deal with a fat-rich western diet?

Evolution is not fictional - it happens. It happens in the wild. It happens in the laboratory. We can observe it and we can repeat it. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the evolution that we observe.

rossum

I have made no error, but If I have I am all well and ready for correction.
for as scripture says: 9-10 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophesying is imperfect’’

I used your previous criterion to show that electronics was “developed outside the mind of the church”. So now the criterion has suddenly, and without any explanation, changed from “developed outside the mind of the church” to “was built and is factual”. Once I showed the ridiculousness of your previous position with the example of electronics you silently dropped that position, without acknowledging that you were shown to have been in error, and picked a new unrelated position to try and wriggle out of your mistake. This does not show you in a good light. If you make an error then it is polite to recognise that you were mistaken; that way you will be better able to learn from your mistakes and avoid repeating them in the future.

I have not changed at all. this paragraph by you in no way exposes any error in my eyes.
you have selected ‘‘was built and factual’’ but I never said it ‘was built and factual outside of the mind of the church’’

so you’ve lost that one by putting words into my mouth that were never really there. I have still not moved on my position on the developing of theories as being devolped outside the mind of the church, which it quite clearly has been.

Evolution is not fictional - it happens. It happens in the wild. It happens in the laboratory. We can observe it and we can repeat it. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the evolution that we observe.

how can a fictional theory be the best explanation? a theory is the human minds take on it, but how it actually happens only God knows this.Isaiah:55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.

Your first criterion, “developed outside the mind of the church”, is obviously ridiculous as you would have realised if you had thought about it for a few minutes. The great bulk of modern science was “developed outside the mind of the church”.

The Materials they use belong to God, their fictional theories exist outside the mind of the church and if not consistent with church teaching on faith and morals are false. a theory can be proven true or false.

therefore the person of albert einsten was outside the church, and the materials he used came from within the church, the theories he used existed outside the mind of the church and were his own take on it.

the wind outside my window blows, but I do not question how it blows, I just accept that it blows, God told me how he made the world in Genesis, I dont question this, I accept this simple detailed account of creation and I am happy.

again I am conversing with someone who claims in his signature that ‘‘the ultimate truth is that there is no truth’’

whom are the public who are veiwing this topic gonna believe in? the Lords church or rossum?

 

[StAnastasia]

“Evolution is not a doctrine, and never will be, any more than heliocentrism, the speed of light, or the theory of gravity. Evolution is no more a threat to faith an morals than is any other scientific theory, such as plate tectonics and continental drift. If you think it is, you don’t understand the relationship between religion and science.”

St. Anastasia,
Excellent post. That is, unfortunately, where I’m afraid many of the anti-evolution/science posters on this thread are. They don’t understand the relationship between religion and science. If they did understand it, they would know that there is nothing revealed by science that could ever contradict God…

Thank you, geoformo! I begin my graduate course in Religion and Science by having the students read quite a bit in the philosophy of science. There are basic misunderstanding (repeated all the time here on CAF) about the relationship between fact, theory, law, hypothesis, faith, reason, and a host of other terms. The challenge with this kind of forum is that we are “educating a parade” – a discussion will get just so far and then someone proud of having no education will jump in and hit the reset button.

Someday it would be nice to have a high-level theological discussion about the implications of evolution without getting bogged down in the young earth creationist mud. But that’s not likely to happen, and perhaps this is not the right sort of forum for high-level theological discussions…

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

A high level discussion? Why does it need to be high level?

The current deception being marketed here is mechanistic evolution. The kind that happened all by itself. It doesn’t change if the word God is added to it, according to some here. It must be accepted. Why? Clearly, the threat is from those called creationists or fundamentalists who will somehow get their ideas, and God, back into public schools. So the barricades have to be set up.

The Church made its position clear in the document Communion and Stewardship.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Stephentlig]

Thank you, geoformo! I begin my graduate course in Religion and Science by having the students read quite a bit in the philosophy of science. There are basic misunderstanding (repeated all the time here on CAF) about the relationship between fact, theory, law, hypothesis, faith, reason, and a host of other terms. The challenge with this kind of forum is that we are “educating a parade” – a discussion will get just so far and then someone proud of having no education will jump in and hit the reset button.

Someday it would be nice to have a high-level theological discussion about the implications of evolution without getting bogged down in the young earth creationist mud. But that’s not likely to happen, and perhaps this is not the right sort of forum for high-level theological discussions…

StAnastasia

You keep looking towards me, and making false assumptions that I think I am coming on my high horse and that I am a mighter person than you, when the fact that I claim I have no education claims nothing of the sort, but rather diminishes my significance and illumines that of The Lord, his Bible and church.1Corin:1:28 ‘‘Those whom the world thinks common and contemptible are the ones that God has chosen—those who are nothing at all to show up those who are everything.’’ I invite you to read through all of the 1st to 3rd chapter of 1 corinthinans it explains the difference between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God. the wisdom you seem to be caught up in now is that of the world, unfortunately.

I am simply boasting of the Lord and whats already there, and whats already there disproves your belief in evoltuion, of course there is always the possiblity of pride, and if for you you had to accept the Lords account of it the way your supposed to, that would mean you would have to give up your job. ( whatever that job might be I dont know ) thus you would lose all your possesions and like the wealthy man in the gospel, you would be very upset.

its the same with protestents when they are given the truth, they can see its the truth, but because of their prideful attitude they refuse to move. Evolutionists are no different than a protestent, because their false teaching protests against that of the simple teaching of Christ whether or not they are concious of it.
The reason you cannot accept the simple account of creation and take it no further is because your wise and… '‘God is not convinced by the arguments of the wise.’'Corinthians3:19

Your in my prayers
Stephen <3

 

[StAnastasia]

You keep looking towards me, and making false assumptions that I think I am coming on my high horse and that I am a mighter person than you, when the fact that I claim I have no education claims nothing of the sort, but rather diminishes my significance and illumines that of The Lord, his Bible and church.1Corin:1:28 ‘‘Those whom the world thinks common and contemptible are the ones that God has chosen—those who are nothing at all to show up those who are everything.’’ 3

Stephentlig, if you were consistent, you would allow only innocent little children to practice neurosurgery, as they have no education to pollute their pure and simple understanding of how the brain works. But I imagine that if you discovered you had a malignant brain tumor, your opposition to scientific education would suddenly disappear…

StAnAstasia

 

[Stephentlig]

Stephentlig, if you were consistent, you would allow only innocent little children to practice neurosurgery, as they have no education to pollute their pure and simple understanding of how the brain works. But I imagine that if you discovered you had a malignant brain tumor, your opposition to scientific education would suddenly disappear…

StAnAstasia

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=270&pictureid=1824

Matthew 18:3 And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, do not become children in sense: but in malice be children, and in sense be perfect.

I dont oppose science St.anastasia, neither does the Lord, it is a gift from him that is to be used for good. but hey, do I really need science? didnt St.peter lays his hands on people and they were healed by the power of Christ? didnt saint paul get bit by a poisonous snake and was healed? perhaps you would say that paul and peter were apostles and thus thats the reason, but God has no favorites and works and gives to whom he pleases as scripture says:
acts:10:34 ‘‘And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. 35 But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him.’’

and would you beleive it, guess what scripture reading it is today at mass? perhaps you should ask yourself what it is the Lord is saying to you right now

God bless and take care
Stephen <3
Mk 16:15-20
15 And he said to them, 'Go out to the whole world; proclaim the gospel to all creation.
16 Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
17 These are the signs that will be associated with believers: in my name they will cast out devils; they will have the gift of tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes in their hands and be unharmed should they drink deadly poison; they will lay their hands on the sick, who will recover.'
19 And so the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven; there at the right hand of God he took his place,
20 while they, going out, preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that accompanied it.

ask yourself St.anastasia, what is a **true beleiever **?

Glory be to God on this day for exposing and showing up the folliness that is human wisdom. :extrahappy:

Well I suppose I will have to go write that paper now and give it to his holiness shall I?
I pray that many scholars, Christian/scientists who have been observing this topic, and if you are, I shout out to you,
‘‘The false teachers whom St. Paul wished to refute, despising the doctrine of the gospel, which appeared too simple and common,’’
haydock1859.tripod.com/id213.html

does this sound like anyone you know?
‘‘seek im him in simplicity of heart’’, for you shall never find him any other way.
Wisdom:1:4 ‘‘No, wisdom will never make its way into a crafty soul’’

all You have ever known St.anastasia on the reality that you think is evolution has just been flushed down the toilet in one discussion. Glory be to God for correcting you ( proverbs:12:1 )

 

[StAnastasia]

I dont oppose science St.anastasia, neither does the Lord, it is a gift from him that is to be used for good. but hey, do I really need science? didnt St.peter lays his hands on people and they were healed by the power of Christ? didnt saint paul get bit by a poisonous snake and was healed?

Well Stephentlig, you are certainly entitled to reject science and handle poisonous snakes, if you wish. But please be careful – there is a fairly high death rate in the snake handling cults of Appalachia. Apparently faith is not very efficacious against rattlesnake venom. religionnewsblog.com/16493/woman-fatally-bitten-by-snake-during-church

As for evolution, when you provide a plausible scientific argument agaisnt the theory, I’ll sit up and take notice. So will the 100,000 biologists who use it every day, including Catholic priests!

StAnastasia

 

[Stephentlig]

Well Stephentlig, you are certainly entitled to reject science and handle poisonous snakes, if you wish. But please be careful – there is a fairly high death rate in the snake handling cults of Appalachia. Apparently faith is not very efficacious against rattlesnake venom. religionnewsblog.com/16493/woman-fatally-bitten-by-snake-during-church

As for evolution, when you provide a plausible scientific argument agaisnt the theory, I’ll sit up and take notice. So will the 100,000 biologists who use it every day, including Catholic priests!

StAnastasia

Those snake handlers belong not within the Catholic church, Ive seen these sects and protestents do this before its nothing new to me. A true beleiver belongs within the Catholic church, but then again, just because someones catholic doesnt mean they are immune from a snakebite, so it must take a big conversion to become a true believer.
just because someones status is a Catholic one doesnt mean they are a beleiver either or completely converted to Jesus.

plausable scientific arguement?

the theory has no evidence to support it, the theory is a fictional novelty of the 20th century, as soon as you provide the church with the evidence to support your fictional bedtime story of evolution, The church will sit up and take notice also, after all its The Lord and the church that you and your thousands of friends contend and disagree with, not me. if there are priests out there who beleive in it ( and I know there are some ) I can wholeheardedly tell you, that the Lord and his church is not on their side when it comes to their ideas, should their ideas drift from the infallible truth of the Bride and her church.

your theory is no more realistic than one of J.R.R Tolkeins novels

God bless you and take care now
Stephen<3

 

[StAnastasia]

the theory has no evidence to support it, the theory is a fictional novelty of the 20th century, as soon as you provide the church with the evidence to support your fictional bedtime story of evolution, The church will sit up and take notice also, after all its The Lord and the church that you and your thousands of friends contend and disagree with, not me. if there are priests out there who beleive in it ( and I know there are some ) I can wholeheardedly tell you, that the Lord and his church is not on their side when it comes to their ideas, should their ideas drift from the infallible truth of the Bride and her church.your theory is no more realistic than one of J.R.R Tolkeins novels
3

I’m not sure which church you belong to, but mine has no beef with evolution. Pope Benedict has said that the evolution of all life from a common ancestor is “virtually certain.” That sounds pretty definite to me.

 

[rossum]

the theory has no evidence to support it,

You are being lied to by your creationist sources. There is evidence to support it, how else did MRSA evolve resistance to antibiotics?

the theory is a fictional novelty of the 20th century,

You do not do yourself any favours by making elementary mistakes. Darwin published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, that was during the 19th century, not the 20th century. Science puts a high premium on accuracy; getting simple things like that wrong will not help you in any argument about a scientific subject like biology.

rossum

 

[Stephentlig]

I’m not sure which church you belong to, but mine has no beef with evolution. Pope Benedict has said that the evolution of all life from a common ancestor is “virtually certain.” That sounds pretty definite to me.

haha, atheists and the secular media have used this qoute by pope benedict and says ‘‘Pope benedict admits evidence for evolution’’

but he does not admit that the ‘‘theory explanation’’ on how we evolved is correct.

only that by the words of the Bible it is clear we have evolved from a common ancestor, Our explanation of how Eve would of came from Adam, or how we evolved at all, is only theory and has no evidence to support its contentions. you, nor the Pope was there at the beginning, any more than I was.
this is why Jesus gave us a detailed account of how it happened in the book of Genesis, a simple account that we must accept as Christians, in order to proclaim ourselves Catholic.

Now, the Popes ideas are nothing to do with his infalliblity, not every thought from the Pope is an infallible one, but you have yet to show me were the theory of evolution is part of church doctrine? because thats the church I belong to, I do not belong to the ‘‘ideas’’ of the Pope, I accept his authority but not all his ideas or conduct, I dont judge Catholism on the conduct of its members but whether or not it teaches me truth in accordance with sacred scripture and tradition.

God bless
Stephen

 

[Stephentlig]

You are being lied to by your creationist sources. There is evidence to support it, how else did MRSA evolve resistance to antibiotics?

You do not do yourself any favours by making elementary mistakes. Darwin published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, that was during the 19th century, not the 20th century. Science puts a high premium on accuracy; getting simple things like that wrong will not help you in any argument about a scientific subject like biology.

rossum

how else did MRSA evolve resistance to antibiotics?

Creationist sources? you mean, your calling God a liar? because he and his church are my source. and God cannot lie ( Titus 1:2) because mans explanation of how things come together is not Gods explanation Isaiah:55:8-9 8For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts

If the theory can be proved correct rossum then give me the evidence that will support the theory of evolution.

again whoever taught you that ‘‘the ultimate truth is that there is no truth’’ has certainly lied to you.

as for me getting the dates wrong, that proves what I qouted from scripture earliar when St.Paul said that our prophesying is imperfect and our knowledge also, doesnt change the infallibility of our Lords doctrine.

God bless you rossum
Stephen<3

 

[StAnastasia]

you have yet to show me were the theory of evolution is part of church doctrine? because thats the church I belong to,

I fear you do not understand what doctrine is. I will never show you that evolution is “part of church doctrine,” any more than I will show you that the fact that the earth is spherical, and revolves around the sun, or that gravity operates upon planets, is “part of church doctrine.” No scientific claim, no worldview, is “part of church doctrine.”

 

[edwest2]

I’m not sure which church you belong to, but mine has no beef with evolution. Pope Benedict has said that the evolution of all life from a common ancestor is “virtually certain.” That sounds pretty definite to me.

Pope Benedict: “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

The Church does have a worldview based on truth. I encourage everyone to read this encyclical:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Pope Benedict: "But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."Peace,Ed

To be sure! No theory is – that’s the provisional nature of scientific knowledge.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

To be sure! No theory is – that’s the provisional nature of scientific knowledge.

StAnastasia

Boy, if I saw that language in a contract, I would never sign it. Meanwhile, every court would shut down because the evidence could prove nothing beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you understand that?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Stephentlig]

I fear you do not understand what doctrine is. I will never show you that evolution is “part of church doctrine,” any more than I will show you that the fact that the earth is spherical, and revolves around the sun, or that gravity operates upon planets, is “part of church doctrine.” No scientific claim, no worldview, is “part of church doctrine.”

I fear you do not understand what doctrine is

Matthew: 16:18-20

in this scriptual text Jesus protects Peter from ever making error on the teaching of faith and morals, is mr.Anastasia gonna contend that this is not true? and that not all doctrinal pronouncments on both faith and morals are infallible?

 

[rossum]

Creationist sources? you mean, your calling God a liar?

No, I mean precisely what I said. I called the creationist sources that you were using liars. They were telling you untruths. Both ICR and AiG for instance are Protestant so at least some of the things they say are incorrect.

I am not calling God a liar, I am saying that the YEC interpretation of Genesis is incorrect - it does not mesh with the world that God created. You are well aware that many different interpretations of the Bible are proposed by many different people. As a Catholic you surely believe that many of those interpretations are wrong. The YEC interpretation of Genesis is just one more incorrect interpretation. Humans can make mistakes, and in this case the YECs are mistaken.

If the theory can be proved correct rossum then give me the evidence that will support the theory of evolution.

Proof is for mathematics, not for science. Science can provide evidence in favour or a theory and it can provide disproof of a theory. Current scientific theories are those that have not (yet) been disproved and replaced by better theories. Netwon’s theory of gravity was disproved and replaced by Einstein’s theory. A young earth was disproved by geologists in the early 19th century, before Darwin published. The fixity of species was also disproved in the early 19th century by such as Cuvier and Lamarck. Darwin provided a mechanism to explain the already observed mutability of species.

For evidence in favour evolution I suggest that you start by reading On the Origin of Species.

again whoever taught you that ‘‘the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth’’ has certainly lied to you.

I have corrected your quoting of my sig in bold. If you want to see what my sig is about then I suggest that you read Nargajuna and the Limits of Thought. The quote is right at the end of section four. (St Anastasia, you might also find that article interesting.)

as for me getting the dates wrong, that proves what I qouted from scripture earliar when St.Paul said that our prophesying is imperfect and our knowledge also, doesnt change the infallibility of our Lords doctrine.

Well done for acknowledging your mistake. My point about the importance of accuracy in scientific discussion remains. The Lord may well be infallible, that does not mean that all human interpretations are also infallible.

God bless you rossum

Thank you.

rossum

 

[agbasinger]

And that is exactly what this book is questioning, precisely what this revolution was really about, God or no God, and if God, what kind of God, God as Person or God as principle or force.

This is an excellent summation of our western tradition. From era to era we have labeled or highlighted certain characteristics of God. i think you summed up the three major movements- God as Person, God as Principle, and God as Force.

Thank you giving me something to chew on for the rest of the day.

Can God not be all three at the same time? We are limited in vision and perspective.