The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[buffalo]

That is not exactly the situation. Science traces one specificity to another, and another, etc.

Science does not deal with the ultimate cause of the order in the universe, an order which is presumed and which makes science itself possible.

Order and design in the universe do not justify postulating special interventions by God. In an manner analogous to the relation of creation and conservation, the primordial design laid out be God as he creates, is implemented without any new particular “designs” applied by Him.

Matter contains everything it needs to carry out the designs of the Creator. This is the Intelligent Project.

By not allowing matter, which is very specific, the ability to carry out the Divine Plan of creation, which may include abiognesis, ID theory deviates from the Catholic understanding of Creation, and it deviates from any sound philosophical analysis of nature, not to mention it is a science killer.

One of the issues we do have to face is the existence of miracles and God’s known interventions in history.

Why isn’t God continuously sustaining the universe a miracle? I do not want to limit God, do you?

 

[StAnastasia]

Would you kindly ask Michael Tkacz if he would share his mailing address (snail mail) with me? I have a couple of questions and opinions regarding St. Thomas Aquinas’ positions on science and if these are applicable today.

Here it is:

Dr. Michael Tkacz
Assoc. Professor, Philosophy
502 E. Boone Ave.
AD Box 62
Spokane, WA 99258

 

[grannymh]

To consider the human person as an IC organism presents a fundamental problem.
Before discussing that problem, I will note the origin of the human person does involve the theological understanding that the immaterial soul must be created directly by God. This creative act, is obviously a special action by the Creator. ID theorists, however, posit numerous special interventions in regard to all alleged IC systems in nature.

Now, if an organism is IC according to ID theory, then that implies the faulty notion that science can measure and observe the “intelligence” which drives drives and directs evolution. Most assuredly, this is bad science and bad philosophy.

Hence, if one were to assert that man is irreducibly complex according to ID theory’s notion of irreducible complexity, then one has bought into a scientifically and philosophically flawed notion, as explained in the foregoing.

Why even let the bogey man in the door in the case of human nature? Good science and classical philosophy, each within their own province, provide better explanations of nature and of man than does ID theory. I see no place for, or any legitimate use of, ID theory with its notions of irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and so on.

Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut on ID theory. However, I did not credit ID theory for anything. Nor did I introduce ID theory as a possible explanation for human nature.

If one does one’s science well, as St. Thomas Aquinas indicated, then one would consider the difference between the material realm and the spiritual realm. Uniting the two realms in one nature is indeed complex from the human view. The material anatomy can be broken down into various parts and in a scientific sense can be reduced to cells and so on. Or one could say that the material anatomy can be reduced to dust, i.e., decomposition after death.

But the spiritual soul cannot be put under the natural science microscope and cannot be reduced to material bits and pieces, etc. The spiritual soul does not decompose to anything because it is immortal. Therefore, human nature, as an unique unification is irreducibly complex according to God, its Creator.

Blessings,
granny

John 20: 24-31

 

[itinerant1]

One of the issues we do have to face is the existence of miracles and God’s known interventions in history.

Why isn’t God continuously sustaining the universe a miracle? I do not want to limit God, do you?

Perhaps you can answer your own question by researching a precise theological definition of “miracle”.

 

[itinerant1]

Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut on ID theory. However, I did not credit ID theory for anything. Nor did I introduce ID theory as a possible explanation for human nature.

If one does one’s science well, as St. Thomas Aquinas indicated, then one would consider the difference between the material realm and the spiritual realm. Uniting the two realms in one nature is indeed complex from the human view. The material anatomy can be broken down into various parts and in a scientific sense can be reduced to cells and so on. Or one could say that the material anatomy can be reduced to dust, i.e., decomposition after death.

But the spiritual soul cannot be put under the natural science microscope and cannot be reduced to material bits and pieces, etc. The spiritual soul does not decompose to anything because it is immortal. Therefore, human nature, as an unique unification is irreducibly complex according to God, its Creator.

Blessings,
granny

John 20: 24-31

You introduced ID theory when you said you considered the human being to be “irreducibly complex”.

 

[itinerant1]

Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut on ID theory. However, I did not credit ID theory for anything. Nor did I introduce ID theory as a possible explanation for human nature.

If one does one’s science well, as St. Thomas Aquinas indicated, then one would consider the difference between the material realm and the spiritual realm. Uniting the two realms in one nature is indeed complex from the human view. The material anatomy can be broken down into various parts and in a scientific sense can be reduced to cells and so on. Or one could say that the material anatomy can be reduced to dust, i.e., decomposition after death.

But the spiritual soul cannot be put under the natural science microscope and cannot be reduced to material bits and pieces, etc. The spiritual soul does not decompose to anything because it is immortal. Therefore, human nature, as an unique unification is irreducibly complex according to God, its Creator.

Blessings,
granny

John 20: 24-31

That would be your post # 1201 in which you resorted to ID theory when you stated “As far as I can tell, the human person is the only irreducible complex organism, system, or whatever.”

What’s up with with that?

 

[grannymh]

Science does not deal with the ultimate cause of the order in the universe, an order which is presumed and which makes science itself possible.

The above sentence is key. The presupposition for empirical explorations of the world about us is that there is basic order and I should add that there is a unity in creation.
Unity and basic order is also evidenced in human nature. What makes human nature so difficult to understand from a materialistic philosophy is that the source of unity and order in human nature is its spiritual soul.

The idea of soul or the animating life principle as being natural to non-human life goes way back to the Greeks and probably back to pre-history. Discussion of soul belongs on the thread “Is There a Soul?” in Philosophy Forum.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6499004&postcount=1

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred because of its spiritual soul.

 

[grannymh]

Here it is:

Dr. Michael Tkacz
Assoc. Professor, Philosophy
502 E. Boone Ave.
AD Box 62
Spokane, WA 99258

Thank you. Remember all those threads on faith and science which were around when we joined CAF? Some of those ideas are still with me.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred because of its spiritual soul.

 

[grannymh]

That would be your post # 1201 in which you resorted to ID theory when you stated “As far as I can tell, the human person is the only irreducible complex organism, system, or whatever.”

What’s up with with that?

FYI, regarding the complex organism of human nature, ID theory is not the only player on the field.

“Therefore, human nature, as an unique unification is irreducibly complex according to God, its Creator.” (post 1215)

 

[grannymh]

Perhaps you can answer your own question by researching a precise theological definition of “miracle”.

On the other hand, Italian scientists, when investigating a specific miracle a few years back, termed it an extraordinary phenomenon.

 

[itinerant1]

FYI, regarding the complex organism of human nature, ID theory is not the only player on the field.

“Therefore, human nature, as an unique unification is irreducibly complex according to God, its Creator.” (post 1215)

Unfortunately, you have used an expression peculiar to ID theory, but are now implying that you intend a different meaning without having stipulated what that meaning might be. Hence your statement thus far remains ambiguous.

 

[itinerant1]

On the other hand, Italian scientists, when investigating a specific miracle a few years back, termed it an extraordinary phenomenon.

“Extraordinary phenomena” do occur, but that expression does not suffice for a definition of “miracle.”

 

[rossum]

Prior to the universe, there was nothing. Nothing. No laws, no matter, and no energy. Then, we are told, an explosion occurred and things did what? Self-organize?

You should not make assumptions about what may or may not have existed before the Big Bang. See The Myth of the Beginning of Time for some of the possibilities.

The oil and water example is silly.

It is a simple example that shows order emerging from chaos without the need for a designing entity to impose the order. It is sufficient to show that the assumption then an external entity is required to provide order is false. Some systems can self-organise; an oil and water mix is just a simple example of such a system.

We are being asked to accept the idea of chaos turning into order. By itself.

In some cases it does, by itself. Just as the oil and water mixture separates by itself or crystals form by themselves.

rossum

 

[rossum]

(1) You show us the hard evidence how we get from the Big Bang to the many life forms we have on earth and I’ll show you the book on the details of how to make elements from water.

The Big Bang produced a lot of hydrogen, consult a particle physicist for the details. Gravity clumped the hydrogen into stars, consult a cosmologist for the details. Stellar nucleosynthesis produced the heavier elements, consult an astronomer for the details. Gravity again clumped those heavier elements into planets, consult an astronomer for the details. Chemistry built up those elements into the first living organisms, consult a chemist for the details we currently have. Those first living organisms speciated into the variety of life we see on Earth today, consult a biologist for the details.

(2) Therefore evolution of life from a big explosion is outside of science and would require zillions of miracles also, so what are we arguing about

The YEC heat problem explicitly requires miracles. Evolution does not require miracles. So far we have found no need for miracles in our abiogenesis research. There are no miracles required in the science I listed briefly above.

(3) Thank you.

Then you accept that the Earth is at least 45,000 years old?

(4) I am NOT an Usherite. I don’t know when Adam and Eve or the earth and the universe were created but all the evidence from history and science I and others have shown suggest it was only thousands of years ago not millions or billions of years ago. Those billions of years exist only but in the minds of men.

What is your explanation for the 3.5 billion year date for the Amitsoq gneiss? What is your explanation for the 4.3 billion year age of various meteoritic rocks? There is very good evidence for those billions of years. Your own personal incredulity is not a good enough reason.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Evolution does not require miracles. So far we have found no need for miracles in our abiogenesis research. There are no miracles required in the science I listed briefly above.

By a priori exclusion it cannot. Therefore when picking from a box of black and white balls it can only pick the black. Are you satisfied with the pursuit of truth ignoring the white balls? Modern science is religion and it matters. It is unacceptable.

Any comments on the Davies’ quotes?

 

[Philipp]

It was 13.7 billion years ago. In any case, the Big Bang was not chaos. It was very specific, incredibly specific.

It takes a huge jump in faith to believe as you do. I therefore congratulate you and your friends in your newly established religion, one of some 30,000 plus since Martin Luther.
Incredibly specific, Bang

 

[rossum]

By a priori exclusion it cannot. Therefore when picking from a box of black and white balls it can only pick the black. Are you satisfied with the pursuit of truth ignoring the white balls?

Science only attempts to pursue a part of the truth, it does not attempt to pursue all of the truth. By limiting itself to the material arena it has been very successful and made great progress. I agree that it does exclude the miraculous, or rather it replaces it with “We don’t know” or possibly, “We don’t know yet, but we are working on it.”

Abiogenesis research is currently in the “We know some of it but we don’t know all of it and we are working to fill the gaps” stage. None of the parts we know require any miracles, they are just chemistry. There are no indications that any of the parts we don’t yet know will present an insurmountable obstacle.

There are other forms of truth that are not part of science, for instance art criticism or history. Science gains much of its power from being a specialist in a narrow area.

Modern science is religion and it matters. It is unacceptable.

You have a very strange definition of ‘religion’.

Any comments on the Davies’ quotes?

I assume you are referring to your post #1195. He appears to underestimate the potential for self organising chemical systems and also, once life has started, the potential for evolution to extract information from the environment and incorporate it into the genomes of organisms living in that environment.

From what we can see, life on Earth appears to have (re)started within a few hundred million years of the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment. That would indicate that life can arise relatively easily. When we have a more complete picture of the mechanisms of abiogenesis then we will be able to make more accurate calculations of the probability of it happening. At the moment we do not have enough information to make any accurate calculations so any such calculations are more a matter of personal opinion than of science. All we can be sure of is that life on Earth did originate because we are here now.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

“Extraordinary phenomena” do occur, but that expression does not suffice for a definition of “miracle.”

The term was from a scientist’s report. Once you give the theological definition of miracle, I would be interested in comparing it to the particular term extraordinary phenomenon used at that time.

I do not know the theological definition of “miracle”. Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

As far as I can tell, the human person is the only irreducible complex organism, system, or whatever.

FYI, regarding the complex organism of human nature, ID theory is not the only player on the field.

“Therefore, human nature, as an unique unification is irreducibly complex according to God, its Creator.” (post 1215)

Unfortunately, you have used an expression peculiar to ID theory, but are now implying that you intend a different meaning without having stipulated what that meaning might be. Hence your statement thus far remains ambiguous.

As a student writer, I also learned the style of reading named “the seven levels of ambiguity.” Note: I can’t recall the exact number of levels but at least the number seven indicates many according to Scripture usage.

This style leads to interesting dialogues between writer and reader. It is based on the definition for ambiguous --open to more than one interpretation. One of the fun things about this style is that the author is not required to intend or stipulate her meaning. As long as my statement remains ambiguous, there is freedom to explore all kinds of optional meanings or implications. Thank you for the compliment.

Nonetheless, I do understand where you are coming from and what you are focusing on. My apology for causing any concerns.

My actual implication is that one needs to be open to the many ways that human nature can be interpreted or explained, including faulty ones. That is why my proposed thesis, post 1201, is open to 7x70 ways to interpret and explain and explore. In my humble opinion, proposed is not set in stone.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[StAnastasia]

Abiogenesis research is currently in the “We know some of it but we don’t know all of it and we are working to fill the gaps” stage. None of the parts we know require any miracles, they are just chemistry. There are no indications that any of the parts we don’t yet know will present an insurmountable obstacle.

rossum, this would have been no surprise to the authors of Genesis, who put in the mouth of God the words “Let the land produce vegetation” and “Let the land produce living creatures.”

I wonder about your take on what a friend of mine said who is studying abiogenesis (he is a Christian). I had asked him about whether life may have started multiple times and may even today be spontaneously starting around deep sea thermal vents. He regards it as a possibility but notes that it would be difficult to identify such novel life against the “background noise” of the rest of living creatures that have been around for billions of years. New spontaneously generated life would have relatively little resistance to being gobbled up by more resilient organisms that utilize long-developed strategies for predation and competition.

StAnastastia