S
StAnastasia
Guest
If you really believe this, you should propose a paper on that theme to the Society of Systematic Biologists < systbiol.org/ >.Moses sizzles while Darwin fizzles
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Neither 9-11 nor the Big Bang were explosions.Perhaps you should review the photos of the 911 incident in 2001 to see what happens when you have a Big Bang. Sorry but I just canât conceive of zillions of beautiful life forms coming out of an explosion.
G
grannymh
Guest
Good grief! If that link is an example of todayâs Psychology Today, it is worse than when I stopped subscribing*.* At least the earlier issues had some substance.
G
grannymh
Guest
The Bible is divinely inspired when it comes to the Revelations of God, not the speculations of prescientific communities.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, you need to develop a sense of humor â I think that article was related to April Foolâs Day!
G
grannymh
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
Thank you for the confirmation. That is indeed the article I thought it was.
I gather from your lengthy response that there is no Bible quote saying that God made an ionised plasma. So the article is pure speculation with no evidence offered. The Big Bang theory does offer supportive evidence, such as the CMBR. Creationism loses, evidence wins.
You just lost the argument. Miracles are, by definition, outside science. If you need to resort to miracles then you are not promoting âCreation Scienceâ but âCreation Miraclismâ. You have lost all hope of getting your beliefs into science classrooms. As I said, the heat problem kills YEC every time.
All reasonable dates and most of them blow the YEC timescale out of the water.
If these dates are correct then YEC is wrong. If these dates are incorrect then they show nothing. Either you have a dead theory or you have nothing. Is that really the position you want to be in?
rossum
E
edwest2
Guest
rossum -
Do you think anyone here is actively working to get âcreationistâ ideas into the classroom? This shows the strong ideological bent these sorts of discussions are required to have. Itâs too bad actual science cannot be discussed here.
For example, I took it as a given when scientists would talk about other worlds and life, and say that if a planet was the right distance from its sun, had water and the âbuilding blocks of lifeâ then life would appear. There is zero evidence of that.
Post after post here, I mostly see evidence of the fear of creationism without any cogent end result scenario. As you know, a lot of Creationists are walking around in the US without any effect on science.
God bless,
Ed
Do you think anyone here is actively working to get âcreationistâ ideas into the classroom? This shows the strong ideological bent these sorts of discussions are required to have. Itâs too bad actual science cannot be discussed here.
For example, I took it as a given when scientists would talk about other worlds and life, and say that if a planet was the right distance from its sun, had water and the âbuilding blocks of lifeâ then life would appear. There is zero evidence of that.
Post after post here, I mostly see evidence of the fear of creationism without any cogent end result scenario. As you know, a lot of Creationists are walking around in the US without any effect on science.
God bless,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
Innerancy pertains to the authorâs message, to that which he is teaching. The message is and must be conveyed in the context of the times and culture, and that context includes a pre-scientific cosmology, which obviously (or should be obvious) is not what the the author is âteachingâ. The Bible does not teach how the heavens go but how to go to Heaven.
All fundamentalists/creationists subscribe to false ideas of inneracy and divine inspiration, ideas which are similar to the ideas reflected in your question.
The Catholic understanding of innerancy and divine inspiration differs dramatically from the fundamentalist Protestant ideas which are evident among the creationists in this thread.
R
rossum
Guest
But other Creationists are sitting on local School Boards trying to get some form of creationism into science classes. That does have an effect on science.
rossum
R
ricmat
Guest
Well, as for an effect on science classes, it would probably save money. Currently, science books become obsolete and need to be regularly replaced at great cost (otherwise, the truth of science being taught today wouldnât actually be true since it changed yesterday, and the day before, and the day beforeâŚ) The creationism books would last a lot longer since they would never change.
But, seriously. I think Ed has a valid question. It DOES seem that the anti-creationists (for lack of a better word) just canât stand to have somebody who disagrees with their position. No âwe can agree to disagree.â No âwell, itâs not important so letâs drop it.â This seems like a personal matter of life and death to them for some reason. So Rossum - you live in the UK. So what if everybody in the US were taught creationism in addition to regular science (in science class)? Why do you care, really? As a Buddhist, I donât think you can go down the âI care about your immortal soulâ path.
E
edwest2
Guest
At the end of the day, I donât see any negative impact on Science in the United States. I think that is a âred herring.â
God bless,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
As far as school is concerned, as a Roman Catholic, I would rather have a Buddhist teach my kids science than a creationist teach them creationism.Well, as for an effect on science classes, it would probably save money. Currently, science books become obsolete and need to be regularly replaced at great cost (otherwise, the truth of science being taught today wouldnât actually be true since it changed yesterday, and the day before, and the day beforeâŚ) The creationism books would last a lot longer since they would never change.
But, seriously. I think Ed has a valid question. It DOES seem that the anti-creationists (for lack of a better word) just canât stand to have somebody who disagrees with their position. No âwe can agree to disagree.â No âwell, itâs not important so letâs drop it.â This seems like a personal matter of life and death to them for some reason. So Rossum - you live in the UK. So what if everybody in the US were taught creationism in addition to regular science (in science class)? Why do you care, really? As a Buddhist, I donât think you can go down the âI care about your immortal soulâ path.
R
ricmat
Guest
I have nothing against Buddhists (or Rossom for that matter). They make great science teachers.
My question was âSo what if everybody in the US were taught creationism in addition to regular science (in science class)?â
So itâs a matter of life and death, eh? Why is that?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Did you ever see my post in which I quoted from the Vaticanâs official newspaper, LâOsservatore Romano, English edition, in which the Vatican spokesperson said Intelligent Design theory should not be taught in the science classroom.
I fully agreed. There are some very good reasons why ID and creationism should not be taught in the science classrooms.
G
grannymh
Guest
In my humble opinion, Creationism, the philosophy, is not the same as Intelligent Design, the Theory.
If modern Thomists could keep this straight and concentrate on what the Creator created as the pinnacle of His creation â that would go a long way to attacking the real problem which St. Thomas Aquinas spotted centuries ago.
The following is from author Michael W. Tkacz, âAquinas vs. Intelligent Designâ This Rock, November 2008. âInto this medieval debate comes Aquinas, who reasoned thus: God is the author of all truth; the aim of scientific research is the truth; therefore, there can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two. Provided we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find the truth.â
Today, it is obvious that the key is âdo our science wellâ As long as the old boys club continues to fight among themselves, those who misuse science can play in the sun.
Blessings,
granny
Isaiah 55
I
itinerant1
Guest
Perhaps, then we must differ.
ID is not science, so itâs not a matter if ID doing science well; and yes, there is the creationist aspect to ID theories. The creationism questions come into play, for instance, with âirreducible complexityâ: how did these IR systems come about and when?? Perhaps you have not given this much thought.
Creationists and ID theorists reside on the same side of the fence (or in the same bad neighborhood
), though at an annual picnic they will probably sit a different tables and be somewhat uncomfortable with each other.As far as sound philosophy is concerned, it is in scarce supply amongst creationists and ID theorists.
So, unless you have a dynamite answer to the IR questions posed above, I must maintain that ID theory is a variant form of creationism, a more sophisticated version of Paleyism.
I
itinerant1
Guest
If you consider what Stephen Barr says here, and you will see the creationism involved in ID theory:
"The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature. Aside from the fact that such a claim is, in practice, impossible to substantiate, it has the effect of pitting natural theology against science by asserting an incompetence of science. To be sure, there are questions that natural science is not competent to address, and too many scientists have lost all sense of the limitations of their disciplines, not to mention their own limitations. But the ID arguments effectively declare natural science incompetent even in what most would regard as its own proper sphere. Nothing could be better calculated to provoke the antagonism of the scientific community. This throwing down of the gauntlet to science explains not a little of the fervor of the scientific backlash against ID.
âThe older (and wiser) form of the design argument for the existence of Godâone found implicitly in Scripture and in many early Christian writingsâdid not point to the naturally inexplicable or to effects outside the course of nature, but to nature itself and its ordinary operationsâoperations whose âpower and workingâ were seen as reflecting the power and wisdom of GodâŚâ
(from The End of Intelligent Design?)
G
grannymh
Guest
Perhaps, one needs to read carefully.
I did not say that Intelligent Design is science, so that comment does not apply.
I said âIntelligent Design, the Theoryâ which was not commented on.
Does one agree or disagree that my comment âCreationism, the philosophyâ?
The questions how? and when? doesnât need much thought because dealing with abiogenesis is a separate area. If one reads the reference to St. Thomas which I gave in post 1169, one should see that Catholicism is in one realm and science is in another realm. Both are seeking truth.
When a Thomist looks at âirreducible complexityâ, the philosophical focus should be on the nature of the organism being studied. Am I right that metaphysics studies the nature of being? My American Heritage College Dictionary, definition 1. is that it addresses questions about the ultimate composition of reality, including the relationships between mind and matter, substance and attributes, and fact and value.
That sounds like nature of being is part of Thomistic metaphysics. Is it not?
The obvious point which Thomists should make is that the wrong sample is being used to study irreducible complexity. Looking at the rest of Thomistic philosophy, what would be the obvious sample of creation which should be considered as irreducibly complex?
If that is true, so what?Creationists and ID theorists reside on the same side of the fence (or in the same bad neighborhood
In my humble opinion, that is because those who understand Catholic philosophy have not brought the appropriate philosophy to the picnic as described in post 1170
Are you referring to abiogeniesis or something? Please donât get confused. I am not denying the importance of questions of when and how. Regardless, Thomists need to apply the more appropriate points of Catholic doctrine to IR.
Blessings,
granny
Genesis 1: 1
G
grannymh
Guest
Debating creationism involved in ID theory misses the boat in my humble opinion. Please do not get confused. I am not denying the importance of this debate. Do carry on.
Regardless, Thomists need to apply the more appropriate points of Catholic doctrine to IR.
When I quoted this from Michael W. Tkacz in post 1169, I commented that the key was âdo our science wellâ. This means that the obvious point which Thomists should make is that the wrong sample is being used to study irreducible complexity.
âInto this medieval debate comes Aquinas, who reasoned thus: God is the author of all truth; the aim of scientific research is the truth; therefore, there can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two. Provided we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find the truth.â
Rereading Aquinasâs concept above, perhaps Thomists should look at a different Catholic doctrine to defend properly.
Looking at the rest of Thomistic philosophy, what would be the obvious sample of creation which should be considered as irreducibly complex? And which Catholic position should be defended?
Blessings,
Isaiah 55
- Status