The earth is only 6000 years old.

[jimmy]

Hmm… you’re somehow arguing my point!

The ‘pen’ is the scribing instrument of The Author. The Author moves the pen. In our exchange, now moot, that is what occurred when Moses, Esther, et al, wrote what they did, through inspiration. They did not write what was told them, nor captured what was ‘dictated’ them. In the truest sense, they were the pen of The Author, for they wrote word for word what He willed; not what they thought/felt He said or meant!

Your earlier post implied that examinations of the lives and times of the scribes made a difference to the meaning of Scripture, at least from my vantage.

The Catholic Church teaches dul authoriship of the scriptural books. To say that they were pens is to remove any personal aspect that John, or Matt., or Luke or any of the other biblical authors had. Each book is written in the words of a particular human author. John has his own way of writing, Matt. has his own, Luke has his own. They aren’t just pens that go where they are directed as an object. Every word of the Gospel of John is the thought of John the evangelist, yet at the same time it is inspired by God. John has a theological vision that is different from that of Matthew.

 

[larkin31]

So what if religious leaders deny evolutionary biology? What? Priests and nuns actually block the entrances to science labs, or Southern Baptists?

I’ve been reading the current assault articles against religion. The hand wringing that so many in America don’t believe in evolution as if this ‘problem’ surfaced last week or a few years ago. Great-great-great grandparents didn’t believe and passed it on to their children. Yet, the emotional tone of the articles clearly say that this country will face Armageddon if this disbelief in evolutionary biology continues. No more Blackberry apps, no progress anywhere. It will be worse than terrible.

It would be laughable but that’s what’s being presented as fact. Disbelieving in science will doom us all. Give me a break.

So religious leaders are right to tell their congregations to look askance at some of the conclusions being made by scientists today. They know there is a philosophical bias involved.

Peace,
Ed

I’m a teacher, and I worry greatly about the denial of the growing mountain of evidence of evolution and common descent and the way this denial could have an impact on our country’s future. The only other countries in the world that have as great a percent of the population that deny evolution are third-world theocracies, most notably Iran. Now, don’t get me wrong, the US is far beyond Iran in nearly every regard, but to have a fundamental distrust of scientific findings that controvert literal readings of Genesis simply because the findings impact one’s faith is to allow a cultural suspicion of the scientific method (which DOES question and doubt and check itself all the time) and which allows competitor countries to move past us in terms of teaching its youth both math and science. The US is continually bested by other far less wealthy countries in terms of math and science performance, and this only will continue to mean that cutting edge research will continue to go to foreign competitors or foreign scholars on our soil.

And I teach English, so this has not much to do with my classroom.

I belonged to a liberal Protestant church that fully accepted evolution. If my church had denied it, I would have left it even sooner.

To suggest that God made the earth to look old and fool all our instruments the more and more sophisticated they became (and arrange it so that they more and more point to the same approximate age of 4.5 by old) and the more and more we trust those same theories and methods of science to produce drugs and fight disease and, say, crop production is one of the silliest intellectual ideas I have ever read. Honestly, I find it embarrassing that an adult would suggest such a thing.

 

[larkin31]

Tell that to someone like Kenneth Miller. I’m sure he’d get a chuckle out of it.

Or try Francis Collins, the devout Christian at the head of the Human Genome Project. He wrote (in his book, The Language of God) this:

“The examples reported here from the study of genomes, plus others that could fill hundreds of books of this length, provide the kind of molecular support for the theory of evolution that has convinced virtually all working biologists that Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection is unquestionably correct.” (p.141)

“Thus, by any reasonable standard, YEC has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and in its theology. Its persistence is thus one of the great puzzles and great tragedies of our time.” (pg 177)

 

[StAnastasia]

Are you saying that new DNA (or in the case of the flu - RNA) have so changed that there is something that wasn’t there that came into existance?​

BTW, the ‘evolution’ of bacterial is TOTALLY different than one cell to human. It’s also very different than saying ‘science’ has proven the Big Bang.

(1) Evolution does not say that new bacteria or flu strains pop into existence out of the blue. It says that organisms change through descent with modification. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is on the rise. It exists because some percentage of staph organisms survive the onslaught of certains antibiotic and transmit this genetic resistance to the next generation. The next generation is Methicillin-resistant. That’s evolution in action.

(2) No one has argued for the transition from a single-celled organism to human beings. That would be phenomenal!

(3) No one has argued that science has proven the Big Bang. That’s not how science works.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

(1) Evolution does not say that new bacteria or flu strains pop into existence out of the blue. It says that organisms change through descent with modification. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is on the rise. It exists because some percentage of staph organisms survive the onslaught of certains antibiotic and transmit this genetic resistance to the next generation. The next generation is Methicillin-resistant. That’s evolution in action.

(2) No one has argued for the transition from a single-celled organism to human beings. That would be phenomenal!

(3) No one has argued that science has proven the Big Bang. That’s not how science works.

StAnastasia

Not quite - bacteria have adaptive capabilities and a "memory"if you will. The reactions to their environment are rapidly propagated through HGT.

 

[larkin31]

Not quite - bacteria have adaptive capabilities and a "memory"if you will. The reactions to their environment are rapidly propagated through HGT.

HGT is apparently common in bacterial resistance, but it is not the only form of genetic “propagation” in prokaryotes, nor is it central to evolutionary models for complex plant and animal species. And, apparently, it may confound phylogenetic diagrams based on the shared presence of one gene rather than multiple genes.

 

[edwest2]

Tell that to someone like Kenneth Miller. I’m sure he’d get a chuckle out of it.

Ken Miller’s writing is not consistent with Church teaching, which, I think, is why he is brought up so often here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’m a teacher, and I worry greatly about the denial of the growing mountain of evidence of evolution and common descent and the way this denial could have an impact on our country’s future. The only other countries in the world that have as great a percent of the population that deny evolution are third-world theocracies, most notably Iran. Now, don’t get me wrong, the US is far beyond Iran in nearly every regard, but to have a fundamental distrust of scientific findings that controvert literal readings of Genesis simply because the findings impact one’s faith is to allow a cultural suspicion of the scientific method (which DOES question and doubt and check itself all the time) and which allows competitor countries to move past us in terms of teaching its youth both math and science. The US is continually bested by other far less wealthy countries in terms of math and science performance, and this only will continue to mean that cutting edge research will continue to go to foreign competitors or foreign scholars on our soil.

And I teach English, so this has not much to do with my classroom.

I belonged to a liberal Protestant church that fully accepted evolution. If my church had denied it, I would have left it even sooner.

To suggest that God made the earth to look old and fool all our instruments the more and more sophisticated they became (and arrange it so that they more and more point to the same approximate age of 4.5 by old) and the more and more we trust those same theories and methods of science to produce drugs and fight disease and, say, crop production is one of the silliest intellectual ideas I have ever read. Honestly, I find it embarrassing that an adult would suggest such a thing.

Since you are an English teacher I can assume you are well read. The current trend in the media which shape’s the average person’s perceptions of the world around him is paganism. I define this as a denial or dismissal of fundamental truths that have historically upheld this and other countries around the world in exchange for whatever passing fashion the media trumpets.

Another form of perception management occurs when science goes outside of its boundaries to explicitly deny any link between the Creator God and life on earth. This is not only offensive to religious beliefs but is evidence that scientists are willing to join ranks with the pagans. Should an academic even be suspected of Creationism or the even more deadly Intelligent Design, his Institution issues a press release denouncing him, censures him and/or moves him to another department.

The recent revelations regarding climate change have, I’m sure, lowered the public’s trust in science as that unbiased bastion of data. The world was on the verge of spending trillions of dollars for what?

The other egregious manipulation of the public in the United States is the false claim that due to those who deny a certain theory, the United States will slip behind other countries in science and technology. I am saddened that anyone would use the old guilt by association trick as a logical follow on to such nonsense. You mention Iran and theocracies and I am convinced that the order of importance puts theocracy ahead of any concern for science as such.

Here is the current situation in the US:

article.wn.com/view/2010/01/15/US_Leads_World_in_Science_But_Other_Nations_Gain_Ground/

As a student of the history of technology, I know there is a single ingredient for getting any science done: funding. What do you think about the criminal actions of the logical, rational, and well trained people on Wall Street? How is this country going to survive another Enron or Global Crossing? How do you regain the people’s trust when their money is lost to a ponzi scheme? And then, what about the impact of that for funding new and ongoing science programs?

I see the primary concern as a simple balance of power struggle between self-proclaimed rationalists and those who believe in a Living God that can perform miracles.

The thing people want most today was expressed on another forum I moderate: We don’t want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful ever again. That is the core of the problem, not the age of the earth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[aspirant]

I see the primary concern as a simple balance of power struggle between self-proclaimed rationalists and those who believe in a Living God that can perform miracles.

This is a total misreading.

 

[edwest2]

Or try Francis Collins, the devout Christian at the head of the Human Genome Project. He wrote (in his book, The Language of God) this:

The great tragedy of our time. Shakespeare has just been upstaged with the “discovery” of something that has been going on for centuries, if not millenia. We have become too smart, our instruments are too refined, the evidence is set in concrete.

Scientific American ridiculed the Wright Brothers and doubted their claims. An eminent scientist of the time knew that heavier than air flight was impossible. Of course, once a few men showed it could be done, other human beings mounted machine guns on them and began killing other human beings.

Here is an article about a theory and its actual relationship to actual scientific research:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

The writer is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Ken Miller’s writing is not consistent with Church teaching, which, I think, is why he is brought up so often here.Peace,Ed

Ed,with which teaching is it not consistent?

 

[edwest2]

Here it is:

You’ve been reading carefully and have recognized the problem. Miller is forced into contradictions in trying to reconcile hardcore materialist philosophy with his faith.

As it often happens, when believers try to defend evolutionary science, they give God a very small role (if any). Faith becomes something unnecessary, since they will not admit that God intervenes directly in shaping the universe or in the development of human beings.

Everything is reduced to the natural laws alone. These, supposedly, possess all the creative power in the universe, and therefore science has no need to reference God. All science has to do is look at the natural laws and this will explain everything, supposedly.

In order for Miller to claim that the human person was shaped by anything other than evolution, he would have to refute mainstream Darwinist thought. This is something he’s not willing to do. To claim (as apparently he does sometimes) that the human being is “fine tuned” for rationality is an assertion that will be met with the common refrain:

“Prove it”.

Any attempt to prove or give evidence that a human being is ordered towards rationality, and thus requires a supernatural cause of some kind, is a refutation of materialist science.

It’s stating that evolution cannot fully explain the nature and development of man and that we need to accept a supernatural order in order to have this understanding.

This is where Miller contradicts himself. He shys away from the conclusion that evolutionary theory is false unless it accepts that God was necessary for the development of man.

Beyond this, Miller spends no time providing evidence that God’s role was necessary. Again, where are the scientific proofs to show that evolution alone could not possibly create the rational will of man?

The fact that Miller spends more time defending materialist evolution than he does answering that question is another indication of the serious problems he has in his thinking and in his faith (as it is presented publicly).

With thanks to reggieM.

Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

With thanks to reggieM.Ed

This tells us nothing. In your own words, how are Ken Miller’s writings inconsistent with Catholicism?

 

[buffalo]

This tells us nothing. In your own words, how are Ken Miller’s writings inconsistent with Catholicism?

“Evolution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected”

Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology

 

[larkin31]

The great tragedy of our time. Shakespeare has just been upstaged with the “discovery” of something that has been going on for centuries, if not millenia. We have become too smart, our instruments are too refined, the evidence is set in concrete.

Shakespeare has NOT been upstaged by any science, and certainly not by mapping the human genome. I have no idea what you mean by this claim (I teach Shakespeare and am fascinated by science–as Shakespeare would have been, as well).

We have NOT become too smart–although I don’t really know what that claim actually means, either.

Lastly, in science the evidence is NEVER set in concrete. What is it about scientific knowledge that you don’t like? Why should not some things become quite well known? You consider religious knowledge to be pretty well “set,” do you not?

 

[larkin31]

“Evolution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected”

Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology

What is the matter with this claim? This does not mean that there is no God, nor even that God has no plan. Some things in life can be random, even if God’s plan is not. No?

 

[StAnastasia]

“Evolution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected” Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology

Buffalo, you are being dishonest – those are not Ken Miller’s words.

talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day2am.html

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, you are being dishonest – those are not Ken Miller’s words.

talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day2am.html

In “Finding Darwin’s God” we find it again appears:
“random, undirected process of mutation had produced the ‘right’ kind of variation for natural selection to act upon” (p. 51)
“a random, undirected process like evolution” (p. 102)
“blind, random, undirected evolution [could] have produced such an intricate set of structures and organs, so brilliantly dedicated to a single purpose” (p. 137)
“the random, undirected processes of mutation and natural selection” (p. 145)
“Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected” (p. 244)

So where was he lying?
Please provide me a citation where he admits the above is incorrect.

 

[edwest2]

Shakespeare has NOT been upstaged by any science, and certainly not by mapping the human genome. I have no idea what you mean by this claim (I teach Shakespeare and am fascinated by science–as Shakespeare would have been, as well).

We have NOT become too smart–although I don’t really know what that claim actually means, either.

Lastly, in science the evidence is NEVER set in concrete. What is it about scientific knowledge that you don’t like? Why should not some things become quite well known? You consider religious knowledge to be pretty well “set,” do you not?

In reference to your first paragraph, I was referring to the Francis Collins quote you provided that referred to one of the “great tragedies of our time.” (It sound Skakespeareian to me.) Why is this a tragedy? Generally, calling something a great tragedy already implies a great deal of damage has been done. There is no evidence of that. The emotional impact of that phrase does nothing to make it valid.

In reference to your second paragraph, you have missed my reference to the Wright Brothers. I’m sure it would be a simple matter to confirm that Science American denied their experimental claims as valid, and a scientist at the time knew heavier than air flight was not possible. I find references to “modern” knowledge in most attempts to deny the ability of God to create anything. At best, He becomes the great kick starter.

Scientific knowledge? I made mention of the fact that global warming has been compromised by bad data, which is not helping the reputation of scientists among the general public right now. I study scientific knowledge all the time, to the point that some people I know roll their eyes the moment I mention the latest this or that.

In my study of technology, I’ve also come across information on the uses of propaganda.

There are things science, today, cannot demonstrate. Yet there are those scientists who enjoy using the same ‘mountains of evidence’ to convince a trusting public that they are right about a subject that science cannot study.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

I see the primary concern as a simple balance of power struggle between self-proclaimed rationalists and those who believe in a Living God that can perform miracles.

On the other hand, I see a struggle between fundamentalist creationists and their counter-parts in science, the science fundamentalists.