So what is sillier believing that or believing that God went POOF! and popped down each type of animal on earth and had this guy put two of each type onto a great big boat?No, according to Darwinists, our earliest ancestors were protozoan rebels with a cause!
I donât understand the fundamentalist connection. Any average person who reads that the current theory is fully sufficient to explain the development of life on earth is likely to correctly assume that natural causes alone did this, and God (of any sort) is unnecessary. It is intrinsic to the whole theory.I have no idea of what you are driving at with your comment
This is what I wrote:
Yes, it boils down to the poor science education we have in our schools. I have spoken with a university professor who teaches biology. After every introductory course on evolution he gets students coming up asking âIs that how evolution works? I have always been told that evolution proves that there is no Godâ.
I wanted to highlight that young people often get the impression that the theory of evolution is not just a scientific theory, but at the same time a kind of proof that God does not exist. This could be partly because they were not taught proper science in school, or, more likely, that they grew up in a fundamentalist environment. Once they learn what evolution really means, they are surprised that there is nothing in evolution which is intrinsically anti-God or anti-religion.
BTW, my conversion was with an American professor of a well-known university, who happens to be a Christian.
Could you please explain what you mean by your comments on doubting science, scientists and professors.
Itâs not an either/or proposition. All I know for certain is that the narrative that single-celled organisms mutated into cats and rats and elephants and humans is not possibel. And âscienceâ classes should not teach students it did happen.
RobSo you think its nonsense for me to say that both methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism exclude the supernatural? Are you going to say in your thesis that they allow for the supernatural? And is it wrong for me to say that naturalism is a false perspective? Do you think that it is a true perspective?
I hope that Hans has not left the building. I am interested to hear his response.
No, itâs intrinsic to a philosophy.
Yet you have no problems believing the person you see in the mirror once began as a fertilized egg cell.
Was the resurrection so childishly simple? That says a lot about you as a Christian wouldnât you think? For all you know, it could only more science that we donât understand. Real science is just about exploring the unknown. The supernatural represents that unknown. It is science not yet to be understood. Maybe someday weâll even get more specifics to the kind of power that this being called God has. Maybe weâll see more scientists discovering the same about the human soul. Youâre all right to believe that science doesnât know everything.As a Catholic, Ringil, at what point do you believe that God did go âPOOFâ. If there never was such a moment, why would anyone consider himself a Christan believer. You do know that on some level God did have to go âPOOFâ to resurrect Jesus Christ.
Exactly. Itâs fun imagining that a creature equivalent to some ancient kaiju really existed but how can that be when it no longer exists? What happened to Behemoth? Where is that in the Bible?
(1) Protozoa remian protozoa. They cannot see, hear, smell, feel, think. They havenât changed into anything but new generations of protozoa.Yet you have no problems believing the person you see in the mirror once began as a fertilized egg cell.
Was the resurrection so childishly simple? That says a lot about you as a Christian wouldnât you think? For all you know, it could only more science that we donât understand. Real science is just about exploring the unknown. The supernatural represents that unknown. It is science not yet to be understood. Maybe someday weâll even get more specifics to the kind of power that this being called God has. Maybe weâll see more scientists discovering the same about the human soul. Youâre all right to believe that science doesnât know everything.
I just donât see how it desecrates everything it manages to understand (like the origin of species).
Evolution isnât exactly an overnight process. Furthermore, this is besides the point. You have a problem with the idea of mankind coming from something less. I canât say that make sense when you have no problem with the idea that you came out a fallopian tube.
Happenstance? Again, what is it with you âChristiansâ and confusing atheist nihilism with neutral scientific objectives?
Yet the alternatives make a lot more sense huh? I see where this is going.
Maybe because you put that erroneous premise in their heads to begin with.But I am alarmed by the fact that belief in an erroneous theory has caused millions of souls to lose their faith. Rob
(1) No, evoultion did not happen overnight, but neither can scientific methods prove that it could happen over billions of years either.Evolution isnât exactly an overnight process. Furthermore, this is besides the point. You have a problem with the idea of mankind coming from something less. I canât say that make sense when you have no problem with the idea that you came out a fallopian tube.
Happenstance? Again, what is it with you âChristiansâ and confusing atheist nihilism with neutral scientific objectives?
Yet the alternatives make a lot more sense huh? I see where this is going.
Maybe because you put that erroneous premise in their heads to begin with.
I would love to answer in more detail, but I am very busy at the moment.
Show me the fossil of an anatomically modern whale in rocks a billion years old, then.
Youâre misunderstanding the statement. The objective of science is to increase our knowledge, not to prove or disprove God. An atheistic scientist claiming evolution disproves God is being just as unscientific as the Institute of Creation Research.
I believe that He did. Scripture tells us that :
No mention is made of how long God took to form us âout of the slime of the earthâ (sidebar - the earliest known organisms are a form of single-celled algae, aka âslimeâ) We are the only self-aware, rational creatures on the planet because we are the only ones that God gifted with an immortal (âlivingâ) soul. Several animals have more neurons, or more complex brains, but none of them seem to have our degree of awareness. To me, that shows that our consciousness is something unique that canât be explained by biology alone.
But several people place the idea that God would never work through natural processes like evolution as a tenet of their faith on a level with the Incarnation. When that tenet is challenged by taking Biology 101, where evidence is presented to back up every scientific claim, the faith built on such an untenable foundation shatters. Thatâs the danger of Scriptural literalism - one of the most rotten fruits of Sola Scriptura. The Word we worship is a Person, not pages in a book, and He hasnât told us everything about how His Father created the universe. We are left to discover that on our own using the minds He granted us by examining the evidence and drawing rational conclusions.(4) Never have I so much as attempted to put any thought in the mind of another (that some evolutionary process disproves God), since I do not believe that myself.
Rob
Oy vey, there you go doing it again! This is nihilism, not science! Science is like the manual teaching you how to properly fire a gun. It doesnât tell you the reasons to shoot one.
Uh-huh yet those synapses developed in a span of nine months inside yo momma.
Your fear-mongering regarding the idea is what leads many atheists to go full-turbo with it even when itâs clear that their nihilism is just one way to perceive the evolutionary process.
It is very presumptuous for anyone to state what Catholics accept, or not, regarding this topic.I would love to answer in more detail, but I am very busy at the moment.
Just very briefly for now. Methodological naturalism is something every scientists takes on when doing his/her research. When you are facing a problem, you assume that it has a natural explanation. So far, looking back over the last 400 years this assumption has been very successful in giving us knowledge about the world.
400 years ago people thought that it was angels who push the planets around the sun. Newton found a natural solution, but even he thought that the whole solar system would eventually become unstable and collapse, so God needs to âwind upâ the clockwork from time to time. The infamous God of the Gaps.
I worked in research for 30 years. Not once did it come to my mind to appeal to a miracle or to demons if I couldnât explain something. It always turned out to have a natural cause.
But that never prevented me from believing in a creator who not just designed the whole universe, but sustains it continuously. There are millions of scientists who believe in God, but use the assumption of methodological naturalism in their work.
Think of the auto mechanic fixing your car. You wouldnât be happy if he comes and tells you âSorry, I canât find a fault. There is no natural explanation. It must be a demonâ.
I repeat again - science doesnât look at the ultimate questions: why is there a universe? what is our purpose? what is the meaning of life? why am I here? is there an afterlife? are there miracles? is there something beyond the natural world? and so on âŚ
Ontological, or philosophical naturalism is the belief, the conviction, that there is nothing beyond the physical world. Methodological naturalism doesnât say that, it only lets me consider natural explanations, in our space-time universe, to explain natural phenomena. Think of our auto mechanic: he can believe in the supernatural, but it wouldnât be part of his job to use miracles or demons as an explanation.
I am happy to discuss that further. Keep asking questions. But as I said before, listen to Fr Robert Barron on YouTube. He goes quite deep into the faith/reason problem.
Gordon Glover is a Christian who put a great series on science/philosophy on YouTube:
youtube.com/watch?v=Fperp1Mezt0
He does a great job explaining the two types of naturalism. He is an evangelical Christian. We Catholics have even less of a problem embracing science.
All children ask these âwhy?â questions all the times, which can get annoying to parents sometimes. When you grow up, most people get out of the habit of asking. I suppose they loose interest in how things function and work.
So, it is an either/or situation. Iâve read enough about psychological warfare to understand it.
No, itâs an either or situation that you force them into because you gave them too much of a psychological stake in something science quickly puts into question.
Who said that??
