Vatican astronomer likens creationism to superstition

[drpmjhess]

None of the other books you cite relate to human origins. The anti-God movement in the United States loves evolution and hates Christianity. The biology text provides incomplete and misleading information about the origin and dignity of the human person.God bless,Ed

Ed, science is in no position to comment upon theology. If it were. Christians would be in serious trouble. So biology cannot say anything about God. It is up to theologians who accept a science that studies the world through methodological naturalism, to interpret the findings of that science in light of our Christian faith.

Theology has nothing to add to science regarding the speed of light, the initial conditions before the Big Bang, or the neurobiology of temporal lobe epilepsy. But theology can and should quite legitimately interpret God’s creative grace made manifest in the universe, or God’s continuing conversation with mystics through neurobiological media.

Theology can and should comment on claims like that for the Virgin Mary pretzel for sale on e-Bay http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/02/eugene_radio_station_puts_virg.html.
But theology has no reason to comment on or deny the validity of each new fossil discovery in evolutionary biology.

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

On the contrary, as in the case of embryonic stem cell research, the Church has a lot to say. The embryos are alive. They are scientifically, provably alive. They can be kept in cold storage and still live. What is their value in in vitro fertilization? Yet the secular world can ignore the science and declare them non-persons by personal fiat.

The Pope does not warn against plumbing or electricity or gravity. He warns against indifference and atheism and all things that destroy life and harm the family. At the core of this concern is the dignity of the person from conception to natural death. Anything that denies this fundamental concept and reduces man to utilitarian stuff is anti-God. Already, scientists are talking about religion as meaningless. “Genetics and environment, what else is there?”

You should understand that unlike birds that are born with the knowledge to build a nest and raise their young, human beings have to be taught.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

Ed, science is in no position to comment upon theology. If it were. Christians would be in serious trouble.

Oh really? Why?

So biology cannot say anything about God. It is up to theologians who accept a science that studies the world through methodological naturalism, to interpret the findings of that science in light of our Christian faith.

It looks like you’re getting dangerously close to saying that theologians should look for evidence of an Intelligent Designer using science

Theology has nothing to add to science regarding the speed of light, the initial conditions before the Big Bang, or the neurobiology of temporal lobe epilepsy.

But theology can and should quite legitimately interpret God’s creative grace made manifest in the universe, or God’s continuing conversation with mystics through neurobiological media.

Agreed, but in your second sentence there is still significant overlap with science.

Theology can and should comment on claims like that for the Virgin Mary pretzel for sale on e-Bay http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/02/eugene_radio_station_puts_virg.html.

But theology has no reason to comment on or deny the validity of each new fossil discovery in evolutionary biology.

OK.

 

[drpmjhess]

On the contrary, as in the case of embryonic stem cell research, the Church has a lot to say. The embryos are alive. /QUOTE]

To be sure. But the Church is commenting on atheistic ethical and philosophical assumptions, not on the science of embryology.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

It looks like you’re getting dangerously close to saying that theologians should look for evidence of an Intelligent Designer using science

Agreed, but in your second sentence there is still significant overlap with science.OK.

Ricmat,

(1) Theistic evolutionists (of which I am one) do not look for evidence of a designer using science. Rather, we look at what science tells us about the world, and interpret that in light of faith. For instance, the series of coincidences and cosmological constants that together have been dubbed the “anthropic principle” are remarkable to us theists, although not remarkable to an atheist. I don’t understand why atheists are unmoved by them, but that doesn’t change the fact that my attraction to the anthropic principle is driven by philosophy and theology, not by science.

(2) I am all for the idea of overlap between science and theology, but not so as to confuse them methodologically. Neurobiology and theology can both take an interest in phenomena of “mystical experience,” if for different reasons. And if the neuroscientist is Catholic (or other theist) she might see rich possibilities for interaction. But as a neuroscientist she will comment on neurological and chemical matters, not theological. And the local Bishop might comment on the coherence of the “mystic’s” experiences with the deposit of faith, but not on the neurobiology of the subject or the experience.

Petrus

 

[ricmat]

Petrus, thanks for the response.

Ricmat,

(1) Theistic evolutionists (of which I am one) do not look for evidence of a designer using science. Rather, we look at what science tells us about the world, and interpret that in light of faith. For instance, the series of coincidences and cosmological constants that together have been dubbed the “anthropic principle” are remarkable to us theists, although not remarkable to an atheist. I don’t understand why atheists are unmoved by them, but that doesn’t change the fact that my attraction to the anthropic principle is driven by philosophy and theology, not by science.

What if what science tells you is that a Designer was involved in Creation? Of course, it won’t tell you that if you refuse to look for it.

Anthropic principle - ditto, amen, etc! “driven by philospphy and theology, not by science” - Except that it involves probabilities, which involve mathematics (which I loosely classify with science, but perhaps you put it in the philosophy camp).

 

[drpmjhess]

Petrus, thanks for the response. What if what science tells you is that a Designer was involved in Creation? Of course, it won’t tell you that if you refuse to look for it.
Anthropic principle - ditto, amen, etc! “driven by philospphy and theology, not by science” - Except that it involves probabilities, which involve mathematics (which I loosely classify with science, but perhaps you put it in the philosophy camp).

Ricmat, even if the anthropic principle leads one ineluctably to conclude to a designer, I don’t personally believe it is the science that pushes us to take that final step. It is I suppose possible for an atheist to be led by the science to an acknowledgment that the word as he observes it cries out for a designer, but I would wonder whether there were other comcommitant factors, such as the witness of friends who were religious believers, or at least a cultural medium predisposing him to belief. After all, if it is the science, why wouldn’t the compelling evidence of design lead one to Islam or Hinduism rather than Catholicism?

For an example of someone who looks at the cosmological evidence and comes to a conclusion starkly at odds with yours and mine, see the Youtube video on Neil de Grasse Tyson http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=75c_1177460897&p=1. It’s a depressing take on cosmic coincidences that leads him to a sort of anti-anthropic principle, but it’s worth a look.

Petrus

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat, even if the anthropic principle leads one ineluctably to conclude to a designer, I don’t personally believe it is the science that pushes us to take that final step.

I absolutely agree. I wrote a passionate post a while back on this very subject.

It is I suppose possible for an atheist to be led by the science to an acknowledgment that the word as he observes it cries out for a designer, but I would wonder whether there were other comcommitant factors, such as the witness of friends who were religious believers, or at least a cultural medium predisposing him to belief. After all, if it is the science, why wouldn’t the compelling evidence of design lead one to Islam or Hinduism rather than Catholicism?

The first step is belief in God. The rest follows (or so we hope). Preach the gospel. Use words if necessary.

For an example of someone who looks at the cosmological evidence and comes to a conclusion starkly at odds with yours and mine, see the Youtube video on Neil de Grasse Tyson http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=75c_1177460897&p=1. It’s a depressing take on cosmic coincidences that leads him to a sort of anti-anthropic principle, but it’s worth a look.

Petrus

I’ll take a look…

BTW - I’m glad we have something in common.

 

[edwest2]

edwest2;3361234:

On the contrary, as in the case of embryonic stem cell research, the Church has a lot to say. The embryos are alive. /QUOTE]

To be sure. But the Church is commenting on atheistic ethical and philosophical assumptions, not on the science of embryology.

Petrus

You appear to be ignoring the Pontifial Academy of Sciences. On the radio, I was listening to a Catholic priest and a Catholic nurse discussing human embryos. You seem to think that the Church does not understand the science or the terminology. They used the scientific terms throughout the broadcast. Scientists do not work behind closed doors without priests, for example, watching. Gregor Mendel was a monk. And Nicholas Copernicus?

It is valid for the Church to state that an embryo is a person both as a scientific fact which is proveable and as a statement of faith, as given by God.

It seems incongruent to me to comment on a matter like this without understanding the scientific and faith related aspects at the same time.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Your claim that ID is not science does not hold up.

The only way you can make ID into science is to throw away all of the precepts of science. If you do that ID is just fine as science.

But, under the current definition of science, ID is not even close to being science. Get used to it.

 

[ricmat]

The only way you can make ID into science is to throw away all of the precepts of science. If you do that ID is just fine as science.

But, under the current definition of science, ID is not even close to being science. Get used to it.

And Cardinal Schoenborn said here:

• The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

• “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

• Quoting the Catechism: “Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason. . . . We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

Get used to it.

 

[ricmat]

Cardinal Schoenborn’s article on this subject has apparently been moved. Here is the current location.

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=71

Highlights:
• The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

• “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

• Quoting the Catechism: “Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason. . . . We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for writing that.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

drpmjhess;3361275:

You seem to think that the Church does not understand the science or the terminology. They used the scientific terms throughout the broadcast. Scientists do not work behind closed doors without priests, for example, watching. Gregor Mendel was a monk. And Nicholas Copernicus?

It is valid for the Church to state that an embryo is a person both

as a scientific fact which is proveable and as a statement of faith, as given by God.God bless,
Ed

(1) Copernicus was not a priest.

(2) I never said the church does not understand the science. Theology cannot comment scientifically on science, nor science theologically on theology.

(3) It is not a scientific fact that “an embryo is a person,” because that is a philosophical statement. It is not a scientific statement to say that you or I or women or people of different races or children with Down Syndrome are persons. Personhood is a philosophical category, not a scientific one. Homo sapiens is a taxonomic descriptor, and does not include “personhood.”

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

• “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”
[/INDENT]

Ricmat, biologists certainly see design in nature. A bird wing or a streamlined fish shape are designed to go more efficiently through water. Biologists explain this as adaptation that confers a survival advantage. A religious believer might lead you to faith, but the science does not lead ineluctably to a designer.

But Intelligent Design advocates ignore teleologies that are not as nice, and yet also show design. If all design is ascribed to a designer, dysteleologies have to be ascribed to the designer as well.

Take, for example, reproductive behavior in some Praying mantis species. The male is not capable of ejaculating his sperm into the female until she has chewed her mate’s head off completely. Partial chewing off of the head is not sufficient. An intelligent design advocate would have to agree that a wise and loving providence devised this ingenious method for delivery of the male Praying mantis’s genetic load!

Petrus

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Where did all the matter for the “Big Bang” come from. I do believe in the big bang, because God spoke and "BANG" there it was.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Namesake]

Where did all the matter for the “Big Bang” come from. I do believe in the big bang, because God spoke and "BANG" there it was.
Deacon Ed B

Do you understand that science doesn’t address origins in the same way religion does? If scientists don’t know the answer they don’t claim to know the answer. They develop theories and hypotheses and then set out to test them with a completely open mind. Religion goes about the search for truth in a completely different way.

 

[Stephen_LB]

Stephen LB;3360299:

Don’t confuse “creationism” in the sense of the Christian doctrine that the conditions for all things were primordially created by God – Augustine would have agreed with this – with the “creationism” of fundamentalists today who deny biological and cosmological evolution. Augustine would not have agreed with so-called “creation science”; nor would Saint Thomas, who carefully distinguished between what can be known by science and what can be known through religious faith.

Creationism is a term that can mean almost anything, which is why I ask that you not use it. The distinction to be made is between [A] Creation Science or Young Earth Creationism and ** Intelligent Design.

[A] Begins the investigation with a presupposition of Biblical truth, meaning that it is faith based;
** Begins the investigation with an observation and analysis of data, meaning that it is empirically based.

[A] Rejects evolution in principle; ** Accepts guided evolution, rejects unguided evolution

YEC or CS is not science because it begins by presupposing the truth of Genesis and then follows by harmonizing its science to fit that Biblical paradigm. Conversely, ID is science because it begins by observing data and follows by making an inference to the best explanation.

The point is that each approach has a history and that each is distinct. ID is an extension of Aristotle’s prime mover argument, Aquinas’ Cosmological argument, and Paley’s watchmaker argument, all of which are empirical in their approach. There is no contesting that fact. Inasmuch as Judge Jones did not know it, he was not qualified to comment on the subject, let alone rule on it.

I am not accusing you of this, but most ID critics use the term “creationist” to conflate CS with ID. It cannot be done honestly once one knows that facts.******

 

[Stephen_LB]

The only way you can make ID into science is to throw away all of the precepts of science. If you do that ID is just fine as science.

But, under the current definition of science, ID is not even close to being science. Get used to it.

As defined by who? Everything turns on who does the defining. You have not addressed the point that methodological naturalism is a relatively new paradigm. No such restrictions were placed on all the great scientists of the past. They believed that science was knowledge gained through a disciplined and systematic investigation of data. What is your justification for abandoning this broad view of science?

 

[Stephen_LB]

Stephen, this is perilously close to the god-of-the-gaps argument.

The notion that either law, chance, or agency is responsible for all physical events is a well-established fact… Therefore, the only challenge is to rule out law and chance prior to attributing an event to agency. If law and chance cannot be reliably ruled out, then it would indeed be a God of the gaps argument. If, however, they can be ruled out through scientific means, then no such problem exists. That is precisely what the explanatory filter does. In any case, ID does not presume to detect Divine agency, it works for all intelligent innovation. Notice, by the way, that I have not broached the subject of religion. ID is not faith based.