Vatican astronomer likens creationism to superstition

[drpmjhess]

Immortality and freedom from illnesses, etc, was one of preternatural gifts lost with original sin. So I go back to my original statement. Death was not part of God’s plan in creation. Wisdom 1:12-13 says, "Court not death by your erring way of life, nor draw to yourselves destruction by the works sof your hands. Because God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living."
Deacon Ed B

We know for a fact that predation, suffering, and death existed on earth for three billion years before humans evolved. Theologically this is significant because it indicates the “fallenness” of creation (Romans 8:22: “For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now”) and the christocentric character of evolution.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

The subject of intelligent design is over two thousand years old. Anyone who does not know that contributes to the “abysmal state of education in this country.” For the first time in history, the badly educated are even more intellectually deprived than the uneducated, precisely because they think they know things that they don’t know. Such is the price of unrestrained hubris.

The subject of geocentrism is over two thousand years old. Anyone who does not know that scientific knowledge develops contributes to the “abysmal state of education in this country.”

Of course the question of the intelligent design of the universe is ancient, and will (I hope) remain central to Christian theological discussion forever. But it does not belong in the laboratory any more than does astrology or alchemy.

 

[edwest2]

The rise of YEC and IDC is a measure of the abysmal state of education in this country. It is virtually non-existent among educated people and seems to be an American phenomenon, although the infection is making inroads in Australia and Europe. It will be interesting to see whether Asian countries will be infected – I suspect Korea might be, with it’s strong complement of evangelical Presbyterianism.

I disagree. The lack of acceptance of the theory of evolution is based on knowledge. Knowledge contained in the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church. The biology textbook lacks this knowledge. Fortunately, there are people who have this knowledge and can convey it to others.

Education is not the problem. The attempt to indoctrinate the ‘rank and file’ faithful to believe in an incomplete and flawed theory is the problem. The indoctrination is being promoted by those wishing to bring about a Scientific Technocracy. Science will be in charge. They will attempt to move the Catholic Church out of the picture but this will not be possible.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

I have yet to meet even one of these “professionals” who can explain the difference between CS and ID, much less can they trace the history of each back through time. Not one can explain to me, even at the most fundamental level, what a design inference is or how it works. Predictably, they simply fall back on their boilerplate assertion that “ID is not science.” Ironically, they cannot define either ID or science, which means, of course, that they are hardly in a position to make claims about either.

Most of them are dutiful little worker bees who discuss the subject only among themselves, which means of course, that they learn nothing. Even when I present a simple example of a written paragraph as an example of multiple information bits “designed” according to a specified pattern, they cannot respond intelligently to the point. Either that or they withdraw from the dialogue realizing that once the mathematical models are introduced, all their uninformed objections about ID not being science are immediately refuted. That means that either [A] they are ignorant of the subject matter or ** they are intellectually dishonest.**

Stephen, it is culturally important to know what ID proponents mean by “design inference” and “complex specified information” and “irreducible complexity,” just as it is culturally important to know what astrologers mean by the terms "“as above, so below” and “natal signs” and “houses of the horoscope.” But it is not important for scientists to study intelligent design theory in order for them to carry out their scientific research.

Please note that I distinguish between what is culturally important and what is scientifically important. Scientifically, the terms employed by ID proponents have no valence, no utility, no predictive value, no fertility for further discoveries. ID is a science stopper, saying, “God did it; go thou no further.”

I believe it is important culturally for everyone to understand basic terms of different belief systems. In order to be a responsible party to discussion, Richard Dawkins should be able to articulate what “transubstantiation” means, even though it holds no reality for him personally.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Knowledge contained in the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church. The biology textbook lacks this knowledge. Fortunately, there are people who have this knowledge and can convey it to others.God bless,Ed

Ed, theology has no more place in biology textbooks than it does in flight manuals. However much I hope my pilots pray during takeoff and landing, I don’t expect their technical training to include units on prayer. If you complain that biology is a “godless” science, I can think of hundreds of other sciences and techniques that are godless" in the sense that appeal to divinity does not hold a place in their exercise: geology, physics, chemistry, plumbing, driver’s training, engineering, navigation, welding, carpentry, anatomy and physiology, etc.

For a Catholic Christian prayer plays a role in my life no matter what I’m doing, and I would hope the same holds for others as well. I was in Nigeria speaking at an international conference on science and religion in 2001, and I was happy that our driver for the week was a devout Muslim who committed each drive on Nigeria’s parlous roads to the protection of Allah. Catholic priests I know who are scientists (physics, biology, chemistry) pray while working, even if they don’t insert theological dicta like “intelligent design” into the heuristic process.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Pope John Paull II clearly defined the role of religion as regards to science and vice versa.

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

Too many idolize science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Pope John Paull II clearly defined the role of religion as regards to science and vice versa. "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."God bless,Ed

I quite agree!
Petrus

 

[Stephen_LB]

The subject of geocentrism is over two thousand years old. Anyone who does not know that scientific knowledge develops contributes to the “abysmal state of education in this country.”

Of course the question of the intelligent design of the universe is ancient, and will (I hope) remain central to Christian theological discussion forever. But it does not belong in the laboratory any more than does astrology or alchemy.

Your analogy about geocentrism is quite apt. Entrenched geocentric ideologues once refused to recognize the truth about a heliocentric solar system, because they valued the status quo more than they valued truth. Today, entrenched Darwinist ideologues refuse to recognize the truth about intelligent design, because they value the status quo more than they value truth. Thanks for the point.

With regard to ID, I continue to marvel at its critics and their inability to even address the simplest of challenges. This passive reaction is not what I would expect from those who boldly declare that ID is not science. There is always the chance that I have been too subtle. Maybe I should put it in the form of a dare.

Here is an easy one. I dare any ID critic to explain why forensic science is science, while ID, which uses the same methodology, is not.

Or, try this one. Here is a well-accepted definition of science:

science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990]

scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge ”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster’s 7th Collegiate, 1965]

ID fits nicely into that picture. I dare any ID critic to explain why that definition is not a fair one. If anyone has a better one, please provide it and explain why yours is better than mine. That is the least one could do who insists that “ID is not science.”
I dare any of you to engage me in the subject matter. I promise not to be abusive if you make mistakes. We all make mistakes.

Nothing personal here drpmjhess, this is for all ID critics. I don’t ask you to answer for all of your colleagues nor should you be expected to. In this, I am being generous inasmuch as you do speak for them when you declare that ID is not science.

 

[Stephen_LB]

Stephen, it is culturally important to know what ID proponents mean by “design inference” and “complex specified information” and “irreducible complexity,” just as it is culturally important to know what astrologers mean by the terms "“as above, so below” and “natal signs” and “houses of the horoscope.” But it is not important for scientists to study intelligent design theory in order for them to carry out their scientific research.

Please note that I distinguish between what is culturally important and what is scientifically important. Scientifically, the terms employed by ID proponents have no valence, no utility, no predictive value, no fertility for further discoveries. ID is a science stopper, saying, “God did it; go thou no further.”

I believe it is important culturally for everyone to understand basic terms of different belief systems. In order to be a responsible party to discussion, Richard Dawkins should be able to articulate what “transubstantiation” means, even though it holds no reality for him personally.

Petrus

Petrus, forgive me, but you are again using parodies from ID websites. ID is not a God-of-the-gaps methodology. Once again, you are proving that you have not investigated this matter. ID makes plenty of successful predictions, even in its embryonic state.

Why should ID, which is about 15 years old have to prove its utility at this early stage when Darwinism has given us absolutely nothing in 150 years. You can’t name one good thing that the theory of evolution has ever done for mankind. No one can. It only serves as a science stopper for the real innovators. “Jealousy is the tribute that mediocrity pays to genius.”—Fulton J. Sheen.

 

[ricmat]

It’s funny that there is much religious art, and it is considered “real” art, not religion. And there is religious music that all consider “real” music, not religion. And some archaeologists particularly search for and uncover religious artifacts and it’s considered real archeology, not religion. There are even historians who research exclusively religious themes, and it is considered history, not religion.

I don’t think that God is offended by the mixing of these disciplines.

But when it comes to science, it is said that mixing the two is a no-no, and the presence of religion contaminates the science. For as we all know, scientists who mix in religion will all of a sudden start saying things like “We’re not going to investigate any further, we’re happy to say that 'God did it.” Yeah, I hear that all the time

If someone were to ask God, "Lord, do you want the discipline of science to totally ignore you , I wonder what he’d say?

 

[Riada]

Ricmat, the so called mixing of disciplines problem is a pseudo-issue. Religion, philosophy, poetry(or Literature) and science are hardly separate, watertight compartments. Who was Dante, philosopher, poet or theologian? Can he have been all of these without any scientific ideas? The insanity of the evolutionist pseudo-scientific mythology comes about from several anti-rational pre-suppositions of atheist scientists. Much of this goes back to the absurd notions of Auguste Compte that science can now discard any consideration of metaphysical ideas. This is a metaphysical idea and therefore as much of a self contradiction as “There is no absolute truth.” It leads to the further self contradictory notion that atheism or agnosticism are non religious views. A further problem is the narrow specialization of science and engineering. Most people in the scientific are perfect examples of what Socrates was talking about back in the fifth century before Christ(if this is a coomon era it is because Christ made it so). He said the artisans had a kind of knowledge, but because of that they imagined they knew all about other things they knew nothing about. The majority (80%) of the scientific community are not educated but trained technicians in the most literal sense. Consequently they do not know that science came into being in the Western world because it was permeated with Christian theology and it continues to function on unconsciously held Christian ideas.

 

[drpmjhess]

ID is not a God-of-the-gaps methodology. …ID makes plenty of successful predictions, even in its embryonic state…Why should ID, which is about 15 years old have to prove its utility at this early stage when Darwinism has given us absolutely nothing in 150 years.

The only reason scientists bother with research in lab mice, rats, and monkeys is common descent, which makes testable predictions about the agreement between phylogenies based on genes and on morphology, behavior, etc. What kind of predictions does ID make?

 

[drpmjhess]

The insanity of the evolutionist pseudo-scientific mythology comes about from several anti-rational pre-suppositions of atheist scientists… This is a metaphysical idea .

No, you’re mistaken. Evolution is not a metaphysical idea, but a scientific one. Evolution is not atheistic any more than gravity theory is atheistic, or plate tectonics, or the atomic theory of matter.

 

[Namesake]

The only reason scientists bother with research in lab mice, rats, and monkeys is common descent, which makes testable predictions about the agreement between phylogenies based on genes and on morphology, behavior, etc. What kind of predictions does ID make?

Well, maybe not the only reason. Probably the main reason is that a lot of research would be immoral and/or illegal to do on humans. But for the vast majority of your posts here I agree completely.

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat, the so called mixing of disciplines problem is a pseudo-issue. Religion, philosophy, poetry(or Literature) and science are hardly separate, watertight compartments. Who was Dante, philosopher, poet or theologian? Can he have been all of these without any scientific ideas? The insanity of the evolutionist pseudo-scientific mythology comes about from several anti-rational pre-suppositions of atheist scientists. Much of this goes back to the absurd notions of Auguste Compte that science can now discard any consideration of metaphysical ideas. This is a metaphysical idea and therefore as much of a self contradiction as “There is no absolute truth.” It leads to the further self contradictory notion that atheism or agnosticism are non religious views. A further problem is the narrow specialization of science and engineering. Most people in the scientific are perfect examples of what Socrates was talking about back in the fifth century before Christ(if this is a coomon era it is because Christ made it so). He said the artisans had a kind of knowledge, but because of that they imagined they knew all about other things they knew nothing about. The majority (80%) of the scientific community are not educated but trained technicians in the most literal sense. Consequently they do not know that science came into being in the Western world because it was permeated with Christian theology and it continues to function on unconsciously held Christian ideas.

Hello Riada, I see that you’re a new poster. Welcome to the forum! Nice post above, I agree with you!

 

[drpmjhess]

Well, maybe not the only reason. Probably the main reason is that a lot of research would be immoral and/or illegal to do on humans. But for the vast majority of your posts here I agree completely.

You’re right, Namesake! I overstated the case. I do wonder how on earth a scientist would approach a question in the evolution of physiological processes on an ID basis. What would it be like?

 

[Namesake]

You’re right, Namesake! I overstated the case. I do wonder how on earth a scientist would approach a question in the evolution of physiological processes on an ID basis. What would it be like?

I taught comparative anatomy at a major US land grant university. That’s pretty much how we did our research, by studying infra-human species and making correlations with humans.

But as far as ID is concerned, that simply can’t be researched with meaningful scientific models. As you well understand, when God is brought into the questions, science ceases to exist.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I taught comparative anatomy at a major US land grant university. That’s pretty much how we did our research, by studying infra-human species and making correlations with humans.

But as far as ID is concerned, that simply can’t be researched with meaningful scientific models. As you well understand, when God is brought into the questions, science ceases to exist.

I’m gonna kick that sideways a bit. Jesus, Who is God, is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. A scientist who is seeking the truth for the sake of truth and not to prove some preexisting prejudice is uncovering the Creator’s creation. I think this is a true vocation for some.

Unfortunately, men have fallen natures and every age has to deal with group think of that age, which is opinion and not the truth. And each seeker has to grapple with the idea of the truth versus the idea of being accepted. Not an easy vocation.

 

[Namesake]

I’m gonna kick that sideways a bit. Jesus, Who is God, is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. A scientist who is seeking the truth for the sake of truth and not to prove some preexisting prejudice is uncovering the Creator’s creation. I think this is a true vocation for some.

Unfortunately, men have fallen natures and every age has to deal with group think, which is opinion and not the truth. And each seeker has to grapple with the idea of the truth versus the idea of being accepted. Not an easy vocation.

You make a very strong point, for religion. But science isn’t in the least interested in Jesus.

That is not the same as saying that science is hostile to religion. Science simply is not interested in religion. When you bring Jesus into the discussion you have left science. Not very hard to understand.

You get to choose. Science or religion. They are not at odds with each other at all. They are simply separate.

 

[Holly3278]

Glasgow, Dec. 6, 2007 (CWNews.com) - A Jesuit astronomer from the Vatican Observatory has said that scientific creationism is a form of superstition.

Speaking in Glasgow this week, Brother Guy Consolmagno said that scientists should protect against the tendency of religion to slide into superstition. In turn, he said, science needs religion “in order to have a conscience.” In the case of creationism, he said, believers have constructed a theory that is not supported by scientific facts.

“Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality,” Brother Consolmagno said-- “to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism.”
…

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55172

I agree with him that religion needs science in order to have a conscience but I do not agree that creationism is a form of paganism. And this is coming from a believer in Theistic Evolution.