I
IWantGod
Guest
I didn’t argue differently.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
W
Wozza
Guest
And let’s not forget the old standby…Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? - Scientific American
I
IWantGod
Guest
I didn’t say that a symbolic representation of how God created was false. I said that the creation story specifically is a symbolic or figurative representation and is not literally how it occurred in history, and given what science has revealed, including evolution, that’s the most reasonable interpretation.
I have not denied that God is the creator of physical existence, anywhere.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
I am not. If you would like to make a distinction between what is official church doctrine and dogma and say i am wrong in how in interpret these to concepts, that’s entirely up to you. But the fact remains that when i say that it is not church doctrine, i am saying that the church doesn’t teach the idea that how genesis describes the creation of species is a literal historical fact if by that one means that different kinds were not biologically the result of evolution…
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
In that case, perhaps you can push the boundaries of your fundamentalism to see that things in Genesis can be “literally” true without being physically obvious.
I think that is what you are saying. You are forcing your concept of “symbolic representation” into the Genesis narrative. In doing so, you must conclude that it is a “story” (fable?) and is not “literally true”.
You seem to be making the assumption that things that are symbolic cannot also literally occur in history. You are forcing a disconnect between the symbolic account, and the scientific. The reason so many Catholics, who accept the Scriptures as inspired and inerrant, can also embrace evolutionary theory is that we do not force this disconnect like you do . For us, both are reasonable ways of explaining events that do not contradict each other.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Firstly i am not a fundamentalist. Secondly i don’t know what you mean by “literally true without being physically obvious”.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The rules of the Scientific Method exclude reliance on explanations involving God or gods. Those are just the rules when you play that game. Saying that they must take God into account is like saying that the rules of baseball must take God into account. But that would be silly. Everyone knows that when you go to a baseball game you don’t expect the umpire to decide if a ball was fair or foul by consulting scriptures. Yet when the game is over, people go home. The players go home. The umpires go home. And many of them say their prayers before bedtime and go to Church on Sunday and make God a central part of their life.
Similarly, scientists play by a certain set of rules that specify that the proper field of study is what can be physically observed and tested. Those who are religious may have heard of “Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test.” So if I were a research scientist, I would be very hesitant to attempt to run an experiment that might prove or disprove the existence of God (quite independently from the fact that I believe that such an experiment is impossible in principle, but even the search for such an experiment I would consider a blasphemy). And there are scientists who, at the end of the day, go home, say their prayers, go to Church on Sunday, and make God a central part of their life.
Similarly, scientists play by a certain set of rules that specify that the proper field of study is what can be physically observed and tested. Those who are religious may have heard of “Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test.” So if I were a research scientist, I would be very hesitant to attempt to run an experiment that might prove or disprove the existence of God (quite independently from the fact that I believe that such an experiment is impossible in principle, but even the search for such an experiment I would consider a blasphemy). And there are scientists who, at the end of the day, go home, say their prayers, go to Church on Sunday, and make God a central part of their life.
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
I apologize if this is the wrong kind of description. It seems like you are reading Genesis from a fundamentalist point of view.
I am referring to primarily things that exist in the invisible realm, and those supernatural events that cannot be explained by science.
Angels are a good example of beings who are literal (real) but do not have physical bodies.
I
IWantGod
Guest
I Fail to see how i am making that error.
E
edwest
Guest
Thank you.
W
Wozza
Guest
Very well said.
M
mVitus
Guest
I’m not IWantGod but I do think that there’s been some of talking past each other in your discourse. As someone who’s known that IWantGod is in favor of evolution, reading some of your posts debating him has been a little like seeing someone saying, “What are you talking about? 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 32/8, it equals 4.” In other words, you both are saying a lot of the same thing in your posts, just in different ways. And I think that if you reread IWantGod’s posts in the light of that, it seems to me that you already have the same view, just worded differently.
R
Richca
Guest
I already answered this in my post you are replying to here. But I would like add a few more comments. Firstly, I get where your coming from according to a personal or certain kind of interpretation of Genesis but there are a few contradictions that can be pointed out here.Richca:
It doesn’t. And neither does it follow from a strict reading of genesis that God created different kinds over billions of years. Clearly, it is more reasonable not to think of genesis as an historical account of creation, and i don’t think it was intended to be. Any attempt to conform genesis to the scientific data is adhoc at best.
(1) Christians have been conforming true scientific facts to Genesis and the rest of the Bible since the early fathers of the Church.
(2) The statement ‘Any attempt to conform Genesis to the scientific data is adhoc at best’, is repeated in a subsequent post of yours, namely, ‘And instead of accepting that genesis is not a description of events that took place, those who know that it is inconsistent with the facts try to twist and stretch genesis to suit their assumptions. So no, i don’t think an ad-hoc rendition of genesis to fit the facts is reasonable’.
What you deny as reasonable on the one hand such as conforming various scientific facts if they be so to a creationist reading of Genesis, on the other hand is precisely what your doing in an interpretation of Genesis according to not just possible scientific facts but according to what I believe are unprovable scientific theories. Your interpreting Genesis according to an ‘ad-hoc’ rendition of evolutionary theory and in the same breath state '‘any attempt to conform Genesis to the scientific data is adhoc at best’. You seem to want to apply various principles of biblical interpretation according to a certain evolutionary interpretation of Genesis but deny that such principles can be applied in some manner to a creationist interpretation of Genesis. I mean, if you label a creationist interpretation of conforming various scientific data to Genesis as ‘adhoc’, what are we to make of an evolutionary interpretation of Genesis? Is there anything left to Genesis after such an interpretation?
(3) Conforming various scientific facts if they indeed are facts to a creationist reading of Genesis is not unreasonable but very reasonable as catholics and christians believe that God is simply the Creator of the universe and, indeed, that God is the creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, is the first article of the catholic and christian profession of faith. Also, in the creationist interpretation of Genesis, there is nothing against what we believe about God besides Him being the Creator and not in the least what is written in Holy Scripture itself, but also what may concern what we believe about him concerning his nature and other attributes.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
One doesn’t need to debate a binary question. Atheist: Do you believe in ToE?
So far the answer is 100% “Yes”.
Does the 100% relationship suggest a bias? Yes.
If one detects bias, should the credibility of the biased response be questioned? Yes.
Is an atheist-scientist an oxymoron? Yes. Only agnostic-scientists are credible in matters material.
Do living things have a non-material dimension? Is there a difference between dead dog and live dog? Yes and Yes.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Cute …
E
edwest
Guest
The scientific facts have been challenged again and again. The Church has the authority to interpret scripture correctly, and yes, she considers new scientific discoveries but is not quick to pronounce for or against them. She is in the unique position of addressing both Divine revelation and science and combining the two, which science cannot do.
So what is being discussed here? An ideology. A worldview. Yes, scientists study long extinct forms of life but that’s all. I have learned, mostly here, that evolution has no practical use in applied science, in new drug discovery or any other branch of science.
This leaves promoting a worldview as the best explanation for years of debate here and elsewhere. The goal is clear: when the atheist and the Christian both believe in the “scientific” explanation of events in Genesis then the atheist can be “intellectually fulfilled,” like Richard Dawkins. A scientist who is never called on the carpet for his promotion of the “God Delusion.” But, should a university professor mention Intelligent Design, he risks everything and is placed under a microscope. Tainted. So I hope my fellow Catholics can see where this is going.
So what is being discussed here? An ideology. A worldview. Yes, scientists study long extinct forms of life but that’s all. I have learned, mostly here, that evolution has no practical use in applied science, in new drug discovery or any other branch of science.
This leaves promoting a worldview as the best explanation for years of debate here and elsewhere. The goal is clear: when the atheist and the Christian both believe in the “scientific” explanation of events in Genesis then the atheist can be “intellectually fulfilled,” like Richard Dawkins. A scientist who is never called on the carpet for his promotion of the “God Delusion.” But, should a university professor mention Intelligent Design, he risks everything and is placed under a microscope. Tainted. So I hope my fellow Catholics can see where this is going.
W
Wozza
Guest
I guess that it could also be suggested that someone might claim that it is an undoubted bias that 100% of Christians believe that God is somehow involved in how life exists at this point.Wozza:
Atheist: Do you believe in ToE?
So far the answer is 100% “Yes”.
Does the 100% relationship suggest a bias? Yes.
But I really haven’t met anyone that dumb.
B
buffalo
Guest
There is, it is called evolution. It is almighty and can do everything. Methodological naturalism is the only way and fundamentalist.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Not credibly.
Science proper does not attempt to do that.
What is being discussed is the objective truth of a scientific theory. At least that’s all that should be discussed, given the title of the thread.
That might be an interesting off-shoot of this discussion, but the practical applications of a theory have absolutely no bearing on whether that theory is true. So that would be a deflection.
correction: only some of the events in Genesis…
And so can the Christian be “intellectually fulfilled” (whatever that means!)
Only if he promotes it as science, which it is not. I imagine that an umpire at a baseball game who insisted on telling every batter coming up to bat about Intelligent Design would also be placed under a microscope.
Sorry, I don’t see where this is going at all.
R
Richca
Guest
I find it a rather strange phenomenon that evolutionary theory, either cosmic or biological or both, has proponents from both the christian and atheist camps. In Psalm 19: 1-4, we read:
‘The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard;
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world’.
And St Paul says in Romans 1: 19-20:
‘For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made’.
In other words, our contemplation of the creation around us should lead us to its creator, to God. This does not seem to be the case with evolutionary theory and atheists. This theory has driven God the Creator of the world out of the world as it were to the farthest limits possible, to a point like singularity which according to some is described, though most likely philosophically inaccurate, as infinitesimally small. Imagine that!
In a certain sense according to evolutionary theory, it seems it could be said, ‘I believe in the singularity, the creator of heaven and earth’ which literally would be idolatry of course and I understand the position of the theistic evo’s is not one of idolatry, I get that. Still, what christians profess in the creed is ‘I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth’. I think the whole modern evolutionary phenomenon can be construed in a certain sense as a resurrection of ancient mythologies but without the divinities and gods but under the form of scientism and naturalism. The question is would God create and produce the universe according to a mode such as evolutionary theory that apparently doesn’t really lead to him such as in the case of the atheists? When we look up at the heavens and the sun, moon, and stars, do we think immediately of God or of evolution and of some creaturely second cause process or of the singularity? Personally, when I contemplate God’s creation whether it be heavenly or earthly, I think of God immediately and that creation is his handiwork , evolution does not even enter my mind. But, that’s just me. Still, as I have said, I find it a rather strange phenomenon like something doesn’t add up right that macro-evolutionary theory, both cosmic and earthly and biological, consists of both christians and atheists.
Last edited:
- Status