Are modern catholics creationists???

speaking

Do Catholics today believe in Adam and eve and the story in the old testament? Seven days creation and the like?

Maybe this is not a great question for this forum I suppose.

Sonics2k

Some do, some don't.

I think the Vatican has been rather quiet on the whole thing, and often dodges an actual answer, but then that's hardly a surprise :pac:

speaking

Sonics2k wrote: »

I think the Vatican has been rather quiet on the whole thing, and often dodges an actual answer, but then that's hardly a surprise :pac:

So the Pope is a creationist. That is amazing.

Temptamperu

I'm sure most modern catholics don't believe in the new testament never-mind the old.

magicbastarder

nope, the catholic church's official teaching is *not* a creationist one.
i don't think i've met a catholic creationist; i suspect it's more of a protestant thing, with its greater emphasis on bible study.

Sonics2k

magicbastarder wrote: »

nope, the catholic church's official teaching is *not* a creationist one.
i don't think i've met a catholic creationist; i suspect it's more of a protestant thing, with its greater emphasis on bible study.

Really?

I've met and spoken to quite a few Catholics who are Creationists.

I know the American Christians especially are far bigger on Creationism than here in the EU.

speaking

Sonics2k wrote: »

I know the American Christians especially are far bigger on Creationism than here in the EU.

I was really asking about catholics rather than American sects of protestantism.

I though most protestants were supposed to be far more forward thinking than Catholics anyway.

speaking

Sonics2k wrote: »

Really?

I've met and spoken to quite a few Catholics who are Creationists.

Well if they are practicing Catholics they are supposed to follow what the Pope says?

If not they are not being good Catholics

What does the Pope say?

Sonics2k

I can't remember his exact words, but the last thing I read on it was from like last year in which he basically said "God created the Big Bang".

edit: Quick Google brought it up
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/06/us-pope-bigbang-idUSTRE7052OC20110106

speaking

Sonics2k wrote: »

I can't remember his exact words, but the last thing I read on it was from like last year in which he basically said "God created the Big Bang".

SO are you telling me the Pope believes in evolution?

magicbastarder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

leahcim

see wikipedia article on the roman catholic church and evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution.

Apparently the Vatican didn't consider the Book of Genesis to be taken as its literal meaning, even before Darwins work on natural selection.

you beat me to it magicbastarder :-)

speaking

magicbastarder wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

From my reading of this I cant get the true answer.

Thanks for that.

Sarky

I thought one of the attractions of Catholicism was that you didn't have to be modern.

Galvasean

Pretty sure the Pope said 'evolution is more than a theory' at one stage.

speaking

Galvasean wrote: »

Pretty sure the Pope said 'evolution is more than a theory' at one stage.

But is evolution still just a "theory". I mean is that not part of the scientific method?

Is all science just theory in some way. (tell me if I am talking sh1t:)

Sound of Silence

I'm not a practicing Catholic. In fact, I wouldn't consider myself a practicing anything, but having gone to Catholic School and having lived in an exclusively Catholic area, I can say with the utmost sincerity that I haven't once encountered a Creationist. Even my Catholic Religous Studies teacher argued that the story of Creation must be considered to be metaphorical.

From what I've gathered, Creationism is more of a Protestant belief.

Pope John Paul II said of Evolution: "My predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation... In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory" [Humani Generis (1950)]

There is also a Papal Academy of Sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

Despite all this, it is the belief of the Catholic Church that all the mechanics of the Universe are governed by the Almighty is some fashion.

Sound of Silence

speaking wrote: »

But is evolution still just a "theory". I mean is that not part of the scientific method?

Is all science just theory in some way. (tell me if I am talking sh1t:)

Science is not simply the amassing of theories.

Theories are worthless unless they happen to be backed up by empirical evidence.

Galvasean

speaking wrote: »

But is evolution still just a "theory".

Saying something is 'just' a theory is inherently wrong. It implies that a theory is a vague idea that holds little or no intellectual weight, which is simply not true. A theory (in the scientific sense) is a rigorously tested idea which has accumulated a significant amount of evidence to support it. Theories which stand the test of time / accumulation of evidence enter orthodox science. Those which do not are discarded.

speaking wrote: »

I mean is that not part of the scientific method?

Evolution is one of the most routinely tested scientific theories. It is orthodox science and has proved to be vital in our understanding of modern biology.

speaking wrote: »

Is all science just theory in some way.

Technically speaking all science is indeed theory (see earlier description of 'theory').

speaking wrote: »

(tell me if I am talking sh1t:)

Not really, but your definitions seem a bit muddled. I hope my post has helped clear things up a bit.

speaking

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Science is not simply the amassing of theories.

Theories are worthless unless they happen to be backed up by empirical evidence.

And does that empirical evidence lead to "scientific fact" then. Making Darwins theory of evolution fact?

speaking

Galvasean wrote: »

I hope my post has helped clear things up a bit.

Yes especially the first bit thanks.

Manach

We're creatonists? D'oh, I'll need to hand back my geology qualification first in the morning then.

Galvasean

speaking wrote: »

And does that empirical evidence lead to "scientific fact" then. Making Darwins theory of evolution fact?

Pretty much. Although 'facts' in science are only facts until something comes along with more evidence. In the case of evolution, the theory has somewhat changed since Darwin first penned it. New evidence and discoveries has reshaped (perhaps 'refined' would be a better word than reshaped).

speaking

speaking wrote: »

Yes especially the first bit thanks.

You know the only thing that bothered me though it this idea of "orthodox science".

Sounds a bit religious.

I can also see times where nasty type stuff could be included into orthodox science to back up a whacky theory devised by humans to manipulate, distort, oppress or hurt other people. All in the name of science.

For me, society into which science opperates always needs to be asking moral questions about the purpose value and reason for science. Without those essentially philosophical questions being constantly asked, we could get ourselves into big trouble.

Have you not seen the matrix FFS?

speaking

Galvasean wrote: »

Pretty much. Although 'facts' in science are only facts until something comes along with more evidence. In the case of evolution, the theory has somewhat changed since Darwin first penned it. New evidence and discoveries has reshaped (perhaps 'refined' would be a better word than reshaped).

Have you seen Prometheus? Knocked evolution completely on the head.

Galvasean

speaking wrote: »

You know the only thing that bothered me though it this idea of "orthodox science".

Sounds a bit religious.

I can also see times where nasty type stuff could be included into orthodox science

The word 'orthodox' in terms of science pretty much just means 'generally accepted'. It's nothing to worry about.
I guess it's another case of a word not really meaning what people think it means.

speaking wrote: »

Have you seen Prometheus? Knocked evolution completely on the head.

Well, considering the film did not seem to know the difference between Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis, no, it certainly did not.
Personally,

I can think of more efficient (and fun!) ways of putting my DNA in the river.

Sound of Silence

speaking wrote: »

Have you seen Prometheus? Knocked evolution completely on the head.

They subscribe to the Scientology model by the looks of things.

Sarky

The scientists in Promethius were f*cking retarded. Serious rookie mistakes. No microbiologist would be stupid enough to go "Oh, there's oxygen, you can take your helmets of guys!", seriously. Rage.

If that's the calibre of the future's best and brightest, maybe it IS a setting where creationism won out.

speaking

Galvasean wrote: »

The word 'orthodox' in terms of science pretty much just means 'generally accepted'. [/spoiler]

No in fairness I think I know what the word means. Its context in religion is pretty much the same as it it within a scientific context.

I am still not understanding however the problem of the scientific orthodox being currupted.

The example I have is with the filidomide (very bad spelling) scandle in the 60s. It was the scientific orthodoxy at the time to accept those drugs and mothers did, yet the orthodoxy was shown to be false.

Now what happens in a society where scientific orthodoxy is used for evil purposes???

We still need to keep asking those moral philosophical questions.


Let me give you an example. It will probably be possible to keep people alive well into their 100s in the near future, but whats the point in this? what quality of life will these people have. Should they have a right to die if they want? Why should science keep these people alive.

If science can identify genitic faults in unborn babies should we be genetically screening all peoples genetic make up informing them of faults and advising them not to procreate?

Should we abort fetuses who have shown will get cancers later in life or maybe Motor Neuron disease in their 30s.

these are serious ethical questions that science can help or force us to pose, but can not really answer.

Those who say we cam simply find scientific answers to those questions of meaning are kidding themselves as each new scientific solution will lead to a probably greater ethical problem.

speaking

Sarky wrote: »

The scientists in Promethius were f*cking retarded. Serious rookie mistakes. No microbiologist would be stupid enough to go "Oh, there's oxygen, you can take your helmets of guys!", seriously. Rage.

Yes but your forgetting that the onboard computer readings were scanning for other things as well. The oxygen was pure and other contanimants were scanned and accounted for. The films can not go into all the other details.

There was no mistakes in that film as far as I ca see.

Galvasean

speaking wrote: »

There was no mistakes in that film as far as I ca see.

Watch it again. There are too many mistakes to list here.

Galvasean

oldrnwsr thanked one of my posts.
I must have nailed it :cool:

Sonics2k

Galvasean wrote: »

oldrnwsr thanked one of my posts.
I must have nailed it :cool:

Obvious pity thank :pac:

robindch

Sound of Silence wrote: »

it is the belief of the Catholic Church that all the mechanics of the Universe are governed by the Almighty is some fashion.

Not quite.

The Vatican's formal position is that the universe follows physical laws, except when it doesn't(*).

(*) Such instances to be decided after the fact, and at the behest of the deity, Satan or any available angels, saints, heavenly souls, evil spirits or demons.

Daftendirekt

speaking wrote: »

No in fairness I think I know what the word means. Its context in religion is pretty much the same as it it within a scientific context.

I am still not understanding however the problem of the scientific orthodox being currupted.

The example I have is with the filidomide (very bad spelling) scandle in the 60s. It was the scientific orthodoxy at the time to accept those drugs and mothers did, yet the orthodoxy was shown to be false.

Do you mean Thalidomide? I don't think that's quite what Galvasean was getting at when he talked about scientific orthodoxy.

Specific medicines don't become 'orthodox'. They're just an application of existing knowledge. Using Thalidomide to treat nausea could never be considered a widely accepted explanation of some aspect of the universe in the same way that evolution or the Big Bang are.

Now what happens in a society where scientific orthodoxy is used for evil purposes???

We still need to keep asking those moral philosophical questions.

Let me give you an example. It will probably be possible to keep people alive well into their 100s in the near future, but whats the point in this? what quality of life will these people have. Should they have a right to die if they want? Why should science keep these people alive.

These aren't really the kind of questions science is interested in. They're good questions of course, that need to be asked, but you also need to use the right tool for the job.

Science might be interested in the causes of ageing, but all it's really looking at are the physical processes involved. What we do with that knowledge, or whether we should do anything at all with it are out of its remit.

To put it simply -science can give us the is, but we have to figure out the ought by other means.

If science can identify genitic faults in unborn babies should we be genetically screening all peoples genetic make up informing them of faults and advising them not to procreate?

Should we abort fetuses who have shown will get cancers later in life or maybe Motor Neuron disease in their 30s.

these are serious ethical questions that science can help or force us to pose, but can not really answer.

Agreed. (See above!)

doctoremma

speaking wrote: »

....these are serious ethical questions that science can help or force us to pose, but can not really answer. Those who say we cam simply find scientific answers to those questions of meaning are kidding themselves as each new scientific solution will lead to a probably greater ethical problem.

I'm not sure many people would argue that "science" can answer the gamut of ethical questions that have arisen as a result of discovery. Further scientific discovery may inform the ethical debate but would (should?) never attempt to answer it.

For example:
Scientific progress: We can detect genetic disorders in unborn children.
Ethical dilemma: Should we allow termination of such pregnancies?
Scientific progress: At stage x, the embryo has not developed a functioning nervous system and thus, a termination before this stage will not cause any physical suffering.
Ethical dilemma: Yes, yes, but should we allow termination of such pregnancies?
Scientific community: *shrugs* I don't know.

spud_gunner

speaking wrote: »

I was really asking about catholics rather than American sects of protestantism.

I though most protestants were supposed to be far more forward thinking than Catholics anyway.

their are many protestant denominations but here is a good rule of thumb

the most liberal protestants ( sweeden , holland , england ) tend to be more liberal than liberal catholics in italy , ireland , spain

however , the most conservative protestants ( northern ireland, south africa , parts of scotland , the bible belt in america ) are much more conservative than conservative catholics in the likes of ireland , poland or italy

the people behind the inteligent design movement in america overwhelmingly come from a protestant backround