The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

And how are empirical measurements influenced by culture? There is no culture, for example, where the accuracy of hartree-fock theory will not be improved by a configuration interaction calculation afterwards. We can say a configuration interaction calculation provides a more accurate picture than a hartree-fock calculation without having to qualify it with "in our culture anyway".

As such you are adopting a realist philosophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_philosophy#R
a view of a reality ontologically independent of conception, perception, etc. Objects have certain properties regardless of any thought to the contrary.

There are inherent problems in this. For one you can't prove it true. As I pointed out it is an assumption. And you fall back on "but it works" . And I say "so do candles" . and you say "but is is cumulative/progressive i.e gets more accurate" and i say " just because the description is more accurate does not stop the candles from working i.e. the utility of the 'but it works' remains and is separate to whether the map describes or approaches any ultimate reality. see also "idealism"


Forgive my pigeon holing but maybe you are one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_realism

that permits the subject to be fully cognizant of all limitations of their mind, and adjust their cognition accordingly as one seeks to understand the noumenon (or the world as it actually exists—things-in-themselves). In this way, the subject is able to know the world of things-in-themselves, and, presumably, is able to scientifically test such noumena.

AS I stated Im not a constructivist but,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology#Constructivism.27s_concepts_and_ideas

The common thread among all forms of constructivism is that they do not focus on an ontological reality, but instead on a constructed reality.
...
Talk of verification in this connection is beside the point
...
Constructivism proposes new definitions for knowledge and truth that forms a new paradigm, based on inter-subjectivity instead of the classical objectivity and viability instead of truth.

as such measuring a "definite reality" makes no sense to a constructivist. they use standard established arguments against empiricism. I believe it is just relativism but I have yet to disprove it. The strongest cultural blow it has taken was the Sokal Hoax. One can't subscribe to such relativism and also claim to support objective empiricism. this is the sort of problem I continually encounter with Wicknight.

According to the criteria of accuracy, predictability, explanatory power etc. Nobody is claiming absolute truth.

One does not have to claim to have it in order to assert it exists and that science is about moving towards it. But an idealised "it" exists in this philosophy.

I think maybe we should be cognisant of three elements here.

1. The relative/subjective view of science ( e.g. constructivism) is incompatible with the objective/absolute view (e.g empiricism or idealism)

2. Separating social from scientific e.g. social "evolution" from evolution of a species. this I can be argued isn't a dichotomy much less than a continuum. It also draws on 3.

3. Separating the moral from the natural philosophy. e.g. just because something may be "right" (i.e. to use your words a more correct description is not any reason to assume it is the right thing to do or use e.g. we could produce more efficient gas chambers. You have already accepted that science in this sense is subservient to an overarching natural law/morals/ethics/societal control and is not sufficient in itself. Science can't generate it's own value and relies on something outside of science to do that. this was touched on in some of my earlier references which suggested that while the worth of science is to be directed from outside the science itself should not be demarked and no region of knowledge be forbidden. As such it separates discovery from application.

I hope the above three offer some shaping mechanism as to where the issues develop.

http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue3/martin.htm
although theories are either true or false, their truth or falsehood is irrelevant for science...
Besides empirical adequacy van Fraassen uses pragmatic criteria in judging theories.[2] Among these are mathematical elegance, simplicity, wideness of scope, and explanatory power. However, he stresses that these are not criteria of truth and have no epistemic import

there can exist "pet theories" in some circles of scientists. But I would also say that such theories will ultimately depend on successful support by experiment and observations.

In practice science isn't supported (i.e. paid for) because it is right or wrong but because of the received view or culture of the scientists ( which later may be shown to be "wrong"). But personally I agree Weinberg is advancing a notion of science as a measurer a predictor and a problem solver. In practice those with political clout direct the budgets and not necessarily those with the right answers or more correct models.
Also, let us say science takes four centuries to decide if something is correct. Would the culture not have been better to accept it and work from there? As Kuhn might say two paradigms may exist but one will eventually be shown as more correct. Should we have to wait 400 years of budgets famine and economic collapse to accept the current economic paradigm is flawed?

I have no issue with the separation of scientific research from the ethical use of the research.

I accept that is you position. I mentioned this above in 3 in terms of application and development.

And therefore - science not deciding for itself what they can do and who gets paid to do what?

We have had this discussion before, and I will again say that catastrophism, in the biblical sense, has been rejected by the scientific community, and that punctuated equilibrium is a gradualist theory. Nobody would argue that large-scale extinction events haven't altered the history of life, and this is sometimes called "neocatastrophism", but I find that term unhelpful, and if you must use it, it is important to make the distinction between it and the more traditional, Biblical catastrophism. So while catastrophic events can and do occur (and this has never been contentious), geology is still gradualistic.

And while Biblical fundamentalists might say the Earth never changed Biblical scholars and modern mainstream Christians believe in gradual changes over time but also in creation by God.
Are some creationists not gradualist then?

It only suggests that, while regressive steps do happen, the overall trend is progressive. And any regression cannot be blamed on cultural influence, but rather on the simple fact that we do not know everything, and sometimes get it wrong.

If you are going to correct my terminology might i suggest we don't apply the idea of "evolution" to culture i.e. scientific "evolution" of a society being progressive/regressive and biological evolution of a species are different things. Otherwise we will end up in memetics and all its problems.

Also, how are people today ore "progressed" than cave men? Rousseau's "noble savage" springs to mind.

Here is an interesting view on Berkely which brings in the above
http://n4bz.org/gsr7/gsr707.htm

I am not saying science is ideal from day to day. I am saying, in the long term, cultural bias is removed.

And replaced by even stronger different bias?

And yes, funding bodies are always an issue, and scientists can be pressed to make their research "relevant". But this is largely in technology/applications areas, like drug development. And when junk science does occur, it is called out by the open-research community.

Not necessarily. I remember reading a paper where the guy brought attention to taxomonists in the British Museum. they numbers had collapsed. Was it because they were doing bad science? No it was because their budget ran out. Likewise are chemists now doing their work by redefining themselves as computer scientists ( because Information technology budgets exist and Chemistry can be modeled on a computer)

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

Thus, within normal science, the paradigm is the set of exemplary experiments that are likely to be copied or emulated. In this scientific context, the prevailing paradigm often represents a more specific way of viewing reality, or limitations on acceptable programs for future research, than the more general scientific method.

A currently accepted paradigm would be the standard model of physics. The scientific method would allow for orthodox scientific investigations into phenomena which might contradict or disprove the standard model; however grant funding would be proportionately more difficult to obtain for such experiments, depending on the degree of deviation from the accepted standard model theory which the experiment would be expected to test for. To illustrate the point, an experiment to test for the mass of neutrinos or the decay of protons (small departures from the model) would be more likely to receive money than experiments to look for the violation of the conservation of momentum, or ways to engineer reverse time travel.

You implied the homogeneous assumption was a cultural assumption, as opposed to an assumption that is held based on evidence. If you accept that it is not a cultural assumption then there is no issue.

It seems reasonable to assumption matter is evenly spread on a large scale. Why is it reasonable to assume that laws of physics exist and work the same everywhere? If we assume they don't physics can still apply for all the things local to us and we can in theory explain a lot of things we couldn't. Is that not "more correct"?

Yes, and I'm saying even though old devices still work, new devices don't, as they are more reliant on scientific theory. I.e. If quantum mechanics wasn't more correct than "fire liberation" theory, new devices wouldn't work.

And I'm saying you have it backwards because the point was not that new devices wont work based on old theories but that old devices still work even though the theory as to how they work has changed.

Scientists fully accept that general relativity is only an approximation, even if they disagree as to where the theory breaks down. Dark matter, (and especially dark energy) are anomalies that we cannot fully explain with current theories, and we certainly aren't interpreting them as "quick-fixes" to theories which are clearly incomplete.

I can easily say that, as it is obvious from the structure of the theories. What, for examples, are the few core ideas in physics, with a load of ad-hoc additions?

Good question. I'm reminded of Socrates cave - you are aware of the story?- people looking at the shadows on the wall.

The cosmological assumptions
That there are "laws" and some constants plancks, the speed of light in free space etc.

What are the alternative sciences?

People like Jegede
http://www.britishcouncil.org/goingglobal-gg5-speakers-olugbemiro-jegede.htm
used to talk of "African Science" or Eastern science. I have spent years trying to argue against them but they are very pervasive in science education.
or Aikenhead
http://www.usask.ca/education/people/aikenhead/

but they now talk of "border crossings" or "enculturation"

this is where the budgets are and these hold the power over the science curriculum and influence the minds and training of science teachers.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

As such you are adopting a realist philosophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_philosophy#R
a view of a reality ontologically independent of conception, perception, etc. Objects have certain properties regardless of any thought to the contrary.

There are inherent problems in this. For one you can't prove it true. As I pointed out it is an assumption. And you fall back on "but it works" . And I say "so do candles" . and you say "but is is cumulative/progressive i.e gets more accurate" and i say " just because the description is more accurate does not stop the candles from working i.e. the utility of the 'but it works' remains and is separate to whether the map describes or approaches any ultimate reality. see also "idealism"


Forgive my pigeon holing but maybe you are one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_realism


AS I stated Im not a constructivist but,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology#Constructivism.27s_concepts_and_ideas


as such measuring a "definite reality" makes no sense to a constructivist. they use standard established arguments against empiricism. I believe it is just relativism but I have yet to disprove it. The strongest cultural blow it has taken was the Sokal Hoax. One can't subscribe to such relativism and also claim to support objective empiricism. this is the sort of problem I continually encounter with Wicknight.

..

One does not have to claim to have it in order to assert it exists and that science is about moving towards it. But an idealised "it" exists in this philosophy.

I am not a realist, as I have not said anything about a theory being more true. I tendered a definition of more "correct" i.e. I tendered the criteria scientists use to accept a theory over another, without saying anything about the absolute truth of a theory. Under that definition, there is no reason to suppose the correctness of a theory is culturally influenced.

Are some creationists not gradualist then?

No, because even old-earth creationists believe the "kinds" of life were placed, more or less fully-formed on earth. Theistic evolutionists would be gradualists.

If you are going to correct my terminology might i suggest we don't apply the idea of "evolution" to culture i.e. scientific "evolution" of a society being progressive/regressive and biological evolution of a species are different things. Otherwise we will end up in memetics and all its problems.

Also, how are people today ore "progressed" than cave men? Rousseau's "noble savage" springs to mind.

Here is an interesting view on Berkely which brings in the above
http://n4bz.org/gsr7/gsr707.htm

I feel we are straying from the question of whether or not physics and biology are culturally influenced.

And replaced by even stronger different bias?

No. As I said earlier, quantum mechanics is more accurate than classical mechanics, and quantum field theory is more accurate than quantum mechanics.

Not necessarily. I remember reading a paper where the guy brought attention to taxomonists in the British Museum. they numbers had collapsed. Was it because they were doing bad science? No it was because their budget ran out. Likewise are chemists now doing their work by redefining themselves as computer scientists ( because Information technology budgets exist and Chemistry can be modeled on a computer)

Yes, but what I mean is they are not pressured to find particular results, or to emphasis/downplay some result of their research, unlike drug research.

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

Science does operate under paradigms, but these are not defined by culture. Instead, they are defined, for better or for worse by previous work carried out by scientists.

It seems reasonable to assumption matter is evenly spread on a large scale. Why is it reasonable to assume that laws of physics exist and work the same everywhere? If we assume they don't physics can still apply for all the things local to us and we can in theory explain a lot of things we couldn't. Is that not "more correct"?

It is a core tenet of science and has no foundation other than "well it has worked so far". But again, this is not a cultural assumption, but an assumption stemming from practical considerations.

And I'm saying you have it backwards because the point was not that new devices wont work based on old theories but that old devices still work even though the theory as to how they work has changed.

Then how does that bear any relation to scientific theories being culturally influenced? If quantum mechanics is a cultural phenomenon, as opposed to a more accurate description of particle behaviour, then why do LEDs work everywhere?

The cosmological assumptions
That there are "laws" and some constants plancks, the speed of light in free space etc.

Scientists hate constants. A goal of scientists is to remove arbitrary constants from theory. String theory, for example, proposes to explain the values of constants as emergent properties from geometry.

People like Jegede
http://www.britishcouncil.org/goingglobal-gg5-speakers-olugbemiro-jegede.htm
used to talk of "African Science" or Eastern science. I have spent years trying to argue against them but they are very pervasive in science education.
or Aikenhead
http://www.usask.ca/education/people/aikenhead/

but they now talk of "border crossings" or "enculturation"

this is where the budgets are and these hold the power over the science curriculum and influence the minds and training of science teachers.

I have looked up the terms African science and Eastern science, but all I find are examples of science in Africa and Asia, as opposed to distinct definitions of what it means to "scientifically investigate".

himnextdoor

Do the stars exist because of telescopes or do telescopes exist because of the stars?

Stars and telescopes exist; objective facts. What is seen through telescopes exists; objective facts. How data gathered through telescopes is interpreted is subjective. Obviously.

While culture may have an influence on scientific progress it has no effect on objective scientific validity. Orthodoxy is not the same as 'correctness' either; geocentricity may have been the popular opinion in its time but it was never an accurate model for the objective, actual operation of the cosmos. Truth and belief are not the same.

And science is what found this out.

You see, science works by removing as many assumptions as possible then testing the others to destruction. It tries to make 'safe' assumtions like; the universe exists; I exist; that volcano happened and then takes measurements to see how well a subjective assessment of observation compares with the objective reality. If it's a good fit then the initial assumption becomes an acceptable starting point for any further testing of that assumption. As the assumptions are removed, the model becomes more correct regardless of cultural influence which can only determine how the model will be received.

The thing is that science is carried out by scientists, not scientific bodies. No matter how conformist the scientific establishment is, there will always be the possibility of an Archimedes, or Pythagoras, a Galileo, or a Newton, Einstein or Feynman popping up and turning science on its head by undermining assumptions.

Science tends to 'objectify' but recognises that it is using subjective means which means that there will always be an assumption to test.

Which brings me neatly to 'Evolution'.

The term 'Evolution of Science' has a great deal of equivalence with the biological notion of evolution including built-in processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection. Science has evolved in exactly the same way as life has; it went from 'What if' to 'Eureka' and the rest, as they say is history. Newtonian physics mutated into Einsteinian relativity and E=mc^2 was selected.

Adaptation is the name of the game; to adapt to the environment.

The environment that science is adapting to is an objective one and over time, it will become progressively better adapted to it.

Morbert

himnextdoor wrote: »

The thing is that science is carried out by scientists, not scientific bodies. No matter how conformist the scientific establishment is, there will always be the possibility of an Archimedes, or Pythagoras, a Galileo, or a Newton, Einstein or Feynman popping up and turning science on its head by undermining assumptions.

This is an important point. There was a piece of the Nazi propaganda produced, entitled "100 Scientists against Einstein", and Einstein's legendary response is salient to this discussion.

"Why 100? If I am wrong, one would be enough."

Science won't bow to cultural conformity.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

This is an important point. There was a piece of the Nazi propaganda produced, entitled "100 Scientists against Einstein", and Einstein's legendary response is salient to this discussion.

"Why 100? If I am wrong, one would be enough."

Science won't bow to cultural conformity.

... and my anwer is just the same ... one Evolutionist would be enough ... if they could provide proof for 'big picture' Evolution ... or disprove Creation!!

... and science can and does bow to cultural conformity ... indeed it can create cultural conformity ... such as the increasingly unquestioned belief that Mankind is a 'monkey's cousin' ... or a 'Pondkind Slimeball' with accumulated errors built in over time!!!

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

The term 'Evolution of Science' has a great deal of equivalence with the biological notion of evolution including built-in processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection. Science has evolved in exactly the same way as life has; it went from 'What if' to 'Eureka' and the rest, as they say is history. Newtonian physics mutated into Einsteinian relativity and E=mc^2 was selected.

Adaptation is the name of the game; to adapt to the environment.

The environment that science is adapting to is an objective one and over time, it will become progressively better adapted to it.

... the 'Evolution of Science' has only occurred with large inputs of intelligent design and thought.
The analogy with Materialistic Evolution would be scientific ideas being randomly produced and further random changes being made with the result being given to a Cat to interpret and edit!!:)

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... the 'Evolution of Science' has only occurred with large inputs of intelligent design and thought.
The analogy with Materialistic Evolution would be randomly produced writings being produced and further random changes being made with the result being given to a Cat to interpret and edit!!:)

This is a serious discussion, J C. Comic relief is over on the other thread.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... and my anwer is just the same ... one Evolutionist would be enough ... if they could provide proof for 'big picture' Evolution ... or disprove Creation!!

... and science can and does bow to cultural conformity ... indeed it can create cultural conformity ... such as the increasingly unquestioned belief that Mankind is a 'monkey's cousin' ... or a 'Pondkind Slimeball' with accumulated errors built in over time!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0n8N98mpes

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

This is a serious discussion, J C.

... I fully accept that ... the eternal destinies of people are 'on the line' here!!

himnextdoor wrote: »

Comic relief is over on the other thread.

I find that comic relief occurs everywhere that 'big picture' Evolution is discussed!!:)

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... I fully accept that ... the eternal destinies of people are 'on the line' here!!

I find that comic relief occurs everywhere that 'big picture' Evolution is discussed!!:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWvMIe3C9zk

namloc1980

J C wrote: »

... and my anwer is just the same ... one Evolutionist would be enough ... if they could provide proof for 'big picture' Evolution ... or disprove Creation!!

... and science can and does bow to cultural conformity ... indeed it can create cultural conformity ... such as the increasingly unquestioned belief that Mankind is a 'monkey's cousin' ... or a 'Pondkind Slimeball' with accumulated errors built in over time!!!

Of course two people created out of thin air hanging around in a garden chatting with a talking snake makes perfect sense.

wolfsbane

J C wrote: »

... and my anwer is just the same ... one Evolutionist would be enough ... if they could provide proof for 'big picture' Evolution ... or disprove Creation!!

... and science can and does bow to cultural conformity ... indeed it can create cultural conformity ... such as the increasingly unquestioned belief that Mankind is a 'monkey's cousin' ... or a 'Pondkind Slimeball' with accumulated errors built in over time!!!

I'm almost through a book that everyone here will appreciate, and it mentions some of the trouble experienced by scientists who challenge the current orthodoxy. A fascinating read:
13 Things That Don't Make Sense: The Most Intriguing Scientific Mysteries of Our Time by Michael Brooks
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Things-That-Dont-Make-Sense/dp/186197647X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1312047217&sr=8-2

Michael Brooks, who holds a PhD in quantum physics, is an author, journalist and broadcaster. He is a consultant at New Scientist, a weekly magazine with over three quarters of a million readers worldwide, has a fortnightly column for the New Statesman and is the author of the bestselling non-fiction title 13 Things That Don't Make Sense.

His writing has also appeared in the Guardian, the Independent, the Observer, the Times Higher Education, the Philadelphia Inquirer and (his proudest byline) Playboy. He has lectured at New York University, The American Museum of Natural History and Cambridge University.

*******************************************************************
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

PatricaMcKay

I used to believe in evolution, without thinking much about it all, than as I started to take a serious interest in theology and just seem to find myself not believing in it. Im not going to argue science because its not a strong point of mine, however it should be crystal clear that you cant believe in evolution and be a Christian.

lmaopml

Duplicate post, sorry!

lmaopml

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

I used to believe in evolution, without thinking much about it all, than as I started to take a serious interest in theology and just seem to find myself not believing in it. Im not going to argue science because its not a strong point of mine, however it should be crystal clear that you cant believe in evolution and be a Christian.

Yes, you can. Genesis can be interpreted 'literally' and you can still be a Christian - Genesis can be interpreted as a representation of events as understood by the writer who was guided by the Spirit as a non 'scientific' version of events, the bible is not a 'scientific' study ( as has been shown from earlier times - many hundreds of years prior to Darwin, by Augustine, who warned against what is observed in nature and reconciling same ) and still be a Christian. ( We had some pretty cool Church fathers for sure! God chose them wisely )

Belief or disbelief in evolution doesn't make you more or less Christian, or indeed mean you cannot be a 'Christian' - that's shoddy!

Believing Jesus Christ died and rose again for our sins, and bearing in mind our profession of faith in the Christian Creed makes a person a Christian, one that follows Christ, and believes he is the one and only savior. The word made flesh.

PatricaMcKay

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, you can. Genesis can be interpreted 'literally' and you can still be a Christian - Genesis can be interpreted ( as has been shown from earlier times - many hundreds of years prior to Darwin ) and still be a Christian.

Belief or disbelief in evolution doesn't make you more or less Christian. Believing Jesus Christ died and rose again for our sins, as per the creed makes a person a Christian.

The Bible says that God did not create death, it also says that the whole visible creation fell along with Adam. The fear of death is the cause of so many sins. Just think about it...

lmaopml

God is not responsible for our free choices - he was not the author of evil - just the author of 'choice'. What has that got to do with 'evolution' and human understanding that decodes timeless Scripture and all the understanding revealed and yet to be?

wolfsbane

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, you can. Genesis can be interpreted 'literally' and you can still be a Christian - Genesis can be interpreted as a representation of events as understood by the writer who was guided by the Spirit as a non 'scientific' version of events, the bible is not a 'scientific' study ( as has been shown from earlier times - many hundreds of years prior to Darwin, by Augustine, who warned against what is observed in nature and reconciling same ) and still be a Christian. ( We had some pretty cool Church fathers for sure! God chose them wisely )

Belief or disbelief in evolution doesn't make you more or less Christian, or indeed mean you cannot be a 'Christian' - that's shoddy!

Believing Jesus Christ died and rose again for our sins, and bearing in mind our profession of faith in the Christian Creed makes a person a Christian, one that follows Christ, and believes he is the one and only savior. The word made flesh.

I hold that one can be a Christian and believe a lot of silly things, evolution being one of them. I suspect Patrica meant that too.

They can't believe evolution however without seriously damaging the interpretation principles of Scripture. Any Christian evolutionist I have read or debated has had to leave off reasoning from the Scriptures and take an ad hoc approach early on. Basically they took whatever they could of Genesis as history, but the test was not the apparent form of the text, rather the fact that it conflicted with the current scientific consensus. The events of Abraham's life were history, but not those of Adam's.

And of course it doesn't stop at how one reads Genesis - since Christ and the apostles all appeal to Genesis for historical examples, one's view of their teaching must also be effected.

****************************************************************
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I hold that one can be a Christian and believe a lot of silly things, evolution being one of them. I suspect Patrica meant that too.

They can't believe evolution however without seriously damaging the interpretation principles of Scripture. Any Christian evolutionist I have read or debated has had to leave off reasoning from the Scriptures and take an ad hoc approach early on. Basically they took whatever they could of Genesis as history, but the test was not the apparent form of the text, rather the fact that it conflicted with the current scientific consensus. The events of Abraham's life were history, but not those of Adam's.

And of course it doesn't stop at how one reads Genesis - since Christ and the apostles all appeal to Genesis for historical examples, one's view of their teaching must also be effected.

****************************************************************
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Have to say, and sometimes for the sake of debate I express counter position, but I actually agree with a lot of this.

It is often dismissed as argumentative when I ask this question, but ask your fellow Christians if they believe Noah lived to 900 years.

If they say yes ask them how the reconcile that with modern biology (you can't).

If they say no ask them how they interpret those passages of the Bible metaphorically (you can't).

himnextdoor

Wicknight wrote: »

Have to say, and sometimes for the sake of debate I express counter position, but I actually agree with a lot of this.

It is often dismissed as argumentative when I ask this question, but ask your fellow Christians if they believe Noah lived to 900 years.

If they say yes ask them how the reconcile that with modern biology (you can't).

If they say no ask them how they interpret those passages of the Bible metaphorically (you can't).

Yes, in the same way that Al Capone was a known murderer and vagabond, fear caused people to treat him as a respectable businessman.

We seem to like to 'kid' ourselves into believing what's savoury rather than accepting the truth... whatever that is.

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

We seem to like to 'kid' ourselves into believing what's savoury rather than accepting the truth... whatever that is.

There's quite an irony in you making that comment to an atheist.

mackg

I was wondering if there is a large creationist community in Ireland? I have never heard of one and always assumed they were more of an American thing. Was I wrong? Feel free to move this mods if there is a better forum for it:)

Manach

I've not encountered such with the RCC.
In Ireland, at College there was a talk given by creationists which I had attended. Members of the Geology. dept politely asked questions during the meeting which (from memory) the talker did not fully rebut.

mackg

I read somewhere that the Vatican issued a statement saying that the theory of evolution did not contradict their teachings and I assume the same is true of the Church of Ireland. Is there a church in Ireland that rejects the theory outright? Was the speaker at your college based in Ireland?

PatricaMcKay

mackg wrote: »

I read somewhere that the Vatican issued a statement saying that the theory of evolution did not contradict their teachings and I assume the same is true of the Church of Ireland. Is there a church in Ireland that rejects the theory outright? Was the speaker at your college based in Ireland?

I dont think so.

If you look at the anti-modernist oath that RC priests used to have to take its clear from that that you cant be an evolutionist. The RCC rejected it outright up until Vatican II.

Its impossible to square a believe in evolution with the Gospel, while it is possible to doubt the historical existence of most of the OT and still have faith in the Gospel.

Death entered the world through the envy of the devil which led Adam into apostasy, and he brought the visible world with him in its fall subjecting it to corruption, it too groans for redemption.

PatricaMcKay

mackg wrote: »

I read somewhere that the Vatican issued a statement saying that the theory of evolution did not contradict their teachings and I assume the same is true of the Church of Ireland. Is there a church in Ireland that rejects the theory outright? Was the speaker at your college based in Ireland?

This is the only official Vatican statement dealing specifically with evolution as opposed to historicity of the Bible (which RCs were at least supposed to hold, and maybe still are, though few seem to still do)...And its not that complimentary...

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM





"
2. It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful.
3. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all men readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.[1]
4. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion. For man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse and resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are available, but also the impulses of actual grace.
5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas."

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

There's quite an irony in you making that comment to an atheist.

Well I imagine that many atheists have attended Mass and I imagine quite a few atheists referred to Al Capone as a horrid nice man.

Establish a climate of fear and people will exhibit 'respectfulness'; they will treat false notions as facts unquestioningly.

Religious organisations are not very different to Mafia type organisations.

I don't think that you can have faith without fear. That's why they had to invent 'Hell'.

jmark

Rev. Dr. Robert Beckett, formerly an animal geneticist with a PhD in animal genetics, now minister of Crosscollyer Street Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Belfast - speaks on creation. Knowledgable bloke, and nice too.

Alsop came across these people

Both up north, not sure of any organisations here

PatricaMcKay

http://www.amazon.com/Transformist-Illusion-Douglas-Dewar/dp/1597310301

This is quite a brillant book showing that no evidence exists for one species transforming into another, its not "young earth" (the age of the earth isnt discussed as far as I can remember) or written by a "fundamentalist", but its good for showing what science as opposed to scienticism or scientific theories have to say on the matter. Given the evidence not believing in evolution isnt actually crazy!

PatricaMcKay

http://creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html

This is a good survey of how the early Fathers read Genesis put together by an ultra-traditionalist Orthodox monk.