The Vatican and Darwin

[IncitingRiots]

"The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.

A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final **** to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life...."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece

[Trinity]

"The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.

A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final **** to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life...."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece

Since the 60s the Catholic Church did not have any problem with the theory of evolution. Even if Darwin had renounced to the christianity he never wanted to be labeled as an atheist. He had seen himself more as an agnostic.

http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/1/14/Emma_Darwin.jpg

His wife Emma had a faith into a God. One day, she wrote to him and told him that there is an order of things than cannot be studied by the scientific method. Darwin has said in his biography that often he has reread this letter and he cried every time. He also said in his biography that the mystery of everything is insoluble and this is why he became agnostic. Charles Darwin was a very ethical man, a good man. He was against slavery. He respected life and was a humanist. He was not fanatical. A decent man. There is many unjustified prejudices about this man.

His preferred animal was the ground worm. He was liking landscapes or lands with a green gr*** on surface. Because worms are helping to have a greener gr***.

Trinity

[disciple]

Greetings,
Trinity you said,
"Since the 60s the Catholic Church did not have any problem with the theory of evolution."
Can you expound a little, do you mean the church has no problem with those who believe the theory of evolution is correct or the church believes it is correct?
In Matthew 19:4 Jesus said,"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female."
Clearly Jesus is referring to the creation account in Genesis which then would leave no question for those who believe the Scriptures, that evolution is not a valid theory.
Thanks.

[Trinity]

Greetings,
Trinity you said,
"Since the 60s the Catholic Church did not have any problem with the theory of evolution."
Can you expound a little, do you mean the church has no problem with those who believe the theory of evolution is correct or the church believes it is correct?

When I was at University in the middle of the 70s, I had read a book on the matter of the Evolution and the Faith, wrote in the 60s.

Though it is virtually unknown among laypeople, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is an independent body within the Vatican. Over the years its membership roster has read like a who’s who of 20th-century scientists (including Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger, to name a few), and it currently boasts more than 80 international academicians, many of them Nobel laureates and not all of them Catholic — including the playfully irreligious physicist Stephen Hawking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"159. Faith and science: "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin..."


In Matthew 19:4 Jesus said,"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female."
Clearly Jesus is referring to the creation account in Genesis which then would leave no question for those who believe the Scriptures, that evolution is not a valid theory.

The Catholic Church believes the Creation was done by God, but the theory of evolution is seen as one of the laws that rules his Creation. When there is conflict between science and religion this is because scientists or religious people are discarding pieces of the great puzzle.

Trinity

[Trinity]

Charles Darwins was a honest and humble man. He knew that his theory was not perfect. This is why he wrote a chapter [ chapter six] about the difficulties of his theory in his book 'The Origin of Species'.

The Origin of Species
Chapter 6: Difficulties on Theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

He had this hope that the future scientists could solve these difficulties. Some as the Catholic priest Gregor Mendel did it.

Trinity

[Heart2Heart]

When I was at University in the middle of the 70s, I had read a book on the matter of the Evolution and the Faith, wrote in the 60s.

Though it is virtually unknown among laypeople, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is an independent body within the Vatican. Over the years its membership roster has read like a who’s who of 20th-century scientists (including Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger, to name a few), and it currently boasts more than 80 international academicians, many of them Nobel laureates and not all of them Catholic — including the playfully irreligious physicist Stephen Hawking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"159. Faith and science: "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin..."



The Catholic Church believes the Creation was done by God, but the theory of evolution is seen as one of the laws that rules his Creation. When there is conflict between science and religion this is because scientists or religious people are discarding pieces of the great puzzle.

TrinityWhat are the pieces of the great puzzle?

[PostTribber]

God said He created Adam out of the dust of the earth. now the Vatican says God stripped Cheetah down to his bipedals and put him in the Garden? "if the Pope were married, he wouldn't see himself as infalible." the Bible doesn't accord any man with 'glory', unless 'silly hats' count. Science has it's bias just as Denominations do, but if an organization claims the Bible as the Word of God, then they are bound by it; nothing added or subtracted.

the Vatican seems to be fretful of losing it's significance in this 'world', of having to find ways to maintain it's sphere of influence it once enjoyed over kings and sovereigns. Christ is the Head of the Church. He's been given all power & authority in Heaven and on Earth. He won't compromise with the world with something that cost Him on the Cross.

[Trinity]

"There are some who believe that Darwin's theory of evolution has weakened religion, fuelled in part by Richard Dawkins' publishing phenomenon The God Delusion. Conor Cunningham argues that nothing could be further from the truth.

Cunningham is a firm believer in the theory of evolution, but he is also a Christian. He believes that the clash between Darwin and God has been hijacked by extremists - fundamentalist believers who reject evolution on one side, and fundamentalist atheists on the other. Cunningham attempts to overturn what he believes are widely held but mistaken ***umptions in the debate between religion and evolution.

He travels to the Middle East where he shows that from the very outset, Christianity warned against literal readings of the biblical story of creation. In Britain, he reveals that, at the time, Darwin's theory of evolution was welcomed by the Anglican and Catholic Churches. Instead, he argues that the conflict between Darwin and God was manufactured by American creationists in the 20th century for reasons that had very little to do with science and religion and a great deal to do with politics and morality.
Finally, he comes face to face with some of the most eminent evolutionary biologists, geneticists and philosophers of our time to examine whether the very latest advances in evolutionary theory do in fact kill God."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jhfwt

Did Darwin Kill God? (1/6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VNeRU5dwXI
Did Darwin Kill God? (2/6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udHkKmEmdOI&feature=related
Did Darwin Kill God? (3/6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQudZ_bgteI&feature=related
Did Darwin Kill God? (4/6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueMPE7Xp9Go&feature=related
Did Darwin Kill God? (5/6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocJ5HHuET3I&feature=related
Did Darwin Kill God? (6/6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz8SjwNUvqI&feature=related

Trinity

[PostTribber]

therefore, no 'evolution'. now, about your sins and the coming judgement....! :cool:

[TRiG]

No question for those who believe the Scriptures, that evolution is not a valid theory.So much the worse for scripture, then, since evolution clearly is a valid theory.

TRiG.:)

[disciple]

So much the worse for scripture, then, since evolution clearly is a valid theory.

TRiG.:)
Greetings Trig, nice to meet you,
OK I am willing to listen, what makes it valid?

[TRiG]

what makes it valid?Vast mountains of evidence.

TRiG.

[asdf]

Vast mountains of evidence.

TRiG.

We could expound on that. How about:

Vast mountains of evidence, recognized by scientific consensus and supported by pretty much every discipline of scientific inquiry.
:D

[disciple]

Vast mountains of evidence.

TRiG.

Gee all these vast mountains of evidence and scientific consensus and it is still just a theory, a theory used by man in the hopes of explaining away God.

An unproven conjecture; An expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances; A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena; A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment ...


A hypothesis that has withstood extensive testing by a variety of methods, and in which a higher degree of certainty may be placed. A theory is NEVER a fact, but instead is an attempt to explain one or more facts.


a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. In other words, it is the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science.

[TRiG]

a theory used by man in the hopes of explaining away God.

That claim is, simply, a lie. Stop lying (or ignörantly repeating others' lies). It doesn't make you look good.


it is still just a theory.

I find it rather bizarre that you follow the monumentally stüpid phrase just a theory with the scientific definition of the word theory. You obviously didn't read what you quoted.

Try pushing a pencil off your desk. The chances are that it will fall to the ground. This is due to the operation of a force known as gravity, of which you may have heard. Gravity exists. It's a fact. The theory of gravitation is an overarching explanation used to explain that fact.

The evolution of life is, similarly, a fact. It happened, and it still is happening. It has been observed in real time, and it has left many many traces in the historical record. The theory of evolution is, as you yourself said, a model which serves to explain all the observed facts of evolution. It's beautifully simple in the grand structure, but detailed enough to be endlessly fascinating. It is, also, rather better understood and better supported than the theory of gravitation.

TRiG.:)

[Columcille]

TRiG, Are you saying there is only one "valid theory?" I mean my Science Desk Reference states the following:

The theory is a general statement that explains the facts. A theory can lead to a new conclusion or the discovery of a phenomenon. Developments of a theory often result in a change in paradigm--that is, looking at or thinking about a scientific problem in a totally different way.

I should think there are several "theories" floating out there. There may be one that is "popular" but that does not make it any more or any less valid. I mean, some make connections about the missing link, only to find out it was a hoax, like some made up from a pig's tooth in Africa. I do not see any cross species evidence. I am not saying it is not possible, only that science can never answer the deeper questions of which faith does.

[disciple]

That claim is, simply, a lie. Stop lying (or ignörantly repeating others' lies). It doesn't make you look good.



I find it rather bizarre that you follow the monumentally stüpid phrase just a theory with the scientific definition of the word theory. You obviously didn't read what you quoted.

Try pushing a pencil off your desk. The chances are that it will fall to the ground. This is due to the operation of a force known as gravity, of which you may have heard. Gravity exists. It's a fact. The theory of gravitation is an overarching explanation used to explain that fact.

The evolution of life is, similarly, a fact. It happened, and it still is happening. It has been observed in real time, and it has left many many traces in the historical record. The theory of evolution is, as you yourself said, a model which serves to explain all the observed facts of evolution. It's beautifully simple in the grand structure, but detailed enough to be endlessly fascinating. It is, also, rather better understood and better supported than the theory of gravitation.

TRiG.:)

So Trig, because I don't agree with you you can call me a liar and insinuate that I am stüpid and ignörant. I will not hold that against you, the God who created me teaches love, forgivness and kindness, qualities that really are not necessary for the survival of the fittest but are important in the kingdom of God. Look all around you Trig, everything you see, your house, your books, your computer all had a maker. Do you really think something as complex as man, with so many irreducible systems could be an accident, a result of time and chance?

[TRiG]

the missing linkWhich?

TRiG.:)

[TRiG]

So Trig, because I don't agree with you you can call me a liar and insinuate that I am stüpid and ignörant.No, I called you a liar because you told a lie. You may not have known it's a lie: you may be carelessly repeating a lie you've been told, without checking the evidence for yourself. In that case, you're ********.

TRiG.:)

[disciple]

No, I called you a liar because you told a lie. You may not have known it's a lie: you may be carelessly repeating a lie you've been told, without checking the evidence for yourself. In that case, you're ********.

TRiG.:)

Sorry Trig, you are the one who has been lied to and to give the credit due God, to time and chance is really, really careless. Have you ever picked up a bible and asked God to show you the real evidence, unless you think Darwin is more reliable than God. And by the way, there is still no proof that man evolved from any lower form, its still "just a theory".:)

[Trinity]

I knew about this hypothesis that we may have evolved from the reptiles, or from the chimpanzees, but never I knew concerning an evolution with some apes from the sea. The origin of life is a very mysterious thing.

Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes
http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.ht ml

The Scientists and the clergymen, they have both some difficulty to let go a false paradigm.

Trinity

[TRiG]

Sorry Trig, you are the one who has been lied toYes, I was lied to by my religious parents (not off their own bat: they were just repeating the lies they'd been told, just as you are). Then I did some finding out for myself.

The specific lie you told was the claim that evolution was made up by men for the specific purpose of doing away with God. This claim is so flat-out wrong that it can only be called a lie.

People who have examined the evidence believe that evolution happens because we've seen it happening. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming. To disbelieve evolution requires putting your hands over your ears and singing very loudly (a trick humans are depressingly good at, I must say). What we want to believe, about God or anything else, is irrelevant.

Evidence. It matters.

TRiG.:)

[TRiG]

love, forgivness and kindness, qualities that really are not necessary for the survival of the fittestYou don't think so? You don't think that a social animal might find these useful? Chimps have a sense of fair play.

A human that did not have these qualities would not be "fit", would not do well in society, and would likely have fewer offspring than his or her more cooperative counterparts.

TRiG.:)

[disciple]

Hello Trig,


Yes, I was lied to by my religious parents (not off their own bat: they were just repeating the lies they'd been told, just as you are). Then I did some finding out for myself.

I ***ume from this statement that you don't believe God is real and that the account in the Bible is not factual. What is it that you found out?

The specific lie you told was the claim that evolution was made up by men for the specific purpose of doing away with God. This claim is so flat-out wrong that it can only be called a lie.

Perhaps you could say that this is my "theory" based on observing the actions and at***udes of those who believe or have faith in the idea that men evolved from apes and that everything came from nothing.

People who have examined the evidence believe that evolution happens because we've seen it happening. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

Please share with me the evidence that proves that man evolved from a lower form of life.

To disbelieve evolution requires putting your hands over your ears and singing very loudly (a trick humans are depressingly good at, I must say). What we want to believe, about God or anything else, is irrelevant.
Actually, if one reads the Bible and the theory of evolution it is more of a leap of faith to believe everything came from nothing than to believe in a Creator who designed everything.

Evidence. It matters.

Please provide some.:)
TRiG.:)

[AllyManderson]

When someone told a lie you called them a liar TRiG. You said that they might not have known it was a lie - but it was still a lie.

A cousin of mine from England visited me here in Glasgow, And we had introduced the smoking ban a few months earlier - My cousin lit his cigarette, A criminal offence. He committed a criminal offence - without knowing that is what he is doing. Every lawyer in Scotland, England and the United States would tell you
"This man is not a criminal"

Would you honestly say

"Before visiting Scotland - The Englishman should have the 1,000 pages of Scots law. Thus he is a criminal - as he did a crime!"

Is he ******?
__________

Telling something that is not true - does not make you a liar.

When my Mathematics teacher in Primary 1 said
"So Ally, 4 + 4?"
And I answer "Six Miss"
Should she have denounced me as a Liar?

(Obviously more complex examples from learning Calculus and Algebra in later years could be used here)

Would you really call a mathematician who has reached a wrong conclusion "******"?

Would it have been ****** for me to say to my teacher "Provide me with evidence for why four plus four does not equal six?"
___________

TRiG, I believe you owe, as a gentleman, an apology and I think talking-down to people is a very poor trait to have. You are perhaps a fairly smart person - but please do not feel you can lecture us all, talk down to us all - and generally behave in a manner that makes all of us pity you.

Every blessing,

Alastair ("Ally") Adam Manderson III Esq

[asdf]

When someone told a lie you called them a liar TRiG. You said that they might not have known it was a lie - but it was still a lie.

While it is correct that one can make an untrue statement for a number of reasons, without necessarily being a "liar", it is also the case that once a person is informed of an untruth, continuing to make the untrue statement is generally considered "lying".

In short, I agree with you that TRiG was premature in calling disciple a liar, but he did later qualify that by saying that if disciple did not know it was an untruth, s/he was simply ig-norant.


A cousin of mine from England visited me here in Glasgow, And we had introduced the smoking ban a few months earlier - My cousin lit his cigarette, A criminal offence. He committed a criminal offence - without knowing that is what he is doing. Every lawyer in Scotland, England and the United States would tell you
"This man is not a criminal"That's actually not true. I can't speak for Scotland or England, but here in the US, ignorance of the law is not considered a valid excuse in a court of law.

[AllyManderson]

While it is correct that one can make an untrue statement for a number of reasons, without necessarily being a "liar", it is also the case that once a person is informed of an untruth, continuing to make the untrue statement is generally considered "lying".

In short, I agree with you that TRiG was premature in calling disciple a liar, but he did later qualify that by saying that if disciple did not know it was an untruth, s/he was simply ig-norant.

That's actually not true. I can't speak for Scotland or England, but here in the US, ignorance of the law is not considered a valid excuse in a court of law.

Ah sorry then.

Under Scots Law - Guilty Act and Guilty Mind must be proven in court. As a result, criminal charges cannot be brought to anyone under 8.
As a result of Guilty Mind - the mentally insane cannot be given a punishment, Punishments are for "criminals" which they are not.
Ignorance of the Law - must be proven by the defendant. But if a person genuinely doesn't know that a law exists - it is unfair to expect them to follow it.

For example, if we may be as ridiculous as possible, an Englishman who has crossed into the Scotland and went into a Scottish Cafe thinking it is an Englishamn and smokes, He would not be prosecuted. He wouldnt even be handed the fine.

In Scottish Courts 3 verdicts can be given 'Guilty' 'Not Guilty' and 'Not Proven'

The 3rd verdict is normally reserved for those where the evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilty act, but the Jury/Judge is of the opinion they are guilty.

Or, where the Guilty Mind cannot be proven. :)

If your "Not Proven" then you are not guilty. As you are innocent untill proven guilty in both Scotland and England.

Anyway, This was just another example. And it helps illustrate my point - As I felt ignorance of the law would be used in the US the same way as in England. So, I guess I was telling a LIE, but am I a liar?

I am sure, I had read cases of insanity, self-defence and ignorance of the law being used to clear people in the US. However, this is from 2 weeks of Compartive Legal History at a University summer school. I admit you have more knowledge so will take your point on board. Am I a liar?

Take the one about Mathematics,

If I study a mathematics problem. Come up with a solution. Turn to my cl***mate, and say "This is the solution based on the materials I have read"

I provide a solution which is VALID. But is not SOUND. :D I continue to back this up untill the day I die - despite the fact Issac Newton many hundreds of years ago, had already dealt with this problem.

Am I ******? For not being as smart as Issac Newton?
Am I ********? For failing on one occasion to use a surd and so losing the true value of the equation?
Am I a liar? Because my valid solution to the problem is not sound?

[disciple]

Greetings Ally and ASDF,
After reading your comments I wanted to make a point. My comment was
"Gee all these vast mountains of evidence and scientific consensus and it is still just a theory, a theory used by man in the hopes of explaining away God."
My point is that as someone who believes that the Bible is God's word I feel my comment was not stüpid, ignörant or a lie. In Mat. 19:4 Jesus spoke about God creating man and woman so apparently for Jesus, that rules out evolution. Jesus also said in Mat. 12, "He who is not with Me is against Me". Scientific theorys are not "just another way God could have done things", what Jesus says is true or it's not and those who choose to ignore what God has said are replacing God's revelation with another explaination. Perhaps I should have prefaced my comment with this point.
It was interesting reading both your comments. Incidently Asdf I am a "he".

[Trinity]

That's actually not true. I can't speak for Scotland or England, but here in the US, ignorance of the law is not considered a valid excuse in a court of law.

Same thing in Canada. This is probably the same thing with every country, ruled by the Common Law.

A lie is something that is premeditated. Something that is knowingly understood as wrong.

Disciple knows much about the Bible (this is ok) than about the science. Facts are facts, and the reality is what is real.

Trinity

[asdf]

Incidently Asdf I am a "he".

Nice to meet you. :D I'm a 'he' too - it's too bad English doesn't have better gender-neutral pronouns...:p


Greetings Ally and ASDF,
After reading your comments I wanted to make a point. My comment was
"Gee all these vast mountains of evidence and scientific consensus and it is still just a theory, a theory used by man in the hopes of explaining away God."
My point is that as someone who believes that the Bible is God's word I feel my comment was not stüpid, ignörant or a lie. In Mat. 19:4 Jesus spoke about God creating man and woman so apparently for Jesus, that rules out evolution. Jesus also said in Mat. 12, "He who is not with Me is against Me". Scientific theorys are not "just another way God could have done things", what Jesus says is true or it's not and those who choose to ignore what God has said are replacing God's revelation with another explaination. Perhaps I should have prefaced my comment with this point.
It was interesting reading both your comments.

I understand your perspective, disciple - I believed the same way for many years. I still (in my better days) consider myself a Christian, thus I "believe the Bible is God's word". I understand that some things must be taken by faith - but faith is belief without evidence, not belief contrary to evidence.

Given the overwhelming evidence and cohesiveness of the Theory of Evolution across multiple scientific disciplines, I regard it as pretty safe to side with scientific consensus in accepting the fact of evolution.

The only thing I consider ignörant (nice use of the umlaut :p) about your comment was when you said "it is still just a theory" - because that shows a lack of knowledge of what a Theory is, in scientific usage. Like TRiG, I was surprised in your initial comment that you followed up saying "just a theory" with a scientific definition of Theory.

I think probably the confusion comes with the difference between Theory as used in philosophical terms vs. scientific terms. Wikipedia has a good overview (from the Scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) article):

In the sciences generally, a scientific theory (the same as an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a cl*** of phenomena.


A scientific theory can be considered a deductive theory, in that its content could be expressed in some formal system of logic in which its elementary rules are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.


In the humanities we find theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.


(...)


Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large cl*** of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
In other words, a scientific theory cannot be proven, but it can easily be disproved with a single piece of evidence against it. Evolution has not been disproved. Neither has the theory of gravitation, the theory of relativity, etc. They are the best schema for understanding the evidence we have, and the best schema for making predictions for future tests and experimentation.


You also may want to take a look at the Wikipedia article Evolution as theory and fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact).


With regard to the faith question - that evolution is "a theory used by man in the hopes of explaining away God", or that "Jesus spoke about God creating man and woman so apparently for Jesus, that rules out evolution" - I can only tell you how I resolve this apparent conflict. If there is a discrepancy between the Bible (as I understand it) and observable, empirical evidence - I will side with the evidence, and consider that perhaps my understanding of Biblical truth may be flawed. See my signature for what that looks like to me, as a person of faith.

[disciple]

Nice to meet you. :D I'm a 'he' too - it's too bad English doesn't have better gender-neutral pronouns...:p

Hello again Asdf, thanks for your reply.



I understand your perspective, disciple - I believed the same way for many years. I still (in my better days) consider myself a Christian, thus I "believe the Bible is God's word". I understand that some things must be taken by faith - but faith is belief without evidence, not belief contrary to evidence.
Hebrews chap 11 tells us that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. We cannot summon up faith in God on our own, it is God who gives each man a measure of faith.

Given the overwhelming evidence and cohesiveness of the Theory of Evolution across multiple scientific disciplines, I regard it as pretty safe to side with scientific consensus in accepting the fact of evolution.

I think considering the many fullfilled prophcies and archeological and historical data you would have to say the Bible is pretty darn cohesive too.

The only thing I consider ignörant (nice use of the umlaut :p) about your comment was when you said "it is still just a theory" - because that shows a lack of knowledge of what a Theory is, in scientific usage. Like TRiG, I was surprised in your initial comment that you followed up saying "just a theory" with a scientific definition of Theory.

Credit for the umlaut goes to Trig, I cut and paste the words. I must be ignörant as my use of the definitions was an attempt at sarcasim. ;)

I think probably the confusion comes with the difference between Theory as used in philosophical terms vs. scientific terms. Wikipedia has a good overview (from the Scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) article):

In the sciences generally, a scientific theory (the same as an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a cl*** of phenomena.


A scientific theory can be considered a deductive theory, in that its content could be expressed in some formal system of logic in which its elementary rules are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.


In the humanities we find theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.


(...)


Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large cl*** of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
In other words, a scientific theory cannot be proven, but it can easily be disproved with a single piece of evidence against it. Evolution has not been disproved. Neither has the theory of gravitation, the theory of relativity, etc. They are the best schema for understanding the evidence we have, and the best schema for making predictions for future tests and experimentation.


You also may want to take a look at the Wikipedia article Evolution as theory and fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact).


With regard to the faith question - that evolution is "a theory used by man in the hopes of explaining away God", or that "Jesus spoke about God creating man and woman so apparently for Jesus, that rules out evolution" - I can only tell you how I resolve this apparent conflict. If there is a discrepancy between the Bible (as I understand it) and observable, empirical evidence - I will side with the evidence, and consider that perhaps my understanding of Biblical truth may be flawed. See my signature for what that looks like to me, as a person of faith.
My friend, look at the complexity of the human body and mind, the irreducible systems in life such as the eye for one, the existance of a conscience, the precisness of our solar system, etc. There is no doubt that there is a divine Creator who had a specific plan in mind.

[asdf]

Hebrews chap 11 tells us that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. We cannot summon up faith in God on our own, it is God who gives each man a measure of faith.

I don't disagree with that. But I don't see how it has any bearing on what I said, that "faith is belief without evidence, not belief contrary to evidence". In other words, faith is belief in things that are not falsifiable, not belief in things that are, and have been, falsified.

For example: I believe that God exists; I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. These propositions cannot be falsified; thus, they are in the realm of faith. The propositions that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the earth is flat, or indeed that the earth came into existence ~6000 years ago, can be and have been falsified.


I think considering the many fullfilled prophcies and archeological and historical data you would have to say the Bible is pretty darn cohesive too.

Sure it is, for the most part.


Credit for the umlaut goes to Trig, I cut and paste the words.

Ah yes, I see that now. A very clever way of getting around a nonsensical and oversensitive censorship-bot.


I must be ignörant as my use of the definitions was an attempt at sarcasim. ;)

Ah, sorry I didn't catch that you intended it sarcastically.


My friend, look at the complexity of the human body and mind, the irreducible systems in life such as the eye for one, the existance of a conscience, the precisness of our solar system, etc. There is no doubt that there is a divine Creator who had a specific plan in mind.

I believe in a divine Creator. I also accept scientific fact.

[disciple]

Hello Asdf,
I have to admit as Trinity said I don't know much about science, but I believe all science gets around to proving what's in the Bible. I also think is is good to discuss things patiently with those who have a different opinion.
Thanks

[asdf]

Hello Asdf,
I have to admit as Trinity said I don't know much about science, but I believe all science gets around to proving what's in the Bible. I also think is is good to discuss things patiently with those who have a different opinion.
Thanks

Shalom and blessings, disciple :)

[NoneOfTheAbove]

My friend, look at the complexity of the human body and mind, the irreducible systems in life such as the eye for one, the existance of a conscience, the precisness of our solar system, etc. There is no doubt that there is a divine Creator who had a specific plan in mind.
I know there's a benevolent creative SOMETHING "out there". His/its plans (if any) are beyond my humble scope.

It is also apparent to me that evolution is the means by which He/it accomplishes much, including diversity of species. The development of the eye is NOT "irreducibly complex" and Behe should be spanked for continuing to advance it as an example after it has been falsified.


Here's a very simplified graphic reduction of the process. (http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/43/79543-004-C3F00EE8.jpg)

Even if that's not what happens, the illustration falsifies the irreducible complexity of the eye.

[TRiG]

When someone told a lie you called them a liar TRiG. You said that they might not have known it was a lie - but it was still a lie.

A cousin of mine from England visited me here in Glasgow, And we had introduced the smoking ban a few months earlier - My cousin lit his cigarette, A criminal offence. He committed a criminal offence - without knowing that is what he is doing. Every lawyer in Scotland, England and the United States would tell you
"This man is not a criminal"


Ignorance of the law excuses no man: Not that all men know the law, but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him.
John Selden, English antiquarian & jurist (1584 - 1654)

[NoneOfTheAbove]

Ignorance of the law excuses no man: Not that all men know the law, but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him.
John Selden, English antiquarian & jurist (1584 - 1654)

Good one. Applies in spades to some well-known laws, like the "law" of gravity... :D

[disciple]

Good one. Applies in spades to some well-known laws, like the "law" of gravity... :D

Greetings,
Here's another good one, Romans 1:18-22
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 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, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools"

[asdf]

Ooh, how fun:
Richard Dawkins's new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/059306173X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250870694&sr=1-1), is out on September 10, and The Times is serialising it this week. The first extract appeared today (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6805656.ece).
(via (http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/08/richard-dawkins-brian-eno-and-the-art-of-evolution.html))
Here's a couple juicy quotes:
Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.

---

The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.

---

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

---

In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.

Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.

Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But m***ive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution.

---

Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.

[NoneOfTheAbove]

Ooh, how fun:
Richard Dawkins's new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/059306173X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250870694&sr=1-1), is out on September 10, and The Times is serialising it this week. The first extract appeared today (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6805656.ece).
(via (http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/08/richard-dawkins-brian-eno-and-the-art-of-evolution.html))
Here's a couple juicy quotes:
Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.

---

The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.

---

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

---

In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.

Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.

Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But m***ive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution.

---

Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.


Excellent post, asdf. And your user name is SO easy to type! :D

I find evolution to be one of the most awe-inspiring aspects of Creation. Pondering it provokes the most profound feeling of wonderment. It is a shame that there is such resistance to accepting this unbelievably powerful manifestation of God's will. Not because theories about it are so useful and beneficial to humans in their application, but because rejecting it in favor of dogma deprives individuals of that deep, appreciative wonder and kinship with every living thing.

As I look through the eyes and hear through the ears and hooves of my horses, the fact of their millions of years of evolutionary heritage is inescapable. Where some individuals experience only "Huh?", I am blessed to experience "WOW!". Would that I could share that experience with those who are loathe - for whatever reason - to accept the blessing of knowing of the magical, mystical complexities of human - and all living things' - origins.

PS - I do NOT see any conflict with evolution (or any other science) and the teachings of Christ or any other religion's REAL values.

[disciple]

Greetings Asdf & Nota,
It sounds like you guys are saying that you believe in God but don't believe the Bible is accurate. I don't want to put words in your mouth so can you comment or clarify? Thanks.

[asdf]

Greetings Asdf & Nota,
It sounds like you guys are saying that you believe in God but don't believe the Bible is accurate. I don't want to put words in your mouth so can you comment or clarify? Thanks.

Hi disciple. I understand your question, because as I said, I used to believe that evolutionary science was a threat to my Christian faith.

Let me be as clear as I can be: I do believe that the Bible is accurate, for the purpose it was written. The Bible is not a math textbook, nor a straightforward genealogy, nor even a history textbook. It is certainly not a science textbook. No,

you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
-2 Timothy 3.15-17
The purpose of the Bible is to sweep one up in a grand drama, the narrative of the people of God: the drama of creation, fall, covenant, redemption, reconciliation, forgiveness. It is definitively not to convey bland, abstract factual (or counterfactual) information. It's a story, not a database, telephone directory, book of arcana, or times table.

As I said in a previous post,

If there is a discrepancy between the Bible (as I understand it) and observable, empirical evidence - I will side with the evidence, and consider that perhaps my understanding of Biblical truth may be flawed.
I hope this helps you understand why I no longer believe acceptance of scientific fact to be dangerous or a betrayal of my faith in God and in the Scriptures.

Shalom,
asdf

[NoneOfTheAbove]

Greetings Asdf & Nota,
It sounds like you guys are saying that you believe in God but don't believe the Bible is accurate. I don't want to put words in your mouth so can you comment or clarify? Thanks.

Greetings Disciple,

Like asdf, I don't think the Bible addresses evolution at all. My understanding is that it is a guide for living in the best possible manner, not for explaining empirical facts. I also acknowledge that it was written for a contemporary audience, and the way that it uses empirical "facts" in its narrative reflects the then-current understanding of the universe.

The enduring and timeless values that are at the heart of its message do not rely on whether evolution is responsible for diversity, whether the earth has corners or sits on pillars or even whether the characters of whom it speaks were even real. It's about making moral and ethical decisions in our own lives, a purpose I think it serves in a manner that deserves reverence. I don't think it was ever intended to become idolized as an object as it is in some quarters today - only its message about how to live should be so treated.

Just my $.02 :)

[disciple]

Greetings Asdf,
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate when people are polite even when we don't agree. After all this is a discussion forum not a contest or a courtroom, so if I ask questions about what you believe I am not trying to trick you, trap you or make you look foolish. I am not clever enough to do any of the above.
That being said, in light of your 2 Tim 3:15-17 reference why wouldn't the account of creation in Genesis be God breathed and correct? Perhaps the understanding of the evidence used to support evolution is flawed. If the creation account cannot be trusted as presented can we rely on the presentation of grace and redemption? You see what I am getting at. Thanks.

[NoneOfTheAbove]

Greetings Asdf,
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate when people are polite even when we don't agree. After all this is a discussion forum not a contest or a courtroom, so if I ask questions about what you believe I am not trying to trick you, trap you or make you look foolish. I am not clever enough to do any of the above.
That being said, in light of your 2 Tim 3:15-17 reference why wouldn't the account of creation in Genesis be God breathed and correct? Perhaps the understanding of the evidence used to support evolution is flawed. If the creation account cannot be trusted as presented can we rely on the presentation of grace and redemption? You see what I am getting at. Thanks.

Thank YOU Disciple! Your polite and friendly demeanor is far more important than any credential you might have when it comes to my acceptance of your message.

I won't try to address the question you are posing for asdf, except to ask you a related question.

Are grace and redemption just promises, or are they things we can actually experience as a result of living morally and ethically, "in Christ" as a Christian might say?

You posted something that really rings a bell for me:


since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made

I really do take that to mean what it says - the rocks, the trees, the birds and the bees have always been understanding of their roles in creation. I take their expressions as the clearest expression of God's invisible attributes. And yes, it includes but is far from limited to, the expressions of humans. Humans are unique only in their ability to forego that understanding.

[asdf]

Greetings Asdf,
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate when people are polite even when we don't agree. After all this is a discussion forum not a contest or a courtroom, so if I ask questions about what you believe I am not trying to trick you, trap you or make you look foolish. I am not clever enough to do any of the above.

I understand, and thank you also. I try to remember to presume good will and good faith in others, until proven otherwise.


That being said, in light of your 2 Tim 3:15-17 reference why wouldn't the account of creation in Genesis be God breathed and correct?I believe that the Genesis account is God-breathed, and "correct" insofar as it meaningfully conveys the purpose for which it was written. I believe the creation account(s) in Genesis should be interpreted in the light of other Ancient Near Eastern creation epics, and not have imposed upon it Western Enlightenment values or 19th-century debates between modernists and fundamentalists.


Perhaps the understanding of the evidence used to support evolution is flawed.As I've said, there is consensus among virtually all scientists working across all related disciplines, with confirmation, corroboration, and evidence in abundance. As Dawkins said, "The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime."

There is surely more to be discovered. From time to time, new scientific research is conducted which revolutionizes our understanding of how things work. I have no doubt that we will continue to progress in our understanding of how evolution works, but that evolution works is not in question. It is the best, most reliable, most verifiable inference from the evidence at hand.

The important thing to grasp about my statement above, regarding research which "revolutionizes our understanding of how things work", is that legitimate science and legitimate scientists welcome it! If there was a shred of evidence that all time, space, and matter came into existence less than ~10000 years ago, scientists would welcome and embrace it.

You either have to posit one of the greatest conspiracy theories of all time - that virtually all scientists are intentionally misreading and misinterpreting the data in order to suppress the knowledge of God** - or you should accept the overwhelming evidence in support of reality as we understand it.

** Which conspiracy theory, by the way, doesn't even make sense of all the data, because there are many believers in the sciences who accept the fact of evolution.

I again recommend to you the wiki article on Evolution as theory and fact - see in particular the section Evolution compared with gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Evolution_compared_wi th_gravity) for examples of how the theories that explain scientific fact can be modified as new evidence is presented.


If the creation account cannot be trusted as presented can we rely on the presentation of grace and redemption? You see what I am getting at. Thanks.I do see what you're getting at. Allow me to answer your question with a question of my own: if the reality of creation itself cannot be trusted as presented, if the creator deceptively lined up all the evidence to point to evolution by natural selection, if the universe only appears to be billions upon billions of years old, etc. - but this creator desires [his] followers to believe something contrary to all this evidence - can we rely on God [himself]?

In my opinion, it is this kind of willful rejection of the evidence, this holding on to an outmoded and disproved model of how the universe works, that is causing so many to reject their faith as they grow up, as they encounter reality. If the creation epic(s) of Genesis 1 and 2 must be literal explanations of history for 'the presentation of grace and redemption' to have any validity, is it any wonder why people reject both when they realize they must reject the former?

[TRiG]

I do see what you're getting at. Allow me to answer your question with a question of my own: if the reality of creation itself cannot be trusted as presented, if the creator deceptively lined up all the evidence to point to evolution by natural selection, if the universe only appears to be billions upon billions of years old, etc. - but this creator desires [his] followers to believe something contrary to all this evidence - can we rely on God [himself]?Exactly. If God (or Loki) is a trickster, why should the Bible too not be a trick? If we can't trust the world around us, who should we trust?

TRiG.:)

[disciple]

Greetings Asdf,
You said,
<I do see what you're getting at. Allow me to answer your question with a question of my own: if the reality of creation itself cannot be trusted as presented, if the creator deceptively lined up all the evidence to point to evolution by natural selection, if the universe only appears to be billions upon billions of years old, etc. - but this creator desires [his] followers to believe something contrary to all this evidence - can we rely on God [himself]?>

If you and I believe God really is who He revealed Himself to be in the Bible, then your question is answered. Our God could not be deceptive in anything, that is why I believe the creation account in Genesis to be correct. God desires His followers to walk by faith not by sight for what appears to be "evidence", especially if conceived in the hearts and minds of men, can lead to deception. So is God against science? Absolutely not, since He ins***uted all the laws that men take so much joy in discovering and investigating. Does He condemn the one who says,"I have a hard time believing what is in the Bible"? No, He welcomes questions and searchers and says in the scriptures, "Come let us reason together" about sin or grace or redemption or the theory of evolution. Jesus said, "whoever comes to me I will never turn away", that includes those who believe all the Bible is true as well as those who struggle with belief. Those who refuse to believe or reason with God are in a different catagory since they are putting all their trust in themselves or other men.
It really comes down to this, God is trustworthy or He is not, I believe He is.
If I have to choose between what God says by faith alone or what man says even with what seems to be reasonable evidence, I will choose God. If I can trust Him with my eternal life I can trust whatever He says. Of course this does not make me better than anyone else or put me in a position to judge but it sure gives me joy and peace. Thanks.

[disciple]

Greetings Nota,
You said,

I won't try to address the question you are posing for asdf, except to ask you a related question.

Are grace and redemption just promises, or are they things we can actually experience as a result of living morally and ethically, "in Christ" as a Christian might say?

What is grace? Grace is Gods unmerited and undeserved favor, it is not a result of anything except His love and mercy towards us. Grace is not getting what we deserve and getting what we don't deserve. Ephesians 2 tells us that by grace we have been saved through faith and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God not of works. So living "in Christ" is the result of grace and redemption. There are people who live what we would deem moral and ethical lives but are not in Christ, which is because we only see the outside but God sees the heart.

[disciple]

Greetings,
I just read this thought it was interesting.

"The lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact, won newfound respect two years ago when researchers at Duke University Medical Center proposed that it actually serves a critical function. The appendix, they said, is a safe haven where good bacteria could hang out until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea, for example….'Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks,' says William Parker, Ph.D., ***istant professor of surgical sciences at Duke and the senior author of the study." ScienceDaily (Aug. 21, 2009)

For years we have heard the argument that the appendix was positive proof for Darwinian evolution, and that those who didn’t accept the evidence were unscientific.

Suddenly it goes from being a useless evolutionary leftover to being something that "serves a critical function." They discovered that God made it for a reason, and all we get is "maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks." Maybe? Of course it won’t be.

[TRiG]

"The lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact, won newfound respect two years ago when researchers at Duke University Medical Center proposed that it actually serves a critical function. The appendix, they said, is a safe haven where good bacteria could hang out until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea, for example….'Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks,' says William Parker, Ph.D., ***istant professor of surgical sciences at Duke and the senior author of the study." ScienceDaily (Aug. 21, 2009)Hmm. Try reading it in context (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/darwin_and_the_vermiform_appen.php). The appendix is a vestigial organ.

TRiG.:)

[TRiG]

They discovered that God made it for a reason.They discovered nothing of the sort. You're making stuff up again. Stop doing that.

TRiG.:)

[disciple]

They discovered nothing of the sort. You're making stuff up again. Stop doing that.

TRiG.:)

Making stuff up, you mean like men evolved from apes? ;)

[asdf]

For years we have heard the argument that the appendix was positive proof for Darwinian evolution, and that those who didn’t accept the evidence were unscientific.

Suddenly it goes from being a useless evolutionary leftover to being something that "serves a critical function." They discovered that God made it for a reason, and all we get is "maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks." Maybe? Of course it won’t be.

I'm sorry disciple, but you're quite mistaken. ***uming for the sake of argument that the appendix research is legit (and TRiG's article does cast some doubt on it, at least insofar as it's being presented), scientists will accept it. Overriding previous conceptions based on new evidence is something that scientists absolutely love! There's no immortalizing or setting in stone the works and conceptions of scientists of the past - the evidence stands or falls on its own.

Here's one example from the article TRiG cited:

Charles Darwin was wrong about many things — I'll even give an example at the end of this article — and it's part of the nature of science that everyone's work will be revised and refined over time, and some of us will even be shown to be completely wrong.
If the evidence is there, the textbooks will indeed be corrected. It happens all the time.

[NoneOfTheAbove]

:)
Greetings Nota,
You said,

I won't try to address the question you are posing for asdf, except to ask you a related question.

Are grace and redemption just promises, or are they things we can actually experience as a result of living morally and ethically, "in Christ" as a Christian might say?

What is grace? Grace is Gods unmerited and undeserved favor, it is not a result of anything except His love and mercy towards us. Grace is not getting what we deserve and getting what we don't deserve. Ephesians 2 tells us that by grace we have been saved through faith and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God not of works. I should have worded it better, but still you answered below:



So living "in Christ" is the result of grace and redemption. .
By which I understand that you see "Grace" as something experienced by the living.

There are people who live what we would deem moral and ethical lives but are not in Christ, which is because we only see the outside but God sees the heart. No doubt some people do the right things for the wrong reasons. One reason I try not to overly indulge in judging people. I hear a lot of people, including Christians, say things like "by their actions they will be judged", and the oft repeated cliche about that with which the road to Hell is paved. Those things being considered, it does indeed require Grace to keep the heart in the right place and have the right actions follow from it. It's not automatic. At least that's my take ($.02).

Thanks for that, Disciple.

[NoneOfTheAbove]

I'm sorry disciple, but you're quite mistaken. ***uming for the sake of argument that the appendix research is legit (and TRiG's article does cast some doubt on it, at least insofar as it's being presented), scientists will accept it. Overriding previous conceptions based on new evidence is something that scientists absolutely love! There's no immortalizing or setting in stone the works and conceptions of scientists of the past - the evidence stands or falls on its own.

Here's one example from the article TRiG cited:

Charles Darwin was wrong about many things — I'll even give an example at the end of this article — and it's part of the nature of science that everyone's work will be revised and refined over time, and some of us will even be shown to be completely wrong.
If the evidence is there, the textbooks will indeed be corrected. It happens all the time.

I would add that for an organ to be considered vestigial, it is not required to have no function - only that it's current function is not the one it first served. The appendix still qualifies.

[TRiG]

Making stuff up, you mean like men evolved from apes? ;)Making stuff up, like the idea that this paper in any way casts doubt on evolution. It doesn't. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/evolution_of_the_appendix.php)

TRiG.:)

[NoneOfTheAbove]

Making stuff up, like the idea that this paper in any way casts doubt on evolution. It doesn't. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/evolution_of_the_appendix.php)

TRiG.:)

You're right, but I think D believes otherwise - or did when he wrote that.

[asdf]

If you and I believe God really is who He revealed Himself to be in the Bible, then your question is answered. Our God could not be deceptive in anything, that is why I believe the creation account in Genesis to be correct.

I agree that the God I know, love and worship is not and cannot be deceptive. That is why I believe that God's creation itself can be trusted, and that humans can make meaningful observations thereof.

I've started writing a longer reply to this concept, but I believe it probably should go in its own thread. Look for it soon. :)


God desires His followers to walk by faith not by sight for what appears to be "evidence", especially if conceived in the hearts and minds of men, can lead to deception.As I said before, faith is belief without evidence, not self-deception in the face of contrary evidence.


So is God against science? Absolutely not, since He ins***uted all the laws that men take so much joy in discovering and investigating.I agree :)


Does He condemn the one who says,"I have a hard time believing what is in the Bible"? No, He welcomes questions and searchers and says in the scriptures, "Come let us reason together" about sin or grace or redemption or the theory of evolution. Jesus said, "whoever comes to me I will never turn away", that includes those who believe all the Bible is true as well as those who struggle with belief.I appreciate you saying that - I think it's a major problem that some sectors of the church seem to be pushing out those who attempt to reconcile science with their faith. I'm happy that you can see the bigger picture for those to whom intellectual honesty requires them to accept scientific opinion even if it conflicts with a certain interpretation of the scriptures.


Those who refuse to believe or reason with God are in a different catagory since they are putting all their trust in themselves or other men.
It really comes down to this, God is trustworthy or He is not, I believe He is.I think I understand what you're saying. It's like Moses, or ***, or David - lamenting about God's seeming cruelty and indifference in the face of grave injustice, arguing with God, etc. - what's striking to me about these p***ages is that God is not threatened by such challenges. God does not smite them for daring to question [him]. (Quite the opposite, in fact, in many cases.)


If I have to choose between what God says by faith alone or what man says even with what seems to be reasonable evidence, I will choose God. I understand that. But with the Bible, we're always dealing with an interpretation that necessarily chooses to take some p***ages more "literally" than others.


If I can trust Him with my eternal life I can trust whatever He says. Of course this does not make me better than anyone else or put me in a position to judge but it sure gives me joy and peace. Thanks.Blessings :)

[sunofmysoul]

Ooh, how fun:
Richard Dawkins's new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/059306173X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250870694&sr=1-1), is out on September 10, and The Times is serialising it this week. The first extract appeared today (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6805656.ece).
(via (http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/08/richard-dawkins-brian-eno-and-the-art-of-evolution.html))
Here's a couple juicy quotes:
Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.

---

The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.

---

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

---

In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.

Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.

Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But m***ive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution.

---

Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.

awesome post asdf...(it IS easy to type isn't it...:D)

thanks for this post! :)

soms

[TRiG]

Couldn't resist dropping this link in too: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/a_couple_of_gems_from_aig.php

TRiG.:)

[asdf]

I agree that the God I know, love and worship is not and cannot be deceptive. That is why I believe that God's creation itself can be trusted, and that humans can make meaningful observations thereof.

I've started writing a longer reply to this concept, but I believe it probably should go in its own thread. Look for it soon. :)

The Book of Nature (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=995)

[asdf]

CREATIONISM IS the teaching of the Catholic Church, but it has been forgotten and ignored. The Fathers of the Church were unanimous in teaching creationism, and the Fourth Lateran Council and Vatican I made dogmatic pronouncements on creationism.

I'm afraid that modern Catholic teaching is not so antagonistic to reality.

[pilgrim1411]

I submit that the modern Roman "Catholic" ins***ution is in total apostasy, and is controlled by Freemasonry, the Illuminati and/or other dark and creepy secret societies. My opinion.

[asdf]

I submit that the modern Roman "Catholic" ins***ution is in total apostasy, and is controlled by Freemasonry, the Illuminati and/or other dark and creepy secret societies. My opinion.

Ah. Okay then. Carry on...

[pilgrim1411]

Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the theory of evolution. What we see today in the RCC, are signs of modernism and apostasy.

[pilgrim1411]

Robert Sungenis proves that historically the Roman Catholic Church has been opposed to Evolution.

http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/58/576

[alanmolstad]

Only the church position today is relevant to this conversation....we cant go back in time...we are here....in the NOW....

Thus only the church position at this time is worth talking about because its the only thing that actually affects people....

[alanmolstad]

Young Earth creationism is a lie.........