[_ Old Earth _] Should Science Speak To Faith?

[Catholic Crusader]

CCC 159 - Faith and science:

"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, 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."

Source:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1 ... 3.htm#art2

 

[Barbarian]

Precisely. Science cannot support faith, as the Catechism makes clear, because science can't evaluate the supernatural. This is made clear by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI:

Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap...the moment of transition to the spiritual.†While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.
Cardinal Ratzinger, the report of the International Theological Commission

 

[Biblereader]

True science has no conflict with creationism, and thus, no conflict with God.
Science DOES speak to faith. But, if a person is in darkness, he has no ability whatsoever to
grasp faith in His Creator.
One day, that person will bow their knee, and confess Jesus CHrist is Lord.

It is when man is a rejector of Jesus Christ, that his vanity leads him to sin against God, using the tools of science.
Christians should speak up to scientists who have become ignorant on purpose, of the existance of God.
Scientists without Jesus are insane. They are led by their flesh, their lusts, and the devil.
For instance, admixed embryos: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 663033.ece

 

[Biblereader]

You know what? We have enough problems to deal with, without adding to it.
Sin is enough of a problem in everyone's life.

 

[Deep Thought]

You still haven't defined what "true science" is, which leads to the question as to what "false science" is.

 

[Rick W]

Science is simply the gathering of data. Nothing more. Nothing less.
What is done with that data is another matter. Conclusion is by the opinion of those who view the data. The scientist who gathers the data makes conclusions but true science does not make the decisions on how to interpret the data gathered. Human thought does this.

In any research there must be reason to do so. There must be justification of some sort. Nobody does something for no reason at all. An assumption must first be made, a theory to be supported or dispelled. Something. So science is used to gather evidence for the primary purpose of the research. But again, based on the reason the data is sought in the first place the data is interpreted in that frame by someone making a conclusion.

 

[Rick W]

You still haven't defined what "true science" is, which leads to the question as to what "false science" is.

False science?
No such thing.
False conclusion yes. False assumption, of course.
True science?
Why the need for an adjective? Science is just that, science.
We add adjectives to differentiate particular fields of study and I suppose one could add true and false to describe a field or focus.

 

[Barbarian]

True science has no conflict with creationism, and thus, no conflict with God.

No form of creationism, unless you want to call theistic evolution "creationism", is consistent with science, and YE creationism is not consistent with Genesis. But there are forms of creationism that are not contrary to Christian belief.

Science DOES speak to faith.

It has no way to do that. Unless you're thinking of "speak to faith" in your own definition. Tell me how, (for example) chemistry speaks to faith.

Scientists without Jesus are insane.

I've known many scientists, who were Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. none of whom were insane, and none of whom accepted Jesus as God. I hope you wrote this without thinking; to actually believe that would be um, "insane."

 

[BobRyan]

You still haven't defined what "true science" is, which leads to the question as to what "false science" is.

True science has the academic freedom to "follow the data where it leads" it is not limited to pandering to the myths and dogmas of atheism.

True science is not promoted or built-up by junk science hoaxes where the data itself is being "fabricated" is being "invented" is being falsely represented as in the case of Simpsons 1951 horse series as in the case of Piltdown man as in the case of Neaderthal man as in the case of Haeckle's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" as in the case of ... (Well you get the idea).

TRUE science is driven by emperical experiment and has predicted results. TRUE science is repeatable and verifiable - indeed falsifiable.

TRUE science does not need to pander to the political wrangling of atheist darwinists.

--

I guess we could say ... "Just the obvious".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1. Intelligent Design is the "modest" argument in favor of "ALLOWING scientists the Academic freeddom to follow the data WHERE IT leads EVEN if it leads to observations about design that do not pander to atheist religionist dogma". This is the HEART of science -- not simply "an optional component"

Intelligent design is the belief that human beings and all of the things in existance(except prehaps God) were created with intelligence

Wrong - what you describe is YEC.

I.D is the "belief that SCIENCE should be ALLOWED to follow the data where it leads EVEN in cases where that data may lead to a conclusion in favor of DESIGN that does NOT pander to the dogma and dictates of atheism".

Bob

 

[Deep Thought]

Bob, I'm being to suspect you might be a version of Heidi that has evolved :

Your definition of ID is yours alone. Please don't keep repeating ad-infinitum as if it is a fact.

 

[Rick W]

I.D is the "belief that SCIENCE should be ALLOWED to follow the data where it leads EVEN in cases where that data may lead to a conclusion in favor of DESIGN that does NOT pander to the dogma and dictates of atheism".

Bob

Bingo.
Conclusion is the key word here.
Also people don't look for things that do not support the initial assumption made before any research began. I'm not saying it's dishonest or fraudulent. When looking for something other things can get overlooked. Just the way it is.

example:
If I'm looking for something blue I'm not paying any attention to those things that are red.

Also:
A defense attorney assumes his client is innocent and strives to find the evidence to prove his assumption. The prosecutor assumes the client is guilty and strives to find the evidence to prove his assumption. Both use the science of forensics for example to acquire their evidence. One is looking for this and the other for that. But both are using the same science to do so. Yes, they question people and so forth but for the sake of argument let's just say they search for data.
Based upon what each finds there is a conclusion drawn.

However:
If the defense attorney has dramatically more financial backing over the prosecutor the chances are he can produce more evidence and/or bring to bear more legal muscle. Right or wrong it stands to reason he'll use the finances for his purpose. His client may be guilty but the prosecutior may very well lack the funding to prove it.



I'll wager there's more attorneys and more money being spent to prove evolution. Advocates of I.D. have a real struggle on their hands and the machinery of evolution is determined that the case for I.D. isn't heard within the court of public opinion.

 

[Patashu]

No 'machinery of evolution' was involved when the Discovery Institute itself decided to not show up with any of its members except Behe at the Dover trial; in fact, William Dembski himself was going to show up, signed up as an expert witness and everything, before scooting at the last moment. If ID truly has a case to make they're doing a good job at hiding it, what with not being willing to defend their theory in court cases and all.

BTW, BobRyan, cite a source for your definition of ID? I think you might be confusing ID itself with the way ID proponents promote their theory; ie, that they should be allowed to speak on it/put it in textbooks such that academic freedom isn't violated. That isn't the theory itself, however, and I challenge you to show otherwise.

 

[Rick W]

lol
The Dover trial isn't the Roe and Wade of I.D. or creationism.
I don't suppose you believe the miracles of Christ such as turning water to wine, healing the sick/infirm, feeding the multitudes, walking on water, raising the dead and above all His resurrection. If one does not consider these miracles as true then I suppose there's no basis to believe any other work on His behalf.
Science simply cannot discern the spiritual. In that sense the sciences of man are handicapped. And by denying the spiritual nature within oneself one becomes willfully handicapped as well.
:smt102

 

[jmm9683]

lol
The Dover trial isn't the Roe and Wade of I.D. or creationism.

No, but Edwards v. Aguillard is...

 

[Rick W]

Earthly witness? The wisdom of men?
The situation the world faces today and has faced in the past are those who put their faith in a higher authority.

You're not Christian are you?

You'll have to excuse me but I haven't visited this forum much at all and don't know the members who predominately post in here.

 

[freeway]

Science does speak to faith almost all the time.. now we know 2+2=4 pure science and math no problem... or if you try to land on the sun, you will get burned= pure science on and on it can go...but when you say science proves that man came form ape or whatever the next favor will be soon and faith based study on that.... well thats pure faith,, all those missing fossils =faith.. how we came up form a single cell millions and millions of years ago= faith.... No God=faith... and this could go on and on... so "yes" science everyday speaks to faith.. If we leave the faith out of science and look at just that facts....well you will need faith to come to a conclusion, if man came form ape or if man was created....equals faith..... I'll stick with my faith.......in God!

 

[Jayls5]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=44A95E1D-E7F2-99DF-3E79D5E2E6DE809C&pageNumber=1&catID=9


I read this article today, and I couldn't help thinking it's just another way for Dawkins to further his bigotry, and 'excommunicate' believers from the scientific world. He hopes to convince other scientists to approach Christians as he does.

Krauss and Dawkins are planning (debating) the best way to convert believers to their worldview (Which they believe is based solely on reason). Krauss' method is through deception, and Dawkins' is through "tough love" which means he thinks they should be injected with a 'healthy' dose of his worldview.

Both men are guilty of trying to speak to a subject that they are admittedly ignorant of themselves...faith. They also deliberately misrepresent it in hopes to make atheism more popular...seemingly the more intellectual belief. Through the entire conversation both men degrade believers, especially those who are scientists, while trying to elevate themselves...their beliefs...by saying only theirs are rational...valid. I wonder, have they forgotten those believing scientists that have come before them? Oddly, they find any who question evolution to be just simply ignorant. I find it interesting that men, who call themselves scientists, would call those who are willing, or who have the audacity, to question their beliefs ignorant. This seems irrational considering the whole debate was about getting people to question their own beliefs. Krauss and Dawkins do not practice what they 'preach'. The sad thing is when Dawkins is accused of bigotry, he denys it and affirms it in the same breath. Krauss pretends to tolerate people of faith, but his aim the entire time he is smiling at them is to make them doubt.

For those who believe that God created the world...even if you believe it was through evolution...Dawkins finds you ignorant, and does not want you to practice science unless you deny the existence of God. Both Krauss and Dawkins prefer atheist scientists, because they find them to be the only rational scientists.

You are putting words into his mouth if I'm not mistaken. He said nothing of the sort in that article. The quote you are referring to said this: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)." He said nothing of people who belief in some metaphorical deistic creator who got the ball rolling (in fact, he has a lot of respect for people like that... such as Einstein). He actually didn't say anything about God at all with the quote, so I don't know where you are getting this "Dawkins finds evolutionist theistic believers ignorant" thing. People on this forum seem to stress this false dichotomy between the existence of God vs evolution, and it doesn't necessarily exist. However, the point they were making in the article, was a naturalistic examination of the likelihood of God. He willingly called people ignorant who didn't believe in evolution (be it due to religion or not). It just happens to be that most of the time, it is religiously motivated. Many creationist conceptions of God are dependent on evolution not existing. This is the problem: Countless Christians base their faith in God on testable criteria. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence, such as Galileo showing the moons of Jupiter to the Church through his telescope, they called it a trick of the devil. Today, there is an active propaganda campaign to keep kids willingly ignorant of evolution. We actually have a great example right now. That "documentary" by Ben Stein ironically titled, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is based entirely off of false premises of evolution and abiogenesis, and then tries to tie his two incorrect views together. The point is this, Dawkins and many others are tired of bending over backwards to those who actively smear the scientific method and mislead the public. We can find evidence for or against things in the bible, and a belief in a young earth is likely product of ignorance of mounds of scientific data. The whole theistic "creator God" issue is an argument from probability, and Dawkins simply believes it is extremely unlikely.

You mentioned that Dawkins is being audacious for implying that people questioning their beliefs are ignorant. I think this is a fairly obvious misinterpretation of what he was getting at. I don't think he has ever discouraged scientific criticism of a theory.

 

[BobRyan]

Science does speak to faith almost all the time.. now we know 2+2=4 pure science and math no problem... or if you try to land on the sun, you will get burned= pure science on and on it can go...but when you say science proves that man came form ape or whatever the next favor will be soon and faith based study on that.... well thats pure faith,,

True - the contrast above is between actual science and junk-science. The blind faith atheist religionist argument that "rocks can do all of this -- given enough time" is inserting religion into actual science the pretending that "science did it -- not me".

all those missing fossils =faith.. how we came up form a single cell millions and millions of years ago= faith.... No God=faith... and this could go on and on...

true. As Colin Patterson said of those "stories" about how 'one thing came from another -- they are stories easy enough to tell - but they are NOT science".

so "yes" science everyday speaks to faith.. If we leave the faith out of science and look at just that facts....well you will need faith to come to a conclusion, if man came form ape or if man was created....equals faith..... I'll stick with my faith.......in God!

Precisely. It is the the atheist religionist that is trying to insert his religion into science -- (thereby corrupting science) that is the problem. And it is manifest in the myriad hoaxes and admitted frauds in evolutionISM.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I'm being to suspect you might be a version of Heidi that has evolved :

Your definition of ID is yours alone. Please don't keep repeating ad-infinitum as if it is a fact.

The fact that it is not yours is simply testimony to your interest in blindly following atheist dogma. That is transparently evident to all -- but thanks for sharing "again".

As for Heidi -- the terms of the service of this board are that no counterfeit to Christian faith may be suggested or promoted. So attacking Heidi for being Christian and holding to a Christian view of origins -- is not helping your case. Stick with trying to find actual science that supports atheist darwinism.

Hint -- your attacks on Heidi's faith is violation of TOS.

The fact that you consider that antic of yours as "something worth highlighting" testifies to the lack of thinking you are placing into that argument.

Suggestion -- stop and think before posting ad hominem.

Focus on the topic -- post substance.

Bob