Darwin Didn't Contradict God

Providence Journal ^ | August 10, 2005 | Kenneth Miller

[syriacus]

Well, changing water into wine violates conservation of matter, for one.

I guess that the guests at the wedding feast would have been surprised to know what we (mere mortals) can do to uranium.

Fission Fragments

When uranium-235 undergoes fission, the average of the fragment mass is about 118, but very few fragments near that average are found. It is much more probable to break up into unequal fragments, and the most probable fragment masses are around mass 95 and 137. Most of these fission fragments are highly unstable (radioactive), and some of them such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 are extremely dangerous when released to the environment.

Highly radioactive, the xenon decays with a half-life of 14 seconds and finally produces the stable isotope cerium-140. Strontium-94 decays with a half-life of 75 seconds, finally producing the stable isotope zirconium-94. These fragments are not so dangerous as intermediate half-life fragments such as cesium-137.

I was taught that miracles obey the laws of science, but miracles take place in an era before scientists are able to understand what is going on.

[curiosity]

If the miracle at Cana was due to nuclear reactions, then there would have been massive disruptive consequences, like large massive discharges of energy or radiation.

[syriacus]

If miracles are merely meant to "show off" supernatural powers and create "awe" why wouldn't miracle workers be doing them more often for no purpose other than to "awe" people? Miracles usually show God's care for his children.

Anyway..

we are straying from your original hypothesis that miracles break laws of nature.

[curiosity]

If miracles are merely meant to "show off" supernatural powers and create "awe" why wouldn't miracle workers be doing them more often for no purpose other than to "awe" people?

I think Jesus' words to doubting Thomas will answer that question:

"Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believe."

[syriacus]

If the miracle at Cana was due to nuclear reactions, then there would have been massive disruptive consequences, like large massive discharges of energy or radiation.

I didn't say that the same steps were involved in changing water into wine as are involved in changing uranium into other elements.

I did say that people in Jesus's time would not have understood what we understand 2000 years later.

You can bet your last dollar that we currently don't understand things that people will understand in 50 years.

[syriacus]

I think Jesus' words to doubting Thomas will answer that question: "Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believe."

Exactly!!!!!

One could say that miracles are not performed to induce belief in people, more so than they are performed to help people.

We are straying from your hypothesis that miracles break the laws of nature.

[curiosity]

Well, I guess you could be right. This issue of miracles isn't all that important, at any rate. Let's just agree to disagree.

[syriacus]

Let's just agree to disagree.

I'll agree.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the ping! I very much appreciate the polite conversation - but I also wonder how much exposure the dialogue will get in the "blog" forum. IMHO, it should be either in the Religion or Main forum.

[betty boop]

The concerns of Pope Benedict, as expressed in his earlier writings, are not with evolution per se, but with how evolution is to be understood in our modern world. Biological evolution fits neatly into a traditional Catholic understanding of how contingent natural processes can be seen as part of God's plan, while "evolutionist" philosophies that deny the divine do not.

Hi TXinMA! The above seems to me to be the key statement in Professor Miller's article. It seems to me a great many of the science "popularizers" have explicity recast evolution theory as materialist and atheist. People like Richard Dawkins, for instance, clearly believe that the theory entirely obviates God, and that anybody who believes otherwise is some kind of superstitious moron. I don't think the evo-crevo debate would have arisen in the first place, were this not the clear message being sent by certain scientists today. And so science has unfortunately become "politicized." It has become yet another battlefield in the culture war. And this, to me, is a completely deplorable situation.

We must never overlook the fact that atheist materialism is philosophy, not science. FWIW

Thanks for the ping, TXinMA!

[Alamo-Girl]

I don't think the evo-crevo debate would have arisen in the first place, were this not the clear message being sent by certain scientists today. And so science has unfortunately become "politicized." It has become yet another battlefield in the culture war. And this, to me, is a completely deplorable situation.

I strongly agree! Thank you so much for your great post!