Posted on 11/19/2005 2:38:08 PM PST by masked face doom
It's been said so many times already!
Do a keyword search and get your jollies.
My, how unnecessarily nasty.
See post 18
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1525318/posts?page=18#18
I don't argue with them. I just ask simple questions that force them to defend their stance with facts and logic. After a minute or two they are just repeating themselves and getting frustrated. Sometimes I'll throw in a "You don't really believe that do you?" at the end to mix it up a little. It's more entertaining for me than listening to hours of rhetoric about how wonderful the public school system is...blah...blah...blah...eventually we just call a truce and talk about stocks....
That makes sense....I have just been reading a lot about this debate and I think it is fascinating. On one side you have the theory of evolution that is constantly being tweaked as new science or evidence renders older assumptions impossible. Scientists defend this as the scientific method, but the ID proponents quite astutely point out that the same theory could be tweaked and applied to anything on this planet that contain similar materials. For example, you draw up trees that argue that cars evolved from bicycles because they contain the same materials in increasingly complex structures. Both are made from metal, plastic and rubber. Two tires eventually became four. Cars developed a motor and the ability to process gasoline.....etc. It obviously doesn't make it true. I think the two theories aren't really at odds with eachother because in my opinion science and religions are compliments instead of diametrically opposed methods of explaining the universe. Scientists practice their own brand of faith to make sense of the universe even as they take so much pride in their absolutes and proofs and theories. For example...take the force of gravity...since all forces are balanced in the universe, there must necessarily be an antigravity. Have any of them ever seen it? Has it ever been documented? No. ID'ers on the other hand tend to take it 100% on faith that life is too complex and varied to have evolved from the same organism a la original design theory. If God can create all the heavans and the earth, is he not capable of creating creatures capable of Evolution? I think to really be responsible about this debate, you have to be capable and willing to see both sides.
LOL!
You're my hero!!!!
http://www.stnews.org/News-668.htm
For observatory director, a life of stars is pure heaven
By Frederica Saylor
(September 1, 2004)
An astronomer and a Jesuit, the Rev. George Coyne has been director of the Vatican Observatory for more than 25 years.
Splitting his time between the University of Arizona, where he maintains a professorship, and Castel Gandolfo, Italy, he researches cataclysmic variable stars: two stars that are in a binary system, orbiting one another,
with one drawing mass from the other and changing its aging process.
Between his research and travels, Coyne found time to speak with Science & Theology News’ Frederica Saylor
Science & Theology News: Growing up, were there any specific events that brought you to your faith?
The Rev. George Coyne: I was born to a very Catholic family, and as I was finishing grammar school, one of the sisters who taught me thought I should try for a scholarship at the local Jesuit high school. She forced me, literally, and I took the exam and received the scholarship to Loyola High School.
That was a turning point in my life. Just like some kids like the way Babe Ruth hit them out, and some like these great bike riders who do the Tour de France, I admired the Jesuits who were teaching me. From that hero worship, I entered the novitiate and became a Jesuit.
STN: What drew you to science and astronomy?
GC: First of all, I sort of had a predisposition. But secondly, I had a professor who was personally encouraging me; and third, it was forbidden fruit.
The first two years of Jesuit training were devoted to the novitiate, the spiritual life, learning about the Society of Jesus. After that, and taking first vows as a Jesuit, there were two years of classical training in Greek and Latin literature and ancient civilizations. During that time, we were very strictly held to doing that and nothing else.
But I had a professor of Greek who said that was a shame and gave me his card to the Reading public library in Pennsylvania so I could check out math and science books without anyone knowing.
STN: When were you finally able to study math and science formally?
GC: I had to finish those classical studies, and then we had three years of philosophy training. During those three years, we also did our bachelor’s degree in another field — I did mine in math.
After that, we Jesuits typically have a period we call “regency” — it’s a trial period. We’ve had several years of study, and they want to find out whether we can do anything worthwhile. We typically go teach at a high school or a college, or work at a parish or in a hospital so we’re strictly away from studies.
If superiors decide that you should do higher studies, they ask you to dedicate your time to doing a doctorate first. So I was assigned to do a doctorate in astronomy, which I did it at Georgetown University.
STN: What has your research focused on over the years?
GC: I did my work on spectrochemistry — it’s an analysis of the lunar surface.
STN: What brought you to the University of Arizona?
GC: The people at the university learned of the work I had done and my thesis and invited me out for a summer to work with them as a visiting scientist because they were developing specialized programs, and the lunar and planetary laboratory was just being founded.
They then invited me for a two-year temporary appointment that turned into a hire onto the faculty, and they eventually asked me to direct the local observatory.
STN: When were you called to the Vatican?
GC: In 1976, Jesuits were staffing the Vatican Observatory, and they invited me for a visit. I went for a year, which was fascinating because they had a growing observatory, too. They decided that since I was so involved in the University of Arizona, the best solution for the overall work of the Jesuits was that I stay at the university but make visits to them and keep up communication.
This worked fine until 1978 when the director of the observatory died very suddenly. After a search, they asked me if I would become director. I had to — a Jesuit is supposed to be available to go where the most important work is because of the vow of obedience to what the superiors want.
I still kept the adjunct position at the University of Arizona, so over the years I’ve spent half my life at Arizona and half my life at the Vatican Observatory.
STN: Do you believe religion and science can work together?
GC: I believe that while the science-and-religion dialogue is important, the most important contribution we can make is by doing good science. We first of all have to be doing quality research published in international journals. We have to be a good research institute. If we have the recognition, we can enter into the dialogue much more seriously than a priest who is just in philosophy or theology because we have the knowledge from the inside of the science.
Secondly, I have never known anyone who has ever come to believe in God through a pure reasoning process, much less through science. But if I believe in God, then why shouldn’t I use my scientific knowledge to try and come to at least some glimmer of what this God of faith who created the universe is like?
I think it’s very important to share the results using scientific knowledge to come to some idea of God. For example, did God predetermine everything that would happen in the universe? My answer is no, because it doesn’t fit the science. The universe has evolved through both chance and necessary processes with a great opportunity to intertwine and bring about the universe with life in it. This universe is prolific with the opportunity for the development of life. So, if it’s that kind of universe, that says something about the God who made it.
STN: Have there ever been any roadblocks for you?
GC: No. I’ve never had anything that even would resemble a conflict between my life of faith and my life as a scientist. My research is prayer. If I believe that God made the universe, then my attempt to understand it is an act of worship to the God that made the universe.
STN: What is your hope for the two fields?
GC: The Church runs the risk — as it has in the past — of not listening to good science, and scientists sometimes run a risk of saying that the Church is just superstitious. There’s a lot we don’t know. I believe that God is working with the universe, but I accept, from my scientific knowledge, the God who doesn’t predetermine and necessitate but allows the universe to have a certain creativity. My hope is that that kind of vision will motivate us that we don’t too precipitously bring God into the universe or exclude God from the universe.
It will be done, my lord. The troll will be zotted.
Well now trollllll, seeing as Catholics such as meself don't take the Bible literally word-for-word, this article is a non-story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.