Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer

The Scotsman ^ | May 5, 2006 | IAN JOHNSTON

[Right Wing Professor]

BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday.

Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a "destructive myth" had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies.

He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events.

Brother Consolmagno argued that the Christian God was a supernatural one, a belief that had led the clergy in the past to become involved in science to seek natural reasons for phenomena such as thunder and lightning, which had been previously attributed to vengeful gods. "Knowledge is dangerous, but so is ignorance. That's why science and religion need to talk to each other," he said.

"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."

Brother Consolmagno, who was due to give a speech at the Glasgow Science Centre last night, entitled "Why the Pope has an Astronomer", said the idea of papal infallibility had been a "PR disaster". What it actually meant was that, on matters of faith, followers should accept "somebody has got to be the boss, the final authority".

"It's not like he has a magic power, that God whispers the truth in his ear," he said.

[PatrickHenry]

The book was written by people who didn't know of these things, and God apparently didn't bother to educate them in such matters.

We don't know God's intention in dictating Genesis as it stands, but it's a fair inference that it wasn't intended to be a science text. Why do I say that? Because we, with all of our limitations, can take a totally ignorant 6-year-old, and in a mere 10 years have him ready to do college-level work in physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, etc.

If we can do that in a mere 10 years, God could easily have done that well, or far better, during the 40 years that the Hebrews wandered in the wilderness -- if it were His intention to do so. But it wasn't done. We don't know why it wasn't done, only that it wasn't. My guess is because we can work out the science on our own, and that's what we're expected to do.

The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Bible wasn't intended as a science text, so there's no reason why the parts that appear to conflict with science can't be understood as allegorical.

[csense]

Citation please. And don't bother with the Isaiah claim. The word used in Isaiah translates to circle (the ancient belief that the world was a disc was common). The writer had words available that would have translated to the modern "sphere", or "ball" and didn't use them.

Isaiah 40:22 
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...

Explain to me how one can be described as sitting upon a circle, or the curve of a circle, if one is actually sitting on the flat part of a disc, especially given the contemporary beliefs at the time concerning the edges of such a disc, or any other flat geometric shape for that matter.

The only way such a statement makes sense is if the interpretation is that of a sphere...then he is sitting upon the circle of the earth.

[csense]

Citation please. And don't bother with the Isaiah claim. The word used in Isaiah translates to circle (the ancient belief that the world was a disc was common). The writer had words available that would have translated to the modern "sphere", or "ball" and didn't use them.

Oh, and by the way, I'd like a citation also for your assertion that such words did indeed exist.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Placemarker

[XR7]

BTTT

[csense]

How did he [Jesus] see all the Kingdoms of the earth from the top of a high mountain then? Are the words of the Bible not good enough for you to draw a reasonable conclusion, that the earth must be flat?

Luke 4:5
5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. [emphasis mine]

The question is, even given the supposition that the earth is flat, and that one could see all the kingdoms of the earth from a high enough elevation, how is it possible to view it all in a moment of time.

If the verse was written with the understanding that the earth is flat, then there would be no need to include those last five words. It would be enough to simply state : " And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world."

The fact is that those words are significant to the understanding of what is transpiring between Christ and the Devil, and it hints that something more profound is going on here than simple empirical observations rendered naturally, especially when we take into consideration verse 9:

Luke 4:9
And he [the Devil] brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence.

Here we have the Devil setting, or placing, Jesus atop the Temple. Not only does this action pose a problem for a wholly naturalistic interpretation of the verse, but here you have two people, walking around on the top of the most holy place of the Hebrew people, and in full view of everyone...which also suggests that something more profound is happening here, between Christ and the Devil.

[PatrickHenry]

Some things keep popping up. After looking into Strong's Concordance for the King James version:

Isa 40:22
[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

I've underlined the phrase with the word for "circle" [chuwg] (Strong's 02329). Here are the only other verses that use the same word (also underlined), none of which implies a "sphere":

Job 22:14
Thick clouds [are] a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.

Pro 8:27
When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth

Word Search Results for "sphere" -- NONE

Word Search Results for "ball " [duwr] (Strong's 01754). Here are all verses that use the word for "ball" [NOTE: Two verses are in the same book as the "circle of the earth" passage, so the author of Isaiah had both words at his disposal]:

Isa 22:18
He will surely violently turn and toss thee [like] a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory [shall be] the shame of thy lord's house.

Isa 29:3
And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

Eze 24:5
Take the choice of the flock, and burn also the bones under it, [and] make it boil well, and let them seethe the bones of it therein.
[The Hebrew lexicon gives this meaning as "a burning pile, a round heap of wood"]

[gondramB]

>>Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy<<

The last this guy came up didn't someone say he wasn't authorized to state church position and things he said we just his opinions?

[Verax]

Actually the original word in Genesis is "Yom" the Hebrew word which has 3 meanings, one of them being "a long period of time".

This is another example of the trouble we find ourselves in when we attempt to apply human science and measurement to the supernatural.

Science says that creation is not a valid theory because we can't make predictions about it via the scientific method.

This is a circular arguement due to a false premise...

A) All true theories can be validated via the scientific method can be valid
B) Bibilical Creation cannot be validated via the sceintific method
Therefore:
C) Biblical Creationism is not a valid theory

But, if we COULD apply the sceintific method to the theory, then it COULD NOT, by definition, explain the creation of the universe. How could a phenomenon be subject to a law of which is was the antecedent?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Science says that creation is not a valid theory because we can't make predictions about it via the scientific method."

Actually, creationism (Genesis literally read) DOES make testable predictions. The problem with creationism is that these predictions are not backed up with the evidence. The earth is far older than a literal Genesis reading, and the order of creation is not consistent with what the fossil record indicates. There is no evidence for a worldwide flood, and there is evidence that in the time period it was supposed to have happened (about 4,000 years ago) there could not have been a worldwide flood. And so on.

What isn't testable is the general claim that God created the universe in some undefined way/time. That's essentially what ID says; it lacks any kind of specificity that would enable testing. When the claims get more specific, then the possibility of testing emerges. Science doesn't say that ID is false; it says that it is a heuristically useless philosophical/theological claim that simply can't be tested one way or the other.

[PatrickHenry]

Actually, creationism (Genesis literally read) DOES make testable predictions.

The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism

[andysandmikesmom]

Thanks very much for the link to the 'Five Failed Predictions of Creationism'....have skimmed through it, noting that this thread was posted more than 3 years ago...boy, you guys have been going at this for a long, long time...

Also noted a number of posts were removed, and that some of the posters have since been banned....gosh, I missed all the fun, at the time it was happening..thats ok tho...thankfully these old threads are still around, so I can have my fun now reading the posts that still remain...

[Dimensio]

Science says that creation is not a valid theory because we can't make predictions about it via the scientific method.

Actually, the fundamental objection to "creation" as a theory is that it invokes supernatural elements, which science by definition cannot address.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Ouch.

[aNYCguy]

The only way such a statement makes sense is if the interpretation is that of a sphere...then he is sitting upon the circle of the earth.

A circle is not a sphere.
A circle is circular.
A sphere is spherical.

Do you have anything better than "I know that X was intended, when Y was explicitly stated?"

[csense]

A circle is not a sphere.

No, it's not, but a sphere does contain the properties of a circle. In fact, an ordinary sphere, in mathematical terms, is a 2-sphere, and a circle, also in mathematical terms, is a 1-sphere.

Do you have anything better than "I know that X was intended, when Y was explicitly stated?"

I think I framed my argument better than that, and if you want to address the specifics of it, rather than simply disagree with the conclusion, then be my guest...