Replies

It [allegedly "infallible" science] assumes uniformity and excludes both the suggestion that maybe conditions were not always the same as they are today and we can't even consider a supernatural explanation for things.

Perhaps you're not aware that science deals only with what can be seen, measured, and tested. If you can figure out a way to do scientific research into the supernatural, which by definition is beyond such methods, please reveal the technique.

Naturalistic, materialistic science, by declaring that everything evolved solely through naturalistic random chance occurances makes a theological statement. It trys to exclude God from the mix (rather than humbly admit that there are some things beyond the realm of science)and explain everything according to the wisdom of man. It also does a very poor job of explaining much of everything and expects the world to take as facts that man is the gradual result of chance. It does not adequately explain intelligence, ignores known things (the impersonal creating the personal), and otherwise pushes what in reality is an unproven hypothesis. Examples of "missing links" are heralded before the public as fact, even though each link is highly speculative and debated (even by evolutionists). And, yet, evolutionary science expects to be lauded for its objectivity. It sees what it wants to see and discounts everything else. Whether or not God can be measured, His presence is witnessed in everything around us. Some are willfully blind to it, but it is there.

No theory comes forward in a vacuum. People's experiences, presuppositions, and biases all shape how they look at things.

That is why scientific observations and tests are reviewed by other labs, to filter out the biases of some individual. Often, results are studied and confirmed by people halfway around the world. There is no reason why scientists in America, India, Japan, and Israel will all come out with the same results unless there's more to the story than the biased outlook of some flawed individual.
First of all, the comment was on Darwin. Second, would you send an agent of Osama Bin Laden before a jury of Al Qaeda for judgment? The peers reviewing the evidence also have a highly evolutionary bias. If you don't believe me, just watch something that has been radiocarbon dated an age that doesn't agree with previous knowledge. Either the date will change to the previous knowledge or the previous knowledge will change to the date. But, by all means, one must preserve the evolutionary model.

Darwin sought to explain world without God then superficially added a few "The Creator" phrases to make it more palatable to an 19th century audience. He was not a Christian and the theory he proposed did not honor the creator of anything.

I don't think you have any evidence that demonstrates such was his purpose. But even if it were, none of that affects the scientific value of the theory itself. It's either good science or it's not. Is Evolution Science?.
I have posted quotes earlier from his restored biography. Darwin was not a trained scientist. He was an athiestic/agnostic skeptic trying to explain the world while under the influence of the theories of the lawyer, Charles Lyell. Lyell, incidentally, was known to have fudged dates, including the dating of Niagara falls. He once asked a local about the rate of erosion of the gorge. Because the number was too small, in Lyell's view, and would have made for a much younger gorge, Lyell pulled a figure out of his hat and BOOM, it took 35,000 years to form that gorge. Subsequent testing shows it was less than 10,000 and that the number was even smaller than the local had stated.

Chance mutation is all we are, and that is diametrically opposed to the Word of God.

The solar system is also opposed to the Word of God. There are probably more geocentric passages in scripture than there are which conflict with evolution. But that doesn't bother you. I still don't know why.
Because the Bible is not purporting to be a science book, and none of the supposed "geocentric" passages are purporting to be a statement of God's design. I will just be criticized for posting another AIG link, but AIG and Christiananswers.net among other links have plenty of information regarding the Galileo controversy as well as the supposed geocentrism of Scripture.

Galileo taught things which contradicted not the Bible but church teaching. This is where he ran into trouble. There is no conflict between Scripture and true Science.

Sorry. Actual scriptural passages were presented at Galileo's trial. There's no getting around it; the bible is a geocentric book. I can give you a list of several such passages, but I assume you're already familiar with them. The churchmen who prosecuted Galileo were quite well informed about their scripture.
Again, I refer you to the websites listed above. However, Galileo's problems were more with the Aristotelian thinking of the churchmen of his day as opposed to Copernican thinking - and the Bible would have been used out of context to back up those assumptions.

I'm definitely not castigating Christians because of Galileo. What I'm trying to suggest is that the struggle you are waging (for the literal interpretation of scripture) is a battle what was waged -- and lost -- nearly 400 years ago. If you can accept the solar system, you can also accept evolution. The Roman Catholic church has learned from its past errors, and now accepts both.
Sorry, the word is inerrant and can be taken literally (unless common sense says not to do so). Adam was viewed as literal by Jesus, Paul, and the early church. The fact that the R.C. church has apostacized itself by accepting evolution does not change the unchangeable truth of God's Word.

It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean. In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research.

Give me a break! First of all, the "latest scientific research" changes with the wind. It will continue to change with the wind. It is inadequate to explain what we see and furthermore presents a worldview that is downright dangerous. With that said, I do find it important as a seminary educated theologian (also have a secular Masters and Bachelors) to stay on top of what is going on in the world of science, but hardly look to it as some sort of authority which can change the truth of the Word of God. I made the argument before, but just think about it. If the Genesis account of creation is only an allegory, then you have no foundation (other than some fairy tale) for marriage, for families, for sin and salvation, or a need for a Savior. If Genesis is untrue, what basis do you have to trust any more of the book? What if the story of Jesus is just a morality tale, an allegory? No. The Word of God is not full of allegory, and Augustine caused more damage to the world of theology by popularizing such interpretation and hardly anyone I can think of. The Word of God is true. It is livable. It makes sense. It rings true to what we observe. And, no scientist is going to topple it.

Pope John Paul II
MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: ON EVOLUTION
22 October 1996
The source of the above is available for you to check for yourself: The Pope's 1996 Message on Evolution. I praise them for their enlightened attitude. That is not castigation.
I do not desire to get into a Catholic church debate on this thread. Suffice it to say, that I believe the Pope is completely wrong on this and disagree that this is an "enlightened" attitude at all. It is apostacy, and I shudder for the damage it will do to the members of the Catholic faith.

Naturalistic, materialistic science,

As if there could ever be "super-naturalistic" and "im-materialistic" science

by declaring that everything evolved solely through naturalistic random chance occurances makes a theological statement.

That's a very shaky statement of what evolution says. And it is NOT a theological statement. It is no more theological than is chemistry when it explains -- naturalistically (gasp!) -- how elements combine into compounds.

It [Naturalistic, materialistic science] trys to exclude God from the mix (rather than humbly admit that there are some things beyond the realm of science)and explain everything according to the wisdom of man.

I truly shudder to think what a "proper" science book would look like if it met your standards. What do you want? A humble declaration of ignorance? A prayer for wisdom? A confession of sin? That's science?

It [Naturalistic, materialistic science] also does a very poor job of explaining much of everything and expects the world to take as facts that man is the gradual result of chance. It does not adequately explain intelligence, ignores known things (the impersonal creating the personal), and otherwise pushes what in reality is an unproven hypothesis. Examples of "missing links" are heralded before the public as fact, even though each link is highly speculative and debated (even by evolutionists). And, yet, evolutionary science expects to be lauded for its objectivity.

Hard to know where to begin there. Difficult to respond, because all you've said amounts to nothing more than a hard-core anti-science rant. So, no rebuttal there. I accept that as your emotional response to science.

It [Naturalistic, materialistic science] sees what it wants to see and discounts everything else. Whether or not God can be measured, His presence is witnessed in everything around us. Some are willfully blind to it, but it is there.

Earlier, I had asked you how science could deal with (measure, see, test, etc.) the supernatural world. You have no answer, except to continue to bash science for not doing what it cannot do. I may as well beat my dogs because they can't fly.

First of all, the comment [about bias influencing results] was on Darwin.

My comments about worldwide peer review and verification of lab results applies to evolution as well as everything else. My point was that a Hindu or Japanese biologist would have none of the alleged bias that you ascribe to Darwin

Second, would you send an agent of Osama Bin Laden before a jury of Al Qaeda for judgment? The peers reviewing the evidence also have a highly evolutionary bias.

Okay. Everyone is in on the conspiracy. I gotcha.

[The anti-scriptural solar system doesn't bother me] Because the Bible is not purporting to be a science book, and none of the supposed "geocentric" passages are purporting to be a statement of God's design.

That's a very superficial dismissal of one of the most dramatic events in the intellectual history of western civilization. If only the church fathers had listened to you, ol' Galileo would have had no problems at all. Yet, as lenient as you say you are about the once blasphemous solar system theory, you are astonishingly harsh on those who advocate evolution. I still don't understand your double standard.

I will just be criticized for posting another AIG link, but AIG and Christiananswers.net among other links have plenty of information regarding the Galileo controversy as well as the supposed geocentrism of Scripture.

Right. Don't bother.

However, Galileo's problems were more with the Aristotelian thinking of the churchmen of his day as opposed to Copernican thinking - and the Bible would have been used out of context to back up those assumptions.

Sorry. I just can't take your word for it. The learned churchmen who persecuted Galileo were undoubtedly more skilled in their scripture than even you are. And consider this ... if they could, as you claim, erroneously take scripture out of context to persecute the solar system theory, isn't it just possible that you are doing the same thing in attacking evolution theory? I mean, it's possible, right?

Give me a break! First of all, the "latest scientific research" changes with the wind. It will continue to change with the wind.

No. It doesn't change with the wind. But it does change to be consistent with newly-discovered data. This is not a weakness, as you believe. It's the reason science is so successful.

It is inadequate to explain what we see and furthermore presents a worldview that is downright dangerous.

Scientific theories to a very adequate job of explaining what we see. That's the very definition of a theory. "Dangerous?" Yeah. I suppose the discovery of fire was dangerous too. Sorry, that's a terrible argument.

With that said, I do find it important as a seminary educated theologian (also have a secular Masters and Bachelors) to stay on top of what is going on in the world of science, but hardly look to it as some sort of authority which can change the truth of the Word of God.

We're back to the original question I posed. It's the same question Galileo posed. If you can see something that is contradicted by scripture, what do you believe? Scripture or the evidence of your senses. This question is at the core of all our other issues.

I made the argument before, but just think about it. If the Genesis account of creation is only an allegory, then you have no foundation (other than some fairy tale) for marriage, for families, for sin and salvation, or a need for a Savior. If Genesis is untrue, what basis do you have to trust any more of the book?

That's exactly the kind of argument that was leveled at Galileo. "If the Bible were wrong in so many places about the immovability of the earth, then it all comes unraveled, the people will lose faith, and there will be chaos everywhere." That's what they feared. As I've been saying, the struggle you're waging against evolution, for the very same reasons, has been waged 400 years ago. But we all accept the solar system, and our religion survives anyway.

I do not desire to get into a Catholic church debate on this thread. Suffice it to say, that I believe the Pope is completely wrong on this [the 1996 statement on evolution] and disagree that this is an "enlightened" attitude at all. It is apostacy, and I shudder for the damage it will do to the members of the Catholic faith.

Well, we shall see.