Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Troubleshooter]

If they slap him down it becomes a media issue and they have to take an overt stance on it.

If they ignore it, it fades into the background noise and they don't have to take an official stance on it.

Which is easier as well as more effective?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Which is easier as well as more effective?

(warning wandering mind)

Fine, if it works but there is a growing right wing nut movement in the Church that will only pull back if the Vatican says they are in error. If the Vatican remains silent, they forge ahead with an anti-modernist agenda that while not up to radical islam's standards isn't too enlightened. Some folks think we should harness the nuts for our east-west culture clash but I think the agendas are too similar, anti-science, anti-woman, anti-individualist, while not the last bastion of that kind of thinking (the left has their cluster as well) its really not a product of Western Civilization as I conceive it..

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'm pretty bummed that the Vatican hasn't slapped down the Cardinal who played the intelligent design card recently. The Church had pretty well pulled herself out of the middle ages but now... who knows?

If using a condom, one is condemned to sin - according to church doctrine. Medical people in Catholic hospitals cannot even tell a husband how to use a condom to protect himself from his wife who has AIDs. Condoms and their use violate all church doctrine. So when did the Catholic Church - an institution that protected pedophiles and banned "Voice of the Faithful" - ever really pull itself out of the middle ages?

If you donate a kidney to your ailing twin brother, you have committed original sin. Another church decree from the 1950s when this kidney transplant was first performed. Was the doctor's name Dr Galileo?

When Pope John XXIII was my pope, we were told something previously unheard of in the Catholic Church. We should no longer condemn living Jews for what their ancestors did the Jesus. Is that called pulling itself out of the Middle Ages?

Even if your husband beats you, it would be an original sin - for some reason sins get categorized - for you to divorce him. However if you pay the local diocese enough money, then somehow the sacrament of marriage - a sacrament only provided by some Holy Ghost creature - somehow that sacrament can now be annulled by a now wealthier Bishop.

Could the Holy Ghost also provide me with the answers to tests in school - if I offered him enough money? No. Only sacraments can be bought and sold with money.

What day has the Pope scheduled to end the Middle Ages? Still waiting to be excommunicated. And I want it on a big fancy document that I can frame. Even Galileo couldn't get one of those.

If born into an institution you cannot leave, isn't that called slavery? At least a slave could buy his freedom. I can't even get a documented excommunication.

[Lady Sidhe]

This was the thread I was looking for when I posted the "Something from the SAB" thread....couldn't find it, though, so I started a new one. Sorry if it caused a repeat-thread inconvenience.

[wolf]

4000 years or so ago, science and philosophy were the same thing.

Does the separation show that science lost it's soul, or philosophy divested itself of reason?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by wolf

4000 years or so ago, science and philosophy were the same thing.

Does the separation show that science lost it's soul, or philosophy divested itself of reason?

Neither of those is actually implied. Science can find it's soul if it actually exists and philosophy is about defining or refining reason.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by wolf

4000 years or so ago, science and philosophy were the same thing.

Does the separation show that science lost it's soul, or philosophy divested itself of reason?

Maybe it just means that they each found their niche.

Philosophy is subjective. Science is objective. Trying to explain scientific phenomena using philosophy isn't really workable. Likewise, science doesn't really have a place in debating subjective realities and changing beliefs in morality and such.

Some might say that philosophy has divested itself of reason--but that's assuming that an individual's subjective take on reality and the argument they put forth is based on reason to begin with, if, by reason, you mean logic rather than emotion or faith. Emotion and faith really don't have much of a place in science, since they would tend to get in the way of necessary objectivity.

[Lady Sidhe]

If there's a way for UT to delete the post I made: "Something from the SAB," I would ask that he do so, since this really belongs here. Thanks

Sidhe


Does the bible teach evolution?
It appears that way...


And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. -- Genesis 1:11

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -- Genesis 1:24

(1:11-13) Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly.

Gen.1:20-21
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."



God lets "the earth (and waters) bring forth" the plants and animals, rather than create them directly. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong.



But both Luther and Calvin rejected any non-literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.

At the Reformation the vast authority of Luther was thrown in favour of the literal acceptance of Scripture as the main source of natural science. The allegorical and mystical interpretations of earlier theologians he utterly rejected. "Why," he asks, "should Moses use allegory when he is not speaking of allegorical creatures or of an allegorical world, but of real creatures and of a visible world, which can be seen, felt, and grasped? Moses calls things by their right names, as we ought to do....I hold that the animals took their being at once upon the word of God, as did also the fishes in the sea."


We should take parts of the bible that attempt to explain scientific concepts allegorically because these people were trying to explain scientific concepts in and to a scientifically ignorant world. Plato used allegory in his cave story, and he wasn't talking about allegorical things.--Sidhe


Not less explicit in his adherence to the literal account of creation given in Genesis was Calvin. He warns those who, by taking another view than his own, "basely insult the Creator, to expect a judge who will annihilate them." He insists that all species of animals were created in six days, each made up of an evening and a morning, and that no new species has ever appeared since. He dwells on the production of birds from the water as resting upon certain warrant of Scripture, but adds, "If the question is to be argued on physical grounds, we know that water is more akin to air than the earth is." As to difficulties in the scriptural account of creation, he tells us that God "wished by these to give proofs of his power which should fill us with astonishment."


Man invented the 24-hour day, and the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day. (1:3-5, 14-19) God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?. Also, didn't God say that a day to Him was as a thousand years--or something to that effect? And new species appear all the time....Then, according to info in the Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe, the Universe is much older than Creationists claim it to be. --Sidhe


Then, of course, we have Gen.1:1 - 2:3. According to the SAB:

The creation account in Genesis 1 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite.

Not to mention different parts of Genesis that have man being created BEFORE plants and animals, conflicting with parts of Genesis that have man being created AFTER plants and animals (Animals--Gen.1:25-27 v. Gen.2:18-19; plants--Gen.1:11-13, 27-31 v. Gen.2:4-7)

[busterb]

"Religion is best described as wild speculation - or what mankind did many thousands of years ago when philosophy was the only science. When tools of science did not exist. To deny this, others must obfuscate, pervert, confuse, or use Rush Limbaugh propaganda techniques to promote religious rhetoric over logical thought. And yes, so many are so easily perverted by emotion."

I come from the deep south and have wandered SP almost over the world. I was raised baptist. Yuk. Your words would almost start a coffee shop fight in the south.
I talked to a man whom I thought to be above average, was a reporter and a nice smart man. No bs about him. He died a while back at 79. Anyway I asked him once did he think that the muslims were hell bound. He said"yes" because they didn't know the lord. To me that's bull Shit. So I never brought it up again.
I might be hell bound, if such a place exist. But
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: WOW... What a ride!!"

[Lady Sidhe]

"That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books."


That's a rather good way of putting it.

[Troubleshooter]

It's also a way to have shock troops you can distance yourself from when they screw up.

All they have to do is compare themselves to the ultra radicals and say "look how extreme they were, we're ever so much more tolerant."

[wolf]

Not to be picky, but I will be anyway ... I think the terms you're looking for are mortal and venial sin.

Isn't there only one original one?

[Trilby]

This explains everything. tw was brought up Catholic! No wonder he's so messed up! Welcome to the club, tw. I never took Catholicism seriously and I'm just fine. I think Els and wolf are recovering Catholics, too. They seem ok. You'll eventually get over it.

[Griff]

tw has been unclear about his religous upbringing. We don't really know if he hates Catholics from the inside or hates them from outside. All we know is the hate.

[Griff]

After a 3hour bike ride I think I was a little hard on tw here. I compare his rhetoric with radars. Both have core values that can be respected but neither communicates his positive values without going negative on other peoples respectable core values.