pardon my naivety, but is creationism just based on the genesis story of god creating the world in 6 days? that's what i assumed from your post (and i couldn't find anything to suggest otherwise online in my quick google search).
so i'm curious, what about the other creation story in genesis (the adam and eve one)? does that one tie in somehow? is it irrelevant? is it considered a fictional lesson only?
Mr. Nye’s contention that science advances when society becomes more evolution-based.
do you recall nye's reason for this? i've heard this argument before (probably from dawkins iirc), but i never quite understood it. it seems to be a pretty weak argument imho.
Definitely weak, especially when you take into account that scientific inquiry has, over periods of centuries, been overwhelmingly supported by the Church.
pardon my naivety, but is creationism just based on the genesis story of god creating the world in 6 days? that's what i assumed from your post (and i couldn't find anything to suggest otherwise online in my quick google search).
so i'm curious, what about the other creation story in genesis (the adam and eve one)? does that one tie in somehow? is it irrelevant? is it considered a fictional lesson only?
do you recall nye's reason for this? i've heard this argument before (probably from dawkins iirc), but i never quite understood it. it seems to be a pretty weak argument imho.
All the views I listed in 1 - 5 are creationist views (that being God was involved somehow in the origins of everything) Each view has a way that helps them understand their faith and science.
Young earth creationists believe that the Genesis text as written. Verse one is an overview of the entire creation process. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". This is an overview of the rest of the chapter. Two things to notice. God does over proof for His existence just states that He was. Two, chapter and verses are not inspired but put in by man to help navigate around the text in a public form. (Stephen Langton, in the 12th century.)
After 5 days (24 hours periods of time) lots of things have been created in full maturity, (not from seed or embryos etc).
Now we come to verse 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. This is day 6.
Chapter 2 It looks like God is starting all over again but the reality is there is just more information or details given about creation.
The literal interpretation believes all things were created as listed in Genesis chapter 1. When it says "And the evening and the morning were ... day the text means 24 hours. To better understand the Genesis text knowing Hebrew helps. But with computers and the software, translation becomes easy. It is important to understand the Bible as a whole.
Ken does a nice job talking about it in this video.
Definitely weak, especially when you take into account that scientific inquiry has, over periods of centuries, been overwhelmingly supported by the Church.
umm so if "THE" Church supports scientific inquiry....and the world has advanced with the theory of evolution we have no conflict...you have no dog in this fight as a Catholic. Mr. Nye is arguing against current non-catholic Christians who believe that the world is 6000 years old. ( the Majority of US Christians.) Mr. Nye is espousing the benefits of a science based world that allows for thought independent of the bible. He's fighting against the states that are currently trying to have Creation taught as a viable SCIENTIFIC explanation of the origin of the world.
I also found it incredibly interesting that Mr. Ham's reference to others writings/authors (never peer reviewed or scientifically based) without actually ever answering a question showed his lack of depth and ability to fade almost any question put to him. He never adequately answered Nye's most basic question....how can there be 17 million species on the earth if you believe that 5 thousand years ago that the earth was flooded and that 7000 animals survived the flood? We'd need 30 new species a day? How do explain different races if we all came from the progeny of Noah? etc. Most polls showed that Nye crushed the debate.
umm so if "THE" Church supports scientific inquiry....and the world has advanced with the theory of evolution we have no conflict...you have no dog in this fight as a Catholic. Mr. Nye is arguing against current non-catholic Christians who believe that the world is 6000 years old. ( the Majority of US Christians.) Mr. Nye is espousing the benefits of a science based world that allows for thought independent of the bible. He's fighting against the states that are currently trying to have Creation taught as a viable SCIENTIFIC explanation of the origin of the world.
I also found it incredibly interesting that Mr. Ham's reference to others writings/authors (never peer reviewed or scientifically based) without actually ever answering a question showed his lack of depth and ability to fade almost any question put to him. He never adequately answered Nye's most basic question....how can there be 17 million species on the earth if you believe that 5 thousand years ago that the earth was flooded and that 7000 animals survived the flood? We'd need 30 new species a day? How do explain different races if we all came from the progeny of Noah? etc. Most polls showed that Nye crushed the debate.
Ham's basic defense "because the bible"
Bolded is pretty much it. The Catholic Church has, historically, sponsored the majority of scientific inquiry, to say nothing of establishing what can easily be termed the first education "system" in Europe. The Catholic Church also does not dispute Evolution, as it sees no conflict there. Just as certain Christian sects subscribe to Creation "science" or the Young Earth stuff, there are plenty of non-theists who misrepresent the Catholic position with respect to science.
theres far too much knowledge our physical world to be religious in this day and age.
one option contains infinite possibilities and the other is static and devoid of fact, to me the choice is easy
Aaahh . . . but what of all that we do NOT know? Even the most hard core atheist has to admit that science has not solved ALL the mysteries of the Universe.
Also, as I am assuming that you are referring to Faith in the bolded portion, you really need to brush up on your knowledge of religions. Devoid of facts? Who do you think funded some of the most fundamental "facts" in modern scientific inquiry?
Faith and Religion are not incompatible. Even the Pope says so . . .
It was an interesting read. The problem with atheism is they don't realize they push there own humanist agenda and tend to be ignorant to how people of faith have contribute to the overall wellness of mankind and why would we want share with others. They are certainly are willing to share there beliefs from laws being written, to new that is shared both in print and television. To the way history is told.
Science and religion are compatible as evidenced by the fact that many scientists are believers.
They are actually a relatively small minority. Only 7 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, the elite of American science, believe in a personal God. Believing scientists compartmentalize their brains, leaving their critical thinking skills at the lab when they go to church and leaving their Bibles at home when they go the lab. God is not a coherent part of the scientific model of any believing scientist.
Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible because of their contradictory views on the source of knowledge. Science assumes that only by observation can we learn about the world. Religion assumes that, in addition, we learn by revelations from God.
Science was the result of Christianity, which introduced the use of rational thinking. Galileo, Newton, and other early scientists were Christians.
Science was well on its way in ancient Greece and Rome. But the Catholic Church muffled science when it took over the Roman Empire in the 4th century, ushering in the 1,000-year period known as the Dark Ages. This ended with the Renaissance and the rise of the new science, when people could once again think and speak more freely. So it is ludicrous to argue that science was a product of Christianity.
While it is true that great Christian theologians, notably Augustine and Aquinas, applied rational thinking to their theology, they viewed science as a means to learn about God's creation. They always insisted that revelation rules over observation. Galileo was the first true scientist of the modern age when he insisted that observation rule over revelation. That got him into trouble.
Of course Galileo and Newton were Christians. Their only other choice was to be burned at the stake. Atheism did not appear openly until the French Enlightenment a century later. That light was produced by the mind, not the flames engulfing a heretic.
Galileo got in trouble (with the Church and fellow scientists) because he declared his theory to be "fact" without first proving same. Copernicus's work on heliocentrism was dedicated to the Pope, so it begs the question, what was different about Galileo? His was not a new idea . . . as both Kepler and Copernicus discussed it prior to his work. Galileo's problem was not the Church, but his inability to "prove" his theory using the methods available at the time. Hence his quote, "but still it moves". In science, one may "know" a thing to be true, but if it cannot be "proven", it remains a theory. THAT was Galileo's failing . . . not challenging the Church, but challenging scientific orthodoxy.
Oh, and as for Aristotle, and the rest of the Greeks, it was his theory that Heliocentrism was contradicting/correcting.
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged I scientific work of any kind realizes that, over the gates to the temple of science, are written the words, "Ye must have faith". It is a quality the scientist cannot dispense with."
Max Planck - Nobel Laureate in Physics.
maybe you know more than the world...but here's what wiki says about Galileo:
Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "gravely suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest for the rest of his life.
So I guess putting him in Jail is supporting science. Nice try. and as for the Greeks....they were willing to be wrong...the Church is not. That is the difference. The Church makes assumptions without proof and are not willing to look at any. Scientists are willing to admit they are wrong....with evidence.
and I guess Max is part of the 7 percent of scientists who believe Science needs religion. Do you want me to quote 1 scientist who doesn't?
Let me try again....."Galileo got in trouble with the Church" your words not mine. How ridiculous is it that you defend the church when it comes to science. As if being less messed up than other options is a defence. The Church during Galileo's time WAS the Government and threw him in jail. He was not allowed to even speak of his theory of heliocentrism not because he couldn't prove it but because it went against the Bible. Theory....what science works with. Faith (no proof) that's what the church works with. You can enjoy the Church but you cannot say they have a great record on science. UNLESS you compare them to other religions/governments that are just more messed up!
What does the Church say about Birth control? (not a science based decision)
What does the Church say about sexual orientation? (not a science based decision)
What does the Church say about fertility treatments? (etc)
And this is only the Catholic Church....others are worse.
Let me try again....."Galileo got in trouble with the Church" your words not mine. How ridiculous is it that you defend the church when it comes to science. As if being less messed up than other options is a defence. The Church during Galileo's time WAS the Government and threw him in jail. He was not allowed to even speak of his theory of heliocentrism not because he couldn't prove it but because it went against the Bible. Theory....what science works with. Faith (no proof) that's what the church works with. You can enjoy the Church but you cannot say they have a great record on science. UNLESS you compare them to other religions/governments that are just more messed up!
What does the Church say about Birth control? (not a science based decision) Correct . . . it is a moral one based on the respect for life. They make no comment about the "scientific" nature of "the pill" or whichever form you prefer
What does the Church say about sexual orientation? (not a science based decision)
What science is involved in sexual orientation? Again, this has nothing to do with science.
What does the Church say about fertility treatments? (etc)
The Church does not dispute the "science" involved, it disagrees with the morality involved.
And this is only the Catholic Church....others are worse.
You are factually incorrect about Galileo and the reasons for his imprisonment. Not surprising as it is the "accepted" truth, but it is incorrect to say he was jailed for opposing the Church. As stated, Copernicus discussed heliocentrism before Galileo without being jailed, so the theory was not the issue.
You are factually incorrect about Galileo and the reasons for his imprisonment. Not surprising as it is the "accepted" truth, but it is incorrect to say he was jailed for opposing the Church. As stated, Copernicus discussed heliocentrism before Galileo without being jailed, so the theory was not the issue.
Agree to disagree, I guess.
Agree to disagree? I guess when you put quotes around something that is "accepted" it means there's a conspiracy against your opinion and no one else can be "right". If you know better than the world...
You can parse it anyway you want. The church sent scientists to jail. It killed people who didn't believe... it currently shields those guilty of abuses. Being ok with intelligent design is not pro science. If science could prove that Jesus didn't exist....would the church accept that and fold up? Of course not. They pick and choose their science as they have throughout History. It's an old man's club that is anti women and anti gay. Or have you seen any female priests lately?
from my limited research, if you ask the catholics they'd agree with milo. if you ask non-catholics, they'd agree with big mike. you can find "evidence" suggesting both sides.
@milo: do you really feel that the church has always supported science? i mean, they have on occasion (kind of, more or less), but throughout their history in general it kind of seems that they opposed it for the most part. am i wrong?
While the rights for Catholics and Protestants seem to contradict Charter values of equality, section 29 clarifies the privileges cannot be challenged on Charter grounds. It was inserted because the authors of the Constitution Act, 1982 did not want to be held responsible for challenging the old system.
What science is there in the gay thing Milo? Really?
Observational of homosexual behaviour in every (note: EVERY) species of animal on earth, both in captivity AND in the wild. Homosexual behaviours in said animals includes both "casual" sexual encounters as well as life / partner bonding.
So, you know.. observation... scientific evaluation, not biased and not faith. Fact.
Agree to disagree? I guess when you put quotes around something that is "accepted" it means there's a conspiracy against your opinion and no one else can be "right". If you know better than the world...
You can parse it anyway you want. The church sent scientists to jail. It killed people who didn't believe... it currently shields those guilty of abuses. Being ok with intelligent design is not pro science. If science could prove that Jesus didn't exist....would the church accept that and fold up? Of course not. They pick and choose their science as they have throughout History. It's an old man's club that is anti women and anti gay. Or have you seen any female priests lately?
Church does what's best for the church. Anyone that thinks the church isn't full of spin doctors and publicists, and doing market research is kidding themselves.
Church does what's best for the church. Anyone that thinks the church isn't full of spin doctors and publicists, and doing market research is kidding themselves.
Mark
I agree with you Mark! I know I certainly don't agree with this approach.
That was sort of my point . . . did not understand what the Church's stance had to do with being "anti-science". It's a moral issue.
Observational of homosexual behaviour in every (note: EVERY) species of animal on earth, both in captivity AND in the wild. Homosexual behaviours in said animals includes both "casual" sexual encounters as well as life / partner bonding.
So, you know.. observation... scientific evaluation, not biased and not faith. Fact.
Agree to disagree? I guess when you put quotes around something that is "accepted" it means there's a conspiracy against your opinion and no one else can be "right".
Not a conspiracy, but just because "everyone knows", does not make it so, as Heliocentrism proves. Everyone "knew" the Sun went around the Earth. Until accepted fact was proven incorrect. Everyone "knows" why Galileo was imprisoned, except that what they "know" isn't factually correct. Just like he was not tortured while in prison. You can parse it anyway you want. The church sent scientists to jail. It killed people who didn't believe... it currently shields those guilty of abuses. Being ok with intelligent design is not pro science. If science could prove that Jesus didn't exist....would the church accept that and fold up? Of course not. They pick and choose their science as they have throughout History. It's an old man's club that is anti women and anti gay. Or have you seen any female priests lately?
If science could prove that Jesus Christ did not exist, that would be a miracle, as the historical record proves his birth, and death at the hands of the Romans. As for Intelligent Design, I do not think the Catholic Church has a position on it, but doubt they are supporters. Will look it up after supper. Feel free to continue your hate on for the Church . . . they'll forgive you. It's sort of their thing.
@milo: do you really feel that the church has always supported science? i mean, they have on occasion (kind of, more or less), but throughout their history in general it kind of seems that they opposed it for the most part. am i wrong?
I would say that, on balance, the church has been a patron of science since the fall of Rome, when monasteries became repositories of inquiry into mathematics, the movement of the stars, and other sciences, as they existed at the time. There has been conflict at times but, especially since the Middle Ages, the Church has been the prime mover in advancing human knowledge of our world. It has only been in the relatively recent past that the State has taken over education and, therefore, supplanted the Church.
If science could prove that Jesus Christ did not exist, that would be a miracle, as the historical record proves his birth, and death at the hands of the Romans. As for Intelligent Design, I do not think the Catholic Church has a position on it, but doubt they are supporters. Will look it up after supper. Feel free to continue your hate on for the Church . . . they'll forgive you. It's sort of their thing.
Brother I'm Catholic, and even I know there's no "historical evidence" for Jesus...at least not his works. And of course they're a supporter of intelligent design.
Comments
so i'm curious, what about the other creation story in genesis (the adam and eve one)? does that one tie in somehow? is it irrelevant? is it considered a fictional lesson only?
do you recall nye's reason for this? i've heard this argument before (probably from dawkins iirc), but i never quite understood it. it seems to be a pretty weak argument imho.
Bill Nye To Creationists: You're Anti-American and Hurting Your Children | Motherboard
All the views I listed in 1 - 5 are creationist views (that being God was involved somehow in the origins of everything) Each view has a way that helps them understand their faith and science.
Young earth creationists believe that the Genesis text as written. Verse one is an overview of the entire creation process. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". This is an overview of the rest of the chapter. Two things to notice. God does over proof for His existence just states that He was. Two, chapter and verses are not inspired but put in by man to help navigate around the text in a public form. (Stephen Langton, in the 12th century.)
After 5 days (24 hours periods of time) lots of things have been created in full maturity, (not from seed or embryos etc).
Now we come to verse 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
This is day 6.
Chapter 2 It looks like God is starting all over again but the reality is there is just more information or details given about creation.
The literal interpretation believes all things were created as listed in Genesis chapter 1. When it says "And the evening and the morning were ... day the text means 24 hours. To better understand the Genesis text knowing Hebrew helps. But with computers and the software, translation becomes easy. It is important to understand the Bible as a whole.
Ken does a nice job talking about it in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dHyVU6Gv0s
Hope that helps.
umm so if "THE" Church supports scientific inquiry....and the world has advanced with the theory of evolution we have no conflict...you have no dog in this fight as a Catholic. Mr. Nye is arguing against current non-catholic Christians who believe that the world is 6000 years old. ( the Majority of US Christians.) Mr. Nye is espousing the benefits of a science based world that allows for thought independent of the bible. He's fighting against the states that are currently trying to have Creation taught as a viable SCIENTIFIC explanation of the origin of the world.
I also found it incredibly interesting that Mr. Ham's reference to others writings/authors (never peer reviewed or scientifically based) without actually ever answering a question showed his lack of depth and ability to fade almost any question put to him. He never adequately answered Nye's most basic question....how can there be 17 million species on the earth if you believe that 5 thousand years ago that the earth was flooded and that 7000 animals survived the flood? We'd need 30 new species a day? How do explain different races if we all came from the progeny of Noah? etc. Most polls showed that Nye crushed the debate.
Ham's basic defense "because the bible"
Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate: Just one point, Ken... - YouTube
Bolded is pretty much it. The Catholic Church has, historically, sponsored the majority of scientific inquiry, to say nothing of establishing what can easily be termed the first education "system" in Europe. The Catholic Church also does not dispute Evolution, as it sees no conflict there. Just as certain Christian sects subscribe to Creation "science" or the Young Earth stuff, there are plenty of non-theists who misrepresent the Catholic position with respect to science.
one option contains infinite possibilities and the other is static and devoid of fact, to me the choice is easy
Aaahh . . . but what of all that we do NOT know? Even the most hard core atheist has to admit that science has not solved ALL the mysteries of the Universe.
Also, as I am assuming that you are referring to Faith in the bolded portion, you really need to brush up on your knowledge of religions. Devoid of facts? Who do you think funded some of the most fundamental "facts" in modern scientific inquiry?
Faith and Religion are not incompatible. Even the Pope says so . . .
i thought it was kind of funny.
lol hilarious and mostly true
FYP . . . and you're good . . . and people like you, too.
Science and religion are compatible as evidenced by the fact that many scientists are believers.
They are actually a relatively small minority. Only 7 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, the elite of American science, believe in a personal God. Believing scientists compartmentalize their brains, leaving their critical thinking skills at the lab when they go to church and leaving their Bibles at home when they go the lab. God is not a coherent part of the scientific model of any believing scientist.
Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible because of their contradictory views on the source of knowledge. Science assumes that only by observation can we learn about the world. Religion assumes that, in addition, we learn by revelations from God.
Science was the result of Christianity, which introduced the use of rational thinking. Galileo, Newton, and other early scientists were Christians.
Science was well on its way in ancient Greece and Rome. But the Catholic Church muffled science when it took over the Roman Empire in the 4th century, ushering in the 1,000-year period known as the Dark Ages. This ended with the Renaissance and the rise of the new science, when people could once again think and speak more freely. So it is ludicrous to argue that science was a product of Christianity.
While it is true that great Christian theologians, notably Augustine and Aquinas, applied rational thinking to their theology, they viewed science as a means to learn about God's creation. They always insisted that revelation rules over observation. Galileo was the first true scientist of the modern age when he insisted that observation rule over revelation. That got him into trouble.
Of course Galileo and Newton were Christians. Their only other choice was to be burned at the stake. Atheism did not appear openly until the French Enlightenment a century later. That light was produced by the mind, not the flames engulfing a heretic.
Oh, and as for Aristotle, and the rest of the Greeks, it was his theory that Heliocentrism was contradicting/correcting.
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged I scientific work of any kind realizes that, over the gates to the temple of science, are written the words, "Ye must have faith". It is a quality the scientist cannot dispense with."
Max Planck - Nobel Laureate in Physics.
Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "gravely suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest for the rest of his life.
So I guess putting him in Jail is supporting science. Nice try. and as for the Greeks....they were willing to be wrong...the Church is not. That is the difference. The Church makes assumptions without proof and are not willing to look at any. Scientists are willing to admit they are wrong....with evidence.
and I guess Max is part of the 7 percent of scientists who believe Science needs religion. Do you want me to quote 1 scientist who doesn't?
What does the Church say about Birth control? (not a science based decision)
What does the Church say about sexual orientation? (not a science based decision)
What does the Church say about fertility treatments? (etc)
And this is only the Catholic Church....others are worse.
You are factually incorrect about Galileo and the reasons for his imprisonment. Not surprising as it is the "accepted" truth, but it is incorrect to say he was jailed for opposing the Church. As stated, Copernicus discussed heliocentrism before Galileo without being jailed, so the theory was not the issue.
Agree to disagree, I guess.
Agree to disagree? I guess when you put quotes around something that is "accepted" it means there's a conspiracy against your opinion and no one else can be "right". If you know better than the world...
You can parse it anyway you want. The church sent scientists to jail. It killed people who didn't believe... it currently shields those guilty of abuses. Being ok with intelligent design is not pro science. If science could prove that Jesus didn't exist....would the church accept that and fold up? Of course not. They pick and choose their science as they have throughout History. It's an old man's club that is anti women and anti gay. Or have you seen any female priests lately?
@milo: do you really feel that the church has always supported science? i mean, they have on occasion (kind of, more or less), but throughout their history in general it kind of seems that they opposed it for the most part. am i wrong?
Modern Catholic church at it's best.
sad thing is they are actually legally allowed to do this (and worse) if they want. hopefully the public backlash will convince them otherwise.
Observational of homosexual behaviour in every (note: EVERY) species of animal on earth, both in captivity AND in the wild. Homosexual behaviours in said animals includes both "casual" sexual encounters as well as life / partner bonding.
So, you know.. observation... scientific evaluation, not biased and not faith. Fact.
Mark
Church does what's best for the church. Anyone that thinks the church isn't full of spin doctors and publicists, and doing market research is kidding themselves.
Mark
I agree with you Mark! I know I certainly don't agree with this approach.
See bolded.
If science could prove that Jesus Christ did not exist, that would be a miracle, as the historical record proves his birth, and death at the hands of the Romans. As for Intelligent Design, I do not think the Catholic Church has a position on it, but doubt they are supporters. Will look it up after supper. Feel free to continue your hate on for the Church . . . they'll forgive you. It's sort of their thing.
I would say that, on balance, the church has been a patron of science since the fall of Rome, when monasteries became repositories of inquiry into mathematics, the movement of the stars, and other sciences, as they existed at the time. There has been conflict at times but, especially since the Middle Ages, the Church has been the prime mover in advancing human knowledge of our world. It has only been in the relatively recent past that the State has taken over education and, therefore, supplanted the Church.
For a counter argument see here:
Conflict thesis - RationalWiki
Brother I'm Catholic, and even I know there's no "historical evidence" for Jesus...at least not his works. And of course they're a supporter of intelligent design.
Really?
Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says - U.s. - Catholic Online
Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CNS STORY: Intelligent design not science, says Vatican newspaper article
Seems pretty clear that the Catholic Church does NOT support Intelligent Design.