Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #61  
Old Jun 4, '04, 6:24 pm
Catholic2003 Catholic2003 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 2,615
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
The irony of all this is that it took George LeMaitre, a young Belgian Jesuit and mathematician, to correct Einstein's equations that falsely led to his view of an infinite and uncreated universe.
What's so ironic about someone being a good Catholic *and* a good scientist?

Maybe if so many Catholics weren't discouraged from believing in the science of evolution as contrary to the faith, the field wouldn't be dominated by athiests.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old Jun 4, '04, 7:02 pm
Carl Carl is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 551
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

Originally Posted by Carl

The irony of all this is that it took George LeMaitre, a young Belgian Jesuit and mathematician, to correct Einstein's equations that falsely led to his view of an infinite and uncreated universe.

CATHOLIC 2003,you said:

"What's so ironic about someone being a good Catholic *and* a good scientist?"

I should explain myself.

The irony is not in the fact that one can be a good scientist and a good Catholic. The irony is that no one ever expected Einstein, the great genius of his age, to be corrected by someone who believed literally in Creation as a religious concept.

LeMaitre's religious beliefs as a Jesuit predisposed him to be amenable to a mathematical equation that did not require "fudging," which is what the cosmological constant was, as everyone, including Einstein, later admitted. Once LeMaitre eliminated the fudge, everything fell into place and the theory took off with confirmations right and left in the decades ahead. It still seems ironic to me that the dominant mood of atheism among scientists in Einstein's era was later diminished by one little sentence in Genesis.

"Let there be light!"

Here's an interesting and eloquent remark on the irony by physicist Robert Jastrow:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Last edited by Carl; Jun 4, '04 at 7:04 pm. Reason: clarify
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old Jun 4, '04, 7:08 pm
agname agname is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

I believe they are compatible.

As Albert Einstein stated:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old Jun 4, '04, 7:10 pm
agname agname is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

Also, I found these articles interesting...

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old Jun 4, '04, 8:29 pm
Intrntsrch Intrntsrch is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: June 2, 2004
Posts: 16
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

PhilVaz,



Ok, most leading evolutionary scientists are atheists. I stand corrected.



Now, I’ve been to the talk.orgins website and I really enjoy the cartoons and drawings of whales with legs and reptiles with wings. To be honest however, I find the 29+ evidences of evolution to be suspect in many cases, and downright silly in others. For example, at least one of the fossils of Archeopteryx, on which the hypothesis relies was shown to be an absolute fraud, and the British Museum was totally hood-winked. I prefer to look at http://www.trueorigin.org/.



I’m not certain why you cited the statement on Evolution by John Paul II. He neither confirmed nor denied the truth of the science, but merely observed its participation as a field of scientific inquiry among others. The point of the address was to ensure the inviolable dignity of human beings and the eternal nature of the soul in light of evolutionary hypotheses.



I find Glenn Morton’s article a bit unconvincing. In any event, if human beings died before the Original Sin, then God made junk. Scripture and Tradition confirm that God made everything good. Death comes from a lie that is begotten of the darkness. What is the lie? You can be like God by usurping God’s power. Pride is the Original Sin, not literally eating fruit off trees.



I don’t necessarily accept a young earth or an old earth. I find it ridiculous to assert an old earth belief system simply to sustain a belief that evolution must have taken a very long time.



Science and faith are not the same, as I said, but they cannot lead to conflicting conceptions of reality. So, it is not incorrect to ask what Theistic Evolution has to say about the fact that Mary is the greatest of God’s creation.



I’m not going against the Catechism, the implications of belief in evolution, which include atrocities against humanity such as eugenics, lead one to a fatalistic view of life.



Science does deal in meaning and purpose within its sphere of competency. That which is unknowable by science, such as the moment of creation ought to be left to theology and philosophy.



Just a note: I don’t classify myself as a “creation scientist” because the Bible is not a science textbook and I fully understand that scripture is not entirely literal nor entirely figurative. On the other hand, I find it difficult to develop a faith in a science which is unproven and moreover, has been shown to have serious difficulties when its basic premises are unable to overcome challenges such as irreducible complexity, Haldane’s Dilemma, lack of fossil evidence, etc. Further, if evolution is true, why do its proponents so easily fall victim to hoaxes such as the peppered moth, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and more recently, Archeopteryx?

Finally, I noticed the posts regarding the Big Bang. The Big Bang hypothesis, most prominently put forth by Steven Hawking is totally unknowable by science. To say that God caused it to happen has nothing to do with science. Besides, the Big Bang hypothesis states that by purely natural causes, matter and energy converged on an infinitely small point and then….Bang. Problem is, nothing can traverse an infinity, so the idea is absurd from a scientific standpoint.





Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old Jun 4, '04, 10:05 pm
PhilVaz PhilVaz is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Posts: 3,106
Religion: Catholic
Send a message via Skype™ to PhilVaz
Question more objections PART 1

PART 1

Intr << For example, at least one of the fossils of Archeopteryx, on which the hypothesis relies was shown to be an absolute fraud... >>

There are currently about 8 specimans, they are not all frauds. All detailed here

All About Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx became famous since it was found shortly after Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, and there are both reptilian and avian (bird) characteristics in the specimans, so it is indeed "half-bird, half-reptile." Sounds like a transitional fossil to me. TrueOrigin.org is primarily a young-earth site in case you didn't know, so they reject virtually all of modern science (geology, biology, astronomy, physics is all an "absolute fraud" to them). Other examples of transitionals include:

-- a quite complete set of dinosaur (reptile)-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps, represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others

-- an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-to-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia

From Carroll's 1988 book Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution:

During the past 20 years, our knowledge of fossil vertebrates has increased immensely. Entirely new groups of jawless fish, sharks, amphibians, and dinosaurs have been discovered, and the major transitions between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and dinosaurs and birds have been thoroughly studied. (Carroll, page xiii preface).

"In the case of the cetaceans [whales] and the perissodactyls [horses], their origin among the condylarths [hoofed animals] has been clearly documented." (Carroll, page 505)

"Within the genus Elephas, species demonstrate continuous change over a period of 4.5 million years....the elephants provide excellent evidence of significant morphological change within species, through species within genera, and through genera within a family." (Carroll, 575)

"The early evolution of the artiodactyls [pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc] is fairly well documented by both the dentition and considerable skeletal material and provides the basis for fairly detailed analysis of evolutionary patterns....the origin of nearly all the recognized families can be traced to the late Middle Eocene or the Upper Eocene..." (Carroll, 507)

These are quotations from the Transitional Fossils FAQ I verified myself from Carroll, a leading paleontologist, who you think would know this stuff. This is just the fossil evidence, there's plenty more in that Theobald article. How much more evidence do you need?

Evidence for Evolution and Old Earth

Phil P
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old Jun 4, '04, 10:08 pm
PhilVaz PhilVaz is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Posts: 3,106
Religion: Catholic
Send a message via Skype™ to PhilVaz
Question more objections PART 2

PART 2

Intr << I’m not certain why you cited the statement on Evolution by John Paul II. He neither confirmed nor denied the truth of the science... >>

Here is why, in short the Pope himself wrote in 1996 that evolution is "more than a hypothesis" and that a significant argument in favor of the theory is that it has been progressively accepted by researchers following independently conducted scientific work in various fields. Short of "evolution is probably true, folks" I don't know how much clearer you can get that JPII thinks that God and evolution are compatible.

Intr << I find it ridiculous to assert an old earth belief system simply to sustain a belief that evolution must have taken a very long time. >>

In case you didn't know, geologists knew the earth was very old well before Darwin, at least millions of years by the early 19th century, and billions after the discovery of radioactivity and isotopes with long half-lives in the early 20th century. The exact 4.5 billion figure was established in the 1950s by C.C. Patterson. All explained below and in Dalrymple in excruciating detail.

Changing views on the history of the earth

Get G. Brent Dalrymple's book The Age of the Earth (1991,1994).

Intr << Further, if evolution is true, why do its proponents so easily fall victim to hoaxes such as the peppered moth, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and more recently, Archeopteryx? >>

Oops, all this stuff is dealt with in much detail at TalkOrigins. I'll just provide links

Peppered Moth short answer
Peppered Moth longer answer in reply to Jonathan Wells book Icons

Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

Piltdown Man short answer
Piltdown Man long answer

Intr << To say that God caused it to happen has nothing to do with science. >>

True, but modern cosmology does seem to point to the instance where the universe came into existence (the Big Bang). That's where Genesis 1 "In the beginning..." enters in. Correct, it is not science to suggest a supernatural Being (God) started it all, that's where faith starts, and science ends.

Phil P
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old Jun 5, '04, 10:16 am
Carl Carl is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 551
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

AGNAME

As Albert Einstein stated:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


Science is lame when it creates armaments sufficient to kill the human race. Religion is blind when it sees no accomodation of Genesis with the theory of evolution.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old Jun 5, '04, 7:40 pm
Carl Carl is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 551
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

Atheistic scientists will argue that there is no evidence of “Intelligent Design” anywhere in the universe, and that science cannot treat the subject because it is outside the domain of science. On the contrary; "intelligent design" is at the very core of all scientific thought. No scientist can prove anything without "intelligently designing" a proof for his theory. If science itself is full of intelligent design, how can it be said that science can have nothing to do with the idea of Intelligent Design? At least science ought to be able to concede the real possibility of the Thing it is helpless at present to prove.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old Jun 5, '04, 7:47 pm
tcaseyrochester tcaseyrochester is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Posts: 1,585
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDC
...I was just curious if anyone else had any kind of similar observations or reflections.
TDC -

Welcome to the club! I studied physics as well at Villanova University in the 80's and could never understand the conflict between any of the sciences and our Faith.

Heres a great meditation for you to try. Think about Genesis (i.e. "Let there be light...") and consider the big bang theory which states that the first milliseconds of the Universe consisted of an explosion of...photons, pure energy, light!

There need be no conflict between science and religion if you grant a little poetic license to the interpretation of our Faith...
__________________
By their fruits you shall know them (Matt, 7:16)
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old Jun 5, '04, 9:27 pm
Catholic2003 Catholic2003 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 2,615
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
Atheistic scientists will argue that there is no evidence of “Intelligent Design” anywhere in the universe, and that science cannot treat the subject because it is outside the domain of science. On the contrary; "intelligent design" is at the very core of all scientific thought. No scientist can prove anything without "intelligently designing" a proof for his theory. If science itself is full of intelligent design, how can it be said that science can have nothing to do with the idea of Intelligent Design? At least science ought to be able to concede the real possibility of the Thing it is helpless at present to prove.
Science can do nothing with the theory of intelligent design because it makes no predictions. The links that PhilVaz posted contained plenty of predictions resulting from the theory of evolution, such that if those predictions fail to hold, the theory of evolution can be considered falsified.

What would constitute a falsification of the theory of intelligent design?
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old Jun 5, '04, 10:11 pm
Dean Dean is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 2004
Posts: 5
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

I would agree with Carl, Intrntsrch and Phil that creation is not, strictly speaking, a natural science; however, it is a supernatural action. I hope we can all agree that God created matter out of nothing; the question then becomes, at what point did His creating stop, and natural processes allowing some variations to take over?

It seems to me that most evolutionists contend that natural processes took over after some primordial "big bang" let matter loose. This implies the creation of living things from inanimate objects, and the subsequent ascent of new beings from previous versions. Or is there some other point that God leaves off creating?

I would contend that God designed and created living beings, allowing for some variations within species. Note that desirable characteristics can be bred in a species only if they already exist in the gene pool.

The main problem comes in that our faith tells us that the human being is made in the image and likeness of God. If man "descended" (or ascended) from some lower life form, what point did God decide the creature was developed enough to get this soul? Only man can sin; lower animals cannot be said to sin. Jesus came into the world as what scientists call Homo sapiens, to save us from our sins. It seems that only these creatures have human souls, and God will give each of us that make it to heaven a glorified body that will resemble the same creature. At least four people are known to be in heaven, body and soul (Enoch, Elijah, Jesus, and Mary; possibly Moses, and maybe others), and all of them are Homo sapiens with glorified bodies. This would seem to preclude further "evolution" at least for man.

I think this is at least one area where it is necessary for science to think from a religious perspective. Scientists need to consider life not only from a material perspective, but also the spiritual implications.

OK, have at me. I'll check out the rocks when I can get back to a computer in about a week and a half....

Pax,

Dean
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old Jun 6, '04, 5:00 am
Carl Carl is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 551
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

CATHOLIC 2003

"Science can do nothing with the theory of intelligent design because it makes no predictions."

If the Intelligent Designer predicted a certain event, and the event happened, we would have verification rather than falsification.

"Let there be light." (Genesis 1)

And the Big Bang occurred. Science verifies the Big Bang, the unleashing of light throughout the early universe.

Then why not deduce an Intelligent Designer?
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old Jun 6, '04, 1:13 pm
Catholic2003 Catholic2003 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 2,615
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

One non-repeatable prediction lies within the realm of religion, not science.

The scientific method has a limited domain, and "You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test" (Matthew 4:7) would seem to place God outside that domain.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old Jun 6, '04, 2:16 pm
Apolonio Apolonio is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2004
Posts: 136
Send a message via AIM to Apolonio
Default Re: Science and Religion - Compatabile?

My view on science and religion:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p33.htm
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8479Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Weejee
5153CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4429Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: daughterstm
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3864SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3762Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: daughterstm
3332Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3288Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3225Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3116For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Weejee



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:53 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.