"Creation Science ?"


#1

“The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”

“…science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”

“To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists…is at the center of true religiousness.
-In this sense…I belong to the ranks of devoutly religious men.”

–Albert Einstein (1879-1955), The German-born American physicist.
(Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic?) :shrug:

In, “The Supreme Court Decision And Its Meaning,”
an evaluation of Louisiana’s 1987
“Act for Balanced Treatment of Creation Science and Evolution,” it states:

  • “Creation-science is the scientific evidence supporting abrupt appearance in complex form. That evidence includes the abrupt appearance of complex life in the fossil record, the systematic gaps between fossil categories, the genetic limits on possible change, and the vast information content of all living organisms [DNA, etc.].
    Seven judges of the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals (the lower court decision) forcefully agreed in a dissenting opinion, that creation-science indeed is scientific, as well as that balanced treatment for a creation-science and evolution indeed is constitutional.”
    -Wendell R. Bird, J.D. (Yale). IMPACT article, No. 170, The Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

Attorney Wendell R. Bird’s entire concise evaluation (No. 170) may be reviewed at:
icr.org/index.php?module=…tion=type&ID=2

In fieldwork studies, publications, and debates with non-creationists, scientific creationists can, and have for long applied their scientific methods rather successfully. –And, in needed historical retrospect, it should be noted that:

“Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Lord Chancellor of England, is considered primarily responsible for the formulation and establishment of the scientific method. Sir Francis was a devout believer in the Bible.”

And, “Even though Galileo (1564-1642) was officially censured for his *heliocentric teachings by the Church, he himself believed the Bible and that it supported his views (of God’s special creation.”)
-Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., Men of Science, Men of God (1988), Master Books, pp. 12, 13, 22. www.icr.org *The planets orbit the Sun.

In addition, Norman Geisler, Ph.D. (Loyola), in his book, lists,
“Creationists Who Founded Modern Science:
Kepler-Astronomy; Pascal-Hydrostatics; Boyle-Chemistry; Newton-Physics; Steno-Stratigraphy; Faraday-Magnetic theory; Babbage-Computers; Agassiz-Ichthyology; Simpson-Gynecology; Mendel-Genetics; Pasteur-Bacteriology; Kelvin-Thermodynamics; Lister-Antiseptic surgery; Maxwell-Electrodynamics; and Ramsay-Isotopic chemistry.”
–When Skeptics Ask (1990), Victor Books, pg. 214.


#2

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord overall, and on account of His dominion: He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.” -Sir Isaac Newton* (1686).

“When I wrote my treatise *Mathmatica Principia] about our [solar system], I had an eye on such principles as might work with considering men for the belief in a Deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.” (1692).
–Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), English physicist, astronomer, inventor of the Calculus (1666), and considered one of the most outstanding scientists of all time.

scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html

kcl.ac.uk/depsta/iss/library/…principia.html

scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/Math/Newton.html

“I give thanks to thee, O Lord Creator, Who has delighted me with thy makings and…the works of thy hands.” -Johannes Kepler, Astronomer (1619). kepler.nasa.gov/johannes/

:bible1:
“The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit (of God)…” -Paul, the Apostle.
1st Corinthians 2:14. 1st Century A.D. paulonpaul.org/

And, HE really gets down to Earth:

“I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe;
how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”
–Jesus, the Christ, the KING. John 3:12.

“…I am with you always…” –Matthew 28:18-20.

“Follow Me.” –Matthew 9:9. John 8:12; 10:27.

“…for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world…” –John 12:47.

:bowdown2:

:bible1:

“From the Divine Word, the Sacred Scripture and Nature did both alike proceed…” –Galileo Galilei, Galileo’s letters of 1613-15.

The Italian physicist and astronomer, who stood for freedom of inquiry.

:yup:

education.yahoo.com/reference…/entry/Galileo

online.chabotcollege.edu/shil…/galileo7.html

kcl.ac.uk/depsta/iss/libr…/dialogue.html

harvardmagazine.com/2002/11/t…televised.html

Inherit the Wind: Reaping the Whirlwind

khouse.org/articles/20000801-283.html

The above link is about The 1925 Scope’s “Monkey” Trial

Holllywood VS. The Court’s Recorded Account

:coffeeread:

www.pathlights.com
www.icr.org
Irrelevant anti-Catholic link removed per Forum Rules
www.rae.org
www.originsresearch.org
www.thecreationnetwork.org
www.equip.org


#3

Newton was an Arian heretic who denied that Christ was God. Einstein was a Spinozan deist.

What about their theology do you think would be better than that of the Catholic Church?


#4

Some Catholic Creation Science links:


http://www.kolbecenter.org

kolbecenter.org/articles.html

rtforum.org/lt/lt28.html http://www.rtforum.org/lt/LT.gif
**ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM ****A NEO-PATRISTIC APPROACH TO CREATION-SCIENCE & **Why Faithful Catholics Should Oppose Evolutionism by Clement Butel
Recommended Reading

rtforum.org/lt/lt48.html http://www.rtforum.org/lt/LT.gif
A NEO-PATRISTIC RETURN TO THE FIRST FOUR DAYS OF CREATION **
search for other creation science articles http://www.rtforum.org


socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/dialogue-on-materialist-evolutionary.html
Dialogue on Materialist Evolutionary Theory & Intelligent Design (including St. Augustine’s & St. Thomas Aquinas’s Views on Creation & Evolution)
Friday, March 16, 2007
Dave Armstrong


#5

How can they be “Catholic” links, if they oppose the Church’s teaching?


#6

This is not in opposition to Catholic teachings, the church has not taken a stand on Gensis as to whether or not the Creation story it is completly literal or partially literal, it has left that open. It has taken a stand on certain beliefs which must be believed regardless of a literal or some evolutionary process. One can read the document here, it has never been rescinded, and is still in effect.

**Catholic Dogma and Teaching on Creation
**and the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis
bringyou.to/apologetics/p100.htm


#7

Hey you creationists!!! The church allows you to believe this Protestant nonsense. So what is the problem? Do you honestly believe you are going to convince anyone here that they should adopt pseudo-science instead of the real thing? You two apparently have missed the boat. The Church agrees with the basic principle of evolution, so its you who are being the cafeteria catholics on this one.


#8

Of course the Church allows Catholics to believe in a literal Genesis. God doesn’t care if they want to take it literally in all respects.

But as you suggest, creationists don’t stop there. They cross over into accusations of unfaithfulness, of Marxism, and who knows what else. At that point, they have left God’s church and have started to build their own.


#9

First you should note that bringtoyou is an apologist site. You need to know what that means. second you should read a modern statement. We’ve really been through all this before. See JPII’s “Theology of the Body” and Benedict’s “In the beginning…” This has been done to death. The Church teaches evolutionary models are proper and correct and that God of course was the guiding hand and Creator. You are ALLOWED to believe in YEC if you must at this time. The Church is not fond of cutting the rug out from underneath its elderly and their long held innocent beliefs.


#10

so quick to Criticize, but I bet you have never looked at the other side read any of their books. Many a Creation Scientist do have PhDs. There are over 600 Scientists in major universities in this country and around the world stating that they do not believe in the type of Darwinism that is being taught today. But you would somehow treat them all like blazing idiots.

ASCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
*“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list is now located at a new webpage, www.dissentfromdarwin.org[/size].

[/FONT]*** Do you have a science degree???**


#11

The documents you site weigh very little over all in the scope and sequence of things. These documen in relation to genesis are not infallible documents and are not official teachings of the church in these matters, these are beliefs of two individual Popes but again they are not official teachings in this matter and they are not infallible statements of either of these two Poples. So your reference point is weak at best.


#12

you are making very inflamatory remarks on these Catholic sites without having read any of them for your self. One should not throw stones when they live in glass house themselves.


#13

The point is that Newton, et al., was a theist, and a scientist.

The pressure is on. These days, some folks say you cannot be a true scientist, or maintain your tenure: if you embrace the young earth position, or if and when anyone maintains that the earth was created by God (in six literal days), and not by “natural causes.”

So, am I a heretic when I take the Bible seriously - more so than any dogma(s)?
:hmmm:

:banghead:


#14

Interesting that you guys bring all this up because this Friday December 21st Catholic Answers Live will air a pretaped call in program on this topic (Evolution).

I just happened to get the message on here when Jerry Usher asked for people to call in and ask questions of the good Cardinal and have since received his book (a gift from CA Live for calling in that day! :smiley: )

I asked Cardinal Schönborn about this very thing and was happy to hear his answer as well as all the rest of his talk.

I STRONGLY recommend that every one who is interested in this issue get and read his new book, Chance or Purpose?.

I think you’ll find his remarks both logical and scientific as well as faithful to Catholic teaching.

[size=][FONT=“Garamond”]Catholic Answers Live
December 21
3:00 PM
Chance or Purpose? (Pre-Taped)
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.[/FONT][/size]


#15

The point is that Newton, et al., was a theist, and a scientist.

Lots of those. Last time I checked, most of us were theists of some sort. But wouldn’t it be better to be listening from a Christian, say a Catholic like Kenneth Miller, who does think that there is a God who cares for each of us, and that Jesus is His Son, and equally God?

The pressure is on. These days, some folks say you cannot be a true scientist, or maintain your tenure: if you embrace the young earth position,

That’s wrong. Even Stephen Gould accepted a YE creationist (Kurt Wise) as a doctoral candidate. I happen to have known a very fine gentleman who had tenure, and was a YE creationist.

or if and when anyone maintains that the earth was created by God (in six literal days), and not by “natural causes.”

Might be a little tough if he was looking for a position in geology or biology; grants are often given for specific problems, and as happened at Woods Hole recently, a creationist decided he didn’t want to do the work required by the grant for which he was hired. His employer explained that they needed someone to do the work, and if he didn’t want to do it, he needed to find a job he was willing to do.

So, am I a heretic when I take the Bible seriously

The orthodox and the heretic alike take the Bible seriously. However, as a Roman Catholic, you are not to form your own interpretation of it.


#16

you are making very inflamatory remarks on these Catholic sites without having read any of them for your self.

I’ve not said anything about those sites. You only need to read some comments on these boards to see that what I have said is true.

Would you like me to show you some of them?

One should not throw stones when they live in glass house themselves.

Indeed.


#17

Catholic creationist are beating a dead horse. The train long passed by. Leave that nonsense to the fundangelicals.


#18

C’mon…get real. :rolleyes: This, just like most discussions of the Bible and evolution, still comes down to matter of someone’s interpretation. IMO, it’s more a chance for someone like “Dr. Dino” Kent Hovind to open his http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/logo.gif while he evades paying his taxes. Granted not all the Young Earth proponents are like this guy (who’s currently doing Federal time), but I’ve read enough and seen enough to just write it off as anything but the Biblical “sure thing” that some folks try to put it forward as. :cool:

I can’t say as I much care whether you believe the Young Earth Creationists or something else, but I see an awful lot of conjecture on the different schools of thought on evolution and prefer to concern myself with something really important, like sharing my faith with others and explaining and defending things that will really make a big difference in a person’s life and the way they deal with others.

This? This is just something that really has very little to do with any of the above. :shrug:


#19

Sorry you find it necessary to scream to make your point. I have nothing further to say to you. Believe as you wish.


#20

Yep. That is the web site of our buddy PhilVaz.

Peace

Tim


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.