................... Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 but which is not necessarily Young Earth and which takes it's facts mostly from Science? IOW I do not have an ax to grind in the whole young earth situation but as far as evolution I really want my kids to just have both sides of the story. I would like them to understand the theory of evolution but also to see where its holes, gaps, and problems lie, Scientifically so that when they are confronted by it, they can understand it from a Creationist perspective, and hopefully form their own opinion (I don't even necessarily think that the Bible totally rules out evolution although I personally really think it's a stretch Biblically, and I don't think that people who believe in evolution can't be Christians or are not Christians.) Anyway....any ideas would be appreciated. I got the Answers Book 1 by Ken Ham hoping that, if I skipped the first 2/3 which is all about the Young Earth, that I would be able to use the rest to talk about evolution but 75% of that is derived from (what I believe is somewhat faulty) Biblical evidence rather than Science and while I agree with a lot of what he says, it's not the way I want to present it to my kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rellybob Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 The Origins of Life-Five Questions Worth Asking http://download.jw.org/files/media_books/d0/lf_E.pdf and Was Life Created? http://download.jw.org/files/media_books/09/lc_E.pdf Those are the links to the PDF files. I recently read them and I thought the science was rock solid. Both are definitely not young earth. They quote alot of scientists who aren't creationists but are frank about the problems with theory of evolution. Hope that helps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PachiSusan Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Reading with great interest! Thank you for asking the question! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
................... Posted April 30, 2013 Author Share Posted April 30, 2013 Thanks a lot! I will look at the articles right now. This is a great start. I know I can always get a few ideas here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rellybob Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Thanks a lot! I will look at the articles right now. This is a great start. I know I can always get a few ideas here! You're welcome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Institute for Creation Research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 [is there a resource refuting evolution] which takes it's facts mostly from Science? Nope. "Science" is a methodology by which people explore nature. Through this methodology, the mechanics of evolution have become known, and are increasingly more understood. If you have some questions about something specific, maybe we can help you out with understanding it. As far as a scientific explanation of biodiversity, there is no "debate" about whether or not the theory of evolution is an accurate representation of reality, even if various details are being worked out. There will be that for ever, but that shouldn't be confused with there being a "debate" of the issue. It's an accepted fact of science. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue G in PA Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 As far as a scientific explanation of biodiversity, there is no "debate" about whether or not the theory of evolution is an accurate representation of reality, even if various details are being worked out. There will be that for ever, but that shouldn't be confused with there being a "debate" of the issue. It's an accepted fact of science. :) Ummm...really? An accepted fact of science? Well, let's just say I sure hope you are right in the end. ;) This topic, however, has been debated ad nauseam on this board so I won't get into it again. Emotions run high on both sides. As to the OPs questions, I have heard good things about Evolution: The Grand Experiment by Dr. Carl Werner. It sounds like you are looking for a presentation of facts supporting both sides so that your dc can make up their own mind and/or be able to defend their belief in Creation. Lee Strobel's book The Case for a Creator is also good. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
................... Posted April 30, 2013 Author Share Posted April 30, 2013 Thanks Sue! These look better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rellybob Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I have also heard good things about The Case for a Creator. I have a friend who is a biologist who highly recommends it. I haven't read it myself, but if she's recommending it the science must be good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Nope. "Science" is a methodology by which people explore nature. Through this methodology, the mechanics of evolution have become known, and are increasingly more understood. If you have some questions about something specific, maybe we can help you out with understanding it. As far as a scientific explanation of biodiversity, there is no "debate" about whether or not the theory of evolution is an accurate representation of reality, even if various details are being worked out. There will be that for ever, but that shouldn't be confused with there being a "debate" of the issue. It's an accepted fact of science. :) Oddly the guy I was talking to just this afternoon, whose Phd is in Biology, told me that from what he has read, it's not accepted 'fact' across the board and there is as much evidence for creation as evolution. Now evolution within a species is well documented. Dogs evolve, but they are still dogs. That's not a statement of what I personally believe, I just think it's wise to see the controversy from more than one side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PachiSusan Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 There are some great videos and information here. He spoke at our church and he had most of the audience slack jawed at what he had to say. Amazing, learned man! http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/ I love their tag line: Explaining the harmony among Faith, Physics, and Philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PachiSusan Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Oddly the guy I was talking to just this afternoon, whose Phd is in Biology, told me that from what he has read, it's not accepted 'fact' across the board and there is as much evidence for creation as evolution. Now evolution within a species is well documented. Dogs evolve, but they are still dogs. That's not a statement of what I personally believe, I just think it's wise to see the controversy from more than one side. Yup. I also find that sometimes terms are blurred. Evolution is the process by which already created beings adapt and change, not so much to do with the Creation of the universe and if there was Divine Agency to begin it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbgrace Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 OP, have you seen reasons.org? They are old earth creation, scientific, but not evolutionary in their approach. Biologos is also scientific and Christian, yet with an evolutionary perspective if anyone is looking for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Yup. I also find that sometimes terms are blurred. Evolution is the process by which already created beings adapt and change, not so much to do with the Creation of the universe and if there was Divine Agency to begin it or not. This is the crux of the issue, I think. Science simply cannot explore the intervention of any divine agency within the boundaries of scientific methodology. Simply put, science explores the natural world, and the supernatural, if it exists, exists outside the realm of the natural world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 If by "evolution" someone means "we all came from the same slime on the rock, and over gazilions of years we evolved into giraffes and chambered nautiluses and butterflies and people," then someone is just not paying attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 double deleted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Is there a resource refuting evolution Evolution as such was only quite recently confirmed scientifically, so a refutation is asking a bit too much. It is by now akin to asking for proof that the sun really do circle the earth, and not the other way around. It would probably be wiser, in my opinion, to concentrate on finding compatibility between religion and scientific fact, much the same as happened, successfully I may add, after the earth was found to be circling the sun in direct contravention of papal doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 This is the crux of the issue, I think. Science simply cannot explore the intervention of any divine agency within the boundaries of scientific methodology. Simply put, science explores the natural world, and the supernatural, if it exists, exists outside the realm of the natural world. Bit too simplified. Science is in essence deterministic, and hence have no chance of explaining any non-deterministic phenomena such as free will. Some that believe (notice the word) that all being MUST behave according to natural (ie scientific) laws in consequence reject free will. Any God would almost by definition be non-deterministic, and hence outside the realm of science, even if the god was one of flesh and blood. In the same way free will is likely to remain outside the realm of science, unless it does not exist but is only an illusion as some claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Evolution as such was only quite recently confirmed scientifically, so a refutation is asking a bit too much. It is by now akin to asking for proof that the sun really do circle the earth, and not the other way around. If by "evolution" you mean the theory that life began as slime on a rock and all living creatures somehow evolved from that same slime on a rock, then no, evolution has not ever been "confirmed scientifically." Nor will it ever be. The very idea that the millions of life forms on earth could all have come from the same slime on a rock is just silly. It would probably be wiser, in my opinion, to concentrate on finding compatibility between religion and scientific fact, much the same as happened, successfully I may add, after the earth was found to be circling the sun in direct contravention of papal doctrine. There is more evidence to support Special Creation (or "Intelligent Design," which is apparently the current favored term) than there is to support evolution. We don't even have to bring religion into it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 There is more evidence to support Special Creation (or "Intelligent Design," which is apparently the current favored term) than there is to support evolution. We don't even have to bring religion into it at all. Can you share an example of something that supports Special Creation (or "Intelligent Design")? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetted4 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Phillip Johnson's book, "Darwin on Trial", is exceptional. He is a lawyer and analyzes all of the evidence offered in support of evolution from the point of view of whether the evidence could hold up in court. Very well done. My dh is a PhD physical-chemist. There are plenty left within the scientific community who are willing to acknowledge that evolution is still just a theory and does not have adequate evidence to call it anything more than a theory...including those who still hope that it will prove true some day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetted4 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Also, there is a series of videos that are great for middle to upper elementary ages done by a biologist who was a staunch evolutionist, but some of his students challenged him to take a deep look at his own field of biology to see whether it supports evolution. He became a creationist as a result. Here's the first one: http://www.amazon.com/Incredible-Creatures-That-Defy-Evolution/dp/B000E3LGDS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 If by "evolution" you mean the theory that life began as slime on a rock and all living creatures somehow evolved from that same slime on a rock, then no, evolution has not ever been "confirmed scientifically." Nor will it ever be. The very idea that the millions of life forms on earth could all have come from the same slime on a rock is just silly. That "theory" seem to be most popular amongst those setting up a straw man to refute evolution. Your straw man may be described as speculation on the origin of life, or in the best of cases a hypothesis, but not as a scientific theory. There is more evidence to support Special Creation (or "Intelligent Design," which is apparently the current favored term) than there is to support evolution. We don't even have to bring religion into it at all. Actually not, unless you believe the straw man above to be the theory of evolution. PS. I would like to point out that I see no more incompatibility with belief in gods and evolution, than I see incompatibility due to the currently fashionable theory that the earth spins on it's axis is what makes the sun appear to circle the earth every 24hrs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Phillip Johnson's book, "Darwin on Trial", is exceptional. He is a lawyer and analyzes all of the evidence offered in support of evolution from the point of view of whether the evidence could hold up in court. Very well done. How is "special creation" defined in the book? My dh is a PhD physical-chemist. There are plenty left within the scientific community who are willing to acknowledge that evolution is still just a theory and does not have adequate evidence to call it anything more than a theory...including those who still hope that it will prove true some day. Is this something your husband says, that evolution is "still just a theory"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 My dh is a PhD physical-chemist. There are plenty left within the scientific community who are willing to acknowledge that evolution is still just a theory and does not have adequate evidence to call it anything more than a theory...including those who still hope that it will prove true some day. Not to ruin your day, but ... A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Which indeed confirms your claim that it will not be called anything more than a theory, albeit not exactly for the reasons you seem to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetted4 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Well...I guess, based on that definition, I'd have to rephrase what I said. Using that definition, evolution wouldn't make it to the level of a theory, then...it's a subject that interests my dh so he keeps up w scientific literature and has not been impressed with what has been offered as evidence. He feels very comfortable with the plausibility of "old earth", but the evolution research has had enough flaws that it hasn't changed his opinion on that issue. On a completely different point, I would be cautious in using Ken Ham's materials. I know he has a large following that is rather zealous, but from what I understand the main reason he is not respected within the scientific community, even among Christian scientists, is that the logical arguments he uses are flawed. It's been long enough since I read Phillip Johnson's book that I can't remember the specifics, but his reasoning process is much more sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlbuchina Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Also, there is a series of videos that are great for middle to upper elementary ages done by a biologist who was a staunch evolutionist, but some of his students challenged him to take a deep look at his own field of biology to see whether it supports evolution. He became a creationist as a result. Here's the first one: http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/B000E3LGDS This series is wonderful. We really enjoyed them. They were streaming on Netflix the last I looked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Well...I guess, based on that definition, I'd have to rephrase what I said. Using that definition, evolution wouldn't make it to the level of a theory, then...it's a subject that interests my dh so he keeps up w scientific literature and has not been impressed with what has been offered as evidence. He feels very comfortable with the plausibility of "old earth", but the evolution research has had enough flaws that it hasn't changed his opinion on that issue. Then you should probably either describe it as a hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_hypothesis) , or speculation, however as I pointed out a little earlier that would most likely depend on exactly what you believe the term "evolution" means. If you take it to mean a universal common ancestor aka green slime on a stone, then I would undoubtedly agree that it is not a scientific theory, not because it is not possible or even plausible, but because the proof is not there yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelli Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 This thread is very interesting! Thanks for starting it OP. :hurray: *Posting so I can find this thread later, so let's be nice and not get it deleted.* :thumbup1: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PachiSusan Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 A friend just tagged me with a trailer for this book. I have no idea of how good it is or where he stands, but I'm pretty sure it's on the side of dinosaurs and man lived at the same time, which would infer Young Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Can you share an example of something that supports Special Creation (or "Intelligent Design")? How much time do you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Well...I guess, based on that definition, I'd have to rephrase what I said. Using that definition, evolution wouldn't make it to the level of a theory, then... I think you might still be confused. A scientific theory explains an observation. We observe biodiversity in nature. We observe some plants and animals have features more similar to certain other plans and animals. Evolution explains this observation. Charles Darwin explained the mechanics in a process called natural selection. If you do not understand how the theory of evolution works, any given conclusion that starts on this faulty premise will be potentially erroneous as well. It's been long enough since I read Phillip Johnson's book that I can't remember the specifics, but his reasoning process is much more sound. Johnson's book is similarly debunked by evolutionary biologists and scientists in general. It's not offered in standard science classes for a reason - its claims are not credible within the standard required in the scientific method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 How much time do you have? Can you start with one thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDays Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Subbing to thread to find the resources later. I agree with Chelli... Everyone play nice so the thread doesn't go poof!! ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecclecticmum Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Can I ask a couple of questions for those of you on either end of the spectrum(aka. thread)? I, myself, just count myself as having an open mind, and that Religion is a life-long process of reading, researching & dedication. (Rabbi's I read about do a similar thing, counting it as a lifelong process, and what I read about said they study/pour over the Torah their entire lives, and discuss/debate various parts) So, what I am trying to say, is this is coming from a *good* place inside me, I am not asking to antagonize or anything. 1. If you believe in Young Earth (dinos being at the same time as man) why isn't there any human remains found at Dino levels? 2. A bit of the chicken and the egg. But if a God (either Him, or Greek Gods, or any particular god around the world) created us, who created that God? I understand the answer is usually "He just is" but how? "He's always been there" But what about before??? Before he was there....it had to begin somewhere? 3. I also do the same thing to DH about the Big Bang Theory. Asking him how it happened, he explains, then wanting to say, well what about before that? "It was blank, dark, matter (or something, my brains froze) But what about before the matter? What happened before the bang? How did the matter start? What happened before the matter? 4. I believe the chicken came first. :p Slowly going forward till they became chicken-like, then eventually one popped out an egg and was like "What is that???!!??" lol. And if I gave you a headache, sorry about that. I tend to give myself a headache when thinking about it. :leaving: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joannqn Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 but which is not necessarily Young Earth and which takes it's facts mostly from Science? Explore Evolution fits this description. It starts out by discussing how people use "evolution" to refer to different things: 1) change over time, 2) Universal Common Descent, and 3) the creative power of natural selection. The first definition isn't under dispute. This book looks at the arguments for and against the second and third definitions and shows how the evidence does and does not support them. It discusses fossil succession, anatomical homology, molecular homology, embryology, biogeography, natural selection, mutations and molecular machines. It's written from an old earth point of view by authors who support intelligent design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PachiSusan Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Explore Evolution fits this description. It starts out by discussing how people use "evolution" to refer to different things: 1) change over time, 2) Universal Common Descent, and 3) the creative power of natural selection. The first definition isn't under dispute. This book looks at the arguments for and against the second and third definitions and shows how the evidence does and does not support them. It discusses fossil succession, anatomical homology, molecular homology, embryology, biogeography, natural selection, mutations and molecular machines. It's written from an old earth point of view by authors who support intelligent design. this is awesome!! I've bookmarked this for later perusal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewelma Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 For those of you interested in understanding the other side, we had a great (and calm) discussion last year: the unscientific american watches a mammal walk into the water and grow fins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
................... Posted May 1, 2013 Author Share Posted May 1, 2013 Well...I guess, based on that definition, I'd have to rephrase what I said. Using that definition, evolution wouldn't make it to the level of a theory, then...it's a subject that interests my dh so he keeps up w scientific literature and has not been impressed with what has been offered as evidence. He feels very comfortable with the plausibility of "old earth", but the evolution research has had enough flaws that it hasn't changed his opinion on that issue. On a completely different point, I would be cautious in using Ken Ham's materials. I know he has a large following that is rather zealous, but from what I understand the main reason he is not respected within the scientific community, even among Christian scientists, is that the logical arguments he uses are flawed. It's been long enough since I read Phillip Johnson's book that I can't remember the specifics, but his reasoning process is much more sound. This. I dislike Ken Ham's theology and his Science. I find his books insulting. But I am excited about a lot of the resources you all have mentioned! Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Explore Evolution fits this description. It starts out by discussing how people use "evolution" to refer to different things: 1) change over time, 2) Universal Common Descent, and 3) the creative power of natural selection. The first definition isn't under dispute. This book looks at the arguments for and against the second and third definitions and shows how the evidence does and does not support them. It discusses fossil succession, anatomical homology, molecular homology, embryology, biogeography, natural selection, mutations and molecular machines. It's written from an old earth point of view by authors who support intelligent design. Had a quick look at the content page, and the "peek" pages and tend to agree that this one would fit the bill. "Intelligent Design" seem to be left out as an alternative explanation (as it in my opinion should in a science book) . Fact that it does lay out the debate, as opposed to teaching ONE single "answer", as is common, seem to be the major plus of the book. Think I might end up getting it myself eventually. A bit pricey on Amazon though. Reviews on Amazon seem to be extremely divergent, and may be worth looking at before shelling out $ on this book. Some do raise serious doubts about the content (scientifically settled issues presented as still unsettled), whereas others simply bash it because of creationist authors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erin Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Ummm...really? An accepted fact of science? Well, let's just say I sure hope you are right in the end. As a reminder: People can support evolutionary theory as well as have faith in the grace of God. Jesus didn't say "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, but only if you believe Creation was limited to 6, 24 hr days..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erin Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Personally OP, I would just suggest you spend more time in the Word. So long as you don't try to limit the Creator to your own understanding, you'll find that there's really nothing in the Bible that disagrees with evolution. Isaiah 55:8-9 I've always found it ironic that Creation has closed the book on the beginnings of the universe/life. God did it just like Moses says and that's that. On the other hand, the scientific process is constantly learning more and opening up new questions. If his ways are so far above our ways as to be the heavens above the earth, the direction that is always learning more but never finding ALL the answers has always struck me as the more Biblical... Faith is faith. There's limited support for it because if there were scientific facts, it wouldn't be faith. And we'd all be Thomas, needing to put our fingers in the nail holes... ;) My God is an awesome God. I can't even imagine trying to squeeze Him in to the small box of my limited comprehension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetted4 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Johnson's book is similarly debunked by evolutionary biologists and scientists in general. It's not offered in standard science classes for a reason - its claims are not credible within the standard required in the scientific method. I am aware that Johnson's book received criticism...he wrote a follow-up book responding to those criticisms: maybe "Reason in the Balance" but I am not sure if that's the one he wrote for that purpose. "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael Behe - Never read this, but I know I've heard of it and I just saw from the description that it covers Intelligent Design ("the argument that nature exhibits evidence of design, beyond Darwinian randomness"). Thought I'd post the title since some were asking for info on that sub-topic. The main challenge with this topic is that most of the people involved in the exploration have a "need" for either one answer or the other to be right...there's hardly anyone out there who can truly be objective enough to ensure that they are asking all of the right questions and able to interpret the answers objectively (for any of you who have read Jurassic Park, it has an interesting illustration of the pitfalls of not recognizing what the right questions are). I know people on both sides will swear that they're being thorough, but I'm just not sure it's possible, if you have a strong opinion going in which side is right, to design your analysis without SOME sort of bias built into your assumptions. When you are trying to interpret info about Origins, you can't exactly redo the experiment and see how it works this time thru, so you MUST make some assumptions. And there's no real way to test whether assumptions that may work when applied to hundreds of years or even thousands remain valid when applied to a time frame of millions and billions of years.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saddlemomma Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Here are some we used when studying evolution: http://www.discovery.org/ http://www.reasons.org/ http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.html http://www.christiananswers.net/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?zoom_query=evolution&x=0&y=0&zoom_per_page=50&zoom_cat[]=-1&zoom_and=1&zoom_sort=0 The book: It Couldn't Just Happen, by Lawrence O. Richards (Amazon) Hope this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Michelle* Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 It would probably be wiser, in my opinion, to concentrate on finding compatibility between religion and scientific fact, much the same as happened, successfully I may add, after the earth was found to be circling the sun in direct contravention of papal doctrine. And which papal doctrine would that be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDoe Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 And which papal doctrine would that be? That would be Pope Paul V instruction, in 1616, to Galileo to stop the nonsense of heliocentricity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Michelle* Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 That would be Pope Paul V instruction, in 1616, to Galileo to stop the nonsense of heliocentricity. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views. The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible. No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility. Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful. In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his. It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth. As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth. Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Subbing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 For those of you interested in understanding the other side, we had a great (and calm) discussion last year: the unscientific american watches a mammal walk into the water and grow fins I remember your wonderful and highly informative thread (and just re-read most of it). People would do well to understand the mechanisms by which the process of evolution works over time. You do a very good job laying out the basics. It amazes me how ignorant (or intentionally misinformed) so many of my countrymen are about the Theory of Evolution. Unfortunately there is an industry dedicated to spreading nonsense. Why people waste their time with Ken Ham, Michael Behe, and Lawrence Richards is beyond me. It is far better to understand the "actual" workings of evolution (not the "straw-man" version you get from AiG) as it is a massively validated Scientific Theory. You are very patient. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.