This is where modern creationism is leading
Vatican wants to end battle with science – Science – MSNBC.com — This should result in an interesting schism between the American Catholics and the religious right. Please read this entire article, it’s quite good.
VATICAN CITY – A Vatican cardinal said Thursday that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into “fundamentalism” if it ignores scientific reason.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the “mutual prejudice” between religion and science that has long bedeviled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States.
related links:
History of Scientific Ideas
Flat Earth in the Bible
Excellent. Catholicism (or at least Catholicism here in the Northeast) has been pretty good about playing nice with science. I went to twelve years of Catholic school, two different grammar schools and high school, and was taught by deacons, priests, and nuns as well as laypeople. Never once was I taught that Genesis was literal — quite the opposite. They said it was metaphorical and the “days” could have been millions of years. I was taught evolution, and while occasionally someone would add a flourish (i.e. at some point God stopped evolution for man and took over) it was always proper evolution at it’s core.
I don’t understand these fundamentalists and I think they give religion a bad name. Although I’m kind of lapsed and am aware of all the harm it causes in some areas, I think religion overall is a positive influence on society and still respect the church, even when I think they’re wrong (contraception, divorce, homosexuality, etc.)
The only time you hear about religion in the news is from these fundamentalist nuts and people think that’s all there is to it. I hate that, because it affects me too and I have to keep myself from falling into it as well. Gay bashing, manipulation for politics (deny John Kerry communion!) selective morality (“culture of life” for abortion but shh! on the death penalty and Iraq, which the previous pope was vehemently against) etc. etc. etc. If *I* have to catch myself sometimes, it’s no wonder other people are against religion altogether.
I agree with you that the extreme right makes it difficult to admit one’s spirituality or religious beliefs. But it seems to me that the bashing as often comes from the agnostic or non-religious left just as often.
I didn’t go to parochial school, I went to public school up until my college years, then I graduated from a small Christian school in western Missouri. But, in Sunday school as a child we often asked how God could have created the heavens and the earth in 7 days when we have fossils that are millions of years old and the Bible says the earth should only be a few thousand years old.
Our Sunday school teacher, too, told us that Genesis shouldn’t be taken literally. If churches can, and most do, make room for scientific facts to be brought into doctrine, why can’t science make room for church doctrine along with scientific fact?
Really, the only science that I’ve seen that tries to prove anything in the Bible is archeology. But, even there it seems that people are trying to find places in the Middle East that disproves the Bible as much as they are trying to find things and places that proves the accounts in the Bible.
What I tell my children and anyone that asks me is that I don’t know where the universe came from. I have faith that God created it, but since it is exactly faith, I can’t prove it. Scientists have theories on how it was created and they have evidence to show their theories correct, but they have no proof either. Could it be that God created the universe and all of the evidence we’ve seen so far only proves that God works in mysterious ways?
Genesis says “1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
“6 And God said, ‘Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’ 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
“9 And God said, ‘Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.’ And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.6 And God said, ‘Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’ 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.’ And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.”
The Big Bang theory says ” The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
“According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as “singularity” around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a ‘singularity’ and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don’t know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of ‘black holes.’ Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called ‘singularities.’ Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something – a singularity. Where did it come from? We don’t know. Why did it appear? We don’t know.
“After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the “Big Bang”), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.”
I don’t know about you, but these two seem awfully similar to me with a lot of it left to faith. The main difference I see between the two is in the Genesis story there is the word “God” and in the Big Bang theory there are the words “we don’t know” and “unknown” Hmm…
For references, please see the following URLs:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/genesis-rsv.html
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Maybe Ptolemeian system looks weird, but it was more accurate than that of Galileo.
As many of you know, the ranks of the Jesuits (Society of Jesus) are filled with scientists. Jesuits run Vatican observatories and operate Vatican radio and teach science and engineering at most (if not all ) their American universities. My Electrical Engineering degree came thanks to the Jesuits. Because the Jesuits work directly for the Pope, I find it easy to believe that the Catholic Church isn’t anti-science.
The LDS (Mormon) Church debated about putting their geneaology archives online. In the end, the Elders decided that the technology to accomplish this goal also a Gift of God and that She gave technology to them to serve Her. This decision made perfect sense to me, and I infer that the LDS Church is not anti-science.
This is nice, but they still don’t believe in the science of when “life” begins. Or the science that women are just as capable of being priests or anything else. Or the (still unfortunately questionable) science that gay people are born that way.
There’s still a long way to go.
Stacia: I don’t believe there *is* a science of when life begins. We know a lot about the development process in the womb but there’s no clear cut turning point when life starts. It’s a difference of opinion as to what constitutes life.
You could argue life at conception is ridiculous because it’s undifferentiated cells without a nervous system and completely dependent on the mother. You could argue it’s not because it’s living, genetically unique, and will inevitably become an individual human being bar anything exceptional.
You could argue life at birth is ridiculous because the fetus/infant is capable of surviving outside the womb already and there’s no substantial difference between the moment before birth and the moment after. You could argue it’s not because, well, I dunno. I guess it’s a convenient cutoff point legally, like 21 for drinking. No one thinks something magic happens the moment you turn 21, you just need a cutoff line or else it’s impossible to enforce.
Plus that’s a false choice anyway, between the two extremes. Most people probably choose something in the middle, like when the first brain activity starts or when it’s capable of surviving outside the womb. It’s all a big gray area and people pick their individual comfort zones. Pro life people have to learn that pro choice people don’t *like* abortion, they just don’t think you can make that decision for them. Pro choice people have to learn that pro life people aren’t trying to subjugate and control women, they just believe it’s a human being worthy of protection.
Anyway, on the priest thing they think it’s about tradition, not about capability. Women already have a role in the church as nuns. I don’t see the harm of changing it, but I don’t particularly care either way. It’s not a huge injustice nor is it a huge threat.
As for the gay thing, I’m behind you 100%.
garym: It’s not so much admitting one’s faith. I kind of lapsed on my own, not from any pressure around me. It’s fighting the negative image that can set in for progressive people like myself who are also heavily into politics. It seems you’re always fighting fundamentalists and people using faith as a club. They’re right because the Bible says this and the some pastor says that and let’s wrap ourselves in Christian language so people can’t question our political beliefs and assertions. Let’s spin a fight on filibusters into an attack on all people of faith. This grates on people on the left to no end, and if they never had a positive personal experience with religion themselves beforehand, their image of it becomes influenced by every “God Hates Fags” placard and every Intelligent Design fight because that’s all they see. It’s pretty unfair, but there it is. It affects me too, but I can stop myself because I know better from experience. Other people don’t, so some become against all organized religion and point to the Crusades and blah blah blah. Other people just stay away because they think they’d be going in for a lecture on why gay people are bad and why should be voting Republican. That’s all they see from the blowhards who get on the news so can you blame them? It just bugs me, that’s all, that these people give religion a bad name. I think the religious policital blowhards on the right are directly responsible for the religion bashers on the left. That’s probably too simplistic, but there it is.
Science is pretty clear about when life begins, and it’s in line with the Church, not the law.
The diagram shows the earth as a sphere. In keeping with the creationist thinking – it should be flat.
Greg,
I understand your frustration with religion and politics. I do believe that that is one area where our founding fathers got it right, keep the state out of the church and vice-versa.
I wish it were as easy as saying “That’s a religious topic that doesn’t belong here,” or “That’s a political opinion that doesn’t affect my faith.”
Unfortunately, in the world we live in, every topic crosses one line or the other, and people who can’t separate their political views from their religious views tend to “club” those who disagree with their viewpoint.
But, when it comes to matters of pure faith versus pure science…I find it hard to separate them. I am not a deeply religious man, but I do have faith in my spiritual beliefs. Science has found wonderful things and intricate relationships among planets, stars and living creatures. But, scientists still can’t explain how things got there. Scientists place faith in their discovery process and they believe that what they are saying is true. I don’t doubt them. However, when it comes to origins, whether it be the universe, the planet or life, they still can’t answer why and in some cases, how.. To that, I have to put my faith in God. It may not be right, but it is no less wrong than the faith the scientists put into their theories.