The definition and value of science

[The Barbarian]

Radioactive rocks in the lowest strata don't change my argument.

More precisely, they disprove your assumptions.

If it was a cosmos-wide judgment that caused the very stones of the universe to become unstable it would not matter where they were located.

So you think that God caused nuclear breakdown to get even with the universe for man's sin? Seriously?

You have a theory about how what we know hangs together. I can admit its explanatory power and still say you are just guessing and cannot know.

It comes down to evidence. There is a huge amount of evidence for what actually happened. You have only speculation and guesswork for "cosmos-wide judgements."

 

[Halbhh]

According to various recent calculations about the mass of the universe only about 5% gives an electromagnetic light signature the rest being dark energy or matter. And we cannot even see the whole of that 5%. That might not matter if we can trust that light always behaves the same way as we can observe it has behaved in our own system. Then simple trigonometry gives us distances and times based on our observed speed of light. But how does light pass through the dark stuff, is it distorted, instantaneous, or slow, what about time warps, quantum entanglement, and the possibility that light speed suddenly decayed due to some grand universe-wide supernatural cosmic event? Is the earth in its own time bubble while the rest of the universe ages more rapidly around it? We cannot know what happens to the light once it leaves the gravitational pull of our own sun and travels through deep space because we have never been there and we have no vision back billions of years because there is no mortal witness to such events. Yet we know that gravity bends light and can even suck it back into a black hole changing its speed and direction. I understand the simple maths but how many times have the obvious theories been overthrown? The earth feels flat beneath our feet and yet is spherical, the sun goes around us and yet we go around it. The stars seem to be small and shine for our benefit and yet they appear to be a part of a gigantic universe we have only just begun to explore and understand.

A lot of interesting topics there and as I often have mentioned to many people here, there are many unknowns in cosmology/astrophysics.

But that's unconnected to parallax.

Parallax calculation of distance is just trigometry and observing sideways apparent movement of closer stars as they shift against the more distant background during Earth's orbit.

Knowing the speed of light helps to then put that distance into light years, how far light travels in one year.

That's why I wrote above we can see that the stars are older than 10,000 years just by direct observation. No theory involved.

 

[returnn23]

About abiogenesis: Life cannot come from non-life. If that were true, scientists would be combining chemicals and producing life in the lab today.

The size of the universe is unknown. Even space-based telescopes show faint galaxies in the distance and no one knows how many more galaxies are there.

A man named Halton Arp worked with Edwin Hubble. He later discovered anomalous redshifts and wrote some books about it. Hubble admitted to him that if redshifts were not movements of objects in space then they measured something else.

https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905

 

[The Barbarian]

About abiogenesis: Life cannot come from non-life.

God disagrees:

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

The size of the universe is unknown.

The size of the universe really has nothing to do with the Earth bringing forth living things. That's just how God created it to work.

 

[returnn23]

To say that God did anything is not scientific. And that is the problem here. Those who say that God created through miracles and those who want explanations that exclude God. These explanations are referred to as 'natural' and exclude miracles. This tells people that only scientists decide what happened on earth and that God has no part in science.

Some years ago, I watched on TV a man telling viewers that if a planet was the right distance from its sun, had water and the building blocks of life - amino acids, that life would appear there. I later realized that this could not be shown to be true by any scientist.

 

[The Barbarian]

To say that God did anything is not scientific. And that is the problem here. Those who say that God created through miracles and those who want explanations that exclude God. These explanations are referred to as 'natural' and exclude miracles. This tells people that only scientists decide what happened on earth and that God has no part in science.

Science is only methodologically naturalistic. It has no way to affirm or deny the supernatural. Science can't go there.

But scientists can. If you thought about it for a minute, I think you'd see why. You might as well say that plumbing denies the supernatural because plumbing can't deal with supernatural things. Plumbers can, of course.

 

[returnn23]

I am only referring to truth. Why do people believe scientists when they say life can appear on other planets? Or that human beings share a 'common ancestor' with apes?

So, people need to realize that God never lies. That there is information in the Bible that touches upon the origin of human beings, for example. When science makes certain assumptions but cannot show by experiment that certain things are true then people are confused. True things about life on earth need to be repeated. For example, Richard Dawkins has said that living things only look designed. They are not actually designed. The Catholic Church states that living things are actually designed.

 

[The Barbarian]

To say that God did anything is not scientific. And that is the problem here.

Remember, science is a method. So it only pays to be scientific when investigating the physical universe. I am often unscientific myself. It's O.K.; you can be unscientific when not doing science.

Those who say that God created through miracles and those who want explanations that exclude God.

As you now see, scientists can be scientists and still accept the miraculous. What experience, scripture, and tradition show us, is that God does not do miracles because He must; He does them to teach us things.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am only referring to truth. Why do people believe scientists when they say life can appear on other planets?

Because the evidence shows that God was correct; the Earth did bring forth living things.

Or that human beings share a 'common ancestor' with apes?

Evidence. Genetics, anatomy, a very large number of transitional forms. Things like that. It's why Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that it is "virtually certain."

For example, Richard Dawkins has said that living things only look designed. They are not actually designed. The Catholic Church states that living things are actually designed.

In the sense of intent, as the Church uses it. That's why Cardinal Ratzinger's statement is consistent with "design." God is immutable and omnipotent, so He did not sit down and "design" as an engineer or the ID's "maybe a space alien" would have done.

 

[Halbhh]

To say that God did anything is not scientific. And that is the problem here. Those who say that God created through miracles and those who want explanations that exclude God. These explanations are referred to as 'natural' and exclude miracles. This tells people that only scientists decide what happened on earth and that God has no part in science.

Some years ago, I watched on TV a man telling viewers that if a planet was the right distance from its sun, had water and the building blocks of life - amino acids, that life would appear there. I later realized that this could not be shown to be true by any scientist.

Nature is the most amazing miracle.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nature is the most amazing miracle.

Indeed. It is helpful to remember that God created nature, and uses it for almost everything in this world. Why wouldn't He?

 

[returnn23]

What the Catholic Church teaches about evolution is the opposite of what the Biology textbook tells students.

“We Are Not Some…Meaningless Product of Evolution,” New Pope Says | Evolution News

 

[The Barbarian]

What the Catholic Church teaches about evolution is the opposite of what the Biology textbook tells students.

“We Are Not Some…Meaningless Product of Evolution,” New Pope Says | Evolution News

I used to teach biology. And you seem to have no idea at all about what is taught in those classes. But perhaps you had a different textbook. I get to review them from time to time; which biology text says that we are the "meaningless product of evolution?" Title and publisher. Approximate date would help. What do you have?

 

[returnn23]

I did a little research and I think we can prove quite easily that mainstream evolution does not support the evidence of intelligent design in nature at all. Evolution is defined as a blind, undirected process built mainly on randomness. There is no plan or purpose for evolution -- this contradicts the claim that "everything is designed" and that there is design to be found in nature.

We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. Natural selection is totally blind to the future. “Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in Biology by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors 'little by little, generation after generation' merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)[/QUOTE]

 

[Halbhh]

What the Catholic Church teaches about evolution is the opposite of what the Biology textbook tells students.

“We Are Not Some…Meaningless Product of Evolution,” New Pope Says | Evolution News

What the pope is speaking against there is the coloring/spin some atheists put onto evolution that tries to paint evolution as not of God, but as only just meaningless chance and chemistry. If a person tried to say that when it rains that proves God doesn't exist, and it would be the same coloring/logic that some atheists use, see. That idea that evolution is just from meaningless chance and meaningless processes is the atheist concept, which the pope is refuting.

Because God exists and is the originator/creator of Nature itself, it follows that all that happens in Nature is His design/work/doing.

Because God created nature.

 

[returnn23]

I think your reply is too simplistic. Did you read what I posted above? Chance and chance alone is what students are told in Science class. Too many believe that literally nothing made them. That human beings are here as a result of chance. That is my point.

God created nature doesn't mean anything. Not when Biology textbooks remove God from the process.

 

[The Barbarian]

But perhaps you had a different textbook. I get to review them from time to time; which biology text says that we are the "meaningless product of evolution?

(no such examples found)

No surprise there.

I did a little research and I think we can prove quite easily that mainstream evolution does not support the evidence of intelligent design in nature at all.

Evolutionary theory does not, because science can't comment on the supernatural. It can't support it for the same reason it can't say that we are the "meaningless product of evolution." Evolution itself, is consistent with a Creator, of course. That's why the Vatican Theological Commission called it "virtually certain."

And you've confused evolution with God creating the world to do what He intended. There is no plan to the hydrologic cycle, either; it works by natural laws and is uncaring about us or anything else. "As far as science can show..." Are you beginning to figure this out?

Nature doesn't care about us. God does, however, and He built it to His purposes. You might as well complain that a life preserver doesn't care about you. You're missing the point. But your tacit admission that no biology textbook declares us to be "meaningless products of evolution" is sufficient.

We'll note that and go on.

BTW, ID, at least for those IDers who understand biology, is about a philosophical teleology, not about science as such. It's more like metascience. Denton, for example, describes an uncaring, mechanistic nature that has been front-loaded to do what the "designer" intended, without invoking the "designer's" intervention after that.

That doesn't seem consistent with Christian belief, but evolutionary theory is. In fact, Kevin Miller (Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991) is a devout Roman Catholic, who endorses the Vatican's take on evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Because God exists and is the originator/creator of Nature itself, it follows that all that happens in Nature is His design/work/doing.

Because God created nature.

Today's winner.

 

[returnn23]

The Biology textbook provides false and incomplete information. Only the Catholic Church shows that God works - infallibly - in His Creation.

From Communion and Stewardship, part 69:

"But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).'

 

[The Barbarian]

I think your reply is too simplistic. Did you read what I posted above? Chance and chance alone is what students are told in Science class.

No. If you learn anything at all from this, learn that biological evolution is not merely chance. Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. And that's what students are told. Darwin's points:

1. More are born than can live
2. Every organism is slightly different than its parents
3. Some of these differences may affect it's likelihood of surviving long enough to leave offspring.
4. The favorable ones tend to spread in the population and the harmful ones tend to be removed.
Over time, this accounts for the variety of life we see. Note that the race is not always to the swift; favorable mutations only tend to be increased, and unfavorable ones only tend to be removed. But the smart money is on the probabilities.

Randomness comes in the nature of climate and mutation. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. Together, they make a non-random process. Which is not to say that all evolution is non-random. Only changes that are open to selection are non-randomly distributed. You have about 100 mutations that neither of your parents had. And it's very unlikely that any of them will help or harm you in living long enough to reproduce. So they aren't selected for, and will be randomly passed on to the population. There is epistasis (interaction of fitness between genes) and changes in environment that might make one or more of them harmful or useful in the future. That's how it works.

I can only assume that God got it right.

edit: I think part of the confusion is conflating efficient causes with final causes. The hydrologic cycle has the efficient causes of gravity and heat. The final cause is to provide water for living things. Science can analyze the efficient causes, but cannot consider the final cause, which is God's will.