Creationists are doing the Devil's Work

One of the peculiar things about America is the deep hostility of some conservatives to science. This hostility is an article of their "Christian" faith, a badge they wear to prove their ideological virility. To these dangerous extremists the world is divided into two camps: Christians who reject the concepts of natural selection and evolution, and the Devil and his servants who seek to explain natural phenomena with science.

Ranged against them is another curious group: the atheistic bigots. These are polemicists (I don't grace them with the description "thinkers") who make common cause with the simplistic analysis of the theocrats. It's Creationism or Atheism to them too. Each of these groups complements the other, demonstrating the implacable stupidity or the unfathomable evil of the other, depending on your perspective.

But this is not science. Science and religion have always co-existed. Back in classical times "natural philosophy" and science were the same thing. Still today, one of the leading opponents of Intelligent Design, Kenneth Miller - the lead witness for the plaintiff in Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School District - is a Catholic Scientist at the forefront of the campaign against this "Christian" hostility to science. Kenneth Miller makes the following point:

http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html

Of course Miller is having none of it.

Miller goes on:

But the interesting thing is how he identifies the Creationists as poor soldiers for Christ:

Creationists, in other words, do the Devil's work, as they lose souls for Christ through their ineptitude.

 

For now, I only have one comment to this (which is really just a plea to respect the profession of Kenneth Miller): Please do not call Kenneth Miller a "Catholic Scientist".

He is a Roman Catholic, which is capitalized as a derivation of a proper noun, and he is a scientist, which is a civil title and not capitalized. Hence, there may be Catholic scientists but there are no Catholic Scientists. Unless, of course, some obscure affiliation of the Roman Catholic Church appoints such a title to men of clergy but then I'm sure it is not something Kenneth Miller will associate with.

Other than that, you've provided a good issue for debate.

 

Maimonides argued that if science proved a point that did not contradict any fundamentals of faith, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.

Bible commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra (11th Century) wrote,

If there appears something in the Torah which contradicts reason…then here one should seek for the solution in a figurative interpretation…the narrative of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for instance, can only be understood in a figurative sense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Orthodox_scientists_respond_to_Darwin

"It is particularly meaningful that Modern Man is intellectually and culturally so vastly superior to his closest relative, the extinct Neanderthal Man, even though both species are very similar." He explains this through a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:27 — "And God created Man in His image

(Nathan Aviezer is an American-Israeli physicist who writes on creationism, evolution and cosmology from an Orthodox Jewish perspective. He is a Professor of Physics and former Chairman of the Physics Department of Bar-Ilan University)

 

People look upon creationism and evolution as mutually exclusive. I disagree.

There are a myriad of ways of looking at this if you believe science and also believe God created everything. One is to say that the account of Genesis is an allegory and not a true account or that the Bible is not the word of God. However, another way of looking it is from the book, "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald schroeder. In his book he takes the writings of ancient Jewish rabbis who translated Genesis from the original Hebrew and showed they came up with startling conclusions. They reasoned that the six days of creation was not a literal six days and that the earth was far older. They also came to the conclusion that mankind did not become "human" until God breathed life into Adam. In fact, there were other "humanoids" around at the time.

How these pre-modern science rabbis came up with such conclusions simply studying the Hebrew account of Genesis is a good read. In short, it all has to do with accurately translating the Hebrew text, which the KJV has difficulty with in this instance. Being a scientist/theologian, Schroeder came up with an interesting theory. He reasoned that during each day in the six days of creation in Genesis time halves. In other words, the first day was around 8 billion years, and day two was 4 billion years. and the third day was 2 billion years etc. Using this time line, the 6 days of creation fall into place in terms of the scientific calendar for such events as the Cambrian Explosion.

From my own perspective, theologians seem to have little respect for science and science has little respect for theology. As a result, you then wind up with theologians building the Creation Museum in Kentucky to debunk science and scientists such as Dawkins writing a subpar critique on religion writing books like "The God Delusion". In the end, both look foolish due to the fact that they are out of their area of expertise. However, at other times you come up with gems like Schroeder who has an expertise in both fields.

Of course, it was not long ago that a man by the name of Galileo was said to be a heretic because he challeneged the church's teaching that the universe revolved around the earth. Even though such Biblical translation is laughable now, at the time they did not think so. I view evolution in much the same light. For example, why did God speak to the "waters" to bring forth creatures on land? Why did God make man out of the "dust" of the earth? Why did he seem to use what was already created instead of just zapping them into existence?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...s/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_10121999_history_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/


He cites them in his book...
http://books.google.com/books?id=5R...ed=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pontifical&f=false



.

 

Simply.. the ancient Jewish sages decided that if the Torah contradicted reason, then we should interpret the Torah figuratively.

One of the briefest and simplest examples of that is to consider the story of Jonah.

 

I think the hardest distinction is to somehow draw the line between "natural" and "supernatural". If there be a God, then technically everything you see is a miracle. In fact, even if you don't believe in a God you must conceed as much.

From what I can gather, "natural" are things you think you understand and "supernatural" falls into the other catefory with the added belief that it can be explained if only given enough information and brain power.

 

Then natural and supernatural wouldn't be static concepts as scientists learn more.

Who rejects the discovery of viruses, bacteria, and germs in favor of "demons"?

 

For the sake of argument, lets say that there is a demonic realm that has some influence over "germs". What then?

 

I see no references to any such title in the links you provide (though I would not be surprised to find it).

Can you please quote a passage in Ken Miller's book where he cites "Catholic Scientists" (i.e., not scientists who are Catholic but "Catholic Scientists"). Also, does he seem to want to associate himself with people referring to themselves that way?

 

You mean mental illness or things that can't be seen through a microscope or grown in a Petri dish?

 

If your problem is with a capital "s" --that's silly.

The Vatican has a specific division--not "obscure" at all, and Ken Miller cites the work as legitimate, and therefore "associates" with it.

You're usually not so ridiculous as to argue such a small thing as a capital "s"--Does it annoy you THAT much that science and religion need not be at odds?

 

Then if you make such a claim you better provide evidence of it or be prepared to look ridiculous.

This is pretty much Kenneth Miller's point; creationists are shooting loose cannons except those that fire back at them.

 

No, my problem is an assignment of a title.

So the Roman Catholic Church does not assign any such a title, isn't that correct?

 

Whatever...I guess I gave you more credit than deserved.

 

Ok.

I think credit to the Roman Catholic Church is more important in this case. For the very reasons that make Kenneth R. Miller oppose creationist methods, it would be very unwise of the RCC to coin or even associate with such a concept as Catholic Science. So anyone who infers that the RCC uses a title such as "Catholic Scientist" is not giving much credit to papal politics.

 

--I think it was an innocuous typo of capitalization. Not some vast conspiracy to claim authority.

 

Good, then I plead to ignore my plea.

Now you're giving Heroclitus way more credit than is warranted.

 

Well, your problem is noted and irrelevant.

Perhaps you should go back and read the OP, where the all or nothing attitude of either or is just as bad for atheism as it is for Creationists. And then take a good hard look at your OPINION that the Catholic Church cannot have scientists, even though this is onr of the churches that overtly and openly accepts evolution, why, based on your totalitarian view of religion - everyone who is religious MUST reject science ...

And who care about the multiple religious posters, the growing body of harmonizing literature between science and religion, and the very prescence of scientists worksing for the Catholic Church??? Other than a need to feel haughty and superior, is there any reason you would reject these obvious facts?

So you don't like it that there are Catholic Scientists, your opinion is noted - but no one really wants to debate with someone who just keeps repeating his opinion in defiance of facts because he is to stubborn to face reality.

It seems Creationists and atheists have more than one thing in common.

 

My point here is what does it matter what we see in a petri dish? If there is another spiritual deminsion (which I think most scientist would agree there are other deminsions) that can tinker with the deminsion in which we live, then what does it matter if bacteria or human beings are being tinkered with?

 

Learn to control the demons and subsequently learn to control the various illnesses that are confronting mankind. Just that simple.

But the simplicity of it is the reason that scientists object to such practice, because it would put them out of work if everyone KNEW how to control those spirits (demons).

 

From the perspective on someone who has faith, it ain't about the power of demons, rather, its about the power of God. Why else do those of faith turn to God when illness falls upon them unless they feel he has power of such illness?

 

Causation of those things that can be seen in a microscope or grown in a petri dish.

 

Like meningitis, smallpox and polio or diphtheria? Just when do you think those diseases were "tinkered with"... and who did the tinkering?

 

Gee. I wonder what Einstein would have said about your comment above?

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

Albert Einstein"