BS: The End of Science in Texas...

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:48 AM

Just for the record, John, there is a lot more to the evolutionary theory discussion on the subject of inanimate to animate matter than "because it did".

The Blind Watchmaker is one excellent text that explores this area and examples that indicate the lieklihood of it occurring.

THat said, in all fairness, I think there IS a bias toward non-spiritual interpretations of existence itself by scientissts, just as there is a bias toward obeying CYrillic road signs in Russia -- it's a natural byproduct of the symbol system they are bred with.

There have been many threads here on the Cat about this dichotomy between pure materialism versus matter + spirit in various combinations.

One of the reasons the subject seems to be so thorny and hard to cut through might be that the material framework is the one area where solid agreements, as made manifest in experience, rule. Spiritual spheres of activity tend to be highly subjective, with wild variables among different groups' perceptions. Sure, there are commonalities, but they are difficult to frame and communicate compared to the solid certainty of "32 feet per second squared" and Boyle's law.

It is possible, someday, that the scientific method will be able to test and codify the boundary region between spirit and matter, but it is not going to be soon, because the momentum of material agreement is hard to steer in any new direction, like an aircraft carrier trying to make a turn at sea.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,Albert
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:53 AM

Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love? Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.
Albert Einstein
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:59 AM

Nice post, Amos.

and I would only add that...

"It is possible, someday, that the scientific method will be able to test and codify the boundary region between spirit and matter, but it is not going to be soon, because the momentum of material agreement is hard to steer in any new direction, like an aircraft carrier trying to make a turn at sea."

...is so because of the very presuppositional approach that I have already referred to as "science" above. Right now the juggernaut of academia has accepted that there is no "spirit" and they will do their darndest within their power to make sure that any new data cannot be interpreted in any manner that calls their presupposition into question.

We naively accept that there is a hard and fast line drawn between philosophy and science -- probably because we understand the nature of what science (scientific method) is supposed to "do", and we give "science" the benefit of the doubt that we would not if we were more aware of its philosophical underpinnings. There is not a hard and fast line drawn between philosophy and science -- the two are being used in this discussion.

...and you must feel so bad about coming in at number 101.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:01 AM

the above is supposed to read: "... as the two are being used in this discussion."

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:07 AM

No, but surprising though it may seem, it is actually being worked on. The work of Susan Blackmore on memes and consciousness is only one example. Some will probably think it demeaning even to think about the human spirit in this way, but EVERYTHING is fair game in science. In the end, the facts must speak for themselves.

Maybe, if you find too close an examination of love disturbing, you'll agree that an examination of hate might help us to control it.

Alice, much as I agree with what you say about belief, you can't use etymology to derive the meaning of a word. The concept of "science" has moved a long way since the word was coined. In fact, it is a meme that has evolved....

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:12 AM

I HATE memes. When I see 'em at a fair I run the other way. Especially when they do that stupid "walking-against-the-wind" or "trapped-in-a-box" thing. And isn't whiteface just a little, you know, racist?

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:18 AM

One questions you have to ask if you want schools to teach creationism is, WHICH creation story? The Judeo-Christian one is going to be some people's answer, but then you have an official state religion, which is, as far as I know, still unconstitutional.

Another question is, who would you get to teach it? You can't discriminate based on religious beliefs, so you could have an atheist teaching kids about God It could be a Pagan or Witch or Buddhist or... you get the picture. When you take religious teaching out of the hands of the religious organizations, I fear it might end up with a whole new spin based on the lack of belief of those who teach it.

My bottom line here is, if you can explain it to someone from the planet Ggryufis who understands English and has been briefed how not to get arrested or beat up. If you can show what evidence you have and explain your best theory based on that evidence, and it makes sense to the alien, you've got science.

I don't think this would work with any religious beliefs. Especially not if our alien explorer knows for a FACT that his own personal gods created the universe, and Earth happened because Hork (May His Name Be Praised) forgot to clean out his cosmic refrigerator a couple of Ggryufisian weeks ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Alice
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:21 AM

"Turtles all the way down" has not yet been mentioned in this thread,
but as I see it, belief is belief and science is science and maybe never
the twain shall meet, and that is OK. Hopefully, facts will inform
people's belief and belief systems will become less destructive (less violence,
less repression, less terrorism).

After finishing a lecture on the orbits of galaxies and planets, a scientist was
challenged by a lady in the audience who affirmed that the earth is a flat plate
on the back of a giant turtle. "What is the turtle standing on?" he asked.
"Very clever young man, but it is turtles all the way down." This story has been
quoted in different ways, sometimes using the Indian idea of the earth on a
tiger on an elephant on turtles, and even used by Stephen Hawking in his book
A Brief History of Time.

People who have faith in a belief will believe it in spite of anything science says
about that belief. I am fascinated with the way people believe what they believe.

In relating the turtle story to intelligent design, the "turtle question" is, "where did
the designer come from? Who designed the designer, or is it designers all the way down?"

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:28 AM

okay Alice, what turtle does a guy who says, "One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round." believe in?

He thinks he believes in science, but science, as you say, wouldn't make a claim to a "truth" that it did not have evidence for. No turtles there.

So, again, what turtles go all the way down for this...

"One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round."

...guy?

Never the twain shall meet?

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:31 AM

Jeri,

I don't personally want either creation or religion taught in public schools. All I personally ask for is that science teachers not take it upon themselves to answer that they have, in fact, unlocked the secrets of the universe and have found no god.

...not even in Ggryufis.

(I was in Ggryufis one night. They serve a Mningly that is simply to die for!)

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Alice
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:31 AM

"what turtle does a guy.."

Your question isn't clear, John. What are you trying to ask?

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Alice
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:33 AM

I don't think any good science teacher would tell students there is no God.
A good science teacher tells students that science is not faith and faith is not science.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:34 AM

ALice:

One answer, of course, is that we are all Designers, suffering our way through various grades of a self-generated Design School...but the "must have a prior Cause" argument is really irrelevant if you are talking about an entity (or many entities) who are not contained by spacetime in their basic nature. The unidirectional character of time in a matter-and-space continuum (as we know them so far) is not inherently necessary for other dimensions or kinds of existence. This is a hard idea to swallow, to a mind deeply trained in ordinary space-time logic. But I think it proves out in experience, if not in Science. :>)

ALl of which just speaks to what I said earlier about the problems of approaching questions of thought and spirit using scientific method.
Memetics not withstanding. The question that gets left unanswered is who does the memetic engineering, and what happens when the boundary between signal and understanding is crossed -- a qualitative gap rather than a merely quantitative one.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:36 AM

I don't know what gravity is in its entirety but I suspect that its force is spread through out 11 dimensions thereby making it less powerful than the electrodynamic and strong and weak nuclear forces that are evidenced in our familiar 4 dimensions and includes a anti gravitational component related to what we currently call dark energy and dark matter.

I suspect that gravity may even be able to leak from one brane in a multi universe system into another.



At least the evangelical explaination of gravity has more certainty and elegant simplicity: 'Gravity is whatever God wants it to be'

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:38 AM

"Your question isn't clear, John. What are you trying to ask?"

I'm beating a dead horse. Comments keeps being made that creationist inhabit the "faith" domain. And I'm trying to point out to you that that guy who said...

"One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round."

...thinks he is on the side of "science". But clearly, since he is making an assertion that he cannot know by way of science, he is a man of faith. And so I'm asking you who claim that "never the twain shall meet", what is his faith in? What turtle does he think goes all the way down?

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:44 AM

The buddist creation story of one water lily of existence/consciousness closing only to have another opening elsewhere in time has a multiverse quality to it.

The biblical version of creation seems to have been grossly cropped and poorly translated.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Alice
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:47 AM

The way I see it, when people construct a human idea of a creator, whether it is a designer manipulating the planets or some other human idea,
then the creator is some thing or some one who is a human concept.
If one sees it as beyond a human definition, then we have the Taoist saying,
Those who know do not say, those who say do not know. Or to put it another way, God or Creator is beyond the scope of human idea
or language, so to speak about it is mere babbling about what humans cannot define in words. Whether one describes a creator as designer
manipulating the universe or something else, that is a human concept, not something so vastly beyond human idea that the Taoists realize
once one becomes aware, they stop trying to define it.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:52 AM

"The biblical version of creation seems to have been grossly cropped and poorly translated."

Hmmm. I'm not sure how one would arrive at that conclusion. Cropped of what?

As I said earlier, the one thing I find compelling about the Biblical creation story is that it lacks any of that telling-of-a-strange-tale -- any of the how-the-bear-lost-its-tale stuff that would smack of mythology.

Instead, the Bible account is pretty matter-of-fact. It lacks thunder and lightning as show, just as it lacks slight-of-hand. It doesn't really even claim to be exhaustive -- merely narrative -- "this happened, and then that happened". Again, it lacks a storytelling flare that would, if present, to my mind, make it more Uncle Remus, and less God-the-Father.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:54 AM

"tail", not "tale"

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:54 AM

Perhaps there is a substantive difference between extrapolating based on past trends and probabilities, and asserting based on faith.

The imaginary guy you posit, John, is not speaking for science, but to forward a belief he has. The creation of life in a laboratory would prove that it could be done but it doesn't prove anything about what is "all the way down". He is trying to inject a buried premise (in your imaginary assertion) in his argument, but it does not stand up to analysis.

It's reasonable, based on accelerating developments since the 1950's, that the transition from non-life to primitive life will be made to happen in a lab at some point. That's just an extrapolation of trends. The meaning thereof will be an entriely different question. And even that event will be light years short of self-aware life capable of intentionalilty.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Alice
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:55 AM

I think it is definitely telling of a strange tale mythology.... perfect garden, special fruit, talking snake... what more could you ask for in a myth?
And, by the way, not the only version of that myth in the middle east.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:58 AM

"imaginary guy"

read up-page, Amos. I'm not imagining.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:07 PM

This Google Search will give you fascinating information about the 3.0 pi controversy.
I have to say that most of the time, I use 3.0 for pi in estimating the circumference of a circle. Does this make me a horrible fundamentalist - or could it be I'm just a lazy mathematician?

As for the controversy about how the earth was created, I have one question: Who really cares?
I would venture to say that most high schould students think that creationism and evolution are exactly the same: boring. And I'll betcha they think their parents are pretty silly for arguing about it, since the really important things in life are music and the opposite sex.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:12 PM

John Hardly quotes Shakey

"One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round."

...thinks he is on the side of "science".

I agree. Shakey seems to be one of those who "believes in science" and as such needs to think it through a little more. That is not a scientific statement.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:28 PM

SOrry, John. My goof. But what I said of your 'imaginary" guy is perfectly applicable to Monsieur Shakey, methinks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:45 PM

The person who (hypothetically, I assume) says "one day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round" appears to me to be a believer in a subset of atheism. Atheism, of course, is just as much dogma as creationism. The absolute belief that there is no such thing as god/God is as unprovable as the absolute belief that god/God created the universe {through whatever process your particular religion prefers}. To say that one cannot prove by empirical evidence that there is a god/God doesn't mean that this lack of proof proves there isn't a god/God. Likewise, saying that one doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian creation stories (as I recall, there are three in the Bible) doesn't preclude a belief that, for example, at some time or another, someone or something gave the cosmos a little nudge and then went off to enjoy a beer-equivalent.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:59 PM

Ho hum.
I have my beliefs, to Hell with yours.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 03:58 PM

there's a beer equivalent?

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 04:16 PM

Yes, but Budweiser is a false god.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 04:32 PM

and god might be a lady as indeed might allah, and you know what rubbish ladies speak from time to time!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Shakey
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 05:20 PM

Allow me to quote myself, poor form I know, but everyone else has

One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round

Amos has dealt with the probibility of it happening, I would just point out the word more; I didn't say the world would turn on it's head now did i. All in all I still find it a reasonable statement.

As for people above talking about proof for creationism, where is it? You have a book, written by men a long time ago, one of many books, just what makes this one special. John Hardly, if you had been born in India you would probably be a Hindu, in Pakistan - a muslim. Face facts you are a christian by accident of birth.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:17 PM

Creationists -

What is the one hypothetical piece of evidence that would make you disavow your belief in the biblical creation story as fact?

If you can't state one, you have just proven the difference between creationism and science, because anyone doing science could list you a dozen or more hypothetical observations that would cause them to abandon (or seriously revise) any given theory.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:26 PM

John, thanks for the clarification, and I agree. Making predictions about what will likely happen in the future is a matter of belief.

I find it amazing how people will twist things others have said so they can engage in the old, familiar argument they'd rather be having. I thought it was meant to be the old 'creationism versus science' thing again, but I was wrong. It will still probably go that way. (That's a belief, but I'll be able to prove I was right after it happens.)

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:41 PM

"Creationists -

What is the one hypothetical piece of evidence that would make you disavow your belief in the biblical creation story as fact?

If you can't state one, you have just proven the difference between creationism and science, because anyone doing science could list you a dozen or more hypothetical observations that would cause them to abandon (or seriously revise) any given theory."

You might be surprised to know that I know many creationists who would agree entirely with your premise.

In fact, I was just streaming an interesting theology program that was chiding the fallacy rampant in what he called "evangelicalism" to willingly accept the notion that there was no fact that they could run up against that would change their belief in God. It was his contention that faith can not be absent reason. He further said that there were any number of facts that, if he became convinced of their truth, would utterly and completely change his beliefs. I agreed.

Oh, and my birth wasn't an accident. That was my younger brother. My folks intended to stop at me. I try to remind my brother whenever I can.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:48 PM

QUOTE
"Some people think that science is about knowing but they are wrong. Science is about not knowing. Knowing, we leave to religion."
UNQUOTE

Science is about asking the right questions.

Once the right questions have been asked, then we have a chance to find acceptable answers.

Religion already has the right answers, no matter what the questions are.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 08:25 PM

Ah, yes, but then there is the spiritual search. It primarily involves questions...and the seeking of answers...and further questions... The questions never end.

It's a lifelong process, just as scientific inquiry is. It relies upon continuing observation, reason, and analysis. It does not rely upon doctrine. It may consult any number of existing doctrines (as does science) as aids in determining pursuing this or that line of inquiry, but it is not bound BY them or limited TO them.

I'm not sure any of that has much to do with Texas lawmakers. I think their main business, whether or not they believe in evolution or creationism, is the laying down of doctrine. ;-)

"Listen up! Yew shall do it the way we says to, or yew shall face the danged consequences...in court."

By the way, what if someone's idea OF creationism were that it involved (and presently involves) the very processes we call "evolution"? Seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me. Why must the two be mutually incompatible? ;-) The assumption that they are is highly questionable...to an inquiring mind...but not to one that already thinks it knows. A mind that already thinks it knows is like a solid rock. You can bounce any number of things off it, but they WILL not penetrate.

This controversy, if it is one, is going on between 2 diametrically opposed sets of such minds, in my opinion. I'd hate to be the ping pong ball forced to bounce between them.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Fergie
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:02 PM

Little Hawk, the natural world and the supernatural world are mutually exclusive. Science deals with the natural world. Religion deals with the supernatural.

When we deal with the supernatural world, observation, reason and analysis are ineffectual and inappropriate tools for they cannot penetrate through the wall or make sense of the metaphysical world of mythology, doctrine or belief in a god figure.

Likewise when we deal with the natural world, theology, prayer and sacrifice are ineffectual and inappropriate tools for they cannot provide useful insights into the physical world.

Scientists have, after many centuries of struggle, designed a methodology and some very powerful tools that has lead them to understand and discover new and verifible knowledge about the natural physical world.

Theologians, priests and metaphysicians have after many millenia of struggle, failed to design any methodology or tool that can lead them to new understanding or knowledge of the supernatural and metaphysical world.

In Ireland the introduction of the science of electricity has banished forever, the once powerful and strongly held superstitious belief in the mythology of the fairies.

Will some unforseen scientific advance be responsible for the end of the mythology of the god in the sky, or can the priests and theologians discover some methodology or tool that can give some insight or deeper understanding into the metaphysical world?

I know where I'd put my money

Fergus

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:09 PM

Nice post John hardly...respect. Sounds a lot like this guy:

"Truth Cannot Contradict Truth
Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)

WITH GREAT PLEASURE I address cordial greeting to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life.

1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.

He asked those whom he called the Church's "senatus scientificus" to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, No. 1, Oct. 28, 1986; L'Osservatore Romano, Eng. ed., Nov. 24, 1986, p. 22).

2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance. During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.

For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 1/81993 3/8, pp. 764-772; address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993, announcing the document on the The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 1/81994 3/8, pp. 232-243).

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely "Evangelium Vitae."

It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude. To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4). Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God.

I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you."

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:59 PM

Good Brother John, Maker of Lovely Pottery,
I read a lot of what you write, and wish that I could match your depth and clarity of thinking. But at times I still feel that you're conditioned by your beliefs to miss some very obvious things. I know that you are way beyond the Creation Museum and 6000 year old earth nonsense. But, if I remember right, you've defended the "factual" basis of Genesis by refering to the order of the creation, as I've heard numerous people do over the years.
Day is when the sun is "up". Night is when the moon is "up". Genesis states that the sun and moon weren't created until the fourth day. So far as I can see, Genesis reflects (1) the assertion by several authors of their faith in God as the creator, and (2) the fact that they were men of their time, totally ignorant of the literal history of the creative process.
Oh, by the way, Little Hawk: I hope you don't think "By the way, what if someone's idea OF creationism were that it involved (and presently involves) the very processes we call "evolution"? " Is an original thought. A whole lot of people have held that idea, for a long time, from C.S.Lewis to various high school science teachers I know (who don't preach religion in science class).
                               Dean

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 12:47 AM

Of course it's not an original thought, Frogprince. ;-) And that gives me great comfort. Indeed, any number of flexible thinkers have had that thought. It comes naturally to an imaginative mind, wouldn't you say?

Fergie, I do not for a moment buy your analogy that "the natural world and the supernatural world are mutually exclusive".

It depends on what you think is supernatural. And that varies wildly from one person to another. My opinion is...NOTHING is supernatural. It can't be. If it was, it wouldn't exist. But...there are many things that people may interpret as being supernatural, simply because they have no idea of how to explain them. That means they don't understand them yet, that's all.

I am not defending the Christian religion. I am saying that this particular debate always gets dumbed down to a pointless fight between 2 sets of straw men that 2 sets of pigheaded people set up to throws stones at because they have no respect for one another and no inclination to look beyond their knee-jerk assumptions about life. They are both armoured by their arrogance and their certainty that they are right, dead right, and the other is wrong, dead wrong. They take joy in knowing that. They resemble each other so closely in their attitude that they could be twins.

I am not in sympathy with either one of those camps. I'm not defending traditional religion. I'm not defending materialistic reductionism...a younger tradition, and an equally vain one. I find them both totally inadequate to deal with reality.

There is nothing supernatural. There can't be. There is much, however, that we have yet to explain. That doesn't mean we will not someday find the correct explanation...and when we do, science will support it.

And then, I suppose you will too. ;-) Won't you? It will have become part of the acceptable orthodoxy. It will no longer be a heresy that simply cannot be tolerated in the company of one's rational peers.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:00 AM

I dunno, Dean. I'm not sure I'd try to defend a literal reading of Genesis 1.

I guess that what I'd say is that there are things about the order of creation as spelled out there that I find interesting -- not the least of which you've touched on -- that if there is any literal meaning to be taken from the order of things, that God created light before he created the sun (and stars), it sure would be interesting to know what that light was supposed to have been. It sure seems all the heck out of order -- especially if one needs a few million years between the days.

But I have to say that, though I don't tend to believe in a literal six day creation, I wouldn't be surprised if some day I find out that it was so -- and how it occurred.

My sense of logic is not at all comforted by giving a creator millions of years to accomplish the universe. On the one hand, it may have taken that long -- but on the other hand, I don't find creation/the universe any more possible a task just because more time is allowed. Improbable is improbable. Time doesn't help. Ask me to build a computer from scratch (no manuals, no materials) and I couldn't do it. Give me a million years and I still couldn't do it. Time wouldn't help.

If the universe occurred over eons of time because it occurred over eons of time, then fine. But the notion that the time made it more possible is of little logical comfort -- for cration or for evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:02 AM

creation, not cration.

cration is the verb form of what happens when a meteor hits the earth. I causes a crater. Cration.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:03 AM

"It" causes a crater, not "I causes a crater". I have never caused a crater. That I know of.

Typo-fest over. Maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Jeri
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:23 AM

Here's a Youtubosity with Chris Smither's 'Origin of Species'. I got the song on a label sampler when I bought another from them, and I LOVED it.

John, don't you mean 'crateration'. 'Cration' is the primary element that makes up 'ticky tacky' which is what little boxes are mostly made of.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: artbrooks
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:27 AM

Don't sell yourself short, John.

Somebody said "man created god/God" or something like that. OK, logically speaking, if man created god/God, and god/God created the meteor, and the meteor created the crater, than man created the crater. It therefore logically follows that you could have caused the crater.

Of course, logic and mythology/theology often have little to do with each other.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:57 AM

I'm not sure that a six-day creation is any more difficult to comprehend than an all-of-a-sudden Big Bang ...

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: Celtaddict
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:58 AM

I am delighted to find people here talking about deep and meaningful matters without resorting to name-calling and invective!
My father's (he was a rocket scientist and a church leader) rather more concise version of part of what John Hardly, Little Hawk, the Pope, and some others have said:

"The wonder of creation could be a God that could set up a system of natural law in which all of these miraculous events can occur naturally."

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 11:09 AM

Thanks for the Chris Smither tip, Jeri.

I love Chris Smither's music. There are artists whose work I enjoy. There are artists I am amused by. And there are artists that I admire so much that I own everything they've ever recorded.

With Chris Smither it's different for me. I go through long stretches when he's all I put on the player. He's got what we used to call "soul". And he's got a singular way with a song. He can move me from laughter to tears more often and more profoundly than anyone I can think of.

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: frogprince
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 03:16 PM

Well, it's a scientific fact that anyone who like Chris Smithers that well can't be all bad...: )

Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas...
From: heric
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 03:51 PM

"When we deal with the supernatural world, observation, reason and analysis are ineffectual and inappropriate tools for they cannot penetrate through the wall or make sense of the metaphysical world of mythology, doctrine or belief in a god figure. . . . Theologians, priests and metaphysicians have after many millenia of struggle, failed to design any methodology or tool that can lead them to new understanding or knowledge of the supernatural and metaphysical world."

Take this a step further if you will, and consider whether your thoughts / consciousness is part of the natural or supernatural world. (Natural, right?) Even with the most modern tools showing increased levels of electrochemical activity in certain regions of the brain associated with different matters such as emotions, the truth, as I see it, is that there has been no zero nada scientific progress in explaining the "mind" and its essence. The physics of electrochemistry doesn't do it. So the best case scenario for your position is that the scientists and the theologians, priest and metaphysicians are on an equal footing. Tie score.

"Mind is like no other property of physical systems. It is not just that we don't know the mechanisms that give rise to it. We have difficulty seeing how any mechanism can give rise to it." – Eric Harth, Ph.D., Syracuse University (1986). (Apparently he is now looking at quantum theory without any progress.)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319393.700-quantum-states-of-mind-most-biologists-believe-the-answerto-what-make-us-consciuos-lies-buried-in-brain-cells-and-their-chemistryjohn-mccrone-talks-to-the-mavericks-who-prefer-to-look-for-clues-in-quantumphysics-.html