|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
How to Teach Science to the Pope - 8/22/2008 8:36:30 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1964
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26274906/
quote:
“The idea that the universe is worth studying just because it’s worth studying is a religious idea,” Consolmagno says. “If you think the universe is fundamentally good and that it’s an expression of a good God, then studying how the universe works is a way of becoming intimate with the Creator. It’s a kind of worship. And that’s been a big motivation for doing any kind of science.”
As a scientist who is also a Jesuit brother, Consolmagno suggests that science poses philosophical questions that in turn spark religious inquiries.
“A hundred years ago we didn’t understand the Big Bang,” he says. “Now that we have the understanding of a universe that is big and expanding and changing, we can ask philosophical questions we would not have known to ask, like ‘What does it mean to have multiverses?’ These are wonderful questions. Science isn’t going to answer them, but science, by telling us what is there, causes us to ask these questions. It makes us go back to the seven days of creation — which is poetry, beautiful poetry, with a lesson underneath it — and say, ‘Oh, the seventh day is God resting as a way of reminding us that God doesn’t do everything.’ God built this universe but gave you and me the freedom to make choices within the universe.”
Continued...
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How to Teach Science to the Pope - 8/22/2008 10:33:50 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
“A hundred years ago we didn’t understand the Big Bang,” he says. “Now that we have the understanding of a universe that is big and expanding and changing, we can ask philosophical questions we would not have known to ask, like ‘What does it mean to have multiverses?’ I think the good Father needs to brush up on all the major deficiencies of big bang theory before he tries to teach the Pope "science"!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How to Teach Science to the Pope - 8/23/2008 12:21:23 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
It makes us go back to the seven days of creation — which is poetry, beautiful poetry, with a lesson underneath it — and say,
It's funny how he feels he must interject this unsupported belief. No, Genesis is God telling His creation exactly how He created it. How else would we like Him to do that? It sounds to me as though science has taken precedent over God's Word in his life, and this happens entirely too often. Yes, science in beautiful, but let's not change Scripture to coincide with it. Scripture, as I have stated time after time, is Truth, and trumps all scientific interpretations! Christians will accept undoubtedly that Jesus gave life to a man who was DEAD (which is illogical, scientifically impossible, and completely preposterous), but they can't seem to grasp the concept that God created them as HE SAID HE DID in Genesis! They look at their observed interpretations, and those interpretations trump Scripture. Quite pathetic if you ask me. God is not the author of confusion. But, apparently God has confused mankind until around the 1800s when Evolution established it's stronghold. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How to Teach Science to the Pope - 8/23/2008 12:36:38 AM
|
|
|
Rasico
Posts: 28
Joined: 11/3/2005
Status: offline
|
I'm beginning to see what AiG is not considered a reputable source, that article was junk and it doesn't take a scientist to see that. First of all, the Big Bang itself is not repeatable certainly but from the theory we have predicted then observed several phenomena. Simply because we are not able to explain certain phenomena such as missing anti-matter or missing monopoles does not invalidate the theory. It simply means there is more work that needs to be done to revise the theory to account for this. That is after all what science is about.
No good scientists will tell you the Big Bang theory is perfect, it is just by far the most consistent with the current evidence and always being tested to improve it. For instance monopoles may not be created the way we think, or they may not be stable over a long period of time, etc. Honestly the Big Bang supports creationism in a number of ways, such as there is a beginning to time, from essentially nothing came existence.
"2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. " Genesis 1:2
Interesting, seems to imply that the earth was you know formless, indefinite. This might include magma although it indicates water which is also interesting. Science may verify this in the future.
Perhaps of course seven day creationism is literal in which case that's fine I can accept God did that. The evidence hardly supports that, and yes human reasoning is faulting and that includes interpretation of God's Word. As a scientists I'm curious as if that's what actually happened or not, certainly the naturalistic evidence points to the fact its not. I'm not opposed to a young eath, and it would make evangelism so much easier if it was young since evolutionary history would be simply tossed out the window at that point. However I won't deny the evidence in front of my eyes because of a possible interpretation or misinterpretation of God's word. We do have eyes and minds for a reason. The problem begins when people insist you have to view creation in one way or another, and this leads people away from Christ. The truth is we don't know and to insist to people that they must believe the earth is old or young or whatever is not helping us win followers to Christ. Insist on the word where it is clearly understood with no honest room for misinterpretation, such as Jesus is Lord. Leave the rest for people to wrestle with.
Interestingly enough somehow before the sun is created there is morning and evening. That seems to imply a very poetic nature to Genesis, but once again I'll let God tell me whether or not that's the case. Throw in relativity and what a day is to God vs. men and you can really throw a wrench in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How to Teach Science to the Pope - 8/23/2008 12:44:17 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1964
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
“A hundred years ago we didn’t understand the Big Bang,” he says. “Now that we have the understanding of a universe that is big and expanding and changing, we can ask philosophical questions we would not have known to ask, like ‘What does it mean to have multiverses?’ I think the good Father needs to brush up on all the major deficiencies of big bang theory before he tries to teach the Pope "science"!
Oh, I'm sure that given his background, he's quite familiar with the questions yet to be answered by the Big Bang Theory. I'm also fairly confident that he has a good balanced perspective of the relationship between those questions and the ones that have been answered by the BBT.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How to Teach Science to the Pope - 8/23/2008 9:39:37 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Oh, I'm sure that given his background, he's quite familiar with the questions yet to be answered by the Big Bang Theory. Well, if his knowledge of the literary genre of Genesis is no better than his understanding of BBT, I won't be holding my breath to find out.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How to Teach Science to the Pope - 8/23/2008 3:20:10 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
The truth is we don't know
Um, ya, you do! He told you in Genesis! As simple as that my friend. No need to make something more complicated than it is.
quote:
Throw in relativity and what a day is to God vs. men and you can really throw a wrench in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
When God commands us to "choose you this day whom ye will serve" He was not saying "choose you this billion years whom ye will serve." I think it is quite clear what God meant by "day." Why must we second guess God???
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
