Pope: "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve"

But that’s why I have been saying all along that the problem is the assumptions being foisted off as fact in so-called science. World view (including the attendant presuppositions) is everything.

Chip,

You have to realize that much of this is about scientific dogmatism. There is an elitist belief amongst many scientist that science is a supreme methodology. That between the three disciplines (Science, Religion and Philosophy), that science holds a type of greater stature. And since it is easy to show what appear to be “facts” to a general population, that somehow this validates this position. There is also this belief that science is constantly progressing to a level that may at one point bring absolute perfection and knowledge of all things. We know from a theological standpoint that this is not true. Man is not moving close to Truth, but further away. And if that is the case, basically our presuppositions, than we must realize that man may be progressing towards more advanced technologies, but the Truth is more elusive today than it was in the past.

Mark, I’m assuming that if Adam was like the rest of us, his waistline probably expanded more or less as he got older. Does this mean we could extrapolate that he began as one cell and has been “expanding” ever since?

Obviously there is a difference between the expansion of a human being and the expansion of the universe. But the obvious point is that the current expansion tells us nothing about the origins of the universe, which is what the Pope is referring to. God could have (and I believe did) create a universe with appearance of age that has been expanding ever since.

Greg,

I agree. Cosmologist like to use simple examples to explain the concept models. So with that said, here is one.

Lets say you have a room, and inside that room is a machine that has a ball and it has been bouncing that ball at a constant rate of dropping it once every 5 seconds. Now lets say that in that room on the floor is a dent in the floor where the ball has been hitting. And it can be measured that every time the ball is dropped in increases the depth of this dent by 1 micron. Now we look around the room and we see no one in the room and no appearance of anyone outside of the room. We also stand there for 5 days and measure not only the timing of the drop, but also the increasing of the depth of the dent. At the end of the 5 days we conclude that 1) the machine dropping the ball has dropped the ball every 5 seconds with no measurable change in timing, 2) the dent in the floor has always increased by 1 micron with no measurable change in the rate. Based on these two conclusions, we begin to measure the total depth of the dent and using the rate of change and the timing of the drop, conclude that this machine has been dropping the ball for 1 year. We then stand up and are proud that based on our detailed scientific measurements, our sound mathematics and we even have our colleague with us confirm that everything is correct. At that instant, a door opens up and an old man walks in and walks up to the machine and changes something on the machine, we then notice that the ball drops a lot slower. We are surprised by this old man, because we did not include this in our calculations. We walk up to this old man and we ask him what he is doing, and he says that he is maintaining the machine. We then proceed to show him our calculations and he laughs for a moment. We stand back and ask him why he is laughing and he says, “Two weeks ago, I was just in this room and decided the machine was running way too fast, so I slowed the machine down from bouncing the ball once every 0.5 seconds to 5 seconds.”

You could even say that, the number that they measured were still fairly good for what they we using it for. As long as the old man did not enter into the room and reveal himself, they were okay. It is even accurate to say that some elements of their measurements were still good, regardless of what the old man stated. For example, they could double confirm, by examining the ball, that they were correct in the number of times the ball hit the floor, because despite the change in speed, the number of times the ball hit, would still be accurate. They could even set some other guesses about the room, using their measurements and it would most likely confirm their measurements. All of this doesn’t mean that they are absolutely right, only from their perspective and with their knowledge and understanding they appear to be right to themselves.

Why is this similar? Because, 1) we have a Creator who has done things with his creation that cannot be observed or ascertained by us, solely by our own view, 2) we have a closed system, but only know with some level of certainty what we can observe, 3) despite the need to have a model of uniformitarianism, that is more a model for us than for science. Science doesn’t demand it. 4)our models are based on a closed system, but in reality, we know we do not live in an absolutely closed system. We have a God who not only lives outside of this system, but reaches into this closed system and interacts with it. 5) our best measurements are mere guesses at the complete picture.

and it is clear to me this is pointless because most of you accept an irrational premise.

Why do I say that? If you say the universe has apparent age, then you can’t trust anything you see out in the universe. Nothing about it tells you age, distance, etc… As a result, there is no way to determine that the universe is expanding! Yet you all accept that measurement for some weird reason. If the universe has apparent age, then there is no science of astronomy. That is a fact.

Have a great day gentlemen.

spent 6 threads talking about how a rational God led to science, then you all throw it all away…

Mark,

Sadly you are the only one throwing away anything. You are bent on throwing away everything God has provided. You have an owner’s manual to guide you through the use and understanding of your environment, but you refuse to accept anything the engineer behind the system has to say. If you cannot work out for yourself what He says only He can do, you reject His direction altogether in favor of your own finite hypothesis.

I don’t think you’re being fair to Mark. Mark, to me at least, seems intent on digging into the glory of God as declared by the heavens. That the data he (and others) uncover is not always easy to harmonize with the Scriptures is not his fault.

EDIT: I also think it is unwise to adopt the approach that since the data uncovered seems inconsistent with our understanding of Genesis, that data MUST be wrong and discarded.

Perhaps this brief article may be helpful in this discussion: https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/probability/31-…

Or this one: https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/

It appears other PhD scientists may have a different view than Mark…

And this one: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/has-cosmic-inflation-b…

I would be interested to know how Mark or anyone else who shares his view on astronomy reconciles the big bang with the fact that Genesis 1 teaches the earth was created before the stars and that all stars were created on Day 4 of creation. Even if one accepts the “day-age” theory of Genesis 1, that doesn’t seem to account for the order of creation in that text.

[DavidO]

I don’t think you’re being fair to Mark. Mark, to me at least, seems intent on digging into the glory of God as declared by the heavens. That the data he (and others) uncover is not always easy to harmonize with the Scriptures is not his fault.

I do think Chip is being fair to Mark. Had Mark actually attempted to harmonize something, then perhaps Chip would have been unfair. Where did Mark try to harmonize anything? Perhaps I missed it in one of his many posts on this subject spanning many different threads, in which case I apologize. But from what I recall, all he has tried to do is “teach” us all the while contradicting himself in the process (as in he actually does believe in a young earth… or not).

I used to agree with Hugh Ross on an old earth. I don’t any longer because of what I now see is the testimony of Scripture. Say what you will about Ross, but at least he is trying to be consistent.

[DavidO]

EDIT: I also think it is unwise to adopt the approach that since the data uncovered seems inconsistent with our understanding of Genesis, that data MUST be wrong and discarded.

No one is discarding data or raw facts. People are discarding conclusions based on those facts and some assumptions. You may think the assumptions are valid and that the data must lead to those conclusions (evidently Mark does), but we don’t. Raw facts, sensory data, do not interpret themselves.

I remember at my previous job in R&D for a healthcare company we had to write root cause analysis reports for errors found in a peritoneal dialysis machine. One software engineer said “we ought to have a section with just raw facts”. Another coworker and I strongly disagreed. Why? We both realized that “raw facts” would be virtually meaningless and would only make the report more convoluted. Instead we opted for a fact finding section where we narrated what we did and what we found so that the narrative gave the raw facts some context (and hence meaning). We explained how we ruled out different ideas and how we arrived at our conclusions. That narrative gave the reader a glimpse into our assumptions, because everyone has assumptions when dealing with any subject.

[Mark_Smith]

and it is clear to me this is pointless because most of you accept an irrational premise.

Why do I say that? If you say the universe has apparent age, then you can’t trust anything you see out in the universe. Nothing about it tells you age, distance, etc… As a result, there is no way to determine that the universe is expanding! Yet you all accept that measurement for some weird reason. If the universe has apparent age, then there is no science of astronomy. That is a fact.

Have a great day gentlemen.

Mark, I would agree. I see nothing in science as fact. As a scientist, I see science as a set of models that are ever changing. They are explanations of what we see and observe, which by the way is very little in the big scheme of things. Science has never once been in some steady state, it is constantly changing at a rapid pace. As a scientist I feel no overwhelming need to reconcile the two differences. I see the Bible as FACT. I see science as an ever changing set of models that have a limited perspective, limited capacity and without any type of explanation for a God who has miraculously interplayed with His creation. If you are a scientist, you should know that we work with many calculations and models that we know with 100% certainty are incomplete or incorrect, but they are good enough for what we are doing.

[DavidO]

I don’t think you’re being fair to Mark. Mark, to me at least, seems intent on digging into the glory of God as declared by the heavens. That the data he (and others) uncover is not always easy to harmonize with the Scriptures is not his fault.

EDIT: I also think it is unwise to adopt the approach that since the data uncovered seems inconsistent with our understanding of Genesis, that data MUST be wrong and discarded.

DavidO, please explain to me (based on your EDIT portion of your comment), how you would explain the resurrection? Scientific data has a greater degree of accuracy on this statement than in the study of our origins. Scientific facts show that individuals who have been dead, have never once resuscitated themselves on their own. Yet despite the irrefutable scientific evidence (that all people would agree), the Bible is inconsistent with this scientific fact. Should this scientific data be considered right and should we discard this “fairy tale” of a story of a resurrection? Following your reasoning, we must somehow be able to resolve these two facts. Especially given how smart science is at this point in time, we must be compelled to throw out this Bible story. Maybe we can even argue that Paul never really was talking about an actual resurrection, but maybe it was just a rumor that was floating around in the Middle East, and Paul was just articulating a rumor that was well known to his audience.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t be willing to throw out science and believe in a resurrection, but then cling to weak scientific models and throw out the Creation.

In fact, I would argue that every single element of our faith requires to believe in something that doesn’t agree with science. And that at the end of the day origins is the most minor of all irreconcilable issues in Scripture, yet it becomes a major challenge for peoples faith.

I was recently reading from a secular astronomy book, written for the popular level, and throughout the book they poke fun at some of the theories that were strongly held, which have now been abandoned, and even laughed at in hindsight. Among these:

1) The sun was inhabited by aliens.

2) Mars was inhabited because it was thought to be covered by intelligently designed canals to move water around the planet. Astronomers honestly thought they saw these canals via their telescopes, and so they had to exist…it was observable…except better images later showed there were no canals. But this view was widely held through the late 19th century.

3) The earth is surrounded by a fiery inferno, and we are protected by a black screen, but it has some holes in it that allow points of light (stars) to shine through.

4) The rings around Saturn were a solid disk. This was an improvement over Galileo’s theory that there were two orbs attached to the sides of Saturn like jug handles.

DavidO, please explain to me (based on your EDIT portion of your comment), how you would explain the resurrection? Scientific data has a greater degree of accuracy on this statement than in the study of our origins. Scientific facts show that individuals who have been dead, have never once resuscitated themselves on their own.

You mean an explanation other than, “then God did a miracle?”

In seriousness, this is apples to oranges. Science does not have access to the body of Jesus. It does have access to the very bodies produced in creation.