What else do you want to discuss about it?
Everything! I've been getting buried in cut and paste nonsense about 'Flood Geology' for the last 2 weeks, and the ONLY reason to engage in that weirdness would be if there was a theological concern. There's not. There's no reason to posit any of this, the embattled lone geologist who can only get his paper published in a country where they can't read the language...the cօռspιʀαcιҽs of hundreds of thousands of scientists...it's all needless!
And, this leads directly and obviously to the issue: There's no reason to oppose anything about modern Earth science. None of it. There's no reason to build a edifice in opposition to it...and edifice that, since it is opposition to the people actually doing the work of investigation, will always be just an amateurish attempt to 'sound scientific'.
It's contrary to the mission of the faith, which is to save souls by converting them to the one true faith. Augustine knew that pseudo-science turned people away - it still does. It's time to ask 'What are we doing here? Are we interested in converting people, or not? If we are, we need to stop tilting at windmills.'
I would agree with you on on side and disagree on the other. I've never been very interested in protestant musings at pseudo-science. By the same token, I don't believe in evolution. I look at those who have developed the theories that modern science is built upon, and you can see pseudo-science and subjectivity throughout their efforts. That is not their right and they must be held accountable for the gaping holes in their arguments. Darwin was not a scientist. He was more of a bad pseudo-scientist with bad hypotheses, which were not supported with actual evidence. Evolutionists always hold up "micro-evolution" as evidence of "macro-evolution". The problem with that is that one does not lead logically into the other. Of course the gene pool of a group of people will change over time. That does not mean that new species will emerge from those groups, carrying a different number of chromosomes, and being reproductively viable only within this new group. There is no evidence of it. It is pure speculation. And the one does not lead logically to the other. What there is evidence for is that when offspring arise carrying a different number of chromosomes or vastly different manifestations of the genes which they carry, that those offspring are almost always incapable of reproducing. So to sign on to this hypothesis, based on the evidence presented to us in biology text books, of which I
am familiar, which has been demonstrably shown to be highly suspect, would take a leap of faith which I am uncomfortable with. Especially given the character and lack of True Faith of the researchers. That does not mean that I want to go on vacation to protestant creationland with my family this summer. But I am equally turned off by the bad hypothesis of darwinian evolution.
With regards to heliocentricity, I am definitely going to purchase The Principal and watch it. I watched an hour 44 minute talk that the filmakers gave, which posits that the mathematical calculations line up just as well for geocentricity as they do for heliocentricity. Heliocentricity is not
proved by the physics; it is
chosen. Why? Because the scientific community finds the idea of geocentricity "unacceptible" and because scientists "want to be modest". These are real quotations. Not very scientific reasoning. These are arbitrary metaphysical choices, not based on science at best. At worst, they are not arbitrary choices, but are rather chosen specifically because they do not line up with theories which would implicate the necessary placement of the Earth at the center of the universe by Someone. Any evidence pointing to the geocentric model is systematically thrown out in order to line up with their arbitrary metaphysical choice of heliocentricity. Example - the red shift of light from
all other galaxies, which implies that all other galaxies are moving away from us. Another example is the throwing out of data showing neutrinos to travel faster than the speed of light without an increase in mass.
The work that these men have done is certainly scientific and backed by as much math and data as is that of Einstein. In fact, all of these theories are taken into account and analyzed, before these physicists posit their own, equally viable model of the universe.
I agree with you that untrained individuals, such as myself, should not take it upon themselves to go off trying to explain science based on their own metaphysical beliefs. However, scientists also have no place answering metaphysical questions. The Church answers these questions. It is the Church's place to answer these questions. And when trained scientists do endeavor to explain the universe, they should subordinate their metaphysical choices to the teachings of the Magisterium. Seeing as the math and the science will readily accept either choice, it is incuмbent upon mankind to chose the answers already given to us by God. Just as the square root of 4 is either 2 or -2, but we know in the real world that -2 doesn't exist, and that we have to choose 2, we also know that the Bible was inspired by God, and that we should not set out to disprove or discredit it.
Topic: Biblical Commission Of 1909 (Read 12601 times)