Shadow,
I fairly much agree with what you say about the usefulness of forensic science. But you highlight the problem. ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ is the standard for criminal trials. Whereas operational science using repeatable experimentation is capable of going further. NASA didn’t send people to the moon built on science beyond reasonable doubt.

Forensics won’t get it accurate 100%, but we know some cases where they appear to have really botched it (e.g. the case of Azaria Chamberlain). To take your courtroom picture over to the case of examining the fossil record, the conjecture would lead to many hung juries. The jurors would rarely all be in agreement.

George,
Thanks for the link to that conference, describing conference convener, Ravasi, as a ‘sympathetic partner in dialogue’. I don’t know how this squares with one spokesperson for the conference declaring that creationists and ID proponents will not be invited. When Ravasi says that he takes the evolution position a priori (not presently willing to look at the other case) he seems as hard boiled as anyone. As for using Genesis ‘as a science text book’, this is false as nobody uses it this way. Creationists take Genesis as an historical narrative.

I was interested that some see the conference as a balance to the sensing that the Catholic Church has moved towards the creationists or ID position in recent decades.

Dan,
The Church, at least since John Paul II, has nothing against the scientific theories of evolution, or relativity theory or quantum mechanics, string theory etc., because it is not her business to accept or reject scientific theories or act as an arbiter of competing theories. Neither of these theories can contradict anything that is in the bible for the simple reason that these theories did not exist when the bible was written.

It is a known fact that in the past this was not the case: the Church confused - like some people, theists or atheists even today - the scientific character of these theories with world-views built on them that denied the existence of God. Perhaps the last in this chain of confusions concerned Darwin’s theory, rejected by most Catholic theologians because of this mixing up of the scientific theory (that they mostly did not understand) and the atheist conclusions drawn from it. No such conclusions were drawn from Einstein’s relativity theory, or quantum mechanics, so the Church never objected to them. And even objections to Darwin were always only semi-official (e.g. his books were never put on index at times when all sorts of books were thus marked).

Creationism and ID are an unfortunate recent American addition to this confusion. As philosophical presuppositions they are nothing new, always accepted by the Church. However, if they present themselves as scientific theories, the Church has to accept the verdict of the community of specialists, as they accepted it in the case of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, and will accept it in the case of string theory, loop quantum gravity or even Multiverse and “cosmic Darwinism“ when that verdict is available.

I can believe in God the Creator, and at the same time accept, say, neo-Darwinism as a description of HOW he made it. The same as I can believe that God created me, and at the same time share with my atheist friends the knowledge of HOW he did it (using my parents). Our world-view should not go AGAINST world-views based on science only; it should EXTEND them.

Dear Relda,

A mutation is a change to genetic DNA that lasts long enough to be transmitted to offspring. All changes to DNA are random. However our genetic DNA has a capability of repair so all changes are not mutations – only the irreparable changes. I don’t know how repair affects randomness.

I would call most if not all insect behaviour instinct. However, a wolf has a developed brain and the boundaries between instinct and choice are not well defined in either the wolf or us. What instinct is base and what isn’t base? Dawkins introduced the concept of a meme. A meme is a replicator transmitted by culture rather than DNA. Much of our behaviour is the product of memes we have received. As such behaviour may be no more a matter of choice than what is determined by our DNA.

It is a consequence of biblical theology that we are separated in kind from other animals. I agree with Singer on the legitimacy of experimenting on brain-damaged babies if we can conduct similar experiments on primates. We do not have to ignore human need, but we can weigh human need as against the suffering of other life. I don’t eat lobster because they have an extensive network of external nerve ending and may undergo great suffering if dropped into boiling water.

An adult non-human may be more aware than an immature human and may have a greater capacity for suffering.

The language of most if not all tribal people has a word for themselves meaning ‘the people’. The unity of the human species is a taxonomical and theological construct – not a natural one.

I don’t believe all life has a right to exist. The small pox virus no longer exists in nature. I favour its destruction. The problem exists that the entire virus might not be destroyed. It then becomes a potential terror weapon. If we grant all life inherent worth then we cannot use antibiotics that destroy life.

Dan wrote:

Remembering that the writer of that verse thought of himself as a Jew, I doubt he was calling for Jewish persecution. I’ve always read something in that verse as wishing a prophetic blessing in that Christians see blessing, symbolic if not direct, in the blood of Jesus. This is clear in the sacrament of Holy Communion where Christians appropriate the blood of Jesus to their own bodies as a vital spiritual act.

Dear Dan,

We don’t know that anybody ever made the remark cited in the Bible and how much of the Bible is fiction. Miracles and virgin birth are fiction. When one part is fiction we cannot be sure how much of the rest is also fiction. The Jesus figure may have never existed or may be a composite portrait of various wonder-workers. Possibly the crucifixion is merely crucifiction. Gibson’s remark is obvious nonsense. Even if the crucifixion happened nobody can be blamed except for those who were responsible.

We cannot really understand the Bible if we regard it as complete in itself. We must put it in a historical context.

The New Testament was written while Palestine was under Roman occupation. The person who put that remark in the Bible could have been trying to blame the Jews so as not to anger the Romans who were the crucifiers. They might have wanted to get the occupiers to come down on the Jews rather than the new sect who could have been regarded separately as they had attracted gentiles.

The Bible will continue to be a source of hate and discord until it is regarded the way we now regard the legends telling of the pagan Gods.

The history of the Manichean religion comforts me. It lasted from the third to the eighteenth century and existed from Spain to China. Most people have never heard of it, and nobody as far as I know believes in it any more. It disappeared.

Eventually Judaism, Christianity and Islam will also disappear. The Bible and Koran will exist as a source of legends and stories but as nothing else

I’m sorry David, but I can’t combat the impeccable logic contained in these consecutive phrases -
“We don’t know that anybody ever made the remark cited in the Bible and how much of the Bible is fiction. Miracles and virgin birth are fiction.”

Many and various people have ventured assigning (or wishing) the Bible to the place of historic relic. Every year their wish becomes more and more unlikely as it forever tops the Bestseller list.

George,
If it is not the role of the Church to act as ‘arbiter of competing theories’ then why is she having this conference and affirming a priori the theory of evolution?

The church doesn’t object to Einstein’s relativity because it never challenged any one of its major doctrines, such as the doctrine of creation. It is not that atheist conclusions are or are not drawn from Einstein’s theory. Rather it is the anti-Biblical implications inherent within the theory of evolution itself which prompts objection. Evolution establishes itself as an alternative creation myth. It challenges the Biblical doctrine at every turn. Its raison d’être is to make God redundant.

I would challenge your concept that worldviews are based on science. I think more often it is science (and ‘science’ falsely so called) which flows from worldviews.

If the Church “has to accept the verdict of the community of specialists,” as you put it, to whom should they turn? I also asked this of Relda. I know of plenty of highly qualified scientists, specialists in their field who don’t accept evolution.

When explaining ‘how’ God made mankind, the Bible states clearly that he took dust of the earth and formed it into a man. That is, he started from scratch. It was not a continuation or upgrade from another animal.

Also, creationism is not an “American addition”. It’s fairly healthy wherever Bible believers can be found. Some of the most novel creationist ideas are being exported from Australia.

How dare this writer use the words truth and Christian in the same sentence. The world's biggest fraud and Christian is precise.

The Bible is full of drivel and fairy tales, nothing else. All designed to hide any real facts and highlight all the rubbish man has used to control populations for so many centuries.

Absolute rubbish.

Someone here please tell us the Bible is God's word. That's the most inane statement you could make.

Think about the Christian God for a moment. There are, what, 6 or 9 billion people currently. Those of you who think this supposed deity looks after each and every one of us need to consider facts. How much time could such a being devote to looking after each person?

If it's 6 billion people then the rather busy deity would spend precisely 0.0000876 seconds a year planning your future. If it's 9 billion then halve that.

But of course that God doesn't look after all people does he? ust those that claim to be Christian, right?

Give me a break.