Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Intelligence testing

2010-08-10T02:48:05Z

Preacher101: Slight Revision on Liberal Bias Section

'''Intelligence testing''' began in an organized way in the early 20th Century with the [[Stanford-Binet]] test. The purpose was to form an estimate of a person's aptitude before investing time and money in their education, in the belief that aptitude or intelligence was a fixed quantity.

At the time these tests were developed, medical science and psychology were
in their infancy. Ideas such as [[eugenics]] still had currency, and intelligence tests were used to weed out so-called "defectives".

Testers classified people as idiots, imbeciles, morons, normal, above average, and geniuses on a numerical scale based on [[mental age]]. For children, dividing the mental age by chronological age produces the [[intelligence quotient]] (IQ) used for placement in slow or rapid classes.

In the United States, intelligence tests were to classify recruits and draftees for service in World War II. The more technical jobs were assigned to men with higher scores. Sociologists also noted racial differences in IQ scores, and some supposed that these differences were inherent. A controversy over this matter has raged ever since.

Open questions for psychologists and sociologists focus on what produces differences in [[intelligence]], whether intelligence can be developed or stunted by upbringing and education, and why different [[race]]s or cultural groups have significantly different scores.

The two main reasons given are:
#that there may be inherent differences between the races
#that upbringing, education and social factors can skew the results

After nearly a century of IQ testing and [[educational reform]]s, some researchers have begun to assert that IQ can be influenced by the child's environment by as much as 30 points.<ref>3 weeks of intensive play of WFF 'N PROOF: The Game of Modern Logic increased average IQ scores by more than 20 points. [http://wffnproof.com/] </ref> See [[Educational games]].

==Liberal bias==

The field of intelligence testing has been acrimonious and contentious. Researchers such as [[Arthur Jensen]] and [[Charles Murray]] have been pilloried in the mass media, accused of maintaining views which different or even opposite of their actual views. <ref>Evolution advocate Gould portrays Murray as saying intelligence can be measured with a single number; Murray, of course, makes it clear in his book (as well as in a follow-up retort to Gould) that intelligence is too complex to be measured with a single number. </ref>

One professor had to come to Jensen's defense, after [[Stephen Jay Gould]] attacked him in print:

:I object to Gould's tendency to visit the alleged sins of early investigators on present day investigators. If Goddard, Brigham, and others once tended to view various human races as relatively superior or inferior in intelligence and therefore relatively worthy or unworthy, this does not mean that present-day investigators, like Jensen (1980) or Rushton (1995), are necessarily guilty of such views. In fact, from my personal acquaintance with Jensen and his publications, I can attest that he does not view the African race (if one accepts that it is a race) as in any way less worthy than other so-called races. [http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/carroll-gould.html]

[[Charles Murray]] said:

*As soon as anyone argues that racial differences in intelligence are authentic, not an artifact of biased tests, everyone decodes that as saying the differences are grounded in genes. It is a non-sequitur, but an invariable one in my experience. America's intellectual elites are hysterical about the possibility of black - white genetic differences in IQ.
*As you know, The Bell Curve actually took a mild, agnostic stand on the subject. Dick Herrnstein and I said that nobody yet knows what the mix between environmental and genetic causes might be, and it makes no practical difference anyway. The only policy implication of the black - white difference, whatever its sources, is that the U.S. should return forthwith to its old ideal of treating people as individuals.
*But how many people know this? No one who hasn't read the book. Everyone went nuts about genes, so much so that most people now believe that race and genes is the main topic of our book. [http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html]

The Bell Curve book is not the only controversial study on IQ among different races or groups of people. Danish professor [[Helmuth Nyborg]] has conducted studies of IQ which indicate [[Politically correct language|politically incorrect]] results such as: on average, white people have higher IQs than black people, and men have higher IQs than women. His latest research finds that on average, [[atheists]] have IQs about 5.8 points higher than people of [[faith]], prompting similar outrage among his critics, who claim that such results might be due to cultural biases.[http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/05/554043-professor-atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-believers]

==Conservapedia IQ==
The average IQ of people who believe the stuff on this site is somewhere around e^iPi.

==External links==
*[http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html As the Bell Curves] - [[Charles Murray]] and [[Daniel Seligman]] - (Originally published in The National Review, December 8, 1997)

==Notes==
<references/>

[[category:psychology]]

Science

2010-08-10T02:47:46Z

Preacher101:

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right]]
I HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE CHRISTIANS.... THEY ARE COOL. BUT YOU PEOPLE ARE REALLY SCREWED UP IN THE HEAD. YOU PEOPLE ARE NOT HUMAN. YOU LIKE COCK UP THE ARSE(see [[scientific method]]).
Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world,<ref>Soanes and Stevenson called science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature. It is very important for an intelligent person to be able to distinguish real science from [[junk science]]

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is cabable of being disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]]. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], believed in [[God]], or some other higher power, and many were [[creationists]] although the ideas of [[evolutionism]] or [[Darwinism]] had yet to be conceived.
In addition, [[Christianity]] played a pivotal role in the development of modern science (see [[Christianity and Science]]). However, in recent years, American scientists have deviated, and been much more [[atheism|atheistic]] as a group than the general public. <ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref>

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis. It involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time.

Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]

The [[scientific method]] consists of two stages, theory formation and theory testing. In the early 20th Century the scientific method was commonly understood to follow the inductive procedure, whereby general statements are derived from a collection of singular observations. It was thought that through this method theories were constructed; a collection of observations led to the formation of a general theory to explain them. Secondly, at the testing stage, it was considered that a hypothesis could be verified through a collection of singular observations.

[[Karl Popper]], considered by many to be the most important contributor to the philosophy of science in recent times, put forward a damning critique of induction, going so far is to claim that it did not exist. Popper argued that general theories cannot ever be conclusively verified by singular observations, but that such a theory could be conclusively [[Falsifiable|falsified]] by such means.

The consensus today is based in large part upon the work of Popper, although in general induction is believed to play a part. The modern view is that the scientific method employs both inductive and deductive methods and is characterised by the principle of falsification:

* A theory is put forward (Popper argues that this is not inductive, but the consensus is that people are led to invent theories based upon previous observations)
* This theory is provisionally assumed to be true for the purposes of testing it.
* Assuming the theory is true, we can logically follow it through to a specific and inevitable outcome, a prediction, which becomes the hypothesis. In order for the hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable.
* The hypothesis is repeatedly tested empirically.
* If the observations do not falsify the hypothesis then we accept the theory provisionally (note, we cannot say that it is now 'fact', nor that is has been 'proven')
* If the observations do falsify the hypothesis then we reject it in its current form.
* The theory, or at least parts of it, can then be modified, or a new theory proposed, which takes us back to the beginning of the process.

Since verification of general theories is logically impossible, science is not, as many believe, a body of accumlated 'facts', but rather a collection of theories that have yet to be falsified. Via falsification we can move closer and closer to the truth, but since verification is not possible, we can never know if we ever reach the goal of 'ultimate truth' itself.

==Naturalism and science==
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the [[Christianity|Christian]] view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.

The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist. In addition, there are also the social sciences like [[history]]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as [[Biblical archaeology]]) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.

Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.
* "[[Methodological naturalism]]" adheres to [[naturalism]] insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, ''a priori'' rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
* "[[Philosophical naturalism]]" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this [[atheism|atheistic]] view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
* The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.<ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/</ref><ref>http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf</ref> For example, this third approach is advocated by [[creation science|creation scientists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second]] laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal [[universe]], and [[creation science|creation scientists]] claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> But in other respects, such as why [[Krakatoa]] exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.

==Religious cultivation of early modern science==
''See also:'' [[Christianity and Science]]

According to the historian [[H. Floris Cohen]], there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship. <ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=wu8b2NAqnb0C The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry], [[H. Floris Cohen]], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321 </ref> The first to be proposed was the [[Merton thesis]] in the late 1930's, which parallels the [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism|Weber thesis]] in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a [[protestant work ethic]] but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of [[Reijer Hooykaas]], who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrepect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned. Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." <ref> * [http://books.google.com/books?id=c6TEDHvAbXAC ''Religion and the Rise of Modern Science''], Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6 </ref>

Historian and professor of religion [[Eugene Marion Klaaren|Eugene M Klaaren]] holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher [[Michael B. Foster]] has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC ''God and nature''], Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also [http://cas.umkc.edu/history/faculty/AshworthW/pub.html William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list]; this is noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref> Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century [[Anglican]] intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Isaac Newton]]).<ref> [http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Jacob%20&%20Jacob%20Anglican%20Fdn%20of%20Modern%20Science.htm The Anglican Origins of Modern Science], [[Isis (journal)|Isis]], Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>

Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are [[John Dillenberger]]'s ''Protestant Thought and Natural Science'' ([[Doubleday]], 1960) and [[Christopher B. Kaiser]]'s ''Creation and the History of Science'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1991).

{{quotation|When natural philosophers referred to ''laws'' of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."<ref> [[John Hedley Brooke]], ''Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives'', 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19 </ref>
|Historian and [[Oxford University]] [[Science and Religion]] theologian [[John Hedley Brooke]]}}

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref> ''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]] </ref>

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

[[category:science]]

Science

2010-08-10T02:47:31Z

Preacher101:

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right]]
'''Science''' consists of three aspects: first, it provides systematic descriptions of everything in the world and all of human experience, generally considered as scientific [[knowledge]]. Second, there are the men (and in more recent times, women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else. Third, there are the methods by which they carry out this work (see [[scientific method]]).
Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world,<ref>Soanes and Stevenson called science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature. It is very important for an intelligent person to be able to distinguish real science from [[junk science]]
SCIENCE MADE THIS SITE POSSIBLE

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is cabable of being disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]]. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], believed in [[God]], or some other higher power, and many were [[creationists]] although the ideas of [[evolutionism]] or [[Darwinism]] had yet to be conceived.
In addition, [[Christianity]] played a pivotal role in the development of modern science (see [[Christianity and Science]]). However, in recent years, American scientists have deviated, and been much more [[atheism|atheistic]] as a group than the general public. <ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref>

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis. It involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time.

Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]

The [[scientific method]] consists of two stages, theory formation and theory testing. In the early 20th Century the scientific method was commonly understood to follow the inductive procedure, whereby general statements are derived from a collection of singular observations. It was thought that through this method theories were constructed; a collection of observations led to the formation of a general theory to explain them. Secondly, at the testing stage, it was considered that a hypothesis could be verified through a collection of singular observations.

[[Karl Popper]], considered by many to be the most important contributor to the philosophy of science in recent times, put forward a damning critique of induction, going so far is to claim that it did not exist. Popper argued that general theories cannot ever be conclusively verified by singular observations, but that such a theory could be conclusively [[Falsifiable|falsified]] by such means.

The consensus today is based in large part upon the work of Popper, although in general induction is believed to play a part. The modern view is that the scientific method employs both inductive and deductive methods and is characterised by the principle of falsification:

* A theory is put forward (Popper argues that this is not inductive, but the consensus is that people are led to invent theories based upon previous observations)
* This theory is provisionally assumed to be true for the purposes of testing it.
* Assuming the theory is true, we can logically follow it through to a specific and inevitable outcome, a prediction, which becomes the hypothesis. In order for the hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable.
* The hypothesis is repeatedly tested empirically.
* If the observations do not falsify the hypothesis then we accept the theory provisionally (note, we cannot say that it is now 'fact', nor that is has been 'proven')
* If the observations do falsify the hypothesis then we reject it in its current form.
* The theory, or at least parts of it, can then be modified, or a new theory proposed, which takes us back to the beginning of the process.

Since verification of general theories is logically impossible, science is not, as many believe, a body of accumlated 'facts', but rather a collection of theories that have yet to be falsified. Via falsification we can move closer and closer to the truth, but since verification is not possible, we can never know if we ever reach the goal of 'ultimate truth' itself.

==Naturalism and science==
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the [[Christianity|Christian]] view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.

The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist. In addition, there are also the social sciences like [[history]]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as [[Biblical archaeology]]) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.

Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.
* "[[Methodological naturalism]]" adheres to [[naturalism]] insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, ''a priori'' rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
* "[[Philosophical naturalism]]" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this [[atheism|atheistic]] view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
* The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.<ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/</ref><ref>http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf</ref> For example, this third approach is advocated by [[creation science|creation scientists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second]] laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal [[universe]], and [[creation science|creation scientists]] claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> But in other respects, such as why [[Krakatoa]] exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.

==Religious cultivation of early modern science==
''See also:'' [[Christianity and Science]]

According to the historian [[H. Floris Cohen]], there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship. <ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=wu8b2NAqnb0C The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry], [[H. Floris Cohen]], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321 </ref> The first to be proposed was the [[Merton thesis]] in the late 1930's, which parallels the [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism|Weber thesis]] in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a [[protestant work ethic]] but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of [[Reijer Hooykaas]], who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrepect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned. Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." <ref> * [http://books.google.com/books?id=c6TEDHvAbXAC ''Religion and the Rise of Modern Science''], Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6 </ref>

Historian and professor of religion [[Eugene Marion Klaaren|Eugene M Klaaren]] holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher [[Michael B. Foster]] has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC ''God and nature''], Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also [http://cas.umkc.edu/history/faculty/AshworthW/pub.html William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list]; this is noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref> Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century [[Anglican]] intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Isaac Newton]]).<ref> [http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Jacob%20&%20Jacob%20Anglican%20Fdn%20of%20Modern%20Science.htm The Anglican Origins of Modern Science], [[Isis (journal)|Isis]], Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>

Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are [[John Dillenberger]]'s ''Protestant Thought and Natural Science'' ([[Doubleday]], 1960) and [[Christopher B. Kaiser]]'s ''Creation and the History of Science'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1991).

{{quotation|When natural philosophers referred to ''laws'' of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."<ref> [[John Hedley Brooke]], ''Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives'', 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19 </ref>
|Historian and [[Oxford University]] [[Science and Religion]] theologian [[John Hedley Brooke]]}}

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref> ''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]] </ref>

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

[[category:science]]

Roman Catholic Church

2010-08-10T02:46:38Z

Preacher101:

{{Christianity}}
The '''Roman Catholic Church''' is a denomination of [[Christianity]]. It has a single leader, the [[Bishop]] of [[Rome]], also known as the [[Pope]]; the current Pope is [[Pope Benedict XVI|Benedict XVI]].<3 SCIENCE

Members believe that it is the oldest [[Christian]] denomination in the world. It is certainly the largest, with more than 1.3 billion officially baptized adherents, or 17.4% of the world's population; over 64 million of these are in the [[United States]]. In recent years growth has been greatest in Africa and Latin America, while the numbers and influence in Europe have declined.

The Roman Catholic Church asserts that the Pope is the divinely-chosen successor of [[St. Peter]], the 'rock' ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 16:18) upon whom Jesus built his church. The Catholic Church consists of those Christians who are in full communion with the Pope, including "Uniate Catholics" in Eastern Europe who, strictly speaking, are not part of the "Roman" Church.

The term "Catholic Church" is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal").

The Roman Catholic Church has suffered several [[schism]]s over its history; most notably that with the [[Church of the East]] following the [[First Ephesian Council]], the several [[Oriental Orthodoxy|Oriental Orthodox]] churches following the [[Council of Chalcedon]], the [[Eastern Orthodoxy|Eastern Orthodox Church]] following the [[Great Schism]] of 1054, and the various [[Reformation]]s of the 16th century leading to the development of [[Protestantism]].

While the theological disagreements leading to the earlier schisms are not very sharp, the Protestants made a more radical break. Two of the principal issues of contention between Catholics and Protestants are ''[[sola scriptura]]'' (the Protestant doctrine that the Bible alone is the final authority for Christians, which denies the infallibility of [[Sacred Tradition]], the Pope, and the infallibility of ecumenical church councils) and ''sola fide'' (the doctrine, popularized by [[Martin Luther]], that faith alone, as opposed to faith and good works both, is sufficient for salvation).

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Catholics in the world.]]

==Organization==

The Pope and the the international leadership of the Church are based in [[Vatican City]], a sovereign elective monarchy and an enclave of [[Rome]] established by the 1929 [[Lateran Treaty]].

The Catholic Church has a complex hierarchy of clergy, including (in descending order of rank):

* The Pope
*[[Cardinal]]s
*[[Archbishop]]s
*[[Bishop]]s
*[[Abbot]]s
*[[Monsignor|Monsignori]]
*[[Archpriest]]s
*[[Priest]]s
*[[Deacon]]s

The key roles are played by the Pope and the bishops, and the question of whether secular governments should play a major role in ecclesiastical appointments has been a major issue for centuries. The [[Investiture Controversy]] in the [[Holy Roman Empire]] was over this question, as was the dispute between [[Gallicanism]] and [[ultramontanism]] in France.

==Teachings==
[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|[[Pope John Paul II]] reigned 1978-2005]]
The chief teachings of the Catholic church are:

* God’s objective existence.
* God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer).
* The Trinity.
* The divinity of Jesus.
* The immortality of the [[soul]] of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell.
* The resurrection of the dead.
* The historicity of the [[Gospels]].
* The divine commission of the church.

The Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten.<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The very physical and spiritual body and blood of Christ are believed to be present in the Eucharist, [[Transubstantiation|the bread and wine being Jesus himself]], replacing the material of bread and wine. Another essential element of Catholic practice is the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the other saints. Catholics do not worship Mary or other saints but ask them to pray to God on their behalf. This is termed "intercession."

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and the Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term "Catholic" is frequently applied as an adjective meaning, "pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church." [[Protestantism|Protestant]]s take exception to this use, as the defined meaning of "catholic" (the adjective) is "universal" and comes from the Greek word Katholikos. The Eastern [[Orthodox Church]] and [[Anglican Communion]] also refer to themselves as the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church."<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/catholic</ref> Previously Protestants used terms such as "popish," "papist," or "Romanist" in that capacity, but these are now considered pejorative and not so widely used.

The Church teaches respect for all human life. It opposes the practices of contraception, abortion,<ref>Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (1968) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html</ref> euthanasia and (in most cases) capital punishment.<ref> John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (1995) http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM</ref> The Church is in favor of social justice and "the common good."<ref> Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (2009) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html</ref> Some Catholics take this idea further, espousing a "[[consistent life ethic]]," under which ''all'' killing is said to be unlawful. This position entails [[pacifism]] and (in some cases) [[vegetarianism]].

== History ==

===Early Church===

The original Christian community was founded by Jesus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was the most notable of the Early Christian missionaries. Christians were subjected to persecution, first under [[Nero]] in A.D. 64 and again, more severely, under the emperors [[Domitian]], [[Marcus Aurelius]],[[Decius]], [[Diocletian]], ''etc.'', in the second and third centuries, with the penalty for being Christian ultimately being death.

After almost 300 years of persecution against the Church failed to stop the growth of Christianity, the Emperor [[Constantine I]] had a religious experience and, by the [[Edict of Milan]] issued in the early fourth century, legalized Christianity. Going to war with the co-Emperor of the east [[Lucinius]] over his continued persecution of Christians, Constantine won and became sole Emperor. The age of persecution was over.
[[Image:Christians.jpg|thumb|450px]]

In 380, Emperor [[Theodosius I]] accepted Christianity as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]].

=== Fathers of the Church ===

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]], and has been the most influential of all theologians.

Other important early theologians include [[St. Ambrose]], Bishop of [[Milan]] from 374 to 397, and especially [[St. Augustine]].

===Barbarians converted===

Until the early fourth century AD Christianity enjoyed mixed reception in the Roman Empire and Christians were frequently subject to persecution. In the 310s Christianity became legalized and shortly thereafter became officially recognized by Constantine. In the following years Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular became increasingly powerful in the Roman Empire, although [[Arianism]] remained strong. In 380 AD, [[Theodosius I]] established the Catholic Church as the official religion of the Roman Empire and proscribed the former pagan practices. There was a brief [[pagan]] revival in the West under the usurper [[Eugenius]], but that was brought to an end with his death. While the Empire continued to decline, Catholicism and Christianity continued to grow both among those directly under the Empire and among the barbarians until Rome was sacked by [[Alaric]] in 410. Alaric was an Arian Christian.

After the collapse of the Western Empire, the Catholic Church became the most powerful political and religious force in Latin-speaking Europe and by the 8th century had achieved near total religious dominance with the removal of the last significant Arian groups.

Aggressive missionary activities accomplished the conversion of almost all the pagan tribes in Europe by the year 1000 AD. [[Lithuania]] was the last pagan country in Europe to be converted, in 1387.

=== Great Schism ===

After numerous disputes between eastern and western churches that became more pronounced from the ninth century onwards, the Church underwent the [[Great Schism]] in 1054 that divided it into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox Church]]. Both traced their roots to the time of Jesus, but the Eastern Orthodox Church did not acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope, only willing to recognize him as "first among equals."

The schism's causes were not purely religious, but cultural and geographic elements also played a role. Although later attempts at reconciliation occurred, such as at the [[Council of Basel]], the two remain separate to this day although both accept many of each others sacraments.

=== Late Middle Ages ===

The Crusades, a series of religious wars instigated by the Church against the Muslims and other groups in the Holy Land, began in 1092 and continued until the end of the 13th century. Despite the focus on removing the Holy Land from Muslim control, the Crusaders also massacred Jews and sacked Constantinople.

During this time period, the [[Inquisition]]s started and would continue through the Protestant Reformation. The medieval inquisition focused on rooting out Cathars, while the later inquisitions such as the [[Spanish Inquisition]] focused on people who were believed to be secretly practicing [[Judaism]] or [[Islam]] following the [[Alhambra Decree|legally mandated]] conversion to Christianity of all Jews and Muslims remaining in Spain.

===Reformation and Counter-Reformation===

In 1517, [[Martin Luther]] began the [[Protestant Reformation]] with a public protest against the sale of [[indulgences]]. It grew into a movement that covered a wider variety of issues. Eventually, Protestants rejected the notions of saintly intercession, the authority of the pope, and all of the sacraments except [[Baptism]] and [[Communion]]. This eventually led to a series of religious wars in [[Europe]] and the Protestant-Catholic split became one of the dominant themes in European events until modern times.

===1815 to 1914===

====Pius VII====

Pius VII (1800-23) was stripped of powers by [[Napoleon]] but made a striking comeback after Napoleon's fall in 1815. Pius VII was a deeply religious Benedictine, and a theologian; he lived simply and avoided nepotism. His unusually able Secretary of State Cardinal Consalvi won the restoration to the Pope of most of the territories in Italy which Napoleon had seized. He reinvigorated numerous monastic orders and helped create new societies for men and women, especially those engaged in teaching and missionary work.
Most important was the restoration of the Jesuits in 1814; they had been suppressed in most countries. They grew larger and even more influential in the 19th century.

====Conservatism====

After 1800 the Papacy became the center of conservatism in Europe in reaction against the socialism of the French Revolution and its supporters. The Papacy recognized that throughout Europe millions of peasants and poor folk were devoted to the saints and traditions of the Church; the Popes responded energetically by promoting new Marian devotions (such as the rosary). Rome had fallen into disrepair and Pius VII began the restoration of the city's artistic glories, an enterprise that continues into the 21st century. <ref> Kelly (1999); Duffy (2006); Latourette (1958) vol 1. </ref>

====Ultramontane vs Gallican====

The "ultramontane" tendency in the Church centralized more power and authority in the Papacy. It was opposed by the "[[Gallican]]" tendency, especially in France, to give national churches more control over their affairs. The ultramontine forces generally won out, especially with the promulgation of [[Papal Infallibility]] at the First Vatican Council in 1870. The ultramontane forces cited the old doctrines of [[Robert Bellarmine]] (1542-1621) and [[Francisco de Suárez]] (1548-1617) to bolster the papal claim to absolute power in spiritual matters.

Gallicanism in France was damaged by the rise of ultramontanism in the 1850s and the devotional revolution that shifted piety to devotions sponsored by Rome. Gallicanism was officially suppressed by the First Vatican Council in 1870, which established the paramount authority of the pope as a matter of dogma. However informal manifestations of Gallicanism continue in some countries, especially China. In Canada, the Irish clergy fought for ultramontanism against the French clergy, who were Gallican. The [[Catholicism in Ireland|Irish]] won out with the support of the Vatican.

After Vatican II, 1962-65, the multiple and often confused controversy among Catholics over papal authority and infallibility largely ended, though some significant degree of opposition to it remains.<ref>such as by historian Garry Wills, author of ''Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit'' (Sophia Institute Press, 2003), and liberal theologian Hans Kung, author of ''Infallible?: An inquiry'' (1970)</ref><ref>David Carlin, ''The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America'',‎ appendix 2</ref><ref>[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/vatican.htm Raymond Taouk, ''What are Catholics to think of Vatican II?'']</ref>

This dissent is mainly manifested in disagreement with Roman Catholic teaching on birth control and abortion, which yet remains strong.<ref>[http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/014/Infallibility%20in%20Ethical%20Perspective%20By%20John%20M.%20Swomley_014_26_.htm John M. Swomley, ''Infallibility in Ethical Perspective Christian Ethics Today], Issue 014 Volume 4 No 1 February 1996</ref> <ref>56% of U.S. Catholics said that the pope is not infallible "when he teaches on matters of morals, such as birth control and abortion"; 80% of Catholics believed it is possible to disagree with the pope on official positions on morality and still be a good Catholic. Time/CNN nationwide poll of 1,000 adults, conducted by Yankelovich Partners, Sept. 27-28, 1995</ref>

====Facing Modernity====

Despite dire predictions, the Church adapted to modernity in its own way and increased its role in people's lives in the 19th century. The Church escaped irrelevance by using the same means as emerging nation-states: establishing more administrative and doctrinal centralization in Rome; establishing a homogeneous culture, aided especially by universal use of Latin; promoting new rites and folk devotions, especially those focused on Mary and other favored saints; promoting pilgrimages to holy sites; encouraging clergy to endorse and lead regional nationalist movements that focused on historic languages and cultures; creating many new teaching orders and establishing Catholic schools and colleges; supporting intellectuals and publishing houses; enhancing papal power; and cultivating an image of theological, canonical, and moral superiority. Of special importance was the missionary activity, based especially in Germany, that was in competition with Protestant missions in China, India, Africa and other non-Christian lands. The Jesuits proved highly adept at promoting the Papal cause. The Pope thereby became less of a figurehead and more of a true ruler.

There was internal dissent among some Catholic intellectuals, such as historian [[Lord Acton]] in Britain and theologian Ignaz von Döllinger in Germany, who opposed the declaration of the dogma of papal infallibility. This also caused further schisms, with breakaway groups centering around the Archbishop of [[Utrecht]] to form the [[Old Catholic Church]].

=====Syllabus of Errors=====

The [[Syllabus of Errors]] of Pope [[Pius IX]] in 1864 rejected the liberal doctrines of the modern world.<ref> see text at [http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm]</ref> It denounced pantheism, naturalism, nationalism, indifferentism, socialism, communism, freemasonry, theological rationalism, [[separation of church and state]], removal of [[public school]]s from Church control, and other modern views. The Pope claimed for the Catholic Church total control over science and culture. The liberals viewed this as a declaration of war by the Church on modern civilization. Its repercussions within France, the U.S., Britain and other countries were resounding, nearly destroying the liberal Catholic movement and furnishing a powerful weapon to the anticlerical faction, or (in the U.S.) to anti-Catholic Protestants. Opponents stressed the Papacy had become intolerant and medieval and largely political in nature.<ref> Latourette (1958) vol 1 ch. 6</ref>

====Facing Liberalism====

Burns (1990) takes a sociological perspective on the Papacy's long battle with liberalism. He shows how the papacy, in reaction to the rise of the liberal states of the 19th and 20th centuries, gradually reformulated Catholic ideology within the limited autonomy they possessed and carefully subordinated social and political issues to more purely religious and moral issues as they constructed an ideological opposition to liberalism.

In Germany in the 1840s the ultramontane movement used mass meetings and pilgrimages to combat the growth of liberalism and modernism. However the anti-clerical press attacked these mass meetings, and in response a large number of Catholic newspapers emerged in Germany starting in the 1840s. To ensure their own survival, these newspapers championed the liberal idea of [[Freedom of the press|press freedom]]. In addition, local clubs were established to mobilize the Catholic working class. These clubs tried to end discrimination against ordinary Catholics by working to establish freedom of religion and freedom of thought and by entering the electoral process. With the unification of Germany in 1870, the new nation faced the problems of consolidation, one of which was secularization. The laws dealing with secularization opened a political battle between Bismark and the Protestants and liberals on one side, and the Catholics on the other, called the "[[Kulturkampf]]." The Catholics organized their own political parties and protected their interests by voting as a bloc into the 1930s, when the Nazis closed down all other parties.

====Freemasons====

In many countries the Church faced off against the Freemasons, a secret society that was politically active in numerous countries. The Papacy coordinated a counterattack. For example in Brazil, the religious question in the 1870s centered on the Masonic controversy and the struggle between regalist and ultramontane forces. One method of counterattack was to found Catholic universities. Thus Mgr. Ignace Bourget, second bishop of Montreal, Canada, founded Laval University, as a Catholic reaction to a liberal and secularist outburst in Quebec. Bourget said the university would be the principal instrument for "wresting the elite from the clutches of liberalism."

====Women====

A spiritual revolution took place in the 19th century, moving individuals to personal piety. There was a much greater emphasis on the role of Mary, and a greatly increased involvement of women; the number of sisters and nuns increased from 20,000 to 400,000 between 1815 and 1914.

Camp (1990) traces the treatment of women. In the late 19th century the papacy began to revise its public teachings about the proper role of women in the Church and society. From Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) to Pope John Paul II (1978-2005), papal social pronouncements reveal an evolution in attitudes toward a woman's proper "place" from the view that women are passive subordinates to men in all spheres of life to the current teaching that lay and clerical women are equal but complementary partners with men in religious, political, economic, and social endeavors. However, the papacy has remained firm in the conviction that ordination to the priesthood is for men only.

====Social changes====

Urbanization brought millions of peasants out of the villages to industrial cities, where church facilities were few.

====Arts====

[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|230px|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
The arts provided a refuge from modernity in the form of a nostalgic aesthetic. Church architecture saw the revival of the medieval [[Gothic]] style. Romantic literature, for example by Chateaubriand, helped inspire a Catholic revival. In music, Catholic churchgoers were likely to be exposed to an officially sponsored revival of ''a cappella'' singing in the manner of Palestrina. The rapid development of symphonic and operatic forms affected sacred music, resulting in many masses, requiems, and te deums for large orchestra and chorus, sometimes even composed by skeptics such as Berlioz and Verdi.

====Politics====

In politics, as democracy and popular government spread, religious motivations moved people into one party or the other. The parties in such battles tended to be different depending on the religious configuration of a given country. In Catholic countries such as France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, sharp confrontations emerged between clericals and anti-clericals; in countries with mixed Catholic and Protestant populations such as Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Britain and the U.S., political splits occurred along confessional lines. In the U.S. the great majority of the Catholics -- led by the Irish--became [[Democratic Party|Democrats]]. In Germany the Catholics formed their own Center party to fight off attacks from the Protestants, such as the [[Kulturkampf]].

The British attempt to impose Protestantism on Ireland not only fueled the Catholic revival there but also contributed to its spread via emigration – not only to the U.S. and Canada, but also to Australia, New Zealand, and England itself, increasing the Catholic population in all of these. Quickly the Irish took control of the Church in each country and created a new system of schools, colleges, hospitals and charities. The Poles, having lost their nation state in the 1790s, turned to an intense religiosity, that preserved national identity, and which they carried with them to industrial centers in the U.S. and Germany; in the U.S., some Poles, frustrated with the Irish control of the Church, founded the schismatic [[Polish National Catholic Church]].

===20th century===

====Vatican II====

[[File:John-23.jpg|right|thumb|270px|[[Pope John XXIII]] reigned 1958-63]]

The "Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican" (called [[Vatican II]]), was called by [[Pope John XXIII]] and was in session from 1962 to 1965. It dramatically modernized and transformed church policies, with major changes to official theology and liturgy. Liturgical changes included the introduction Mass in local languages instead of Latin. Theologically, the council deemphasized somewhat the centrality of Mary while also adding a new emphasis on individual and personal holiness. It asserted the Church's support for [[freedom of religion]], declared that the Jews were not guilty of [[deicide]], and recognized the possibility of salvation for Jews, Muslims, and Protestants.

Reactions among Catholics to Vatican II fall into three camps. "Liberal" Catholics, drawing on the established Catholic belief in the "journeying" nature of the Church, see Vatican II and the new period that it marked in Catholic history as representing a significant advancement in our understanding of the divine revelation contained in the Gospels which justifies major changes in Catholic belief and practice. "Conservative" Catholics (including the recent popes) hold that the decrees of the Council, properly understood, are wholly in line with the historic Catholic faith, and that they should not be used as an excuse for unwarranted innovations. "Traditional" (or "[[Traditionalist Catholicism|traditionalist]]") Catholics regard the teachings of Vatican II as problematic, or even as heretical, and tried to operate churches using the old liturgies.

==Abuse scandal==

Widespread controversy erupted in 2001 over past abuse of teenage boys by some Catholic priests involving inappropriate sexual contact, which was covered up by the bishops as they moved the offending priests to new positions. For the most part the Catholic Church quietly cleaned this up internally in the mid 1980s; the vast majority of allegations of abuse that came to light in the 2000s occurred before this time period. Although almost no priests were involved in the abuse, the damage that could be done by even a small number of priests if not properly checked was significant. It was a case of breaking vows, including vows of celibacy, and committing acts of [[homosexuality]] which are condemned by the Church.<ref>http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72992710807995&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&w=98cf251&FORM=CVRE4</ref>. There were no reports of girls as victims, or nuns as perpetrators.

The stereotype resulting from the scandal portrayed the priests involved as [[pedophilia|pedophiles]], though most of them were instead [[pederasty|pederasts]] who preyed upon post-pubescent teenage boys.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E2D71E38F931A15750C0A9649C8B63</ref>

Due to the scandal, the U.S. Catholic Church has paid out $2.6 billion in abuse claims. The Los Angeles diocese settled claims by 500 victims for $660 million. Similar scandals hit the Catholic Church in other countries, notably Ireland.

== See also ==

*[[Cafeteria Catholic]]
*[[Catholic views on creationism‎]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Vatican City]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://www.Vatican.va The Vatican]
*A digital version of [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ ''The Catholic Encyclopedia''].
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site.
*[http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/index.html Al Pellegrino Cattolico] Italian web site.

==Further reading==
* Bokenkotter, Thomas. ''A Concise History of the Catholic Church'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Catholic-Church/dp/0385516134/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241119912&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Brown, Peter. ''The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity 200-1000 AD'' (2002), 640pp
* Chadwick, Owen. ''A History of the Popes, 1830-1914.'' (1998), 616pp; a standard recent history. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=12355195 online edition],
* Coppa, Frank J. ''The Modern Papacy since 1789.'' Longman, 1998. 296 pp.
* Daniel-Rops, Henri. ''The Church in the Eighteenth Century'' (1964)
* Daniel-Rops, Henri. ''The Church in an Age of Revolution'' (1965).
* Holland, Joe. ''Modern Catholic Social Teaching: The Popes Confront the Industrial Age 1740-1958.'' Paulist Press, 2003. 404 pp.
* Kung, Hans. ''The Catholic Church: A Short History'' (2003), by a leading Catholic scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-History-Library-Chronicles/dp/0812967623/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241119912&sr=8-15 excerpt and text search]
* Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''Christianity in a Revolutionary Age: A History of Christianity in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries'' 5 Vol'' (1958), a detailed history of Christianity 1800-1950 by a fair-minded Protestant scholar. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101463833 vol 1 online edition]
* Logan, F. Donald. ''A History of the Church in the Middle Ages.'' 2002. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102805754# online edition]
* Mullett, Michael A. ''The Catholic Reformation,'' (1999), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102890994 online edition]
* O'Toole, James M. ''The Faithful: A History of Catholics in America'' (2008) [http://books.google.com/books?id=BFlBzSAVW6kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:The+intitle:Faithful+intitle:A+intitle:History+intitle:of+intitle:Catholics+intitle:in+intitle:America&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Pastor, Ludwig von. ''History of the Popes From the Close of the Middle Ages'', (1894-1930), 16 vol, older Catholic history [http://books.google.com/books?spell=1&lr=&q=pastor+history+popes&as_brr=1 online from books.google.com]
* Ullmann, Walter. ''A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages,'' (2002), 393pp, [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107602176 online edition]
* Schreck, Alan. ''The Compact History of the Catholic Church'' (2009)
* Vidmar, John. ''The Catholic Church through the Ages: A History'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-through-Ages-History/dp/0809142341/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241119912&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
===Reference===
* ''New Catholic 'Encyclopedia'' (1967), complete coverage of all topics by Catholic scholars
* ''Catholic Encyclopedia,'' (1913) [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ online edition] complete coverage by Catholic scholars; the articles were written about 100 years ago
* Coppa, Frank J., ed. ''Great Popes through History: An Encyclopedia.'' (2002). 600 pp.
* Kelly, J.N.D. ''The Oxford Dictionary of Popes'' (1988). 349pp; scholarly short biographies; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54850171 online edition]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Catholic Church| ]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Christian Denominations]]

Theistic evolution

2010-08-10T02:45:19Z

Preacher101:

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}
'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>
*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention GOD IS FAKE OPEN YOUR EYES DURPPPS

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, BUT IT IS TRUE or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
You know, whilst christianity may be ok, the people who made this site must have something really screwed up in their head
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] referred[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm] in address to the Pontifical Academy of Science to "theories of evolution" that could be "more than a hypothesis" which led many to conclude that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible. However, the Magisterial Teaching Authority of the Church as explained by several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Humani Generis''[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html] (promulgated by the Church in 1950) fall short of accepting any form of evolutionism in official Church teaching. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that God created all things ''ex nihilo'' (out of nothing) by His Word. No Catholic Christian can be compelled or required to accept evolutionism as a component of official Catholic Teaching. Inspite of this, many liberal theologians have advanced a heretical form of theistic evolutionism known as Modernism, which was condemned by the Church in several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Pascendi Dominici Gregis[http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P10PASCE.HTM]'' promulgated by Pope St. Pius X in 1907. This remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html]</ref>.

[[William Jennings Bryan]] wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while [[atheism]] removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although theistic evolution and [[intelligent design]] (ID) are superficially similar, ID design proponents have made clear that the two are not the same thing. [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that, "as far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference between the two is the perceived role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, intelligent design proponents seek to prove the necessary existence of a designer in the creation of life by scientific means.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been criticized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostic]]s. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] and some [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be [[heretical]] or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how they believe God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== External links ==
* [http://www.asa3.org American Scientific Affiliation], the largest organization of scientists who are Christians and who believe evolution to be true.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Origins Debate]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Theistic evolution

2010-08-10T02:44:08Z

Preacher101:

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}
'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>
*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, BUT IT IS TRUE or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
You know, whilst christianity may be ok, the people who made this site must have something really screwed up in their head
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] referred[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm] in address to the Pontifical Academy of Science to "theories of evolution" that could be "more than a hypothesis" which led many to conclude that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible. However, the Magisterial Teaching Authority of the Church as explained by several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Humani Generis''[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html] (promulgated by the Church in 1950) fall short of accepting any form of evolutionism in official Church teaching. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that God created all things ''ex nihilo'' (out of nothing) by His Word. No Catholic Christian can be compelled or required to accept evolutionism as a component of official Catholic Teaching. Inspite of this, many liberal theologians have advanced a heretical form of theistic evolutionism known as Modernism, which was condemned by the Church in several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Pascendi Dominici Gregis[http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P10PASCE.HTM]'' promulgated by Pope St. Pius X in 1907. This remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html]</ref>.

[[William Jennings Bryan]] wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while [[atheism]] removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although theistic evolution and [[intelligent design]] (ID) are superficially similar, ID design proponents have made clear that the two are not the same thing. [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that, "as far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference between the two is the perceived role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, intelligent design proponents seek to prove the necessary existence of a designer in the creation of life by scientific means.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been criticized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostic]]s. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] and some [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be [[heretical]] or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how they believe God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== External links ==
* [http://www.asa3.org American Scientific Affiliation], the largest organization of scientists who are Christians and who believe evolution to be true.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Origins Debate]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Theistic evolution

2010-08-10T02:44:01Z

Preacher101:

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}
'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>
*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention- GOD IS FAKE OPEN YOUR EYES DURPPPS

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, BUT IT IS TRUE or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] referred[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm] in address to the Pontifical Academy of Science to "theories of evolution" that could be "more than a hypothesis" which led many to conclude that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible. However, the Magisterial Teaching Authority of the Church as explained by several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Humani Generis''[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html] (promulgated by the Church in 1950) fall short of accepting any form of evolutionism in official Church teaching. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that God created all things ''ex nihilo'' (out of nothing) by His Word. No Catholic Christian can be compelled or required to accept evolutionism as a component of official Catholic Teaching. Inspite of this, many liberal theologians have advanced a heretical form of theistic evolutionism known as Modernism, which was condemned by the Church in several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Pascendi Dominici Gregis[http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P10PASCE.HTM]'' promulgated by Pope St. Pius X in 1907. This remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html]</ref>.

[[William Jennings Bryan]] wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while [[atheism]] removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although theistic evolution and [[intelligent design]] (ID) are superficially similar, ID design proponents have made clear that the two are not the same thing. [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that, "as far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference between the two is the perceived role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, intelligent design proponents seek to prove the necessary existence of a designer in the creation of life by scientific means.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been criticized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostic]]s. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] and some [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be [[heretical]] or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how they believe God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== External links ==
* [http://www.asa3.org American Scientific Affiliation], the largest organization of scientists who are Christians and who believe evolution to be true.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Origins Debate]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Theistic evolution

2010-08-10T02:41:53Z

Preacher101:

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}
'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>
*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, BUT IT IS TRUE or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] referred[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm] in address to the Pontifical Academy of Science to "theories of evolution" that could be "more than a hypothesis" which led many to conclude that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible. However, the Magisterial Teaching Authority of the Church as explained by several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Humani Generis''[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html] (promulgated by the Church in 1950) fall short of accepting any form of evolutionism in official Church teaching. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that God created all things ''ex nihilo'' (out of nothing) by His Word. No Catholic Christian can be compelled or required to accept evolutionism as a component of official Catholic Teaching. Inspite of this, many liberal theologians have advanced a heretical form of theistic evolutionism known as Modernism, which was condemned by the Church in several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Pascendi Dominici Gregis[http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P10PASCE.HTM]'' promulgated by Pope St. Pius X in 1907. This remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html]</ref>.

[[William Jennings Bryan]] wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while [[atheism]] removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although theistic evolution and [[intelligent design]] (ID) are superficially similar, ID design proponents have made clear that the two are not the same thing. [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that, "as far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference between the two is the perceived role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, intelligent design proponents seek to prove the necessary existence of a designer in the creation of life by scientific means.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been criticized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostic]]s. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] and some [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be [[heretical]] or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how they believe God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== External links ==
* [http://www.asa3.org American Scientific Affiliation], the largest organization of scientists who are Christians and who believe evolution to be true.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Origins Debate]]
[[Category:Creationism]]