The pontiff also said that the scientific account of the beginning of the universe confirms God's existence. At a meeting of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Sciences, he said that evolution was compatible with God's plan. He said though the first book of the Bible, Genesis, might suggest God was a "magician with a magic wand able to do everything," that this "is not so".
Instead he claimed that God "created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment," reported the Religious News Service.
He added: "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve. The Big Bang theory is the idea that the universe began in a single tiny bubble While scientists had expected to find the waves, there had been no physical evidence of their existence — until now.
For believing Jews, the story of the Big Bang resonates perfectly with the story of creation told in Genesis, Aviezer said. According to Genesis, the universe was created from a ball of energy and light that appeared suddenly from nothingness — exactly the same ball of energy and light described in the Big Bang theory.
Throughout the centuries, creation ex nihilo was considered impossible, but today it is taken as scientific fact, said Aviezer. Accepting this has nothing to do with religion, he added; no less a personage than Cambridge University cosmologist Prof.
At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact. Piran is not convinced. Wrong again, dur-brain! Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?
What a guy. Are you scared of a Divine Creator? Is it completely illogical that the Earth was created mature?
Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution? How do you explain a sunset if their is no God? If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?
See 4. What about noetics? Where do you derive objective meaning in life? If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance? Does metamorphosis help support evolution? If evolution is a theory like creationism or the bible why then is evolution taught as fact?
What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process? What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation? Relating to the big bang theory … Where did the exploding star come from? If we come from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? Since the typical general science course offered in secondary schools contains a substantial amount of astronomy and geology, complying with that demand would have a major impact on such courses, as well as on the standard biology course.
The Creationists have learned that they cannot accomplish their objectives directly through state laws banning the teaching of evolution or requiring "equal time" for Creationism. Instead, they now try to remove evolution from the official curriculum on which statewide tests are based; even if that topic is not actually banned, teachers will not spend much time on a subject that is not going to be on the test. Another effect of the Creationist assault on science education is a threat to the supply of qualified science teachers.
There is already a nationwide shortage of high school physical science and mathematics teachers. In smaller high schools, a teacher whose degree is in biology will sometimes also be assigned to the chemistry or physics course. Political pressure to abandon the teaching of evolution is one more factor that discourages good people from pursuing a teaching career. Physicists should also be concerned about the Creationist claim that Darwinian evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It turns out that their version of the Second Law is different from the one taught in thermodynamics courses: it simply asserts that entropy can never decrease.
The usual response is to insist that entropy can decrease in an "open system" such as the Earth, as long as it interacts with another open system, such as the Sun, in which there is a compensating increase. A better response is to point out that the equilibrium state of a system is determined by seeking not the maximum entropy but the minimum free energy, which balances energy against entropy E-TS.
An obvious example is the crystallization of water molecules from a vapor: at low temperatures a low-energy state with low entropy a crystal will be favored over a high-energy state with high entropy a gas. The Creationist version of thermodynamics fails to explain why it snows.
As Ludwig Boltzmann noted more than a century ago, thermodynamics correctly interpreted does not just allow Darwinian evolution, it favors it. In an attempt to justify their rejection of the well-established multi-billion-year time scale for the Earth's history, YEC argues that the decay rates of the radioactive isotopes used to date rocks could have been much greater under extreme conditions in the past, so the rocks are "really" much younger than they seem to be.
There is no legitimate evidence for this claim from experimental or theoretical physics. One reason Creationists want students to accept a Young Earth is to persuade them that there has not been enough time for evolution to produce humans and other modern species by the slow process of Darwinian natural selection.
They are willing to reject the foundations of modern geology and nuclear physics in order to get rid of biological evolution.
0コメント