Was the Bible Meant to be Taken Literally? - Guy Consolmagno

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2008/03/02/Brother_Guy_Consolmagno_God_s_Mechanics

Astronomer, author and Jesuit brother Guy Consolmagno discusses the creationist theory of the origin of life, arguing that this theory rests on a literal interpretation of the bible that is not practical.

-----

Brother Guy Consolmagno discusses "God's Mechanics: How Scientists and Engineers Make Sense of Religion."

With wry humor, Brother Guy Consolmagno shows how he not only believes in God but gives religion an honored place alongside science in his life. His book God's Mechanics: How Scientists and Engineers Make Sense of Religion offers an engaging look at how - and why - scientists and those with technological leanings can hold profound, "unprovable" religious beliefs while working in highly empirical fields.

Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno is a Jesuit brother with advanced degrees from MIT and the University of Arizona. A highly respected planetary scientist whose research focuses on meteorites, asteroids, and dwarf planets, Consolmagno is the author or co-author of numerous books and publications, including Brother Astronomer and Turn Left at Orion. He even has an asteroid named in his honor (4597 Consolmagno, known to its friends as "Little Guy").

He has served as chair of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society and is a past president of Commission 16 (Planets and Moons) of the International Astronomical Union - Grace Cathedral

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• genesis
• creationism
• evolution
• darwin
• atheists
• atheism
• theory
• bible
• religion
• brother
• metaphor
• biblical
• religious
• foratv
• fora.tv
• fora
• tv

[CinderellaBaghdad]

brother guy #1

[Ipostle]

Just from this clip I theorize that this jesuit doesn't believe in the infallibility of the Bible. Is there something in Genesis that implies the earth is flat? I've heard it said that if you can't believe the first book of the Bible then you might as well throw the whole thing in the trash.I observe (like a scientist) that this man is a false teacher.

[lashingsofgaut]

@DementorBob ok. fair point

[DementorBob]

@lashingsofgaut ...it was just a theory, because there was still the slight possibility that the assumptions or the math was wrong. When we could actually see that the earth was indeed round it was no longer a theory but an observation.

And no, that does not mean that this theory was "proven", because an actual scientific theory is an explanation of observations, not just observations.

The fundament of the scientific theory is falsification, NOT verification.

[DementorBob]

@lashingsofgaut Again, that's not the way the word "proven" is used in science. Science doesn't prove the world is round - it's an observable fact. That's an important distinction. An observation doesn't need to be proven, it's just there and if you trust your instruments (senses or actual instruments) then you can say it's true.

The shape of the earth is actually a good example: It was theorised and confirmed by maths that the earth was round long before it could be observed. At that point...

[lashingsofgaut]

@DementorBob ok let me get this straight; you say science doesnt "formally" prove anything (no i didnt notice it your post, i have a short attention span, sorry) so what your saying is we cannot prove the world is round, or that aeroplanes fly, or that cars can go, or that we have a vaccine for polio??? coz i def think science has formally proven all that. i was on a plane last week and it def flew, it was true and there was no other option